1960-07-20

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Macnaughton.

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, had I had an opportunity yesterday to proceed with my estimates in committee of supply I would have tabled and asked leave to have printed in Hansard certain statistical tables. I would ask leave of the house to have that done now in view of the fact that the dominion-provincial plenary conference is to be held in Ottawa next week. The tables are extensive, Mr. Speaker, and they are described as "Statistical summary of federal contributions to the provinces and certain payments to institutions and individuals in the provinces for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1960-61".
I think this is information that the house would wish to have at some time, and also to have on the records of the house. I put similar information on the records of the house a year ago in introducing the estimates of the Department of Finance. If it meets with the approval of the house I would ask leave to table this statistical summary now and, if it accords with the wish of the house, to move that it be printed in today's Hansard.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingate):: I am sure this is very agreeable to the house, but I wonder whether the minister would consider at the same time tabling and having printed the suggestions for the agenda that have been made by the government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is a different matter. That was a communication from the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces by way of letter. Replies have been received from some but not yet from all of the premiers. As this is correspondence exchanged between governments it would not be proper, having regard to the practice of the house, to table it without obtaining the consent of the other governments. In any event, the correspondence is not completed yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the tables now tabled by the Minister of Finance be printed as an appendix to Hansard today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For tables above referred to, see appendix A]



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Bourget: 1.	Has the Postmaster General or his department issued instructions, directives or orders regarding political activities of casual, part time, permanent employees and all mail carrying contractors?
2.	If so, are those instructions, directives or orders applicable in federal elections only or do they also apply to provincial and municipal elections?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The answer to the first question is yes. Copies thereof have been tabled in accordance with notice of motion for production of papers No. 126.
The answer to the second question is that the application of these instructions is in accord with section 55 of the Civil Service Act, which forbids persons employed in the civil service from engaging in partisan work in connection with any election for the House of Commons, the legislature of a province, or the council of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories. The act does not prohibit civil servants from participating in municipal elections nor do the instructions, with the exception of certain requirements respecting those who personally contest such positions.


COAL SUPPLIES, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, HALIFAX
Mr. Carter: 1.	Were public tenders called by the Department of Transport in connection with the supplying of coal for the Halifax international airport?
2.	If so, what are the names, addresses, grades of coal and prices submitted by each?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: As this answer is quite lengthy and contains considerable detail, I wonder if I could have the permission of the house to have it included in Hansard at this point instead of reading the whole answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the rather lengthy answer submitted by the minister to Hansard be printed at this point without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
65S8

Starred Questions
[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:]
The answer to part 1 is that bids were requested from five known sources of supply
in the Halifax area as well as from Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited, Montreal.
As to part 2, the following quotations were received:
Name of firm
S. Cunard & Co. Ltd.,
79 Upper Water St. Halifax, N.S.
Archibald Coal & Oil Co. Ltd.,
21 Bland St.,
Halifax, N.S.
Dartmouth Coal & Supply Ltd.,
10 Portland St.,
Dartmouth, N.S.
Mathews Coal Co.,
P.O. Box 513,
Halifax, N.S.
Grade of coal
Four Star J" x 0" slack-alternately-dominion slack
Dominion nut slack coal, size li" x 0"
Canadian mined bituminous slack
Canadian mined bituminous slack f.o.b. into bins or stockpile at Elmsdale, f.o.b. trimmed in bunkers at airport
Unit prices $14.15 ton $15.57 ton
$14.58 ton $15.89 ton
N.S.	$16.20 ton
$16.45 ton
The tender of S. Cunard & Co. Ltd., was not accepted in view of the fact that the consulting professional engineers on the project had advised the department that Four Star J" x 0" would not be suitable for use in the boilers. The order was given to Archibald Coal & Oil Co. Ltd.



POSTMASTER, HILLVIEW, NFLD.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 203*-Mr. Tucker:
1.	Was Mr. Levi Frost recently retired as postmaster at Hillview, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Who is the present postmaster at Hillview and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
4.	Have any protests been received by the postmaster general regarding this appointment and, if so, from whom?
William McLean Hamilton: The answers to these questions are as follows:
1.	Mr. Levi Frost acted temporarily pending the appointment of a permanent postmaster.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Mrs. Doreen Avery was appointed under section 5 (l)(b) of the Post Office Act.
4.	No.



APPLICATIONS FOR TELEVISION LICENCES, OTTAWA

Mr. Pickersgill: In the applications for private television licences in Ottawa, how did each of the applicants define

the area of coverage of the proposed station, and what was the greatest distance in miles from Ottawa that each of the applicants represented his station would reach?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. By maps, showing statistical propagation contour lines along which 50 per cent of the viewers may expect 50 per cent reception for 50 per cent of the time when using an outdoor antenna. ("B" contour).
2. The following is the greatest distance in miles from Ottawa that each of the applicants represented his station would reach. The information was obtained from contour maps submitted by applicants:
E. L. Bushnell Television Company Limited, 53 miles.
CFRA-TV Limited, 76 miles.
Rideau Television Association (Grattan O'Leary), 64 miles.
Inter-City Broadcasting Corporation Limited, 64 miles.
Lawrence Freiman & Associates (Ottawa Telecasters), 63 miles.
In its judgment the board considered E. L. Bushnell Television Company Limited's participation in the application submitted by Mr. E. G. Archibald for a licence to operate a T.V. station in Pembroke. This Pembroke station, with wider contours than those proposed by the C.B.C.'s competing application, would fill in a gap to the northwest of Ottawa not covered by the Bushnell Ottawa station.

Division
 YEAS Messrs:



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Garland:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since March 1, 1960 between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and any person, association or corporation, regarding the direct loan lending policy of the corporation.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works!: Mr. Speaker, I always like to oblige the hon. member for Nipissing, who is very reasonable in his requests. However, here we find that he is asking for all correspondence between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation back to March, 1960 and any person, association or corporation. This involves, I am told, 3,000 letters, telegrams or something of that kind, and would require two girls a period of six weeks to complete. Perhaps the hon. member, who is very reasonable, would indicate to me specifically what he would like and he might narrow this task. Citation 213 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, states that a motion for return may be opposed on the ground of public policy such as that its supply would involve unreasonable labour or expense. I do not want to take advantage of that rule, so perhaps my friend would tell me privately what we can get for him specifically. I am sure he does not want the return to be delayed until after the session, in any event.
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I would be glad to oblige the minister. I think we have been patient long enough. I have allowed this motion to stand four times, and knowing something of the efficiency of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I find it difficult to go along with what the minister has said. Here we have asked for the production of telegrams, correspondence and other documents only in respect of the direct lending policies of the corporation. I would ask that the motion be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister anything further to indicate about the acceptance of the motion before I put it to the house?


Mr. Walker:: If my hon. friend is taking that attitude, Mr. Speaker, I will stand on the rule; because there are hundreds of people in addition to these whose letters should not be made public.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not debatable. If the minister wishes to indicate his opposition to the motion that is quite in order.



C.M.H.C.-DIRECT LOAN LENDING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Garland:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since March 1, 1960 between the Minister of Public Works and any person, association or corporation, regarding the direct loan lending policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend's motion involves correspondence between myself as minister and others and is therefore infinitely more limited in extent and will not involve the ransacking of all our regional offices across Canada to find out what is relevant to his motion, I would be more than delighted to accept the motion subject, of course, to the usual reservations having to do with privileged and confidential documents and correspondence.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 129-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since January 1, 1959 between any minister or any official of the federal government and any person, association, society or corporation, regarding the licensing of television broadcasting satellites intended to serve the Slocan valley and Arrow lakes districts.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the usual reservations, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 130-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of the coverage maps showing "A" and "B" contours, submitted by each of the applicants for a private television licence in Ottawa.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on the report from Leopoldville in the Congo yesterday by the assistant secretary general of the United Nations to the effect that units from Canada would arrive there soon to join the United Nations force.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to make a statement about that matter at the moment. Any announcement that is made will be made in the house if and when this action is taken.


Mr. Pearson:: Will the minister comment on the accuracy or otherwise of this report?


Howard Charles Green: I would say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, that it is inaccurate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Has a Canadian contingent been offered to the United Nations for service in the Congo if or when the United Nations requests it?


Howard Charles Green: I will deal with this question as soon as there is an opportunity.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Another supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether a Canadian contingent has been asked for?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in effect this is the same question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. When speaking in the debate last evening I referred to

Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES
a television program, and I said in my remarks that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had appeared on this program. At that time he said he did not recollect appearing on any program from Toronto. After thinking about the matter since I have clarified it in my own mind, I wish to withdraw the allegation that he participated. The participant was another very distinguished member of his party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman.



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the strong recommendation of the Canadian Labour Congress, will the Prime Minister take advantage of the presence in Ottawa of the provincial premiers to arrange a discussion with them on the possibility of securing their co-operation in a national bill of rights?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the agenda is concerned it has, of course, not been determined. Any unofficial and informal discussions that may take place between the federal government and the premiers of the several provinces will no doubt cover a variety of matters, and I would not be surprised if, included among these informal discussions, there might be a feeling out once more of the provinces as to their attitude respecting a constitutional amendment applicable to the provinces. This matter was, of course, duly covered in 1948 and 1950-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: No.


John George Diefenbaker: -and I have not seen any evidence of a change in the attitude of the provinces since. Indeed, may I point out this fact, as I did the other day; that it was on the 17th of February, I think-I am not mentioning this by way of specific direction to any one province-that the legislature of Quebec unanimously opposed any action that would bring about a bill of rights applicable to the provinces.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is the Prime Minister not aware that a change of government occurred in Quebec on June 22?


John George Diefenbaker: I am fully aware of that fact, but many of the individuals who voted as I stated a moment ago are now members of the new government.
79951-0-4141



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE, MONTREAL  INSTALLA- TION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Campeau (Si. James):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to put into effect representations which have been made on many occasions by the Montreal members of parliament in relation to traffic conditions on the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal. I should also like him to comment in this connection on any measures contemplated for the near future with a view to eliminating traffic accidents on the bridge.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inform the hon. member that in the capital budget of the national harbours board there is an amount of $180,000 for traffic light control on Jacques Cartier bridge. The national harbours board advises me that it expects to complete its studies of the proposed installation by the end of the month.
The traffic lights will be mounted on trestles over the roadway, and construction of these trestles will impede traffic. In order not to interfere with peak summer traffic, it is proposed to start work on this project in late summer or early fall when the traffic eases off. In the meantime, additional traffic control on the bridge is provided by having extra traffic officers there. With the installation of traffic light control it will be possible to direct traffic in any lane in any direction, but basically the control is required principally for the reversible centre lane.
I want to thank the hon. member for St. Janies and the other members from the Montreal area who have brought this matter to my attention in the past and have stressed the need for the installation of these traffic lights. In this and in many other matters they are constantly bringing to my attention the needs of the people of Montreal, and their representations have brought forth action on the part of the government in these matters and plans for future action that will benefit this important area.


Mr. Chevrier:: I hope you move faster than on the Champlain bridge.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National

Inquiries of the Ministry Resources. It has reference to the expropriation of a number of parcels of land from citizens of Anthracite, Alberta, near Banff, in 1955 and 1956. When may these citizens expect a settlement with respect to these expropriations and, in particular, when will Mr. W. R. Naylor of Banff, Alberta, receive compensation for the land taken in 1955 and 1956?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my department is most anxious to complete these proceedings. I am informed, however, that there are certain legal technicalities concerning the expropriations which have to be met before settlement can be made. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice, through its agent in Alberta, has made the necessary application to the supreme court of Alberta to obtain judicial direction in these particular cases.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Minister of Justice accept a supplementary question as notice? If the matter is in his department when may this citizen, Mr. Naylor, expect to receive compensation for the land taken from him in 1955?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that question, but I rather think the answer will be, as soon as the court has dealt with the problem that is apparently before it. However, we will gladly see what we can do to speed up the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a reply he gave in the house on July 18 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and a dispatch of the next day in the New York Times. The minister is reported in Hansard for July 18, at page 6406, as having said:
As I hope I explained on Friday to the understanding of all hon. members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East, the policy of the Canadian government continues to be against any further nuclear tests, period. We have explained that position to the United States government within the last week.
The dispatch in the New York Times of July 19 reads as follows:

Washington, July 18. The state department said today that it knew nothing about a communication from Canada concerning nuclear tests.
Does the minister not feel that in view of this he owes an explanation to the house?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the extent to which the hon. member for Essex East relies on the New York Times for his information. As I said the other day, it is not yet the Bible. The fact is, as I explained in the house, that this matter was discussed at the ministerial meeting on defence last week.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF PROMOTION OF SECONDARY INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the agenda which he says has been submitted to the premiers in connection with the dominion-provincial conference, to commence on Monday next, will the Prime Minister discuss with the provinces the subject matter of promoting secondary industry so as to reduce unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of the agenda will be considered by the conference, and those matters that fall within the agenda as finally determined will be discussed.



INQUIRY AS TO REASON FOR PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker,
I	should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On July
II	the minister agreed to investigate the reasons for the recent increase in the price of sugar in Canada. Can the minister now tell the house the results of his investigation?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did have some information with regard to this matter, but I am not sure whether I can lay my hands on it at the moment. However, as I recall now, and I am speaking from memory, the price of sugar was raised by Cuba and this resulted in a general increase in sugar prices.



FOLEYET, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can

reply to the question I asked the other day about the Mount joy flood relief fund, which question he took as notice at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not in a position yet to do so, but I hope to be very soon.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to be able to announce at an early date the appointment of a deputy minister of national defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARIAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister whether there is any hope for the appointment of a parliamentary librarian at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know the interest of the hon. gentleman in the library, as we all have an interest. When we are in a position to make an appointment, it will be made.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether the government has yet decided to appoint a royal commission to investigate conditions in the automobile industry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question of
whether or not a royal commission should be appointed is receiving the present attention of the government.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
327. General administration, $9,784,537. (Translation):
Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, on taking up the estimates of the Department of Public
Supply-Public Works Works, what strikes us at first sight is the lower amount we are being asked to approve. As a matter of fact, as mentioned by the minister, there is a decrease of some $25J million.
This reduction in estimates for the coming year seems rather strange considering the present unemployment situation in Canada and also the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker).
We remember that the Prime Minister has repeated on many occasions:
No one will suffer while I am Prime Minister.
Last year in the maritimes and in the province of Quebec, the ratio of the unemployed to the employed was 12 per cent. This year, after this 10 per cent cut in the public works estimates, we wonder what the ratio will be next winter if the government, in its indifference, does not do anything to check unemployment.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Lesage promised to settle that problem.


Samuel Boulanger: In view of the present policy and of our sad experience under a Tory gov-vernment, it is easy to anticipate heavy unemployment next winter. We shall then go through the worst slump that ever happened in Canada.
Many of my constituents are putting questions to me that would no doubt embarrass the minister. I am asked, for instance, why it is that, under a Progressive Conservative government, Canada is experiencing its worst economic slump.
The answer is easy to find, when we see ministers more concerned with their publicity than with trying to find solutions to the unemployment problem.
There is also an obvious lack of ability, as evidenced by the Minister of Public Works himself the other day when he displayed his certificate of competence by saying he was the government's plumber. Let me say that no certified plumber could do worse than the present minister.
At the present time, we are making payments to the unemployed in Canada from $20.00 to $30.00 a week. These benefits are being paid to healthy people, family breadwinners who are only too anxious to work, but cannot get jobs.
The consequences of such a situation are easy to understand. They are disastrous both to the society, from a moral point of view,

Supply-Public Works and to the country, from an economic point of view. They also mean the collapse of the workers' morale, and loss of confidence in his government, because those unemployed give bad examples of men whose families may suspect them of unwillingness to work.
Why is it that, in a democratic country, with an abundance of natural resources, part of the population has to pay the other part for staying idle?
Is it not the result of some lack of intelligence on the part of the government, and more particularly on the part of its Minister of Public Works?
May I very briefly submit a few suggestions to him, which I shall ask him to consider carefully.
1.	Let us put in our statute books an act authorizing the carrying out of public works in towns or municipalities where the percentage of unemployed exceeds 8 or 10 per cent of the labour force.
2.	In such a case, let the municipality or city submit plans developed previous to the situation which has occurred.
3.	Let those works be of a public character such as: cleaning of rivers; construction of sanitary sewage collectors; building of retaining walls; construction of sewer and water-mains systems; development of playgrounds, picnic grounds or parks along the highways, for families who cannot afford a summer cottage, and for tourists. How many more projects would come to mind if we only took the trouble to give it a little thought.
In my constituency in particular, Drum-mondville and Drummondville South have asked for retaining walls on the St. Francis river.
In certain spots along that river landslides occur which get worse from year to year, causing rather considerable losses to property owners along the shore.
The citizens of Drummondville, particularly the unemployed, would be grateful to the government if the Minister of Public Works could have these works carried out.
I know representations were made to that effect some time ago, and I thank the minister for replying that he would send experts to investigate. I hope he will soon be in a position to announce some fairly substantial works for the people of Drummondville.
I should also like to ask a few questions of the minister in connection with an article

which appeared in the July 2, 1960 edition of La Tribune, of Sherbrooke. The article reported on statements by the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) that in 1960-61 winter works would be carried out in the province of Quebec at a cost of $28,279,000. I should like to know whether it is true that in 1960-61 the government plans to build 21 post offices in the province of Quebec, as against only 13 in Ontario and 5 in the four Atlantic provinces. I thought the figures were exaggerated, but they might possibly be true. I would therefore ask the minister to indicate whether this is true. If so, we shall be delighted and I shall be the first to commend him for having such sizeable works done in the province of Quebec. It should be of considerable help in reducing unemployment, because in 1959 there were 100,000 more unemployed in Quebec than in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted to make to the Minister of Public Works, and I hope I shall have the opportunity to discuss other items in the course of the debate.
(Text):


Mr. Robichsud:: At this stage of the estimates of the Department of Public Works I should like to bring to the attention of the minister certain projects which concern my constituency of Gloucester. First, I should like to join with other members who have spoken on these estimates and express the opinion that this is not the time to reduce public expenditures. The latest unemployment figures which were released yesterday confirm this assertion.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister the suggestion that preference should be given to certain types of public works projects which will bring employment not only in the construction stage, such as is the case with public buildings, but will tend to promote industry in the localities affected. I have in mind particularly the construction of public wharves in order to provide facilities to fishermen to carry on their operations. In this matter I think there should be more co-operation among the Department of Labour, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Public Works. Economic or other surveys should be made to convince the department that there is a necessity for such projects.
I have in mind at this time particularly the replacement of a wharf at Lower Caraquet which was destroyed and carried out in a storm in 1958. I have under date of May 8, 1959, over a year ago, a letter signed by the

previous minister of public works, Mr. Green, a paragraph of which reads as follows:
In the interest of economy, it is felt that a structure at Lower Caraquet, estimated to cost $130,000, would adequately meet the needs of the fishermen of this area.
An item will be listed for consideration in our 1960-61 main estimates, so that funds may be obtained for the construction of a wharf at the Lower Caraquet site.
Up to this date, Mr. Chairman, no decision apparently has been reached. The 1960-61 estimates have been tabled in the house, and the item is not included in the estimates. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to having this item included in the 1961-62 estimates so that the Ashing industry at Lower Caraquet can progress. A company has already been formed. They are prepared to build a cold storage plant near this wharf which will provide not only an outlet for the additional production of Ash which will result but will provide employment for the area.
Requests have also been before the department for an extension to the public wharf at Maisonnette. There are in Maisonnette over 50 Ashing boats, and the present wharf is absolutely inadequate to provide landing facilities. Hence Maisonnette boats are obliged to land at Caraquet and the Ash dealers at Maisonnette, where they have built a Ash processing plant and cold storage plant, are obliged to get their Ash at Caraquet, 20 miles away. It is not logical that the production of from one and a half million to two million pounds of Ash during a Ave or six month season should have to be carried a distance of 20 miles when I would say that a minor addition to the present wharf would provide the facilities requested.
I know there is also before the department a request for the construction of a public wharf at Pigeon Hill, where we have a total of 50 to 55 Ashing boats. In 1958 those boats landed over 100,000 pounds of lobster and over 1,900,000 pounds of cod. In 1959 the landings were about 10 per cent lower. In 1960 the lobster landings will amount to over 130,000 pounds and the cod landings will amount to over 2 million pounds. It does not seem fair that such a group of Asher-men, who are obliged to launch their boats every morning, to walk in three or four feet of water, and then to beach their boats every night in order to protect them from storms, should be compelled to wait longer for the construction of a wharf. I know there are engineering diAiculties in connection with the building of a wharf at Pigeon Hill in order to provide shelter for the Ashing boats of Pigeon Hill and Cap-Bateau. However, I know the department have able engineers
Supply-Public Works who can prepare plans to provide at moderate cost the facilities which are required by the Ashermen of Pigeon Hill.
I mentioned earlier that we have at this time over 400,000 unemployed registered at the national employment service offices. If the facilities requested were provided at Maisonnette, at Lower Caraquet and at Pigeon Hill, not only would work be provided for additional Ashermen but also for shore help, so the unemployment situation would be taken care of in the localities I have mentioned.
I therefore urge the minister to give serious consideration to any request that is placed before his department for the construction of a wharf in a Ashing community. I know that economic surveys are being made by his department or the Department of Fisheries, but when the need is there and when the survey is favourable, there should not be any delay in such construction. These facilities are needed. They are asked for because Ashermen need them in order to carry on their operations. As I have said, and I repeat, such construction would provide employment for those communities.
I have other matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, but I will wait until a later stage in the consideration of his estimates. However, there is one question I should like to have answered. I understand that at the present time a public building is under construction in the city of Campbellton in New Brunswick. I would ask the minister to advise the committee on these points. At what time was the construction started; what is the estimated cost of this construction, and when is it expected to be completed? When I obtain these Agures I may have further questions to ask the minister.


Mr. Dumas:: I suppose that before we carry item 317 on general administration, the minister will have a statement to make or will answer the questions which were put to him on Monday?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Villeneuve, as he knows the mounted police have almost completed their investigation in connection with Malartic, and we are all very pleased at this stage to get further information in connection with Duparquet in the same riding. Because of the information supplied me by the hon. member, this matter has been brought to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who have already started an investigation. The hon. member, who is a lawyer, will well appreciate that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


Lionel Chevrier: He is not a lawyer.
6566	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: Well, he talks as if he were, and he talks well.


Lionel Chevrier: He is a very good engineer.


David James Walker: Under the circumstances they prefer at this time not to make public any information which might affect their investigation. We have handed over all the information we have to the mounted police and they want to proceed in their own way, as the hon. member will appreciate. The very thing they discourage more than anything else, and having been a crown prosecutor myself for some years I agree with them, is that we should divulge any information at this time, but that they should go right ahead with their investigation.


Armand Dumas: Unfortunately I am not a lawyer, although I am an engineer. I would like to be a lawyer on top of all my other qualifications; however, I am not.
On Monday last in the course of my remarks I put some questions, and I thought those questions would not have anything to do with the investigation which is being carried out at this time by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding the reconstruction of a wharf at Malartic. I was under the impression that an investigation was also in progress regarding the wharf which was constructed during 1959 on the river flowing into lake Duparquet. Now the minister tells the committee that this investigation at Duparquet has just been started these last two days or only since I gave-


David James Walker: They started yesterday morning.


Armand Dumas: Well, I am glad to hear that, because rumours were circulating to the effect that this investigation has been going for the last two weeks. But if the minister says it has just started yesterday morning I will take his word for it.
When I discussed this matter of the reconstruction of the wharf at Malartic I was very careful in my questions, and I do not think the questions I put to the minister had anything to do with the investigation now being carried out. My first question was this. Who asked for the reconstruction work at the Malartic river wharf? This question can be found on page 6461 of Hansard, and I am reading the translation appearing on page 7 of the French translation to Hansard. There should be no controversy over this question, and I think the minister can answer it; because usually construction or reconstruction or the cleaning up of rivers is asked for by responsible people such as municipalities, chambers of commerce or such organizations.
The second part of my question was, through whom was that request transmitted to the department? Again I think there is


nothing to that question, and the minister should also be able to answer it.
The third part of my first question was, has a departmental inspector made an inquiry before the work began? Again I do not see any controversy there, and I am sure the minister will be able to answer it. And I added, what were his recommendations? Most likely the recommendations were to the effect that the work should be performed, because it was performed.
The second question also concerned the wharf at Malartic, and I asked it in two parts. The first part was, what is the name of the man who acted as foreman on that reconstruction job, and by whom was he recommended? It is known around Malartic, and I think the minister can give the name of that foreman.
The second part of the second question was, what are the names of the suppliers of the material used on that job, and who recommended those suppliers? There should be an easy answer to that, because in the reconstruction of that wharf lumber was used along with other material and it must have been bought from suppliers in Malartic or in the vicinity, so I do not see why the minister should not answer that question either.
With regard to Duparquet the questions were almost the same. However, I have to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the translation of my question is not quite right. Perhaps I should read it in French first:
(Translation):
Who asked that those cleaning up works be done on the rivers in question that flow into lake Duparquet?
(Text):
That is to say, who asked for these works of cleaning up those rivers flowing into lake Duparquet? I also had another question, who transmitted the request to the department? My other question was, who recommended that Mr. Leroux be hired as foreman, and how were the other employees recruited and who recommended them?
So I say that these are very simple questions; the minister could at least answer them, and I would be satisfied. I am not asking the minister to give me any information regarding the investigation. I know he cannot do that before he has a full report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. At the beginning of his remarks he mentioned that he had no such report, and I take his word for that. The minister has no report and cannot comment on this investigation being conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With regard to Duparquet it is the same thing. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police

reports will come very much later, because if they only started yesterday morning it will take some time before they have all the information. However, as I say, I feel the minister could answer those questions now, and if he does I will be satisfied because they were the only questions I put to him on Monday about those two jobs which were done in my constituency in 1959.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have just referred the suggestion of the hon. member to my deputy minister that as long as two weeks ago the mounted police were looking into the matter of Duparquet, about which he informed the house last Monday. Just to be strictly accurate, I am informed by my deputy minister that the mounted police were becoming suspicious about Duparquet because of a certain cross charge of accounts, although I do not understand the particulars of it, and they were going to look into Duparquet when they had cleaned up Malartic.
In view of the disclosures of the hon. member for Villeneuve there has been no more delay; they started the investigation yesterday. There was one matter which had made them suspicious some time before the hon. member made his speech on Monday last. Again I say that the information he supplied will be of great interest to the mounted police.


Lionel Chevrier: On this point, may I say that I think the request made by the hon. member for Villeneuve is a reasonable one, and the minister, being a lawyer of experience, will understand the position which I am going to put to him now.
I do not think it is right for the government or for a minister of the crown to take two different positions with respect to similar matters which come up in the house. I do not want to revive what took place on the motion of the Minister of Transport to conduct an investigation into the operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge. We took the position that while prosecutions were pending in the city of Montreal there should not be another investigation of that matter. We were overruled and the investigation was carried on, and the record of the committee, as a result, contained the names of all the toll collectors and of everyone who directly or indirectly could be associated with malfeasance or nonfeasance in connection with this matter.
The request made by the hon. member for Villeneuve is not that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police be impeded in any manner whatsoever in so far as their investigation is concerned. All he is asking for is the name of the person who asked for these works,
Supply-Public Works the name of the person who sent the request to the department, the name of the person who recommended the foremen and one or two other matters which, with great respect to the minister, have absolutely nothing to do with what is being investigated by the mounted police. It seems to me that when the government in one field of activity or authority decides to do exactly what the minister is now declining to do, the minister should accept what appears to me to be a reasonable request.


Mr. Fisher:: As someone who had a temporary and lucrative connection with Cab-bagetown, it is always nice to hear from Uncle Dave and bring some matters before him for consideration. The first subject I want to raise has to do with "Crass Cass". It was very crass of a certain provincial minister of highways, Mr. Cass, to fly up to tell the people at the lakehead that he was, in effect, fed up with the screaming of the local people about the state of the roads. The particular road about which they were screaming happens to be one in which the minister has an interest, because it is the trans-Canada highway.
Now, the minister will realize that provincial highway ministers are never given to mentioning that the federal government is putting up any funds. I notice that we have one former provincial minister of highways in the committee today, and I am sure he will confirm that he never went around giving too much credit to the federal government. We have a situation where the trans-Canada highway is in poor shape. There is a tremendous amount of construction going on, but it never seems to keep up with the disintegration of the road and we never seem to get close to the standard which I am sure we all agree this highway should reach.
I should like to know how much money has gone into the trans-Canada highway in my constituency from White River to Port Arthur since this government took office. I do not particularly want this information during the course of this discussion, but I should like to have it. I should like to know how much road has been completed and, if possible, I should like to know the sum put up by the federal government as compared with the sum put up by the provincial government. That would be useful information to throw back at crass Mr. Cass.
The hon. member for Fort William raised the question of breakwater work on the Fort William islands in connection with what is now the lakehead harbour. I brought this question up several years ago, when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs was minister of public works, as a possible winter
6568	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works works project. It is possible to build very effective breakwaters at the lakehead with the rock that is available in the area, There is a great deal of it, and this is the kind of project which can be done in winter on the ice; the rock can be taken out on the ice by truck and put in. This is the kind of work which employs a great many men.
The minister is no doubt a member of that cabinet group which is concerned with unemployment and which meets to discuss this problem. He knows that we have a high level of unemployment in our area even at the present time; it is not entirely seasonal. I believe the government is looking for projects which will have permanent value as well as leading directly to the employment of people seeking work. Breakwater work on the Fort William islands as suggested by the hon. member for Fort William, would fit into this category. It would not require a great deal of engineering, and in terms of the money expended it has a high labour content. For these reasons I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William.
The second and more general question I wish to raise concerns contracts. The minister knows that we at the lakehead have not been very pleased at the way contracts have been allocated at the terminal. I know also that he himself, together with the deputy minister, has not been too pleased, either. This raises in my mind a question as to the possible development of a regional system of contracts. I have in mind an occasion when a contractor came in from a distant point, having outbid local contractors. The joo was a poor one. It was not completed in the time expected, and there was much local criticism. Many debts were left behind, and there are still people in my riding who are owed money as a result of this venture.
I am not suggesting that a distant contractor is always going to do a poor job, but I wonder if it is not worth while considering a formula of some kind by which regional bidders would have an advantage. This may seem to strike at the heart of the whole idea of competitive bidding, but I wonder if it really does. The regional contractor, drawing his work force mainly from his own area, makes a much larger contribution in terms of the people he hires. When a contractor from Hamilton or Montreal comes into the area much of his labour force is, naturally, brought in from outside, I think it is an advantage that a contractor should employ skilled help and supervisory staff from his own region. Then again there is an additional advantage in that the regional contractor knows the situation better.


I suppose there is a parallel between letting contracts and introducing complications into the taxation set-up. I understand that ministers of finance and their officials always like to keep things as flat and direct as possible, and the lowest bidder is as flat and direct as you can get. I think the regional consideration, especially in an area such as ours which is so vast, is very important. The outside contractor has so many advantages in making his bids because he draws his materials, his supplies and those factors that go to make a large firm from a much lower cost area than ours, and this gives him advantages in making bids.
I am not suggesting that a regional contractor should be given any nice, cozy set-up where he has a wall around him, but I am suggesting that it should not be beyond the capabilities of the minister and the government as a whole to work out some formula that would give certain advantages, perhaps percentage advantages, to regional contractors. I know it would not only satisfy me but also most members of parliament because our interests-I do not think this is a bad one- are normal in that we hope the work that has to be done will tend to be done by people from our own areas.
The other point I want to mention to the minister is something on which I have not been able to get any satisfaction at all. Again this is a question of too many authorities being involved. I am still concerned about the situation in Nipigon where you have the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Ontario department of highways, the federal government and a whole host of paper companies, which float their pulpwood down through the river course, all involved in a situation right at the town where the water from lake Helen comes pouring into Nipigon bay. However, the government usually has to do a certain amount of dredging there where the silt comes down. Last year we had a flash flood in Nipigon in August, which put in jeopardy the trans-Canada connection of the highway and also of the railway.
When you have so many jurisdictions involved it is very hard to find out just what should be done. I can only tell the minister that in the community itself the general public are perhaps not informed about engineering works, but there is great concern over the erosion of the banks on both sides of the Nipigon just where the bridges cross. A town authority has a natural channel to the provincial government, but I have not been able to discover just what the provincial government thinks should be done. I would appreciate, if it were possible, having

an analysis in some kind of publicized form that I could present to some of the residents in Nipigon and let them know whether there is any danger of a big slide in the river there- I refer to the south side of the river-and also whether there is any danger at all to the bridges on the far side, and whether groynes or stonework might not be a wise safety measure.
The minister probably knows that the Nipigon is the largest river entering lake Superior. It is so big and strong that there is only one narrow channel which has ever been found as an effective place for a bridge to link the two sides. If the highway and railway bridges should ever go out in a flood it would be a most unfortunate disaster not only for that region but for trans-Canada transportation as a whole. I would like that information from the minister.
This is my last point. I would be interested to learn when the department is going to go ahead with the post office at Hornepayne. I know there was a date set for the initiation of that work; I do not know whether it is 1960 or 1961, but I should like to know the date. As the minister knows, the former member for Port Arthur had a certain amount of influence with the government, and as a consequence the communities of the constituency are not too badly served with federal buildings and post offices. But I certainly see very little demand even from the local Progressive Conservative association for public buildings of any great variety or kind.
There is one community in the constituency, Geraldton, a town of 3,500 to 4,000, which lives in hopes that some day when this government gets around to doing something about the redistribution system it may be the centre of a new constituency. Certainly something will have to be done in redistribution terms about the Port Arthur constituency. It has been argued to me by the people there that the federal government should consider consolidating in a single building at Geraldton some of its activities, *especially with the prospect of having a larger unemployment insurance set-up there. At the present time the Port Arthur office deals with an area of some 50,000 square miles. Geraldton is almost 200 miles away from Port Arthur, and is tending to become the hub of a number of smaller communities, one of which promises to become very large, namely the Nakina iron ore development to the north.
I do not think there is any great urgency .about this, but I would appreciate having from the minister some analysis of the situation so far as federal services in the Gerald-ton region are concerned and the possible
Supply-Public Works usefulness of a large central building there to consolidate all the various services that the federal government brings to the area. I do believe that if the Nakina development goes ahead-and we should know in a year or so-it will be the largest iron mining project in Canada west of the Labrador development. I imagine that such agencies .as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Department of Veterans Affairs and those types of federal services will need to come into that area, and Port Arthur will become more and more an unsatisfactory base from which to work because of the sheer distance. My suggestion is that this might be a bit of pre-planning on the part of the minister.
In closing I should like to say that in my few contacts with the department I have always found its members pleasant and easy to deal with, including the minister and the deputy minister. I know I get along fairly well personally with the minister. I have always been surprised at the extent to which he manages to roil the waters where so many other hon. members are concerned. Of course he is a lawyer, as he is fond of reminding us. As a non-lawyer I have the greatest respect for lawyers, and I suggest that he might consider practising some of the more restrained aspects of court room behaviour within the House of Commons, not only with me but with other hon. members who at the present time are roiled by him. If he did that he would find his sojourn in front of us more satisfactory. I understand that a pool was formed among some of the Conservative backbenchers on the number of hours that the minister would be before the house, and that the guessing was that he was going to be many, many long hours. I just hope this is not so because, despite what people may say, I and my colleagues and most of the other members would like to go home.
This is a final plea to the minister to be restrained, to be pleasant and to speed his estimates along the way, and I am sure he will find that a cool, calm, pleasant manner, consistently held, will achieve this goal.


David James Walker: Just a word, Mr. Chairman, if I may. In reply I want to thank the hon. member. His remarks were very appropriate at this time; I appreciate them, and I shall try very hard to take his advice.
May I ask him a question in connection with this matter. The hon. member can see the problem the department has. Our rule is to give the contract to the lowest tenderer unless this should not be done on the ground of financial disability or incompetence, or where we find there has been some monkey business somewhere along the line in the tendering. Speckert-Morris got the contract because they were the low tenderer, much
6570	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works lower than anyone else. We investigated them; they had a fairly good reputation, and we could not find sufficient reason for not granting the contract to them as lowest tenderer. We investigated to see whether they were competent to complete the work.
Now the firm has gone bankrupt, and of course the government is criticized. The hon. member for Port Arthur will appreciate the position I was in on Monday night when the hon. member for Hull demanded in headline language that because of my alleged proclivities with respect to patronage, the first time I have been so accused in my life, I should resign. We did not give the contracts for the post offices at Hudson and Hudson Heights to the lowest tenderer because our investigation disclosed that the person who submitted the lowest tender was incompetent and not a safe person to whom to give the contracts. You see the problem with which we are faced. Had we granted a contract to that person and he had failed we would be in the same position that we are with respect to Speckert-Morris at Port Arthur.
It is very difficult to guide these matters in the proper way. All we can do is use our best judgment. I am bound to depend on my officials and to take the best information they can get me. We give the contract to the low bidder in an overwhelming percentage of cases, but sometimes we cannot and should not do so. Hindsight is easier than foresight and, as the hon. member for Port Arthur says, perhaps Speckert-Morris, the low bidder, should not have got the contract in that instance.
My hon. friend will appreciate the position in which I find myself. If he listened to the attack made on me the other night by the hon. member for Hull he will appreciate that my problem is a very real one. You cannot please everybody. The best you can do is use your own judgment, and in that regard I must depend for information and details on the officials of my department, in whom I have the greatest confidence.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, in view of the good mood in which the minister seems to be this morning and in view of his reaction to the suggestion of the hon. member for Port Arthur that he should be very careful in answering questions and should be a good lawyer, which I think he is, I must again insist that the minister answer at least some of the questions I have put before him.
On Monday I was very careful to qualify the questions I asked the minister. I asked him to tell me who asked for the construction work on the Malartic river wharf, through whom was the request transmitted to the department, did a departmental inspector


make an inquiry before the work began, and what were his recommendations. I qualified my questions by saying that the wharf at Malartic was first built in 1934 for a definite purpose. There was no road leading to Malartic at that time, and the wharf permitted mining companies to develop their properties and build mills there.
A few years later, in 1938, a road was built from Amos to Malartic, and the wharf was then of no use whatsoever. I do not see how the wharf can be of any use today. By not answering my question as to who asked for the reconstruction of the wharf the minister is not doing justice to the department or to the officers of the department. These questions have nothing to do with the investigation. The minister will be giving the same information I am requesting to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police if they need it. The answers to my questions will not come from the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with regard to this work.
Mine were very simple questions. The reconstruction of the wharf must have been requested by responsible people, either the town of Malartic, the chamber of commerce or some such organization. Therefore the minister should not hesitate to tell me who pleaded with the government to have the wharf reconstructed. By not answering that question I say the minister is trying to protect somebody or has something to hide. He is not doing justice to the department when he refuses to answer my questions.
The same thing applies to the cleaning up of the rivers in the Duparquet area. That work was done a long time ago, and I am somewhat worried as to why it had to be done again this year. The rivers were cleaned in 1954, 1955 and 1956. The job was done at the request of mining companies, the town council of Duparquet and the chamber of commerce. There was nothing to hide at the time, but today we cannot find out who asked for this work to be done.
In fairness to his department and the employees of his department I think the minister should tell the committee who asked to have this work done. He should also tell the committee who recommended that Mr. So and So be employed as foreman and who recommended the other employees for this work. I cannot understand the minister. If he refuses to tell the committee now who asked for these works to be done it will reflect on the department and the employees of the department. I think the minister certainly understands the situation, and I do not believe he should hesitate to give the committee this information.

Otherwise I can hardly believe these works were authorized. If the minister feels there is something wrong with the people who asked that the work be done, that is natural. If responsible people asked that the work be done I will be satisfied, but the names should not be withheld. I believe the committee should be told about these things, and I feel that the minister is very wrong in refusing to answer these very simple questions.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, before the first item of the estimates for the Department of Public Works is passed, I should like to make some general remarks, more particularly with regard to the trans-Canada highway, which has been referred to, a few moments ago, by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher).
I have already made representations to the minister in this respect, but for the information of the house, I should like to put them on the official record. With regard to the trans-Canada highway, a project which the province of Quebec has not endorsed, as we all know, because this federal government contribution would impinge upon the statutes and authority of the provinces, I think there should be a complete revision of the position in this matter. On the basic assumption that this government has made it a policy of not imposing its ideas upon the provinces and of not interfering in fields of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, I think that federal and provincial authorities might consider an over-all road building program across Canada, to supplement the present trans-Canada highway, and carefully point out to the provinces that construction of the trans-Canada highway, and the new program of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the roads to resources program, which is soon to be started with the co-operation of the provinces, will, as far as the federal authorities are concerned, be undertaken for the purposes of national defence.
National defence, as we all know, is under the jurisdiction of the federal government by virtue of the constitution. In that case, the provinces could therefore be opposed to participation in this project. As for natural resources, it is recognized that they are exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, by taking part in a national
Supply-Public Works road system program and sharing half the cost, provinces might in this way show their interest and assume their responsibility under the constitution with regard to the development of natural resources. This would also apply to the trans-Canada highway.
Thus, I think that the central government would not encroach upon provincial rights when stating that the road building program is mainly conceived in the interest of our national defence in case of war, and that this is why it is contributing 50 per cent of the total cost. That is my suggestion. And, having considered the possibility of building a trans-Canada highway under the roads to resources program, all that might certainly be approved by the provinces. As a matter of fact most of them have by now approved that principle.
As for any objections which might be forthcoming from Quebec in connection with such a project, the federal government could always claim the necessity of defending our country in case of war.
Such project might very well be carried out simultaneously with the trans-Canada highway. There is already a plan for the construction of a second coast to coast highway and, in my opinion, I think that the building of a secondary trans-Canada highway is advisable.
Let us consider for instance northern Ontario and northern Quebec. The government would be entirely justified in putting in a secondary road there, not only for defence purposes but, as I just explained, also to develop resources in those areas.
Some hon. members have claimed that, under our constitution, the building of interprovincial roads come under federal jurisdiction. I am not an expert on the constitution, but I think this is a very debatable opinion. In fact, it is well known that under the same constitution the building of roads within the boundaries of a province is under the jurisdiction of each provincial government concerned. In my humble opinion, the claim that this is a matter of exclusive federal responsibility amounts to hair-splitting. You might as well say that federal responsibility in this field applies only to road building on interprovincial or international boundaries.
And now I should like to deal with another matter which was raised earlier by the hon. member for Port Arthur and which has to do with the awarding of contracts at the local level. I entirely agree with him that this matter should receive very special attention.
6572	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
For many of those contracts, especially the lesser ones, only local contractors should be allowed to tender. I, for one, feel that all contracts for less than $25,000 should be awarded in this way, so as to prevent, as the hon. member for Port Arthur said earlier, outside contractors from getting the job. In my opinion, it is easy to find local contractors who are qualified to take on such works, not to mention the fact that local contractors generally hire local labour.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Minister of Public Works at once that I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur is an excellent one, in that I believe all of us would like to see these and other estimates disposed of as quickly as possible, always having due regard to the nature and importance of the matters under discussion. I can assure him at once, therefore, that I approach this problem objectively.
The minister will remember that I put some questions on the order paper concerning the development of power and navigation at Carillon. As the minister knows, the matter is dealt with under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that part of it which falls under the jurisdiction of the minister, and the application is made to the Minister of Public Works under section 5 (2)	(a) of
that act respecting the protection of navigable waters. I am particularly pleased that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is in his seat because these are matters which are, I am sure, of interest to him and which he brought up in the house earlier.
I shall not deal with the power aspect, although I have done so on other occasions. I shall deal with the navigation aspect and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you will realize now that since a dam is to be constructed across a navigable river there must of necessity be protection for navigation. There are several points that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. First, the distance from Ottawa-Hull to Cascades is 96 miles; from Chaudiere to Carillon is 71 miles, and from Carillon to Cascades, the entrance to the St. Lawrence river, is 25 miles. The distance over which the water is to be raised is approximately 71 miles, and this section is to be raised above the normal summer flow.
The point I am trying to make now is that any elevation of the water is going to be


the result of the construction of the dam and not the result, so far as I can see unless the minister can contradict this, of anything the federal government proposes to do at this time. The normal summer flow of the Ottawa river, I am informed, is at elevation 80 and the elevation will go approximately to elevation 135 at the dam. Below the dam the water level will not be affected.
There are five bridges on the Ottawa between Ottawa-Hull and Cascades. What does the Department of Public Works propose to do with relation to these bridges? Will they be elevated to meet the development of the Ottawa waterway as suggested by the parliamentary secretary? Will the bridges at Hawkesbury, the railway and highway bridges, be raised in order to meet the proposed development? Will the bridges below the dam -and there are three of them, two railway bridges and one highway bridge-be raised in order to meet this development of the Ottawa waterway to which reference has been made? If that is done in the case of the five bridges, to what extent will these bridges be elevated?
What is the present depth for navigation on the Ottawa river? From the study I have been able to make my understanding is that it is 10 feet in most of the areas and more in other areas. How then will it be possible to provide for 14-foot navigation on the Ottawa river, as suggested by members on the other side of the house? What dredging will be required over this area? What will be the cost of dredging?
I leave this aspect of the matter now in order to deal for a moment with the lock at Carillon. That is the key to the whole project, and I am sure the minister will realize that fact at once. The answers which I have received from the minister are to the effect that navigation will be for a dept of nine feet. Did the minister wish to say something?


David James Walker: I was just saying to my deputy that I wanted to listen to the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister. The Minister of Transport, when this matter came up for consideration some weeks ago, indicated that the key to the project was the new bridge that was going to be built by the former Quebec government between the island of Montreal and Vaudreuil-Dorion. I say that is not the key, and I will explain that statement in a moment. The key is the lock that is under construction now and the reaches on both sides of the lock. If the lock and the reaches on both sides of it do not provide for 14-foot navigation now, it will cost many times more to do it at a later date.

The information I am putting on Hansard is something to which I have given careful thought. During the Easter recess I went down and visited the site with a prominent engineer, and I saw there was no provision at all being made at that time, when the former Quebec government was in office, for 14-foot navigation. On the contrary, everything was being readied for nine-foot navigation at the lock and in the reaches on both sides. That is why I asked my questions in the house. As the minister knows, there was a series of questions. I will just put on Hansard two of these questions and the answers to them. This is a question which appeared in Hansard of February 3, 1960, at pages 678 and 679:
7. What is the estimate of the cost of building the lock at the power dam?
The answer is as follows:
7.	The type of lock has not been settled yet, and therefore the cost is not known.
Question 8 is as follows:
8.	Will navigation be provided for nine or 14-foot channels?
The answer is as follows:
8. Nine-foot channels.
From that answer it is quite clear what was in the mind of the minister at the time. I therefore ask whether it is a single lift lock that is being constructed now for a draft of nine feet, as appears from these answers, with all the reaches downstream from the new lock being provided for nine-foot navigation only.
Let me return to the statement made by the Minister of Transport. He said, "Oh, no, this is not the key; the key is the new bridge to be built over the Ottawa river". If that is the case, what arrangements were made between the former Quebec government as to elevating it for deep-sea navigation, as suggested by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, or for 14-foot navigation? I think the committee is entitled to know that. What provision has been made by this government and the former Quebec government to elevate the bridge so that it will provide for deep-sea navigation? Did the federal government tell the former government of the province of Quebec that it was going to pay for this elevation? Here is a navigable stream. We all know that if that is the case, which I deny, that if it is to provide for future 14-foot navigation or deeper, that is a charge that will have to be paid by the federal government and not by the provincial government.
These are the facts. What did the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister have to say in connection with this project? As reported at page 304 of Hansard of January 25, 1960 he said this:
Supply-Public Works (Translation):
X think that we should seriously consider the deepening of the Ottawa river, and the first step would be to make Ottawa a seaport readily accessible to ocean ships. That could be achieved rather easily and at a relatively low cost estimated by the Ottawa industrial commission in the vicinity of $41 million. Such a project-


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Mr. Martineau:: If the hon. member will wait until the end of my speech, I shall gladly answer his question.


Lionel Chevrier: First, I wanted to congratulate the hon. member for his idea. But I also had in mind to ask him to what extent should the river be dredged down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is very nice of the hon. member to congratulate me. Naturally, it should be deep enough to accommodate ships of 1,500 to 5,000 tons, at least for the time being. That is what I had in mind for now.
(Text):
The answer to my question by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister was that he had in mind a sufficient depth on the Ottawa river which would take care of ships of from 1,500 to 5,000 tons. Anybody knows that a ship of 5,000 tons needs a draft of at least 18 feet. If that is the case, what is this government doing to provide for that kind of draft? Then the parliamentry secretary to the Prime Minister went on to say this: (Translation):
I think a first step was made in working out this project when in drafting the plans for the Carillon dam, sufficient space was allowed on the north side for dredging.
(Text):
The parliamentary secretary now says that we have provided for these plans in the dam which is being built at Carillon, in providing a space where dredging will be done if necessary. I say to the parliamentary secretary that is not so. I say to the parliamentary secretary that at Easter, when I went down to look at the works, no provision whatever was being made for deep draft. I say to him now without fear of contradiction that the reaches on both sides of that lock are nine feet, and nothing is being done at the present time to deepen the reaches to a greater depth. The parliamentary secretary went on to say this:
(Translation):
Certain members of the house know also that the building of a new access bridge is planned on the west side of Montreal island. There also, steps are being taken so as to enable ocean-going vessels to pass under that bridge.
(Text):
There again the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister says "we are building a new bridge at the east end"-I will not misquote him-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I did not say "we were". I said a new bridge was being built. The "on" is impersonal.
6574	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. Perhaps he will accept my translation of his words as I go along. Also, as certain members of the house know, there is being projected-


Paul Raymond Martineau: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: -the construction of a new bridge on the west side of the island of Montreal. There also-we find "on"-"We will take the necessary means to have deep-sea navigation provided under this bridge". Does the parliamentary secretary know what it means to have deep-sea navigation provided under this bridge? It means a 120-foot clearance. Those are the regulations of the Department of Transport. You must have clearance under the bridge of 120 feet. If that is what he had in mind he should convince the Minister of Public Works of that, because otherwise it is going to be a fairly serious and costly business.
The point I wish to make now is this, and I have been smelling a rat on this matter all along. I know what is in the minds of hon. members on the other side of the house. They have no intention of providing 14-foot navigation on the Ottawa river at all. However, they will blame or will try to blame the present Quebec government if they do not succeed because that government may not wish to go along with them, at their expense.
I say to those who sit on the other side of the house that the idea of a waterway on the Ottawa river is an excellent one, and the parliamentary secretary will find those of us on this side ready and willing to assist him in anything that has that end in view. It would seem to me that careful consideration should be given to the movement of barges along the Ottawa river, in accordance with what is being done in many other parts of the world, as on the Erie canal, which takes this kind of transportation, and in accordance with the traffic on the Rhine where, because of low transportation costs and cheap and efficient operation. This form of transportation is proving of tremendous assistance to secondary industry. It might well be that within the great metropolitan area of Montreal, within a radius of 100 miles thereof, as the study by McGill University has indicated, there is a tremendous future on the Ottawa river for this kind of canal barge movement of goods and cargoes.
It seems to me that this may well be another visionary project on the part of those who sit on the other side of the house. We had some idea of that the other day with regard to the Champlain cut-off, when we were able to get no positive answer from


the Minister of Transport so far as the request made by the United States government to the Canadian government for a survey was concerned. Has anything been done by this government by way of a survey? Have any borings been taken on the Ottawa river? Has an economic study by a board of engineers been made to ascertain what are the advantages and benefits? I say to those who sit on the other side of the house that all I could see when I went down at Easter was provision being made for nine-foot navigation, and I repeat now that the reaches on both sides of the lock are for nine-foot navigation.
Were any representations made by the present government to the former government of the province of Quebec with reference to the two railway bridges and the highway bridge which links the island of Montreal with Vaudreuil-Dorion? Have any representations been made with reference to the lifting of those bridges in connection with this project? What has been done by this government with the former government of Quebec in connection with the plans for the new bridge which is going to be built? Have representations been made? What do the plans say about elevation? By how much will it clear the ships? Is it 40 feet or is it 60 feet? These are questions which I think deserve an answer.
I believe the Ottawa river could be made an important barge waterway where, as I said, small, efficient barges with low operational costs would make the project economical as in other parts of the world, and it would be a tremendous feeder to the St. Lawrence seaway as well.
Mr. Chairman, I felt that before this item went through there should be discussion on this matter and we should have an explanation by the minister. We should be told what works are being done, whereas in effect what is going on indicates that there is no intention on the part of the federal government at this time of providing 14-foot navigation on the Ottawa river. I hope the Minister of Public Works will clear up this position before his estimates are completed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, just a few words on the matter raised by the hon. member for Laurier. I am pleased to note that he believes it is an excellent suggestion to have the Ottawa river made a seaway up at least to the capital city, and onward if possible. I spoke on this matter in the course of the throne speech debate, and I mentioned it as a desirable thing. When I referred to the Carillon project and to the bridge at the west end of Montreal island I thought if provision

was made in the installation of these works for deep-sea navigation, that would be the first step, an essential step and a useful step, and I am still of that opinion. I still think that project is one which would be desirable, and as the hon. member for Laurier has just stated, an excellent one too.
The hon. member stated that as regards the Carillon power project, no such provision is being made. This matter of the Ottawa seaway would more normally come under the transport estimates. As a matter of fact there was a discussion about it, in which the hon. member for Laurier and others participated during the minister's estimates when they came up on June 28 last. These two things, namely the Carillon dam and the new bridge on the west end of Montreal island, were mentioned specifically by the minister. As reported on page 5519 of Hansard, in answer to a question the minister said:
Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that the key to this whole thing is the bridge at Ste. Anne. X am advised that there is no object in devising a plan for changing the lock until there is a plan for changing this bridge. But the lock is designed so that it can be enlarged.
I assume that when the minister said it "is designed so that it can be enlarged" he meant that it could be done in an economical and feasible way.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am nearly finished, if you would not mind. At the end of the discussion the minister stated, as reported at page 5520:
Before the item carries I should like to assure the hon. member for Carleton that I agree with him in principle. If a new bridge is to be built, it should be a high level bridge.
These are two of the matters which should be considered first when this seaway project is envisaged, and from the answers of the minister it is clear that he and his departmental officials have considered the problem.
I do not suggest that this project should be proceeded with forthwith. I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that an over-all survey should be made. When it will be made depends on the government, which will be motivated in its choice by the highest interests of all the groups concerned. I can only say that from my own point of view, and I believe I can speak in this respect for a large segment of the people in the Ottawa valley who have shown a very deep and sustained interest in this matter, I would like to see it soon. I cannot speak for the government; it may be soon, it may be later. I do not know. But I have nothing to subtract from what I said before, and I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that it is an excellent project.
Supply-Public Works


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the parliamentary secretary a question? He says the minister stated that the lock at Carillon is designed so that it can be enlarged. Does the parliamentary secretary not agree that if it is not enlarged now to a depth of 14 feet, tremendous sums of money will be needed to deepen it and the reaches to this depth later on when the present works are completed?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am not an engineer or a technician, and I cannot give an answer on that particular point. I have not made any estimate of the cost of the project. I have stated the figure given by the industrial commissioner of Ottawa, Mr. Bullock. I gave his estimate of $41 million for converting the Ottawa river from Montreal to Ottawa as a seaway. As far as the cost of converting the projected structure at Carillon to accommodate deep-sea navigation is concerned, I am not an authority, as the hon. member knows, and I am sure he does not expect an answer from me.


Lionel Chevrier: There is one final matter which I think I should direct to the attention of the minister. I realize that the parliamentary secretary cannot speak for the government on the questions I asked, and I hope the minister will not take it for granted that this discussion is completed. I trust that when he comes to the end of the discussion of this item he will, in the usual way, deal with the questions I have asked, which I believe are extremely important in the light of the future development of our country.


David James Walker: This question rests with the Deparment of Transport. In so far as I am able, I will look into it, but so far it has been the sole concern of the Department of Transport. We may be consulted at some time, or we may be asked some time to build a bridge, but we certainly have not been asked to do so yet, and I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the minister will deal with some of the questions I have put to him when we come to the end of item 1.
(Translation):


Mr. Parizeau:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and his staff for the fine co-operation they have given me so far with respect to public works carried out in various parts of my constituency. You may be assured, Mr. Chairman, that the people in some communities of the Lake St. John area were most appreciative when such works were carried out last winter as a means of helping our seasonally unemployed.
6576	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works I have been sending a number of requests to the department. While it is true that Mr. Lesage has claimed he would settle the unemployment problem under his program, I have little faith in that program, and I would therefore ask the minister and his officials to give special consideration to my suggestions, so that again in March, April and May, we may carry out certain works in the Lake St. John area as a means of relieving seasonal unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to give very special consideration to the construction of a retaining wall at Alma, something which would, at the same time, enable the town of Alma to complete the construction of its main sewer.
I would also ask him to give thorough consideration to the construction of retaining walls at Metabetchouan and Desbiens, and also to the need for building post offices at Metabetchouan, Saint-Coeur-de-Marie, Naudville and Desbiens.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister and his officials for their fine cooperation in the past. The citizens of my constituency are quite happy to see that we are carrying out public works there. In fact, the citizens of the parish of St. Gedeon have told me it was the first time since confederation that public works were carried out there.
(Text):


Mr. Winch:: I apologize for having been absent at the start of the discussion, but I understand we are still on vote 327, which is item No. 1. There is a matter arising there upon which I should like to make some comment.
I appreciated very much the statement made by the minister a day or so ago in connection with the extension of housing construction, and I sincerely hope that his anticipations will come to fruition with regard to the number of new housing starts. To the best of my knowledge, construction provides more work both on a direct and an indirect basis than any other activity.
Much as I appreciate the attitude expressed by the minister both recently and on previous occasions, I should like to ask if it is not possible for consideration to be given to a policy more comprehensive than that of home construction. I refer in particular to the growing need for homes for senior citizens and veterans, and I should like to ask whether any consideration is being given to making any required changes in the existing act or acts to apply the same provision to those who are classified as handicapped persons that now apply to other classes of the 

population in connection with the construction of home units or apartment units. I understand that these persons are not eligible at the present time for aid from co-operative or fraternal or veterans' organizations.
In introducing this subject I want to say how much I appreciate the fact that both this government and the previous government made it possible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make money available at low rates of interest for construction of this kind. I think this policy has given great encouragement and impetus to various non-profit organizations to construct homes and apartments for senior citizens and veterans.
I can only speak of the facts as far as my own province of British Columbia is concerned, but in that province there is a policy whereby one third of the capital cost of construction of this nature can be made available. Then under the provisions of the relevant act, and on the authority of the minister, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can advance a mortgage up to 57 per cent, I think it is, of the capital cost, of which not less than 10 per cent must be raised locally.
I realize there is a responsibility lying on the municipality and the province, but has the time not arrived when in addition to the 57 per cent mortgage at a lower rate of interest than would otherwise be available, the federal government has an additional responsibility of either giving the mortgage at absolute cost or sharing in the direct capital contribution by any provincial government which is interested in this field?
I am particularly concerned about this matter because of the original planning undertaken in British Columbia. British Columbia started the original planning and it was not done by the government. A number of C.C.F.'ers incorporated a company and tried to start this kind of endeavour. Under today's construction costs the rents-which by the way, sir, are governed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-are very high. The society of which my father was the initiator, which was started a few years ago, could pay all charges, including all municipal costs, at rents of around $19 for a single man and $23 for a married couple. We are now reaching the stage in construction costs where we cannot do it for under around $35 to $37 a month. Because of this situation I am asking whether it is not possible for the minister to consider not only his present policy of low interest mortgages, but perhaps the inauguration of a nominal capital grant such as is made by a number of the provincial authorities.

Can the minister make any comment on another problem which is growing in seriousness. I refer to handicapped persons who may be younger than those who are eligible under the present regulations as veterans or senior citizens? I suggest an extension of the authority of the federal government to assist those in fraternal, veterans or non-profit organizations, to provide homes or apartments specifically designed and built to take care of handicapped persons. I wish to say Mr. Chairman, that I fully realize the cost of this kind of operation. I believe I am correct in saying that the New Vista society of Burnaby was the first in Canada to construct an apartment block specifically designed for handicapped persons.


David James Walker: That is so.


Harold Edward Winch: The building had to be architecturally designed for those people. There were no steps. It had to be designed so that the door could be opened by a person in a wheel chair, a person whose hands were crippled with arthritis. The kitchens had to be specially arranged; all the equipment had to be specially made; all the plumbing had to be entirely different. I assure the minister that I know, because I am a director of that association.
Do we not have some obligation to try to encourage fraternal, veterans' or non-profit organizations to undertake this kind of work? I can assure the minister from my knowledge that there is a growing and desperate need in this regard. I can also assure the minister, that I do not think it can be carried out under the present regulations unless greater assistance can be obtained from the provincial and national governments. I plead with the minister on behalf of these people. Because of the cost and because of the state of the construction industry, which directly and indirectly has an effect on our economy, I hope the minister will be able to tell us not only that this matter is under consideration but perhaps is in the planning stage. I hope he may be able to state to the House of Commons that no change is required or is necessary in the act, and I hope that federal financial recognition of this type of work will be given. I can assure the minister it will be most welcome. It is a matter which will receive the unanimous support of all hon. members.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, because of its burning importance to the economy of Newfoundland I feel I must ask the minister to give serious and sympathetic consideration to the construction of more wharves, breakwaters and slipways in Newfoundland in general and in the riding of Trinity-Conception in particular.
Supply-Public Works
There are still many areas in Newfoundland in which public improvements are badly needed, which if done would prove of great economic value to Newfoundland and would help the fishermen prosecute the fisheries. I shall illustrate by telling of some of the wants of my own riding. Many of these areas have already been drawn to the attention of previous ministers but were not looked after. Some of them have been brought to the attention of the present minister by way of letters and petitions, and I am expecting ana really believe that the present minister will give serious consideration to these important petitions.
I am very pleased that the Department of Public Works is proceeding with the dredging of the harbour of Catalina, the completion of the public wharf at Bay de Verde and the construction of a wharf at Gull island in Conception bay. There are, however, many other communities which have also been referred to the minister, and even though some of them are only small and the expenditures low, yet they are nevertheless important to the residents concerned.
The southern end of my riding begins near Brigus, the birthplace of the late Captain Bob Bartlett, the famous explorer and goes north to cape Bonavista, the first landfall of John Cabot in 1497, which is the southern end of the riding of my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and it is one of the most important ridings in Newfoundland.
I believe that the present plan for the construction of community stages in Newfoundland should be encouraged and continued, yet none of these stages is being constructed in the important fishing riding of Trinity-Conception. In view of these facts I hope the minister will give every consideration to the repair of slipways and wharves to help the fishermen in their worth-while endeavours.
My first request is for the construction of a breakwater at Hibbs' Cove, Port-de-Grave, where the fishermen are second to none in any part of the Dominion of Canada and where the fishermen have been asking for improved facilities since confederation. Last year this community produced approximately 9 million pounds of fish. Because of the number of fishing boats moored in the harbour during the fishing season there is considerable risk to boats and property, and something should be done to improve the present facilities. A petition has also been submitted to the minister, and I cannot find words strong enough to emphasize the importance of constructing a breakwater in this community. I feel sure that the officials of the Department

Supply-Public Works of Public Works in St. John's, for whom I have the highest regard, will not disagree with me on this matter.


David James Walker: If the hon. member will permit me, I should like to slip out for a bite to eat. I shall leave my parliamentary assistant in charge, and I assure the hon. member I will read all his representations, as I always do.


James Roy Tucker: The fishermen of the Port-deGrave area have continued to carry on their vocation while other fishermen in other communities working under such trying circumstances would have given up in despair.
My next request is for the construction of a slipway in the port of Harbour Grace to take care of the repairing and storing of motor boats and larger fishing boats known locally as long-liners. During the fishing season of
1959-60 approximately 500 fishermen landed more than 15 million pounds of codfish and in addition about 2 million pounds of bait, which is below a normal year's supply. The fishermen are working under a great handicap because they have no place in this area where their fishing boats can be docked for engine repairs and general overhaul, including painting and cleaning, etc., and if a slipway were to be constructed at Harbour Grace it would also help the fishermen in the Port-de-Grave area. Time does not permit me to go into greater details at this time and further words are unnecessary because the situation has been very well explained in the petition which has already been presented to the minister. I urge him to give this matter the attention it so justly deserves.
Once again I must ask the minister to consider seriously the petition which his department received three years ago from the residents of Dildo south, Trinity bay, where there is a large pothead whaling industry and a fresh fish plant, and from which point there is a daily mink feed service, the only one of its kind in Canada, I believe, which caters to approximately 25 mink ranchers in the Blaketown area. This industry is worth half a million dollars a year to Newfoundland. It looked for a time last year as though a wharf in that area would become a reality. However, it was deferred; but I hope the construction of a wharf in this area will be included in the estimates of the Department of Public Works next year.
Once again I must ask that docking facilities or a slipway be constructed at Clarenville to take care of the boats requiring docking facilities. If this were done it would be money well spent and would greatly help the fishermen and schooner owners.
A fishermen's landing is also badly needed at Carbonear. I believe that provision was


made last year to construct a landing, but it was deferred. I must also ask the minister to give some consideration to the improvement of harbour facilities at Melrose, where again we have fishermen who are well known for their perseverance and their ability to fish. I must ask the minister to see that as much construction of public works as is possible be carried out in Newfoundland during the early soring rather than in the late summer and fall, because of weather conditions. If this were done it would help unemployment, about which we have heard so much recently, and would be of great financial assistance to the fishermen in purchasing the materials so necessary in the prosecution of the fisheries. There are several wharves and slipways in my riding which need early repairs, and I am very disappointed with the jobs that have been completed thus far this year.
I believe the federal government should give increased financial assistance to Newfoundland to complete the trans-Canada highway, because Newfoundland has not got a standard gauge railway. Consequently it cannot adequately cater to the trade of the province at a cost consistent with that trade and in any favourable proportion to the other provinces of Canada. It is the duty of the federal government to provide Newfoundland with a railway service in keeping with the rest of Canada and to keep the cost of transportation of goods, etc., into and out of Newfoundland at the same level as in the other provinces. Consequently any extra financial assistance given to Newfoundland to complete her portion of the trans-Canada highway will only be squaring up matters with that province, and in proportion Newfoundland will not then be receiving any more favourable treatment than the other provinces of Canada are receiving from the federal government.
However, the completion of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland will not do so much to remedy the situation if financial assistance is not also given to complete other key trunk highways in the province to connect with the trans-Canada highway. The members of the cabinet should know that we have practically no good highways in Newfoundland connecting with the trans-Canada highway, and if the federal government does not assist us financially we will not have good highways for many years to come. Such extra financial assistance to the Atlantic provinces and especially to Newfoundland is not something additional, but will only be a small portion of what is necessary to equalize transportation facilities as between the Atlantic region and the other

parts of Canada, inasmuch as all provinces are supposed to have equal rights and to receive equal treatment from the government at Ottawa.
A few weeks ago the Trans-Canada Highway Act was amended to extend the time in which payments can be made, but it will not really help Newfoundland very much because Newfoundland, due to financial conditions and other circumstances, will not be able to proceed with the trans-Canada highway with the necessary speed in the same way as the other richer and well-established provinces. Newfoundland is a new province and needs building up. Further, Newfoundland has not got the roads, even by-roads, to compare in any manner with the other provinces. Consequently part of her available revenue will have to be devoted to the building of new roads and rebuilding of present roads, so that the funds available to complete her portion of the trans-Canada highway will be very small indeed.
We believe that the federal government should help the poorer provinces in greater proportion to complete the trans-Canada highway, and in this respect Newfoundland has a prior claim for additional help in that, after practically 12 years as a member of the Canadian confederation, the federal government has not seen fit or been ready to give Newfoundland a regularly railway system to replace the narrow gauge railway still operating.
Consequently, in order to compensate for these other vitally important items for which the federal government is responsible, that portion of the trans-Canada highway for which Newfoundland is being held responsible should be completed by the federal government without cost to Newfoundland. This would not be favouring Newfoundland over the other provinces because of the things Newfoundland lacks as compared with the other provinces of Canada, the responsibility for which can truthfully be laid at the door of the federal government.
The recent extension of time for the completion of the trans-Canada highway does not mean much to the province of Newfoundland at this time. The vital need is not time. The vital need, in so far as Newfoundland is concerned, is finances. With this state of affairs existing, and expected to continue for some considerable time to come, how can Newfoundland finance a part of the trans-Canada highway, a highway which should be a means of strengthening the over-all economy of Canada? A highway of this type should be the responsibility of the federal government to complete and, in so doing, to give assistance to those provinces that cannot afford
Supply-Public Works the expenditure entailed in the completion of the highway. This is especially true of any province that has not been accorded her full rights as a part of Canada, such as Newfoundland.
Resolutions and time extensions will not complete the trans-Canada highway without the required finances, and it is just as well to face the fact that Newfoundland is not, and will not be, in any position financially to complete her portion of the highway for years to come, unless the government of Canada honours all the agreements made with Newfoundland at the date of union, honours term 29, honours the obligation to give Newfoundland a standard gauge railway, or compensates her for these deficiencies. An example of such compensation would be the completion of her portion of the trans-Canada highway, without cost to her, which by the way would also be helping out the other provinces, since the completion of the trans-Canada highway will strengthen the over-all economy of Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I feel I must express my sincere thanks to the present Minister of Public Works and his staff for the many courtesies extended to me, especially by his Newfoundland officials, and for their prompt replies to my letters. While I do not always agree with their decisions I must say a very sincere thank you, and assure them that they will be hearing from me as long as any improvement can be made in conditions in my riding of Trinity-Conception.


Mr. Browne (St. John's Wesi):: In the absence of the minister-I am not going to take his place or anything like that-I should like
to say a few words, since my name has been mentioned. I know the places to which the hon. member for Trinity-Conception referred, especially Hibb's Cove near Port-de-Grave. It was always famous for the fine type of fishermen dwelling there. Some of the best fishermen in Newfoundland fish from there. They are very industrious and fearless. I recall when I was there some years ago how they explained to me that they would leave their homes and spend two weeks fishing off the port of St. John's, not around Conception bay but off the port of St. John's. They have maintained that fine reputation which they had at that time. I am pleased to know that they caught so much fish, 9 million pounds, which is nearly 90,000 quintals. This indicates that it is a prosperous settlement. I am quite sure the minister will give every consideration to the requests of the hon. member.
In so far as Harbour Grace is concerned, I rather expected the hon. member might

Supply-Public Works mention his gratitude for the work that had already been done in connection with the wharves near the S. & W. Moore fish plant. During the last two years the government has put in wharves to accommodate a great many fishing boats which wish to land their fish at that fine fresh fish plant.


James Roy Tucker: It is Northeast Fisheries, is it not?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Well, the
Moores are the owners and operators. In so far as Dildo is concerned, of course, and the location of a special sort of industry in connection with the mink business, I am quite sure the minister will give consideration to the hon. member's representations. The same thing applies to Melrose. I hope the hon. member will be successful in his requests.
Then I should like to make some general observations in answer to the hon. member. He referred to his belief that the federal government should complete the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland. I should like to remind the hon. member that the terms of union were drawn up by the previous federal government and the premier of the present government of Newfoundland. Mr. Smallwood and his delegation came from Newfoundland back in 1947 or 1948, and they settled the terms of union. We have been governed by those terms.
But in addition to any terms that were set out in the document which was enshrined in the statutes of Canada, the present government has given to Newfoundland a special grant of $7.5 million a year for four years. I know the hon. member very well, and I know he can calculate. If that $7.5 million a year had been spent on the trans-Canada highway it would have brought another $7.5 million from the federal government, which would have meant $15 million a year from the federal government for four years. This amount would have been quite ample to finish the trans-Canada highway.
In addition to that amount of money, the federal government is providing for access roads in the sum of $7.5 million, which can be spread over five, ten or fifteen years. The government of Newfoundland are taking advantage of that money to build access roads where they find them necessary and desirable. It was only yesterday that I read in the Evening Telegram of St. John's that the government has been making so much progress with road building, especially in the riding of my friend from Bonavista-Twillin-gate, that the Canadian National has found it necessary to take off its ship Bonavista and put on a smaller ship because so few people


use the ship now to get from port to port. They can use the local roads. Sometimes the ship has gone along with only one passenger on it.
This will give my friend from Trinity-Conception some idea of the progress that has been made by the provincial government. I do not believe the provincial government would be pleased, and certainly its leader would not be pleased, to have it suggested that no roads have been built. They have built thousands of miles of roads in the last 11 years.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. minister is getting away from vote No. 327, which is before us. I do not believe provincial roads have anything to do with public works.


William Joseph Browne: I only made this reference because my hon. friend mentioned the difficulty which the provincial government finds in building its local roads. I did not intend to elaborate on that. I just mentioned it to indicate the progress that has been made, and to show that the feeder roads are there for the trans-Canada highway. There is nothing more I should like to say at the moment on this matter.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, there are three departments of government which hold a special interest for the people of my province, and in particular for the people of my own riding. They are the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. Of these three, possibly the Department of Public Works touches the lives of our people more closely than any other department of government. It is the breakwaters which the Department of Public Works supplies to the small harbours which afford protection to the property of our fishermen and enable them to sleep at night when otherwise they would be lying awake wondering whether their boats were going to break loose from their moorings, drift ashore and be smashed on the rocks or, if not that, then perhaps be filled with water at their moorings. It 'is these little ramps which we call slipways in Newfoundland which enable the fishermen to haul up their boats when a storm approaches or in the short days of winter when they do not want to risk keeping them moored during the long winter nights, which enable the fishermen to haul up their boats in safety without having them damaged by dragging them over sharp rocks and boulders.
The coastal wharves which the Department of Public Works supplies enable the coastal boats to dock so the people of the communities can come down and go aboard the ships



I960

[Stage Direction]
or disembark directly without having to be rowed about in small boats, often in very stormy and rainy weather. It is a convenience to the merchants to be able to get their freight directly from the ship to the wharf without having to wait up and sit around at night and then bring the freight ashore, or put it ashore in small boats under dangerous and distressing conditions.
It is the same with the smaller wharves, the landing wharves which are supplied in smaller places. These little conveniences enable the travelling hospital ship or the travelling medical clinic to dock alongside so that old people, women and children can easily get aboard and obtain the medical services they require without having to be carried backward and forward in very small boats, particularly when the weather is rough and stormy.
For all these conveniences which the minister's department has supplied during the past year I should like to express, on behalf of my constituents and myself, our thanks to the minister and his departmental officials, and also our appreciation for the courtesy, the promptness and the sympathy they have always given to requests of this kind.
Hon. members who have spoken previously have already mentioned the honour conferred upon the deputy minister. I should like to join them in their congratulations. I want to say a special word of praise for the permanent officials, not only in the departmental office here in Ottawa but also in the district office in St. John's. I have perhaps more personal contact with these officials than with those of any other department. I want to pay tribute to the devotion they have displayed to their work. I know that often they are obliged to work under very hard and difficult conditions, sometimes being understaffed. However, there has always been forthcoming the greatest courtesy and consideration in connection with any problem t have ever had to bring before them.
I think the hon. member for Levis drew the minister's attention to a decrease of $25 million in the estimates this year as compared with last year. The bulk of that decrease, or a little over $18 million of it, occurs under two headings which perhaps account for most of the spending in this department. I refer to public building construction and services under which the estimates have been decreased this year by $11.5 million, and to the harbours and rivers engineering services under which the estimates have been decreased by about $6.7 million.
While referring to these decreases I want to say a word about the apparently special treatment which has been accorded to my
Supply-Public Works own province of Newfoundland. I note from the estimates that our figures this year show a slight increase of about $400,000 over those of last year. The total grant for Newfoundland this year is about $5.7 million as compared with $5.32 million last year. That contrasts with the treatment which has been accorded to other provinces, which have suffered decreases ranging from about 25 per cent to 40 per cent.
But having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the situation, as far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned, is not quite as favourable as these figures would indicate. Of that $5.7 million, nearly 65 per cent is allocated for the special project in the harbour of St. John's. When $3.8 million is deducted from the total of $5.6 million we get only a little over $1.7 million for all the rest of Newfoundland outside of St. John's. That $1.7 million contrasts with $2.98 million last year, and represents a total decrease of about 40 per cent for all of Newfoundland outside of St. John's.
I am not complaining about the money being spent at St. John's. That project is something that is long overdue and is something which I entirely support. My only criticism of the St. John's harbour project is that perhaps it has not gone as far as I should like to see it go. I should like to see a real job done on the harbour at St. John's and the present public waterfront extended right around to the eastern part of the harbour. Having said that, may I say that I do not want to see the project at St. John's developed at the expense of the rest of Newfoundland, and in saying this I think I am voicing the sentiments not only of my own constituents but of the people of Newfoundland as a whole.
I should like to point out to the minister also that last year $1J million was spent on St. John's harbour and this year $3.85 million has been allocated in addition, making a total of about $5 million out of a proposed expenditure of $13 million or more. I hope this practice of putting the money into St. John's at the expense of the rest of Newfoundland is not going to be repeated next year and the year after until the St. John's harbour project is completed. I warn the minister now that if this happens next year, there will be a little more violent reaction on my part than that which is forthcoming at the present time.
William Joseph Browne: Your district is not doing so badly.


Chesley William Carter: I am not complaining about my own district. I have just thanked the minister
6582	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works for all he has done and I hope he will continue the good work. I am speaking now for Newfoundland as a whole; and while it appears on the surface, when we look at the $400,000 increase as compared with the decrease for other provinces, that Newfoundland has been selected for special treatment, in actual fact apart from St. John's, Newfoundland has suffered the same reduction in expenditure under these two important items that has been accorded all the other provinces.
The minister was good enough to refer to the completion of the work at Port aux Easques in my riding, for which we are all grateful; at long last this project has been completed. But I hasten to inform the minister that although that particular project has been completed there is still room for further work in the improvement of Port aux Basques harbour. The big rock called Pancake rock needs to be removed completely, and the amount of space used by the new Canadian National Railways terminal there has reduced the amount of space available for anchorage, so there have been times when ships have not been able to enter the harbour at Port aux Basques to moor in safety or even to ride at anchor.
With respect to the vote for public buildings, Newfoundland this year has suffered a severe reduction. We have been cut down from over $1 million last year to the small sum of $150,000 this year, a cut of almost $1 million. And this happens at a time when there is vast unemployment in our province and a slow-down in residential construction, when this particular type of work would be of special value in helping us to cope with our unemployment problem. I do hope that next year the vote for public buildings for Newfoundland will be restored at least to what it has been in previous years, and certainly not reduced to the point that it is in danger of disappearing altogether.
I was glad to hear the minister tell us about the amount of work his department has done for other departments. I think he mentioned that 300 projects had been carried out for 16 other departments of government. I think that is a good thing and something to be commended. But there is just one question in my mind on this score, and it is this; whether in taking on this extra work the department officials are being overburdened to the point where they might not be able to carry out as many projects as are required for the improvement of our harbours and rivers.
Another thing which disappoints me this year is the reduction in vote No. 368, which


is the miscellaneous grants vote. Last year that vote was $2.4 million, and it has been reduced this year to $2 million. This has been done at a time when the drain on this particular grant has been increased, because this miscellaneous vote now covers projects which can go as high as $25,000 with treasury approval and can certainly range up to $15,000 without treasury approval. When you reduce the grant and at the same time increase the drain on it to such an extent, it means that very few projects will be done this year with money provided by this particular grant.
It is these small projects which are of such tremendous importance to the people in my own constituency. I referred to such things at the opening of my remarks, the small breakwaters, the slipways, the landing wharves and things of that kind which are dependent on this grant because in many cases they are too small to be included as separate items in the general vote. This is one vote which really should have been expanded instead of reduced.
I would like to refer to the question of dredging at this moment. Dredging is one of the greatest problems we have in Newfoundland. Before confederation we never had sufficient dredging equipment, so there was a long backlog of dredging requirements which had to be taken care of. We never did get sufficient equipment to deal with that backlog adequately, so we are merely keeping abreast of current requirements and are doing very little to reduce that backlog. The PWD-400 is doing excellent work, and so is the larger dredge; but if we are ever going to adequately tackle the problem of dredging in my province we shall need still more dredging equipment than we have at present. These boats are doing valuable work, and I think they are working overtime and in weather conditions which perhaps they should not work in. However, they are aware of the need and are doing their best to cope with it, but they cannot cope with it unless our dredging equipment is increased.
Aside from the floating dredges we alsc have a special need in Newfoundland for shallow dredging equipment. There is nol too much of this equipment available from private sources, and I think the departmenl should see to it that such equipment is supplied. It has the advantage of being cheap, because some of our dredging requirements call only for a small, stationary engine anc a bucket and cable. The cable is suspended across the harbour or stream, and I do nol think that equipment would cost more thar $500 or $600 or at the most $1,000. If w< had a dozen of these we could deal with

many little jobs which needed to be done but which will never be done unless we get this kind of equipment.	'
Before I sit down I want to appeal to the minister once again on behalf of the people of Seal Cove. Last year I told the minister's predecessor the story of this settlement and I do not want to repeat it, but it had a harbour which over the years has disappeared so completely that the people had to forsake the fishery and try to find work on land. They did this and obtained work in the logging operations of the various paper mills. However, a change has now come about in those logging operations with the introduction of the power saw, and where formerly these fishermen could get perhaps six or seven months' work in the woods they are now lucky if they get two months' work.
In addition there are people whose physical condition will not permit them to do this type of work, and work is getting scarcer on construction jobs, with the result that more and more people are completely dependent on the fishery; and they cannot fish without a harbour.


Mr, McGrath:: Would the hon. member permit an interjection at this point? As he well knows, there are several places in Newfoundland which bear that name. Would he be more specific?


Chesley William Carter: I was speaking about my own riding. There is only one Seal Cove in my riding, and that is located in Fortune bay.
There was an agreement or at least an understanding last year between the minister's department and the provincial government that this work would be undertaken provided the provincial government constructed a road leading from the main road down to the seashore where the breakwater was to be built. The provincial government lived up to its part of the bargain and this road has now been completed, but there is no sign of any effort on the part of the federal government to carry out its part of the agreement, and there is certainly no money in this item for such a purpose. However, I do hope this is not being overlooked, because it is one of the most urgent needs of my riding. I express the hope that the minister may yet find some way of getting this work started during the current year.
The minister knows that every year I supply a long list of projects which need to be undertaken in my constituency. If we ever get out of here I intend to make another trip around my riding, and that list will be revised, and no doubt additions will be made to it. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if he is looking for a shelf of projects for 79951-0-415
Supply-Public Works the winter I shall be able to supply him with a very adequate list before the end of this year.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make only a few remarks on item 354.
In 1954, under the former administration, that section regarding protection works and retaining walls was restricted. Any protection works had to be carried out only on navigable waterways, and retaining walls were built only when it was shown that such walls had previously been erected at the same spot, or when there was a federal building there.
Although changes were introduced in that item, after 1954, retaining walls were still built in some ridings of the province of Quebec and elsewhere, were they not?
I would therefore ask the minister to reconsider that item so that the government might erect retaining walls in our ridings, because I have received many requests from the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and more particularly from Joli-ette where, a few years ago, retaining walls were built. The same applies to various towns and municipalities in my riding.
Now, I would ask Department of Public Works officials to consider the possibility of again changing that item, so that, in future, the government might build such retaining walls, even along non-navigable waterways, as was done in the past.
I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that I have already made such a request for construction of a retaining wall on the banks of the St. Lawrence and more particularly at St. Sulpice. That request is now under consideration but has not yet been accepted.
Mr. Chairman, in the gallery I see the chief engineer of harbours and rivers, Mr. Millar, who has always given special attention to my requests, and I would ask him to be so kind as to continue submitting them to the relevant authorities of the public works department.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make.
(Text):


John Richard Garland: I welcome the opportunity provided by this examination of the estimates of the Department of Public Works to comment briefly on housing, and in particular on the statement made by the minister Monday morning in respect to changes in the

Supply-Public Works maximum income level regulations and respecting merchant builders' loans.
I suggest that this statement by the government was long overdue and is a recognition, finally, after many months of stalling, of the mess in which this government has placed the residential construction industry, the people engaged in it, and the thousands of people throughout Canada who still require better housing.
In this respect I should like to quote briefly from an article in the Calgary Herald of July 6 which quotes Mr. John Smith, executive vice-president of National House Builders' Association, as saying in Alberta:
In so far as getting houses built, the federal government policy of confining National Housing Act direct loans to individual owner-applicants has been a "resounding fizzle".
Later he said:
Assuming that the government wants to avoid a housing shortage, with the rise in prices this would mean, revision of its restrictive policy is needed.
Now to return to the statement of the minister which, although carefully worded, admits the dilemma in which this government finds itself after three years of unplanned activity in housing. When the economy began to sag in the fall of 1957 this government pumped money into housing at unprecedented levels. That had the result of artificially overexpanding the house building industry and building in 1958 many of the houses required in 1959. The use of housing to prime the economic pump, while having the effect of building a great many houses, was not a normal development.
The results are evident in certain areas even today. Many areas were vastly overbuilt, and many other areas throughout the country received little or no benefit. It is these areas that did not share in this housing boom that were the first to suffer when the government realized the mess it had got itself into. Hon. members on all sides are very much aware of this situation.
The regulations imposed this year were deliberately restrictive and have had a paralyzing effect on house building in many areas. With the imposition of these restrictive regulations by the government, the areas that need housing cannot produce the normal demand while certain other areas that were overbuilt in 1958 still have many unsold homes.
There are many reasons for this unhappy state of affairs, most of which are the responsibility of this government. Prior to 1957 it was the policy of the then federal government to assume the role, in the main, of residual lender. It is interesting to note that in 1956, a year of real expansion and economic boom, Canadians were able to build

135,700 homes through normal demand. However, late in 1957, when the economy began to slip, this government used housing in an effort to bolster the economy, and no one will argue seriously against their action at that time.
The extent to which such actions should be employed is of course debatable. The results of these past few years clearly indicate the degree of control that can be exercised over housing and the economy by a federal government. When it appears that total activity might lag, house building can be stimulated; when it appears that total activity in the economy might strain our total resources, steps can be taken to curtail house building. As I said just a moment ago, the extent to which this stimulation or curtailment might be applied is, of course, debatable.
The power of the federal government to control the rate of house building is made possible largely through its control over the National Housing Act mortgage market, which controls the supply of mortgage funds by making the National Housing Act rates attractive or unattractive to private lenders, by varying the volume of its own lendings. Changes in interest rates affect the public demand for N.H.A. loans.
Naturally there are many other factors, but it is not my intention to go into too much detail at this time in the general field of housing, as we have discussed the subject rather thoroughly on other occasions during this session. I intend to content myself today with pointing out again, as I have on several occasions during this session, the failure of the government in this important field of activity.
The minister's statement on Monday can be considered little more than an admission of the failure of the government's announced 1960 housing program. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that when we discussed housing legislation back in February and March the government stated that its minimum objective was 125,000 housing starts in 1960. At the same time it announced, while asking parliament for $500 million, that only $175 million would be used in 1960. As we pointed out at that time, this was a 50 per cent reduction as compared with the amount advanced in 1959.
This was a ridiculously restrictive attitude taken by the government at a time when all other lending for house construction was being curtailed for various reasons. The banks were knocked out of lending for house construction by government action, and the approved lenders could place their money elsewhere at more attractive rates as a result of the tight money situation created earlier

by this same government. Surely this year was the time when government lending for house building should have been advanced to a degree that would cushion the hardships created by the curtailment of lending, for the reasons I have outlined above, by the normal suppliers of mortgage funds.
You will also remember, sir, that this government were not satisfied merely to slash in half the amount that would be advanced through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at this time of curtailment, but they went further in their ridiculously restrictive measures. By putting on a ceiling of $5,000, plus minor adjustments depending on the number of children in a family, the government further restricted their lending. At the time it was introduced some of us on this side expressed the view that it was a mistake. My own view was that this was a gimmick dreamed up by the government for public consumption, to create an impression that something was being done for the so-called little man while in effect nothing was being done. With a ceiling of $5,000 and the minimum wage requirement throughout the country near this figure, they left a very narrow area of wage earners who could even qualify. When one considers this wage ceiling restriction and the minimum salary requirement, plus the substantial down payment required, it is little wonder that this deliberately restrictive housing program of the government in 1960 failed throughout.
This recent announcement by the government recognizes this failure which has resulted from this government's misjudgment and failure to correctly analyse developments over the past several months. I realize the government hoped that construction outside the housing field would take up the slack resulting from the government's deliberate reduction of house construction. It has become increasingly apparent with each passing month that the government's hopes in this regard were not to be realized. Each month produced a new set of figures, in fact set new records of reduction in house building. This has not only resulted in the loss of construction but has had the effect of contributing substantially to a greater number of failures among construction companies in the first quarter of this year than in any similar previous period.
It is a matter of record that in no one field is there more unemployment than among residential construction workers. Therefore it is little wonder that the government are attempting now, at this late date, to make
79951-0-415i
Supply-Public Works up for their failure in handling the construction program for 1960. This cautious statement by the government makes reference to the dilemma in which the government finds itself at this time. The statement indicates that they do not wish to produce more housing to be added to the present stock of unsold dwellings, yet they recognize that to restrict house building is in effect to restrict employment opportunities. Therefore, after months of stalling, after months of drifting, the government have faced up to their 1960 failure and are now prepared to make an upward revision in the income limitations on applicants, and to release a few more million dollars. By their action they hope to beef up their 1960 program.
It is difficult at this time to tell what effect this change will have in respect of additional starts in 1960, and I know that the minister with all his experts was not prepared to make a forecast in this connection. However the fact that the merchant builders' aspect does not come into effect until September 1, and will be cancelled at the end of November, would seem to indicate that the government is still hedging, still trying to cut down on the amount of funds to be advanced through direct lending. The statement also indicates that after November 30, only home owner applications will be received, on terms and conditions to be announced at that time.
It is difficult to assess the real significance behind this proposed piecemeal action. The terms and conditions referred to in the statement, that are to be made known in November, may well reflect the government's thinking and timing in respect of the next election. However, of two things we can be sure; the government's recognition of the failure of its present policy and also that the government recognizes the levelling off that is taking place in our economy.
As has been clearly shown in recent years, the volume of house building responds quickly to changes in the quantity, availability and terms of N.H.A. mortgage money. The house building industry is a major employer of labour and for the most part uses materials produced in our own country. There are also such things as appliances and home furnishings required, each adding to employment generally. The cutting back on house building in times of prosperity releases considerable manpower and materials for other sectors of the economy. The stimulating of house building in a recession has the reverse effect; at least this is the theory.
The evils or difficulties lie in a policy of attempting to produce total stability by artificially and deliberately creating instability in house building. These violent fluctuations, this

Supply-Public Works turning on and off of the tap of mortgage funds, are very costly. The availability of mortgage money in a state of feast or famine has created a great degree of instability in the house building industry.
During these past few months we have experienced one of these famine periods in respect of the availability of mortgage money, created in no small degree by government policy and government action. During the past several months the approved lenders under N.H.A. have found investment in other fields much more attractive. In the first six months of 1960 the approved lenders made 7,364 loans as compared with 19,730 loans in the first quarter of 1959. This represents a decrease of 62.7 per cent. Since the N.H.A. rate was raised last fall to 6| per cent the chartered banks have been understandably reluctant to make loans at 6 per cent, which is their limit under the Bank Act. As a result only 41 loans were made by the chartered banks in the first six months of this year, as compared with 11,302 in the first six months of 1959.
As I said, it was during this period of restriction of the normal sources of mortgage lending that the government should have been prepared to take up at least a portion of the slack. Instead they sat there, trying to deny the failure of their policy, shirking their responsibility and endeavouring by insinuation to shift to others the blame and responsibility that were theirs.
I would like to refer to one shining example of this attempt to shift responsibility. Hon. members will recall a statement made by the hon. member for Carleton to the effect that the Canadian lending institutions had abdicated their social responsibilities. This quotable mouthful, delivered at a party meeting, I suggest was a carefully thought out scheme to shift the blame from the government to the lending institutions. This statement made by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance could not avoid being associated with government thinking in that important department of government. Yet, under questioning in the house, the minister assumed his usual role and would not agree or disagree with the statement by his parliamentary secretary.
These tactics by a frustrated government trying to get out from under their responsibilities did not fool many people. I suggest if there was any abdication of responsibility it is this government which has abdicated. I suggest that by their inaction and their decision to restrict house building in 1960 they have kept Canadian labour unemployed in an attempt to save funds in sufficient volume for a special boost to the economy whenever they decide it may be necessary.
There is much I could say on the government's handling of housing. That they have

used housing there can be no denying. The minister's statement on Monday admitted this meddling, when he said, "The present direct lending policy was restricted for fiscal reasons". Earlier in the session the minister admitted in the house, and I quote his words, that the government had "ruined the mortgage market".
Now, at the pinnacle of their failure, they come forward with an announcement they hope will get them off the hook. We see evidence of it already. The Minister of Labour has already used in the house the statement of the Minister of Public Works as the government's answer to fuller employment.


Mr. Graffiey:: Part of the answer.


John Richard Garland: The Minister of Public Works has been on television already announcing to his captive audience this sedative being offered the public in the hope that they will forget the painful sobering up period after the two-year housing binge engaged in by the government. However, no juggling of figures can absolve the government from the responsibility for causing unnecessary hardships in the house building industry and among our unemployed citizens this year. The figures each month for the first half of the year have reflected the failure of the government's 1960 housing program.
It might be of interest to put on the record some of these figures. I should like to quote from "Canadian Housing Statistics", a monthly publication of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is interesting to note that in the first line of their brief comment they say that housing starts turned upward in June. Housing starts were not up in June; in fact they are down 23 per cent, to 8,706 from 11,319 last year. They are up only in the sense that they are not down as sharply as they were in May.
I should like to refer to the key figures very briefly on the year to date. As of June 30 this year starts were down 34.7 per cent. All N.H.A. loans throughout Canada were down 62.2 per cent. Approved lenders' loans were down 62.7 per cent. In that field chartered bank loans were down 99.6 per cent and corporation loans were down 61.3 per cent.
The instability caused by this failure can only mean increased costs for new housing and in turn higher prices for those purchasing older homes. Surely, with costs at an all-time high, the government should not be engaged in policies that are adding to these costs. Surely this was one period, when other lenders were restricting their activities, for the government to come forward if the public

requiring housing were to be given any consideration. However, fiscal considerations, as confirmed by the minister's statement, were the prime consideration of the government as it drifts toward its fourth straight deficit.
During a period of approximately two years the government has been up to its ears in housing, supplying hundreds of millions of dollars which artificially stimulated the industry. I believe they have recognized the folly of their ways and are anxious to resume the role of residual lenders. If this is the case, their withdrawal should have been more orderly and more gradual to avoid unnecessary instability in the house building industry.
I have other matters I wish to discuss with respect to the department's estimates, but I propose to do so on the specific items.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, the minister
seems to be coming in for a lot of criticism. Personally I should like to thank him for what he has done in my constituency and a great many others throughout the country. First of all, one little point that I think bears mentioning has to do with the attitude of the minister and his predecessor toward the safety of tourists on the waters in the Okanagan valley and on other lakes. The lakes there are extremely turbulent, and a series of breakwaters have been built for various communities. Penticton and Kelowna have had extensions, and Summerland and Peachland have had new breakwaters. In fact Summerland has had an extension to its new one already. These works, along with various public buildings now in the course of construction and proposed for the future, have done a lot to relieve unemployment and a great deal for the valley and the safety of tourists on the waters of the lakes.
I listened to the last speaker, the hon. member for Nipissing, and I was a little astounded. He is a man who is very interested in house building, C.M.H.C. loans and so on. It seems to me that a great many people in the Liberal party take a lot of pleasure in slamming the present government for its housing policy. I do not want to go into statistics, except to state that the total amount made available for housing now has reached $1,500 million, and to point out that at June, 1957 the total available was $150 million of which only approximately $100 million had been used. That is a great difference. In 1957, at a time when it was greatly required, housing had come to a virtual standstill. I know that in my own constituency of Okanagan Boundary builders wanted money for housing and could not get it. I would remind hon. members again that of the $150 million which had been set aside, only $100 million had been used.
Supply-Public Works Today over $1 billion has been made available under C.M.H.C. and there is an additional $500 million available if and when the need becomes apparent.
For these reasons I feel that the Minister of Public Works did a good deed for Canada in his original announcement, and also in his recent announcement increasing the amount of loans. This will do a great deal not only for housing in Canada and for the people of Canada but also for those in the trades connected with building who are unemployed.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing and approving the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, I should like to bring to his attention some of the problems in my area and also make some remarks about the policy of his department and the government pertaining to the housing situation in Canada.
In contrast to some speakers who have waited until the end of their speeches to offer congratulations to the minister and the officers of his department, possibly I may assist him to have a moment of respite before I discuss the matters I have in mind by saying that I am pleased to extend my thanks to him for the many services he has had occasion to render to me on behalf of the citizens of Nickel Belt when I have had occasion to correspond with him. This also applies to his departmental officials with whom I have had contact concerning these same problems.
I do not wish to indicate by these words that Nickel Belt has received all that it requires. Nor by referring to certain works which were undertaken and which have been finished since the estimates of the minister were last before the house do I wish to indicate that Nickel Belt is necessarily the pet of the minister. I am pleased to state to him that the citizens of my constituency have had occasion to rejoice because of some of the works which were requested and which have been completed. For instance, there is the dock at Eighteen Mile island on the French river. Undoubtedly members of the house will recognize that northern Ontario is definitely one place in the province where expansion of the tourist trade is required and can be accomplished, and it is by means of these facilities that this can be done.
Recently I had occasion to visit the site at Eighteen Mile island, and the dock is definitely a proper one although it suffered certain damage during the course of last winter. I am sure that by now that damage has been repaired. It is true also that the citizens are enjoying the facilities which have been constructed in Boland's bay in lake
6588	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Wanapitei, where extensive repairs had to be undertaken. I trust the minister will also indicate to the committee whether the work has been completed by his department at Gogama.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member repeat that last name?


Osias.-J. Godin: Gogama; there is correspondence between me and the minister on that. I have not had time to visit the location this year to see whether the work has been completed.
There is one more specific problem with which I should like to deal at this time. I refer to the problem facing the citizens of Foleyet in my riding. Reference has been made in this house to the flood which unfortunately occurred there last May. Many questions were asked, and I have had occasion to try to obtain information from the minister concerning responsibility for the dam which broke and caused the drastic flood. This was not the ordinary type of mishap or the ordinary type of flood which might be occasioned by too much rainfall. The citizens of Foleyet have given me certain details concerning the events at the time the dam broke at Ivanhoe lake.
I had occasion to receive information from the minister concerning the part of the federal government played in the construction of this dam. If I may refer the minister to Hansard for June 29 last, page 5528, he will note that his answer indicated that the federal government, under the Bennett regime in 1931, undertook to pay one third of the cost of constructing the dam.
If one visits the flood area some people will tell you that the homes and furnishings lost were not of the expensive type. However, many of these people in Foleyet are elderly people and the homes and goods which they lost possibly represented their life savings, so the loss sustained was quite drastic. I can tell the minister that the result of the flood in some areas in Foleyet has been to practically bring about a new river bed. I know that where one home existed which I would value at between $6,000 and $7,000, there now exists a river possibly 15 feet or 20 feet deep. Through field glasses I could see the house which used to be there, about one mile away in a swamp. Undoubtedly many persons lost their homes, their furniture and even the ground upon which they built their homesteads.
It was stated by the Prime Minister, and possibly the Minister of Public Works, on one occasion that if the provincial government requested some assistance in providing relief for the area the federal government would 

give consideration to such a request. I suggest that since the dam which broke and caused the flood was constructed partly with federal assistance, then the federal government has some responsibility in the matter. I would think the federal government would be on at least the same footing as certain charitable institutions which were giving help to the town. I have tried to obtain some information from the provincial minister of lands and forests who undoubtedly, if the newspaper reports are correct, was the person in charge of estimating the damages and finding ways and means of assisting the area, but I have received no reply from the provincial minister.
I have quite an extensive file in connection with this matter. Many of the citizens have written to me indicating the position in which they find themselves. They indicate to me that within a few hours of this occurrence there was water in many homes up to the ceilings. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the provincial authorities have requested the citizens to see their priests and ministers in order to obtain charity through the organization of bingos and raffles. This situation is a bad one; it is a bad one for these citizens. Long before now this government should have been in communication with the provincial authorities so that at least this government could be considered as being on the same footing as those organizations putting on the raffles and bingos to help these citizens.
I say that a degree of responsibility falls upon the federal government as the result of participation in the construction of the dam, so the minister should bring about the required investigation, along with the department of lands and forests of the province of Ontario, to make sure assistance is rendered these people in a manner which they can understand. Some of the letters I have received from these citizens indicate that they are at a loss to know how to organize themselves in order to ascertain who is responsible for the damages they have sustained. There should be some investigation to ascertain responsibility, and the citizens should be properly informed.
There is another problem, Mr. Chairman, to which I should like to refer, and that is the French river flood which was discussed in this house some months ago. This flood is connected with the dam which was built at the mouth of the French river where it enters lake Nipissing. The dam, of course, creates certain probleins during the time when the excess water from lake Nipissing is draining through the river in the early spring. The problem arises partly because

the river has not been dredged or some other precuation taken to allow for this excess water.
I realize that this is a major project. I realize that studies have to be made. However, we are told that the government is presently considering the feasibility of having the waters from James bay taken through certain channels on down the French river into Georgian bay and the great lakes. It seems to me that it would be proper for the minister, in connection with the investigations which are being made, to ascertain what can be done in the lower sections of the French river so that the water could readily flow into the great lakes without occasioning damage or problems for the operators in these areas. While we have heard of the Kearns report which is at present before the government, necessarily part of it should pertain to the French river in my area which undoubtedly will be part of the entire scheme and where major improvements should be made.
A further problem-and I am sure the minister will see that possibly an investigation is made on the same and remedies brought about to solve it-is the matter of the trans-Canada highway which runs south from Sudbury. There is a stretch from Sudbury to Burwash which has developed a condition which is known as a soupy surface and where many accidents have occurred which were rather difficult to explain except for the condition of the highway on rainy days. I am sure that if the government was prepared to pay over 50 per cent of the cost of that highway it is also entitled to ascertain that it is being properly constructed. If an improvement is to be brought about, I hope it will make the proper arrangements with the province to make the trans-Canada highway, in which it plays a part, proper and safe for the citizens using the same.
As I indicated earlier, it is my intention to discuss with the minister and the committee at this time certain aspects of the policy of this government concerning Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the lending through that agency to the Canadian public for the purpose of promoting house building in Canada. I realize that there is possibly not a more important problem for the average citizen than that of the possibility of obtaining a home for himself. Housing should be considered-and I trust the minister will still consider it-in Canada as one of the major projects. I hope the minister will make greater efforts and better efforts to emulate the previous government which did so much for housing in Canada.
Housing in itself is most important. Citizens really feel that they achieve something when
Supply-Public Works they obtain a home for themselves and their families. But over and above that consideration there is the problem of unemployment which housing in a great respect can solve.
I have stated previously in this chamber, and I state it again, that in my area unemployment was to a great degree over the last 12 months due to the lack of housing projects being undertaken in that area.
If I may, I should like to refer the minister to the table which we received yesterday on unemployment. He will note that unemployment is still 20 per cent higher in June, 1960 than it was in June, 1959 and unemployment was grave at that time. If the minister refers to table 2 of the dominion bureau of statistics figures which we received yesterday afternoon, he will find that statement to be absolutely true. I must state that my area, namely the area of Sudbury and Nickel Belt, is a classic example of the grave increase in the unemployment in 1960 over 1959. In our area we have a 20 per cent increase in the unemployment figures at the unemployment office in Sudbury which covers my area. For that reason I have stated also that the major cause of this situation was a lack of construction promotion in my area as well as in other areas of Canada.
For these reasons, namely the solution of unemployment and the need of the Canadian people, I think it is true to say that this government has failed gravely in this respect in properly promoting the construction of residential buildings in Canada. I believe there is no worse black mark against the minister than the policy which he initiated concerning housing in Canada a very few months ago. We all recall-and it is no secret to this committee-how the Liberal opposition fought a few months ago when the new regulations were indicated to the house by the Minister of Public Works. I think it was a fallacy for him yesterday, in presenting the new regulations, to state simply that from month to month conditions vary in Canada. When he made the statement as to releasing more moneys and making more applicants free to apply for loans from C.M.H.C., I think it was a definite admission of the failure of the policies he initiated in this chamber a short time ago.
At that time the Liberal party opposition made it clear that they felt that the regulations initiated at that time by the Minister of Public Works would not do. I am sure the minister has received, as well as have I, reproaches from the citizens of my area and other areas in the country. I think that when he said that conditions have changed from June, this is just an alibi for an explanation which he should give the house in stating that the policies initiated a short time ago

Supply-Public Works would not suffice for the needs of our country. I think he finds himself today possibly in the same position as that of a shoemaker making great efforts to try to build a lady's shoe which would be larger on the inside than on the outside. Although he tries to pretend that the policies of this government were sufficient, it is obvious to us that in no way were they such. I say that the date to which he now has opened the new regulations, namely September 1, is too late and there are many reasons for that.
I had occasion to criticize the regulations initiated by the Minister of Public Works some time ago as affecting more drastically than others the area which I represent. That was true on account of the ceiling he had placed on the income of those who could apply for loans. I say that the new regulation which is set out by him in his statement made to the house yesterday indicates that certain areas such as northern Ontario will be drastically affected. Now we are wanting to make home construction or residential construction a wintertime affair. I agree that in many types of work, winter works projects may be of some value. But to say that an ordinary man's home, the cost of which may vary from $8,000 to $14,000, is a project which you can put through in the wintertime without any loss to the home owner or without any extra cost to the home owner is, in my opinion, to make a faulty statement. A house costing $8,000 or $14,000 is not in the domain of a building costing $1 million which definitely may be built in a year and a half and therefore is proper to have the work done in two winters and one summer. But a house for an ordinary man is not in the same category. In northern Ontario it is definite that you will add extremely to the cost of a house if you undertake the building of it during the winter.
Furthermore, if I understand the regulation put out by the minister yesterday, it states that a man must be an actual buyer. A man who knows the design of the house and wants that house before it is started, that person, for the purpose of speculation, will not be able to operate. This regulation therefore makes it definite that the man who wants a home built will be a man who will be living in it. If it is built during the wintertime in northern Ontario there is no doubt you will have to heat the house. In order to heat a house which is new, where the windows are not necessarily all installed and where possibly you have something else in the windows outside of the glass that should go in them, if you heat the house it will cost you in the neighbourhood of $40 or $50 a month.

For a house under construction in northern Ontario this will necessarily add $100 to the cost and that is not the only cost which must be added to the cost of the house which is built in the wintertime. There are other factors to be considered as well. For instance, there is the matter of bringing in sewers to the house in the wintertime. That is something that adds to the cost.
I think it is very wrong that the minister should have hesitated in accepting the Liberal policy explained some two or three months ago, and hardships will result due to the reluctance on the part of the minister to accept the advice of the Liberal opposition.
Furthermore, very few people decide to obtain a new home in September or October. That major decision is usually made during the summer months when the children are out of school. People readily admit they prefer to construct a new home in the springtime, in May or June, rather than in September or October. I do not say there are no exceptions but it is reasonable to assume the majority of the citizens who are thinking of a new home will make the move when the children leave school and before another term is started. I think this is another problem on the shoulders of the Minister of Public Works.
The citizens in my riding are happy that at long last the minister and this government has seen fit to enlarge the scope of the building industry in Canada, and especially in my area. However, I must state that the people in my area realize the harm this government has done to the home building industry by its conduct during the last few months. I am happy to speak after the hon. member for Nipissing who made such a clear expose of the present situation in northern Ontario and Canada with regard to housing. He also underlined the full responsibility of this government and its policies with regard to the very bad statistics which have resulted in drops of 64 per cent, 34 per cent and 32 per cent.
I may say in closing that there is no comparison between the housing situation in Canada in 1960 and any other period during the last Liberal administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Osias.-J. Godin: There cannot be. The unemployment in my area is due in very great part to the situation with regard to the construction of homes and the building industry itself. Plumbers are unemployed and the carpenters are unemployed. Fortunately we have good mining in northern Ontario and the mines are operating at the present time. But I have to come before this committee to state that unemployment has increased 20 per cent, and

I must find the reason for that. The people of my area are finding the reason and the reason lies with the policies of the government, a government which said no one would suffer. What the government has done to housing can be seen by anyone on the sidewalks as they go through my riding, and unemployment is found especially in the home building industry.
For these reasons I say that the problem is grave. If it is any comfort to the minister we are happy that he takes some glory for the present regulation. I cannot stress the fact any further that a short time ago the Liberal opposition pressed for this. If it satisfies the minister to say he did this on his own, although he has had days and days of criticism, then let him take the glory, and if construction does continue in the way we would like to see it continue it will be of some assistance. I am sure that if prosperity is brought back the unemployment situation will be remedied to a great extent, and we will definitely be happy in Nickel Belt.


Mr. Weichel:: On behalf of the people in my constituency, especially the Kitchener chamber of commerce, the public utilities commission, the mayor and the city council, I should like to express our thanks to the minister, his deputy and the department for the wonderful co-operation we have received in recent negotiations concerning the site for a new post office.
I could add much more to my remarks but I do not want to delay the estimates. I merely say again to the minister, his deputy and the department-thanks a million.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, there are two general subjects I should like to bring to the attention of the minister in the consideration of his estimates. The first has to do with a question I asked in the opening days of the session but because of the regulation of questions on orders of the day and other considerations I was unable to obtain an answer which I considered to be adequate.
The minister will recall that on January 19, 1960, as reported on page 82 of Hansard, after having considerable difficulty in putting my question across I did ask the minister this question:
Is It still the intention of the Minister of Public Works to permit members of the Conservative party to have the privilege of announcing public works projects in their ridings, when this privilege is denied to members of the Liberal or C.C.F. parties?
The Minister of Public Works answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his congratulations, and to say that it is most difficult to give a definite answer to a hypothetical question.
79951-0-416
Supply-Public Works
I did not agree with the minister at the time nor do I now that my question was in any way hypothetical. As a matter of fact one of the reasons I brought the question up in the first place was because of the statement reported to have been made by the minister to the effect that the subject matter of my question had been stated by him. Indeed the newspapers at that time carried articles on his statement.
As a matter of fact in the Ottawa Citizen of September 24, 1959 there is an article entitled "Tory MPs to share in glory", and it goes on:
Conservative MPs are going to get a share of the glory attached to the granting of federal works contracts in their constituencies.
The new public works minister David Walker has come up with a system of coupling his own name with that of the MP concerned in information released on contracts.
The announcements now read that "John Doe, MP, announces on behalf of public works minister Walker, etc., etc."
I do not have to interject here, I am sure, that the "John Doe, MP" is of necessity a Conservative member.
The article goes on to say:
While no one in the department has said so, it can be assumed that where a contract is let in a constituency represented by a Liberal or C.C.F. member, the publicity release will carry Mr. Walker's name only.
I do not think my question was hypothetical at the time I asked it. As a matter of fact, ever since the minister has been in office it seems to me that is the policy he has carried out. It is a policy which, to use the most euphemistic term, can only be qualified as extreme political partisanship. I, in my riding, together, I am sure, with other members of the Liberal party have not been made aware of any of the projects which have been contemplated by the Department of Public Works, nor have I been kept informed, as I should have been, about the works which have been completed. Moreover I strongly suspect that although the privilege of announcing public works in their ridings has been refused some hon. members who have been elected to this house, defeated Conservative candidates have been given that privilege. It seems to me that the government is forgetting that all members of this house have been duly elected by their constituents and that they have not only the responsibility but the right to know what is going on in their ridings. I do not know of any legal or constitutional justification-indeed, I do not know of any justification- for a defeated candidate being given privileges denied to elected members of the Liberal and C.C.F. party.
I wonder whether the minister thinks that this policy which apparently he is following

Supply-Public Works adds anything to the dignity or to the objectivity of parliament? It creates two classes of members of parliament, one a privileged class and one an under-privileged class. I believe it is a most unfair and most undemocratic procedure. It is contrary to the speeches which have been made so many times in this house by members and supporters of the government about their concern for the rights and dignity of hon. members, and I hope that if the government and the minister intend to continue the policy which has been followed up until now they will at least spare us any further sanctimonious if not hypocritical speeches about the dignity and rights of members of parliament.
The second subject to which I should like to refer briefly is one in which I am very interested as, I am sure, are other members in the house and many citizens of this country as well as of the United States. It has to do with the Richelieu waterway. The other day the minister said a review of this project was being made. I believe he indicated it was being undertaken jointly by his department and by the Department of Transport. I have found it extraordinarily difficult to obtain any information about these investigations. We cannot seem to find out whether an investigation has taken place on the site; we do not know whether any witnesses have been called, or whether any of the people interested have been questioned regarding the possibilities of this waterway. We do know, however, that the United States has undertaken a considerable study of its own part of the waterway, and I was disappointed, therefore, to learn that this government is showing so little interest in this matter if, indeed, it is showing any interest at all.
I think it is extremely important for Canada to know what the United States is contemplating and, in particular, what depth the authorities have in mind. It was suggested by the hon. member for St. James, if I understood him correctly, that the waterway would perhaps have a depth of 35 feet to New York. There may be something to be said in favour of such a waterway, but I have grave doubts whether the United States is contemplating anything of that nature. I understand that the channels to be used are, in the main, of such narrow width that in order to have such a depth sustaining walls would have to be built because of the erosion which would otherwise be caused by heavy waves. It is important that Canada should know what is being contemplated by the United States in order that we may be able to introduce continuity into the project and obtain the greatest degree of effectiveness from it.
Government spokesmen have said on many occasions in reply to questions which I have asked that investigations are going on, but I find it extremely strange that the government should not have called upon the international joint commission to resume the studies which were suspended in 1937. At that time, of the several possibilities which were offered it was stated that the most natural route was that which ran from lake Champlain to Sorel by way of the Richelieu river. That was said to be the most economical and feasible route, from an engineering point of view.
It was also stated in the report made at that time that it would be difficult for the international joint commission to make any definite recommendation until the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed. The seaway has been completed, and it seems to me that if the government really does wish to go ahead with this project the most practical thing to do would be to ask the international joint commission to resume the studies which were interrupted in 1937. Then we would also have the solution to the problem of fitting the project on the Canadian side into the project on the United States side so that we might have one complete waterway at the least possible expense.
I should like to bring to the attention of the government, and particularly to the Minister of Public Works-and I emphasize this very energetically-the fact that in 1937 the Department of Public Works did some work on the Richelieu river. They dug a 12-foot channel and built the locks at St. Louis to accommodate ships with a 12-foot draft. Work was also done on the dam at Fryer island with the view of having the St. Lawrence waterway run down through lake Champlain to Sorel. Because of the recommendations in the international joint commission report and because of the fact that the government has already spent a considerable amount of money in the preliminary work in this channel, I would suggest that before going on with any other project that might be contemplated the government might be wise indeed to complete the work that has already been started.
I should like the minister to make a special note of the last argument that I have advanced today and the fact that a good deal of work has been done on the Richelieu river up to St. John.
In view of the fact that the Richelieu waterway has a 12-foot draft, I would think it would be more practicable indeed to have this work completed at least to a 12-foot draft before any other work is undertaken.

(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to start my remarks by saying a few words in English to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), but being aware of his past record, and knowing that he received a good part of his education in the beautiful province of Quebec, we know that the minister is very fluent in French. Therefore, I shall be happy to carry on my remarks in French.
I join with my colleagues in extending to the Minister of Public Works and to his staff my warm thanks for their co-operation on the special problems of this department.
I also wish, on behalf of my constituents of St. Mary, to thank the minister again for having provided us with one of the most up-to-date buildings in that section of Montreal. To the knowledge of my constituents, it is the first time that the federal government has shown some interest in that district. I am therefore today very happy to thank the minister on their behalf for his understanding.
I would also like to call the minister's attention to the desirability of initiating talks with the Department of Transport in respect of the approaches to the Jacques Cartier bridge, and also of discussing the importance of building a bridge in the eastern part of the city of Montreal.
Now, I should like to make a short digression. I wonder if, before going into the details of such construction with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the minister's department would not be well advised to consider the opportunity of building a tunnel under the St. Lawrence, rather than a bridge over it, because, to my mind, this would spoil the appearance of the city of Montreal. I leave those suggestions with the minister, so that he may discuss them with his colleagues.
I would also point out that a tunnel would be of great service in case of an international conflict or any national emergency, because the population could much more easily be evacuated by means of a tunnel than by means of a bridge, which would always be subject to bombings or other damage.
Mr. Chairman, I also would like the minister to suggest to Montreal city authorities a sanitary housing project, along the lines of the Dozois plan, in the eastern part of the metropolis, and one that might fit in with eventual C.B.C. projects. Purpose of the project would be to supplement, in eastern Montreal, the projects already put forward which are to be carried out by the C.B.C. in co-operation with municipal authorities.
79951-0-418i
Supply-Public Works
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, even though I want my remarks to be as brief as possible, so as not to delay adoption of these estimates, I must none the less point out an anomaly resulting from loans made by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I know that the Conservative government, since it came to power, has corrected an unfortunate situation which prevailed in 1956. A moment ago, some of our colleagues here have blamed the Conservative government for freezing credit in respect of C.M.H.C. loans. Yet I remember perfectly that, in 1956, hundreds of small contractors were ruined, had to assign all they owned and go bankrupt, because the then government had suddenly decided to suspend all loans to small contractors.
That arbitrary and drastic decision, without prior notice, had depressed that sector of the building industry, and it was in 1957, you will remember, that the Conservative government, when it came into power, immediately granted supplementary credits for housing construction.
Recently, the Department of Public Works announced an increase in credits to contractors through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I therefore consider it my duty to also thank the minister for considering those problems which deserved his attention.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a situation that is preventing my constituents, who are taxpayers, from securing low cost homes.
Whenever more money is made available to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, speculators immediately hike the price of building lots, sometimes a hundred per cent. That, in my opinion, is why, in certain areas, the working class cannot get homes at reasonable cost. I submit the problem to the attention of the hon. minister, and hope his officials will be able to take such action as will prevent land speculation, so that low income groups will no longer be denied the benefits of those measures.
Before closing, I would ask the minister to consider the possibility of a highway along the St. Lawrence, on the property of the national harbours board in Montreal around that part of Montreal island.
Like my colleague for St. James (Mr. Campeau), I believe that suggestion would be welcomed by electors in the Montreal area, because such action would substantially im-
6594	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works prove roadway communications in Montreal.
I would also ask the minister whether, in the preparation of those plans, he could not provide for tourist parking areas and public parks for the citizens of Montreal.
Again I thank the minister and his officials for their attention to the problems submitted to them.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I could be permitted to interject a suggestion to the house leader, if he could arrange to have one of the members on his side of the house deliver a eulogy of the minister on behalf of all Conservative members a lot of the time of the committee could be saved.
(Translation):


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks about a building project which is too much of a financial burden to taxpayers in Montreal island and in the town of St, Laurent, which I have the honour of representing in this house.
Now being built on Montreal island is the metropolitan boulevard as an answer to the traffic problems.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the city of Montreal is known as the metropolis of Canada, and Montrealers are rightly proud of this. Montreal is the nerve centre not only of the province of Quebec but of all Canada. It is the railway and air centre of the country. It is also the highway centre of our country. That is why I feel that, if the Montreal metropolitan commission decided to build the metropolitan boulevard which crosses Montreal island from east to west and links with the Ottawa-Montreal and the Montreal-Quebec highways, the cost of this project should not fall solely on taxpayers within the island of Montreal, but our fellow citizens in the province of Quebec and in the whole country should also share that cost. Therefore, I think, like most people in the province of Quebec, that metropolitan boulevard should be part of the trans-Canada highway.
I realize that in recent years, under the Union Nationale administration headed by Mr. Duplessis, the province of Quebec invariably rejected the federal government's offer to contribute to the building of the trans-Canada highway and of metropolitan boulevard in Montreal.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Lesage promised to pay the entire cost.


Guy Rouleau: After the death of Mr. Duplessis, Mr. Sauve became head of the province of Quebec. Being somewhat more broadminded in this respect, he indicated he was prepared to accept, to a certain extent, the contribution offered by the central government for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
Since June 22 last, significant changes have occurred in the province of Quebec. We now have at the head of the government of that province the very man the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) just mentioned, the Hon. Mr. Jean Lesage, who stated in Montreal, last June 20, that he would do his utmost to settle the problem of Metropolitan boulevard.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He said the province would pay for the whole thing.


Guy Rouleau: Precisely, he said the province would bear the whole cost for the construction of metropolitan boulevard. Now, for the information of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who is so fond of interrupting his colleagues, let me read into the record the statement made by the Hon. Jean Lesage, on June 20, 1960, as reported in La Presse for June 21, 1960. Here it is:
A Liberal provincial government-
Such as we now have, my dear colleague.
A Liberal provincial government will bear the whole cost of construction and maintenance of the metropolitan boulevard.
Not only must the metropolitan boulevard be part of the provincial road network, but it must be a section of the trans-Canada highway.
A Liberal government in Quebec would therefore go to Ottawa and seek federal co-operation in the construction of that highway.
For ten years now I have been saying that we should accept money from Ottawa in that field.
It is money that belongs to us, since it came out of our taxes. We are prepared to complete the remaining section of the trans-Canada highway in the province. We will get Ottawa to pay half the cost of the work already done, and of the work which remains to be done.


Mr. Bourgel:: That's fine.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, in the 1959 session, I put on the order paper a question asking whether the province of Quebec or the city of Montreal had asked the federal government to contribute towards the construction cost of the metropolitan boulevard.
The answer I got from the then minister of public works was in the negative.
Having read into the record that statement by Hon. Jean Lesage, I have no doubt
[Mr. Valade.l

that the Minister of Public Works will receive from the provincial government a request inviting him to contribute to the building costs of the trans-Canada highway in the province of Quebec, and I am convinced that authorities in the metropolis will ask him to participate in the construction of metropolitan boulevard in Montreal.
The Hon. Mr. Jean Lesage, premier of the province, has made a very definite statement on the matter. I trust that the present premier, ever anxious to preserve Quebec's provincial rights, will be prepared to start negotiations with the federal authorities and to co-operate with them, though always in keeping with the rights of the province and of the citizens of the province of Quebec.
Right now, as I have just said, this is far too heavy a burden for Montreal taxpayers. So much so that, only a few months ago, every taxpayer got a special tax bill at the rate of 13J per cent of his assessment, to pay for the cost of metropolitan boulevard.
I therefore ask the minister, jointly with the present premier of Quebec, to relieve Montreal taxpayers. I hope that, in fairness to the people of Montreal, the Minister of Public Works will co-operate with Quebec provincial authorities.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal very briefly with a problem which more particularly affects my fellow citizens of St. Laurent. In 1957, the government and the then minister of public works authorized the building of a post office in St. Laurent. Before the construction work started on the new post office, the first sod had been turned by the present hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who had taken an active part in the development of that project in St. Laurent. The work is now completed and thanks to the Liberal administration of that time, we now have a magnificent post office building.
At the election in 1958, I had the great privilege to have as opponent the mayor of St. Laurent, Mr. Maurice Cousineau who, for having had the courage to run against me, has just been rewarded by the present government in being appointed a judge of the superior court. During the election, Mr. Maurice Cousineau had promised another post office for the western part of Dollard riding. On two occasions since 1958, I asked the Minister of Public Works, and also the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), whether he had received representations from
Supply-Public Works
the mayor of St. Laurent for the construe- . tion of new buildings, new post offices in the constituency of Dollard. In each case, the reply was negative.
I do not think the building of two new post offices in the constituency of Dollard is an immediate necessity. The previous administration had built fine post offices in Youville and also in St. Laurent. Moreover, when the new post office was built at St. Laurent, provision was made for the addition of another floor to accommodate a new unemployment insurance office and even a new customs office, which would have been most convenient for several hundreds of industries and thousands of workers. An unemployment insurance office in St. Laurent would help thousands of workers who at present have to travel to lower town or to Jean Talon street to draw their unemployment insurance benefits. As I understand it, there are thousands of unemployed under the present government, despite its promises that there would be no unemployment if it was elected to office. If the government wants to help the unemployed living in the constituency of Dollard, it could put in this second floor, for which provision was made in the present post office building, as a means of assisting the people in that part of Montreal island.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Take the unemployed to Jean Lesage: he promised to settle the unemployment problem.


Guy Rouleau: I hardly think the premier of the province of Quebec needs the advice of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), an exsecretary of the former premier, to guide the destinies of the province of Quebec.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask the present Minister of Public Works to consult with his colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and discuss the advisability of adding a floor to the present post office in St. Laurent, to accommodate an unemployment insurance office and a customs office, which would be of great convenience to hundreds of industries located in that part of Montreal island.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no desire, Mr. Chair -mon, to delay the passage of these estimates by even a short and qualified eulogy of the minister. However, I should like to say a few
6596	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works words in a general way as the member for Algoma East. In that capacity I do want to acknowledge the fact that the minister and his officials have always dealt with any request I have made of them in the field of public works, both courteously and expeditiously. We are now discussing the first item in public works, and the discussion has ranged far and wide over general and detailed considerations. Perhaps the most important general consideration has been the fact that the amount to be appropriated for public works this year is many millions of dollars less than previously, although we were informed that a great public works program was the main plank in the government's platform for dealing with unemployment. I will not say anything more about that. My hon. friend, who opened the discussion for our side dealt with it and I thought very effectively.
However, if there is any part of Canada at the present time where some governmental action in connection with unemployment is required, in the field of public works or any other field, that place is in my own constituency at Elliot Lake. I should like to say a word or two about that situation and what might or might not be done by the Department of Public Works. There certainly is a need for employment, and whether that need can be met by public works or in any other way, the need is becoming increasingly serious. So far, either in this field or in any other field, all we have heard from the government is that a committee is still considering the matter. I believe a committee was considering the matter last November.
In the estimates there is an amount for a federal building at Elliot Lake. I take it, though the minister when he replies may correct me, that there has been no change in the plans to proceed with that building. When the appropriation was first made for this building in Elliot Lake I applauded the decision to go ahead with it as one who had been advocating such a building for some time. My advocacy of this building was on the assumption, which I thought was a reasonable one, that the work the building would have to do and the services it would have to render would be those which we had in mind when the building was first considered and when the government decided to go ahead with it. In other words. I assumed it would be a federal building to serve a community of between 25,000 and 30,000 people.
It is an interesting commentary on the statement which has been made by representatives of the government that we should 

have known years ago how insecure the economic foundation for Elliot Lake was, to find that the plans for this building made only a year or so ago were based on a community of this size. In other words at that time, a year or so ago, before the decision made in Washington, apparently it was contemplated by the government that the building would be required to service the community that had been envisaged previously when it looked as if the United States government would take up the option. Perhaps the minister will tell the committee in due course, in replying to the multitudinous questions with which he will be dealing, what changes if any have been required in this federal building.
There is something else that can be done in the field of public works to assist this hard-pressed community and that is the construction of a dock at Cutler on Georgian bay close to where the road from Elliot Lake meets the highway. I am sure the minister knows about this proposal for a dock in this area where there is a first class deep-water harbour suitable for ships of any draught. The proposal for this dock was made some years ago when the previous government was in office. It was made at that time primarily as a means of assisting the development of Elliot Lake. As the minister perhaps knows, and if he does not I am sure the deputy minister knows, there were long and complicated negotiations between the minister of public works of that day, the uranium mining industry and a coal importing corporation. These negotiations were aimed at making arrangements by which the cost of this dock, which would have been considerable, could have been shared between the government, the mining industry and this coal company. A great deal of progress was made in bringing these negotiations to a head, and in 1957 it looked as if we might be successful. At that time the negotiations broke down and there has been no progress made in recent years.
It is quite easy to understand why the negotiations broke down. During the election campaign of 1957 the present Prime Minister, in his short tour through my constituency, promised that the dock would be built at that place at the expense of the government. Once that promise was made and once the leader of the party making that promise became the Prime Minister there was little likelihood of any private agency

making a contribution to the cost of a dock which the Prime Minister had promised at government expense. However, apparently this idea has been revived in recent months because of the exigencies of the employment situation at Elliot Lake and along the north shore. There is no doubt that a dock of this kind would be of assistance in the industrial development of this whole area. I should like to ask the minister what progress, if any, has been made in this proposal for a dock, in the light of some press reports that have been brought to my attention. I have before me a report from the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is from its Ottawa correspondent and is dated July 12 and in it he says this:
It was learned today-
That is July 12.
-that the federal government plans to encourage at Cutler, site of a plant which manufactures hydrochloric acid for the uranium mines.
That is the government plans construction at Cutler of this dock.
The plant, with a small dock of its own, is located at the foot of a large bay on the north shore of lake Huron. The area already is served by the Trans-Canada highway and a railway line.
I should like to know whether in fact the government does plan any such construction because of the importance of this matter to Elliot Lake and to the whole area concerned. In view of the industrial situation there and the situation of the uranium mining industry it is more important than ever before. This report has raised in the minds of the people in that area great hopes which are not unconnected with the realization that there was another specific assurance made by the Prime Minister that this dock would be built by the government, an assurance which I have stated was made in 1957. Presumably it is one of those assurances which, as the Minister of Transport has told us so often, when the Prime Minister makes it, it means that it is to be kept.
The other day there was in Ottawa a representative of the Elliot Lake chamber of commerce or the Elliot Lake administration because it is not a municipality, Mr. Robert Hart, chairman of the board of trustees. When he returned to Elliot Lake-it was last week some time

he reported to the Elliot Lake Standard as follows:
Mr. Hart said yesterday that the main reason for his trip to Ottawa had been to press for assurances from the government that some announcement would be forthcoming before the end of the present session of parliament.
Supply-Public Works
That announcement would concern assistance of the government to the community which has been promised. Mr. Hart went on to say this, as quoted in this paper:
From my talks with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Thrasher it seems there is definite hope the government's proposals for a dock at Cutler ... are coming to a head.
There are two reports, then one in the Globe and Mail and one in the Elliot Lake Standard, that the government is to construct this dock, a dock which I have said would mean so much to that hard pressed community at this time. When the minister replies I hope he will be able to tell us that this matter has indeed come to a head and that this dock will be proceeded with; although I have been unable to find any indication that there is an appropriation for this dock in the estimates. That is all I wish to bring to the attention of the committee at this time, Mr. Chairman, although I will have something to say about the detailed items in the estimates when we reach them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question before he proceeds?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the Leader of the Opposition give me the reference when he stated that the Prime Minister, in the course of his election campaign had specifically promised the erection of a dock at Cutler? The Leader of the Opposition repeated it. Where is the reference to that statement? Is it quoted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will get the reference. I would not have made the statement if I had not the newspaper reference. It was made in 1957 during the campaign when the Prime Minister was in my constituency. I have referred to it previously in this chamber. I shall be very glad to get the press reference before the debate on this particular item is over and put it on the record in Hansard for the information of my hon. friend.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Can the leader identify the press reference now? We could look it up ourselves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will get the reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It will be in the Prime Minister's press clipping room. They are efficient or they used to be efficient.


Mr. Granger:: The estimates of the Department of Public Works are a matter which is always of interest to my riding, even as they are to the ridings of most hon. members. However, my riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has some problems which, if

Supply-Public Works not altogether peculiar to it, certainly are much greater than those existing in some other ridings.
In central Newfoundland transportation is of great importance and also the completion of the trans-Canada highway. The Grand Falls area and the towns adjacent to it depend completely on land transportation. Their newest port is Lewisporte. The completion of the trans-Canada highway is of great importance to it. Although the provincial government has carried out an extensive road building program since Newfoundland entered confederation, nevertheless the cost of the trans-Canada highway is a grievous one. I am not alone in thinking that the cost of the trans-Canada highway which comes under the minister's department not only in Newfoundland but in the Atlantic provinces should be borne, at least to the extent of 90 per cent, by the federal government. The federal government is really the only agency which can provide adequate road transportation in Newfoundland and in fact in the four Atlantic provinces.
It is generally admitted that transportation is one of the great problems. Transportation needs are extremely important in the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps I might point out that both parties seem to agree on this matter. Part of the declared policy of the Liberal party in early 1958 was to help remove the economic disabilities of the Atlantic provinces and to advocate special assistance for the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces where heavy traffic to and from central Canada all focus and to promote opportunity for the tourist industry. The Progressive Conservative party in the Atlantic resolutions promised adjustment in freight rates and the provision of transportation facilities in order to allow our producers reasonable access to the markets of Canada. There is perhaps no better way in which some of the disadvantages of geography in the Atlantic provinces can be offset than by the building of federal highways, not only the trans-Canada highway but federal trunk roads connecting with it.
To return to my own riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, may I say that such roads as the road from the trans-Canada highway to Lewisporte should, in my opinion, be a federal highway. I think the trans-Canada highway itself should be considered mostly as a federal responsibility. These trunk highways can, to some degree at least, offset the disadvantages from which the Atlantic provinces suffer owing to geography and, may I add, high freight rates.
Small wharves and breakwaters have a value far in excess of the dollars and cents [Mr. Granger.!
which they cost. I will not weary the committee by repeating my argument about the growing importance of fisheries in Newfoundland and the growing importance, I should like to say, of the fisheries in northern Newfoundland and Labrador, in order to keep it in my own riding.
The fact is that the northern fishery is becoming more important not only to Newfoundland itself but also to the fish plants in Nova Scotia. All have an interest in the development of the Labrador fishery. These small works, such as breakwaters, slipways for handling small boats and small wharves which serve as a community fishery centre, have greater importance by far than they appear to from their cost in dollars and cents. They contribute to greater efficiency and to making the fisherman's lot a little easier and better and his production of fish a little greater. In that sense their importance is very great indeed.
Therefore I would ask the minister to look very carefully into the various requests which have been made from time to time for these small works, these small slipways, wharves and breakwaters which are needed throughout northern Newfoundland, in the straits of Belle Isle and along the coast of Labrador. Certainly if there is any thought given to a larger program of public works I would hope they would be included in such program.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo mentioned the fact that he hoped the cost of the St. John's harbour would not mean a reduction in spending in other parts of Newfoundland. I would like to associate myself with what he said, and I think his meaning was clear.
As far as I am concerned, although St. John's is not in my riding I do feel that the man who owns a schooner in White Bay has a definite interest in work done in St. John's. Those engaged in coastal trade, regardless of the part of Newfoundland from which they come, have an interest in the developments taking place in the harbour at St. John's, because as a result of these harbour developments their problems should ease somewhat. They could get a quicker and more efficient turn-around when their ships enter St. John's. I do not think any of them would in any way wish to criticize developments taking place in St. John's which to some extent would have a beneficial effect on all of Newfoundland.
However, I would hate to see any reduction in the spending on these small works which I mentioned in fishing communities where the primary producer must depend on them in order to do the work properly and efficiently. As I said, I will not give any names place

by place where these works are needed. I have written from time to time to the minister and I am sure they are given consideration as I send them in. I would hope that when a new program is announced these places in remote areas will not be forgotten.
I would also like to mention one or two larger works which are needed at places like Baie Verte and Botwood, where this is a perennial request. I again make my annual plea on behalf of Botwood, and I also ask for some adequate wharf facilities at Lewis-porte. These places are very important centres of trade and I hope to see them included in the coming year's projects. Baie Verte is likely to be the centre of a large mining development and it badly needs something in the nature of a wharf.
Then if I may continue with my annual requests in the matter of public buildings, Happy Valley certainly should have a post office building. At Glenwood there used to be a public building there in the old days of responsible government in Newfoundland, and the town badly needs a post office building. In putting up these public buildings I again emphasize that they are monuments to Canada and should be treated as such. Properly designed buildings which bear the name of Canada are the best advertisement that we belong to a modern, advancing nation. I think the minister and his department should keep in mind that the more of these buildings which go up the stronger will be our ties.
I would like to review for a moment, before I conclude my brief remarks, the importance of the trans-Canada highway and ask the minister to look carefully into the possibility of the federal government building the trans-Canada highway and trunk roads in Newfoundland, in Labrador and in the Atlantic provinces. Because of their geographic handicap and the shifting of trade further into more prosperous central parts of Canada, as well as their great transportation problems, there has been, if I might use the word, a deconfederated tendency. One way to offset that, as I said before, and perhaps the best way national unity can be improved and advanced is to improve transportation. There is no better way in this modern age, until everyone uses jet planes for transportation, than to build federal highways.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to spend a few minutes on the estimates of the minister's department because, as has been stated here today, no other department is of such importance to our region in general than the Department of Public Works.
Supply-Public Works
I should like to support the comments made by hon. members opposite from Newfoundland with respect to the proportion of the expenditure of the minister's estimates for the St. John's harbour development. Whilst no one will argue that there is no more important public works projects in our province than the development of St. John's harbour, there are nevertheless public works of a nature that are of importance to the fishery and the general economy of that part of Canada.
There is a tendency, I am sure quite a natural one, in viewing the over-all picture to look at the votes of the minister's department and note that more than half of the total vote is going into the St. John's harbour development this year and I think that should constantly be borne in mind. We do not for a moment suggest that the development of this important harbour should be at the expense of other equally important projects in other parts of the country. I have in my own constituency projects which could be of a substantial nature which I believe are not being given the attention they deserve because of the tremendous expenditure which has been currently undertaken in connection with the development of St. John's harbour. Breakwaters are very expensive projects with very high labour content, extremely important to navigation and to the trade and commerce of our area.
In my own riding I can give you two projects of a substantial size in connection with breakwater construction which should be considered in the minister's estimates next year. I wish to refer to the necessity of providing a breakwater to the beach at Bell island. This breakwater is necessary so that maximum public benefit may be obtained from the public warehouse which the minister had the privilege of officially opening, and it is also necessary in the context of the new Belle island ferry which is soon to go into operation. Soundings have been taken, surveys have been made and all that is needed now is the minister's approval. I hope that when he replies at the end of this estimate he will have some favourable word to say which will lead us to believe that this project will be considered in next year's estimates.
With the change in defence expenditure- and I am thinking now of the curtailment of the United States defence expenditure in eastern Newfoundland-there has resulted a general rejuvenation of the shore fishing. Many of us believe this to be a good thing, because we feel that revenue from fishing is much more stable and consequently more beneficial to the economy in the long run than defence expenditures. In connection with this revitalization of the shore fishing-hundreds

Supply-Public Works of our men are returning to it-there are many functions which the minister's department could perform which would be of tremendous benefit.
I am thinking of small slipways, small fishermen's wharves and, of course, of not so small breakwaters which are necessary in order to provide safe and adequate shelter. At the eastermost end of St. John's and towards the cape St. Francis area there are many places where breakwaters are needed.
I could give a long list of such cases, but I will refrain from doing so now. I would ask the minister to take into consideration when he is reviewing these various projects for the coming year that these works are very necessary and should be carried out with all due dispatch because of the employment which could be derived from them and, more important still, because of the shot in the arm it would give the fisheries in Newfoundland.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prompted to rise again not only because I have been requested to do so by those on behalf of whom I intend to speak but also because of the similarity between the situation at Elliot Lake of which the Leader of the Opposition has spoken and the community about which I desire to speak at the moment.
I have referred to the team which the minister has appointed in co-operation with the Minister of Transport to consider port facilities all along the St. Lawrence, its north shore, its south shore and also from Dorion in Quebec to Oshawa just outside the city of Toronto. I have no intention of going over the material which I placed before the committee on an earlier occasion, but I must tell the minister with all respect, and I am sure he will take it in this light, that I do not think very much of the team which he and the Minister of Transport have established to deal with a matter of this nature.
I will tell the hon. gentleman why. The first reason is that the experts who compose this team exclude anyone from a crown corporation known as the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Here is a team from two departments which seeks to come to the assistance of ports along the seaway and which gives no consideration whatsoever to those who know more about the seaway than does either the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport. There has been established a crown corporation and within that corporation there is a statistician, an economist and a number of other people who know a great deal about the seaway. How then is it possible to give the consideration which is required with regard to the establishment of secondary industry or with regard to future development unless there is on the team someone who has the figures, the

statistics, and who is in a position to assist the team with regard to the other laudable objective which the team has in mind?
Now, as I have said before, this example is not being followed elsewhere. I think that in order that this team may consider properly the requirements in the province of Quebec at Seven Islands, at Pointe Noire, which is,
I believe, the port that is being established as a result of the new bill which was introduced into the house the other day, the Wabush railway bill; at Sorel, at Baie Comeau, at Contrecoeur, at Rimouski and at many other ports to which, I am sure, the team must have given consideration-there are 29 of them, as I remember-it is not sufficient to consider these ports in themselves.
It is essential that the over-all picture be considered. In this connection it is important that one of the finest reports ever made on the St. Lawrence seaway be kept in mind. I refer to the study made by the University of Indiana in conjunction with the Chicago board of trade concerning grain movements. It is important that the impact of the seaway on the Montreal area within a radius of 100 miles, the subject of a study by McGill University and the Montreal research council be considered. It is important that the reports of the Canadian National Railways be considered. It is important that the report established and made public by the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation-the United States entity-be given consideration.
What is being done by this team of experts from the two departments I have mentioned is hard to ascertain, because when I moved to obtain from the minister the plans that this team had prepared for the various ports under consideration, that motion was turned down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Secret reports.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like now to bring to the attention of the minister, and then send across to him, provided he will give it back to me, a study which has been made by the New York Central railroad system of industrial sites, and I commend this to the hon. gentleman's attention and to the attention of the team which he and the Department of Transport have established. This is a consideration of the seven sites upon which industry can be established on the United States side of the boundary line extending from the international line at St. Regis, which we discussed when we were considering the pilotage bill the other day, right to the foot of lake Ontario. It is a most complete report which contains a map of each community, a map of the industrial sites in each community and references to railroads, labour conditions, available power supplies and the like.

At the end of this booklet is an over-all description of the effect of the St. Lawrence seaway on northern New York state, most of which information has been taken from the public report prepared by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the United States entity, in connection with these ports. I would ask the minister to look at that and see if the team that he has in mind is giving the kind of consideration to the 29 areas, most of them in the province of Quebec, many of them in eastern Ontario, that are being considered.
When I rose I said that I had been asked to bring a matter to the attention of the minister arising out of the report of the team, and which makes it akin to Elliot Lake. I refer, of course, to the very serious position in which the city of Cornwall is at the present time. I quote from an article appearing in the Standard-Freeholder, dated April 16, 1960:
For nearly three quarters of a century, Cornwall's progress was linked with the cotton textile industry. The cotton business had its ups and downs, but it grew until it became a major factor in the community's economy.
Now there is no longer a cotton textile industry in Cornwall, and over the past few years it has cost about 2,400 people their jobs. The decline has been even more rapid in the past six or eight months.
I should have said the article is entitled:
Elliot Lake and Cornwall have something in common.
However, the government has seen fit, in conjunction with the provincial government of Ontario, to do something for the community of Elliot Lake. Of course I am not complaining about that; on the contrary I commend both governments for what they can or may do on behalf of that stricken community, but I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and of the team that has gone to that community what is being done by Cornwall Industrial Developments Limited, a non-profit corporation, to assist industry and the team in the development of that area. May I read just one short paragraph from a memorandum of Cornwall Industrial Developments Limited. It reads:
Since the completion of the hydro project and the closing of the cotton industries, Cornwall has had to face a heavy unemployment situation and, as a result, larger city relief bills. The C.I.D.L. ever aware of this situation, has left no stone unturned to find a solution. They have sent delegations to cities in the United States of America with similar distressed areas where vacant factories were purchased by a citizens' company, leased or resold, with the result that many new smaller Industries were established employing hundreds of people.
This C.I.D.L. is composed of a group of local citizens, a non-profit operating group, who have purchased all of the bulidings
Supply-Public Works owned by the Canadian cotton mills for a substantial sum of money. Their worthwhile objects are:
1.	To examine all industrial opportunities regardless of size which need special help.
2.	Make preliminary studies and analysis of the proposals.
3.	Arrange meetings with the parties who would be interested in the specific type of proposal: banks, insurance companies, investment dealers, and so forth.
4.	Supply the required equity capital provided the required investigations indicate the feasibility of the project.
5.	Assist in every way possible the industrial expansion program of the city.
I now come to the team. The team went to Cornwall, and after having looked over the situation hurriedly, decided in favour of assisting the community by the construction of docks at the west end of the community. This is all to the good. They did not at the time-again I say this with deference-take the trouble to look to the front of the city. If they had they would have seen that there were already established, or about to be established, by the Department of Transport through the St. Lawrence seaway authority, 27-foot facilities. Having done that, they made a recommendation which, of course, was accepted gratefully by the community. Later on it became evident that perhaps the site which they had selected was questionable, so down they went again and this time they discovered that right in front of the city of Cornwall there was a dock which needed an extension of some 500 feet and with the extension of 500 feet would be right on 27-foot facilities, thus enabling secondary industry to be established in the area.
I hold a picture of the dock in my hand. It happens to be in front of three large cotton factories which employed as many as 2,400 men and which are now completely closed down. This is the property which has been bought by C.I.D.L. They wish to encourage secondary industry to come to that area.
My regret is that several months ago this was not discovered by the team of the minister because any person who knows anything about what is going on-and I am sure the Minister of Transport did, as well as the seaway authority-could have told the team that went down there that instead of spending now large sums of money in the area which they had in mind at the time, by the simple extension of the wharf opposite this area, and other facilities that I am going to bring to the attention of the minister now, it would have been possible to come more quickly to the assistance of this stricken community.

Supply-Public Works
One final word: in the estimates of the Department of Transport there is a sum of $50,000 for the extension of this wharf. I want to make a special appeal to the minister and say to him that this is not enough. Here is a group of local citizens who are putting their own money into a corporation, not for profit, not in order to make any money themselves but in order to encourage industry, as the New York Central booklet which I sent across to the Minister of Public Works is doing, and they are going to send to many thousands of people in Canada and outside of Canada copies of the booklet which indicates what is being done. The sum of $50,000, therefore, is not enough. This community needs far more than that. I appeal to the minister to do more. What can he do? Over and above the extension of the wharf I think he can assist in the construction of a hangar; I think he can assist particularly with reference to secondary industry because surely that must be the object of the team. Surely it must be the intention of this team to profit by the seaway development into which Canada has put large sums of money in order to attract secondary industry to this country.
I read in the press that the government has established an interdepartmental committee, the object of which is to consider ways and means, by the establishment of a fund of some $200 million and, by the way, by a reduction in taxation, to assist industry to come to these areas. That is all to the good. In what way is the team established by the two departments working in co-operation with the interdepartmental committee?
Unless and until this team has considered these various reports and the over-all aspect of this international project upon various parts of Canada, in my opinion it will not be able to do the job that it should do. Why do I say that? I say that because what is the use of spending large sums of money in an area unless it is known, because of an over-all study of the project, where traffic is likely to go. The University of Indiana study, in conjunction with the Chicago board of trade, has come to the conclusion that Baie Comeau and one or two or other ports on the north shore of the St. Lawrence are going to benefit tremendously by the movement of grain. The McGill report, in conjunction with an advisory committee of the city of Montreal, has come to the conclusion that certain movements of grain will benefit Montreal whereas other movements are likely to hurt it. Thus far the results have been most favourable to the city of Montreal. But I say that if you consider a particular project without having regard to the overall picture you cannot come to a proper and logical conclusion.

I take my seat with this appeal to the minister. If we are going to deal with the serious unemployment situation that affects Canada as a whole, but particular areas more seriously than others-the one I have mentioned is, of course, a particular one that has suffered in an especial manner-I think the team could do a far better job if, over and above the physical conditions that are required in the area, consideration could be given by the team to the over-all aspect and to secondary industry. I appeal to the minister and ask him if he will not give consideration to a substantial increase in the expenditure of money which this community has requested of his department.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, if there are other members who wish to speak on the first item I certainly will yield.


Armand Dumas: Just before the minister
speaks, I trust that he has given consideration to the questions I asked on Monday and again today. It would be very unfortunate if answers should first appear in the newspapers during the week. We have already had an article in the newspapers today which answers in part one of my questions. In justice to his department and his officers I think the minister should tell the committee who asked for these works at Malartic and Duparquet and who recommended them, and also answer the other questions I have put to him. They are very simple questions requiring only short answers and I think the minister should do that in his reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is no one else who wishes to speak before the minister replies, I should like to join in what has been said by all members from Newfoundland, with the exception, of course, of the minister who obviously could not say this though I imagine he agrees with the rest of us, as to our hope that the very large sums of money being expended in St. John's harbour, as a result of the initiative taken by Mr. Winters when he was minister in getting the study started, will not prejudice the minister or treasury board with respect to the rest of Newfoundland. There is in Newfoundland, for reasons which I do not need to repeat, a need for works as great as in any other part of Canada. So far as the rivers and harbours vote is concerned, Newfoundland has enjoyed for a short time the benefits of much heavier public expenditures which the rest of Canada has enjoyed for the greater part of the period since 1867, as the minister himself very justly recognized when he appeared on television in Newfoundland and made certain observations which were much appreciated and which excited great hopes there. I hope the minister will make sure

those hopes are not dashed by treasury board.
I am sure that when the minister made those statements he meant them and meant to carry them out.
I should also like to ask the minister if he as a new minister would try to do something which we were not able to get his predecessor to do and do not seem to be able to get the Postmaster General to do, that is, to get rid of this ossification of the mind about post offices in Newfoundland. The whole history of the post office in Newfoundland for historical reasons is quite different from the post office on the mainland of Canada. I say this as someone who had considerable experience at one time with rural life in one old province of Canada and who has spent a good many months in the outports of Newfoundland.
In many places in the rest of Canada it is a custom acceptable to the communities to have small post offices in country stores. The idea that the post office should be an adjunct to something else and that the income should be an adjunct to other income is quite acceptable to everybody in the community. For historical reasons, and I am sure the minister from Newfoundland will bear me out in this, in the outports of Newfoundland this would be an entirely unacceptable situation. It is for that reason that in many places in Newfoundland where the postal income is away below what it is elsewhere in Canada post offices did exist under the old commission government.
Since confederation it has been the custom for the Department of Public Works under the previous and present governments to replace these buildings rather reluctantly when they became totally obsolete, when the roofs started to leak and the buildings started to fall down. I wish the minister could get rid of some of that reluctance. I wish he could also get rid of the silly idea that if there was a post office before confederation there is some sort of inherent right to have one now but that if a community has grown since confederation and has become bigger than many of these other places it should be excluded because the growth was more recent. I am counting on the minister from Newfoundland to do something about this matter and exert some influence on the government because this is something with respect to which I think the present government and the present minister could attain a great deal of credit for themselves if they would make a change.


David James Walker: May I reply first to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and tell him that personally I know of no people
Supply-Public Works in Canada whom I admire and like more than the Newfoundlanders, and they know that very well. As a consequence I have a particular proclivity for allowing many things to Newfoundland which otherwise might come under certain criticism. I think it is correct to say that Newfoundland deserves everything she is getting and at the present time no other province can compare on a per capita basis with Newfoundland, so far as capital expenditures by the Department of Public Works are concerned. Such expenditures are far greater per capita than in any other province. I hope that for some time to come that may be so because Newfoundland is in great need of public works. It is my hope that as long as I am minister Newfoundland will get them.
I am constantly importuned by the minister from Newfoundland, also by the youngest member of the house, the hon. member for St. John's East, and also, I must say, by members on the opposite side, for whom I have great respect, as to the needs of Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You do not get more than one letter a day.


David James Walker: Well, that is pretty good, but it does not compare with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who, since I became minister on August 1, has sent me 383 letters. I received the last one today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he ever do anything else?


David James Walker: I think it is to his credit. He does not speak too often in the house, and I do not know that that can be said about everyone. I am not referring to anyone in particular, now.
This has been a very pleasant day for me, and one from which I have derived a great deal of benefit. I am not going to try to answer in detail all these questions at the moment because as consideration of the estimates continues I hope to raise certain points. However, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe I should reply to him first. He asked me about the federal building at Elliot Lake. It is quite true that it was planned for a thriving community when the uranium industry was at the height of its development. Now, as a result of the misfortunes which have overtaken that community, through no fault of its own, I was importuned to cut back substantially on that federal building. The best I would agree to do was to take off one storey. It is still going to be a substantial building of two storeys instead of three. Believe me, Elliot Lake
6604	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works needs that because the building is going to house many of the departments of government.
In so far as the dock at Cutler is concerned, I want to start out by telling hon. members that this dock at Cutler was consistently refused by a former minister of public works, the Hon. Robert Winters. This was, of course, before he became the president of a great uranium industry up there. He consistently refused the dock at a time when activities at Elliot Lake were booming, when the uranium industry was at its height. He insisted, and one can see merit in the argument, that there should be amortization payments over a period of years by means of which the government would get back the money it put into the dock. When these guaranteed payments were not forthcoming the minister, in his wisdom, refused this dock.
I have no hesitation in saying that the situation has changed. The industries in Elliot Lake are not booming. If the building of a dock at Cutler would substantially improve the situation in Elliot Lake, and only if it would, the government might be willing to build this dock. There is no purpose served by building a dock unless there are going to be industries to use it, and use it adequately. I do not mind saying that during the past weeks and months I have as minister been negotiating with a certain company and urging that company to build a manufacturing plant at Cutler. This would provide employment up there. It was my hope that perhaps we could have an affirmative answer from this company. Of course, the company has its problems. It has to know whether it could market the product it contemplates manufacturing and whether the venture would be successful. This company has seen the Ontario government to ascertain what considerations could be obtained from that source.
Until I hear from that great, public-spirited company, I am unable to come to any conclusion about building a dock at Cutler. As you know, Mr. Chairman, and as the members of the committee will appreciate, we cannot just build docks because people are in a difficult situation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or because the Prime Minister promised them.


David James Walker: -unless they are going to be of material benefit to make the expenditure worth while. The situation has changed tremendously since 1957 when the dock was refused by the former government. Before we build a dock we must see that over a period of years the payments will amortize the cost of that dock, even although the period of years might be greatly extended beyond any 

ordinary arrangements made in regard to wharves or docks and this arrangement we will make with any new industry.
I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that this matter, as well as every other suggestion that has ever come to me in connection with Elliot Lake has received, and will receive, my most profound attention. I think I can say that that applies to every other minister of the government. I have never seen a committee more devoted to the problems of a community than the committee on Elliot Lake. This is a very difficult problem for which to find a solution. The problem was certainly not created by us but it is one for which we feel a very real responsibility to try to assuage the depressed condition with which this community is faced at the present time. If and when there is any news from this corporation which contemplates building this industry there, if we can come to any decision, I would be happy to make the announcement to the house and particularly to my friend the Leader of the Opposition who I know is very interested in this.
May I speak now for a moment concerning the request of the hon. member for Laurier. He referred to the departmental committee, of which I was very proud as I thought everyone was, set up by the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works in connection with harbour and port facilities along the St. Lawrence. I was surprised to hear the hon. member's criticisms because the committee has been highly praised from all sides. May I say that I feel his suggestion that this interdepartmental committee should consult with the St. Lawrence seaway authority is an excellent one. He will be very happy to hear that Mr. Manning, who is a great authority himself and a member of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, is the committee's liaison and is in constant touch with this interdepartmental committee, making available to the committee all relevant information. The desire of the hon. member for Laurier is, therefore, already an accomplished fact.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


David James Walker: Yes, certainly.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not think there should be on the committee a representative of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?


David James Walker: I think there is a lot of merit in what the hon. member for Laurier suggests. I am going to give that most careful consideration, and I would be glad to discuss it with the Minister of Transport.

Then I noticed this brochure, which is very helpful. I usually hold on to most things that come into my hands but because the hon. member has requested its return, I shall return it. This brochure has been published, not by the United States authority corresponding to the St. Lawrence seaway authority but I understand by the government of the state of New York through the auspices of the New York Central railroad system. This is an excellent brochure and gives us some very good ideas that may be very helpful.
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Laurier on his continuing interest in his old riding of Stormont, and upon what he has said about Cornwall. I do not know of any member who exhibits the zeal of the present member for Stormont in the interests of Cornwall. I believe he is in to see me or the Minister of Transport at least once a week concerning the problems of Cornwall and about the very pressing problem of a wharf or dock.
The information given me today by the hon. member for Laurier is quite correct. The dock that he indicated is now available. Of course, as he knows so well, it was not available earlier when our team went down there the first time. However, I can assure him that the plight of Cornwall is very much in our minds and will be given every consideration.
In reply to the hon. member for Levis, may I say that I did not know that his question needed a reply. I thought perhaps he was joking when he said that in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway, "we were given the brush-off". I do not know what he means by "brush-off". The work we have done investigating the Prince Edward Island causeway has been tremendous. It has been so extensive, this study that we have made to ascertain whether such a causeway is feasible under all the circumstances; it is as great a study as has ever been made on an enterprise of this kind. Because of its uniqueness and because it is the first time that any such study has been really gone through to the extreme limit, the first time in the world such a causeway has been studied to such a degree, I was of the opinion that the hon. member for Levis would feel, as do most of the other members of the house, that we have really done this thoroughly. We have done this job thoroughly and well. Unless it should be said that I was guilty-


Maurice Bourget: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but will he tell me what information is needed for his department to estimate the cost of the causeway? When I spoke two days ago I gave him a list. I took that list from a report that was made by the deputy
Supply-Public Works when he went down to investigate all of the work that was done there. Of course, I am not an engineer; I am no expert. But I feel that with the information the department already has they can certainly estimate the cost of the project. I, therefore, want to tell the minister that I was not joking at all; far from it. I took this information from the report which I read very carefully. In addition to that, the minister will also recall that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate once asked him a question to the effect that the minister had stated that the price of $400 million was very much too high. If the minister was capable at that time of saying that the cost of $400 million was too high, may I ask on what basis he was saying that amount was too high?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Levis may I say I was basing that reply on just plain, ordinary, good, old fashioned common sense of which the hon. member for Levis has a good deal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, it is just a guess.


David James Walker: A guess as to $400 million being too much? Oh, no. Surely the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, himself an outstanding yachtsman and great authority on bridges, would not say that. No, no, that is not correct. In reply to the hon. member for Levis-and I am being very serious-may I say that until we receive from the national research council the results of this investigation into currents and other local phenomena or the effect of the causeway on this area, we are not in a position even to hazard a guess. As the hon. member who was himself parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works knows, these are extremely intricate studies. However, I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that it will not be $400 million. If we had thought it was going to cost that much, we would have stopped this research long ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the minister's ceiling?


An hon. Member:: Five feet eight inches.


David James Walker: I was going to reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West but I think he has made such a lucid explanation of the combination of lover's walk and operation lemon juice-I do not know whether or not there was any analogy between the two-that I do not think it is necessary. I think the explanation he has given fairly well resolves itself into the necessity for me to say nothing except that the lover's walk was ordered closed many years ago by the former government. As a matter of fact I think the late
6606	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King himself confirmed that closing and he himself was a very romantic person in his conception of nature. He himself suggested that it should be closed, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police all along have insisted that it should remain closed because it is extremely dangerous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To whom?


David James Walker: I mean dangerous, not in the way in which the hon. member for Kootenay West is thinking-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: -but dangerous to life and limb. Anybody that goes out there is apt to have a serious accident; I mean a physical accident.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David James Walker: You are apt to slip and fall. Just recently, as a matter of fact, a man was very badly hurt.
For what he has said I want to thank the hon. member for Villeneuve who I always knew to be a courteous gentleman.
I was dumbfounded after the debate on Monday night to find the next day when I got home my neighbours on Revelstoke would not speak to me as I paddled up in my canoe and my wife also looked at me amiss because the headlines in the paper that night was this "Accuse Walker of patronage and payroll padding". That was quite a charge. You can appreciate that even a person's wife is shocked to see a statement of that kind. I am glad to note today that the newspaper which inadvertently carried that headline has corrected it. But what a bewildering thing it is to get into public life innocently, to come down here to do the best one can and because you refuse to be guilty of patronage you are accused of patronage. This morning I am damned because I gave the contract to the low bidder. On Monday night I was damned because I did not give it to the low bid, because of inefficiency. It is a terrible combination. How can I win gentlemen, I ask you?
On the question of payroll padding may I say this? If I through the greatest stretch of anyone's imagination can have any responsibility for this-and of course the hon. member for Villeneuve has made it quite clear that I have not-the suggestions that one sees from time to time are enough to shock one. If one did not have 55 years of reputation, one would begin to wonder what would happen to one's reputation when one becomes a minister of the crown in almost any government. In any event, it has been quite a novel experience for me. I am glad I am not as thin


skinned as are some people or you could appreciate that these things would really make one wonder.
I want to thank the hon. member for his co-operation and for his understanding that we cannot disclose information. I do not suppose it would be terrible but when a prosecution is contemplated it is a great thing for the government, the police and all the investigating authorities to keep their mouths shut and to get on with the investigation, and, if called for, prosecution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As was done in the railway committee.


David James Walker: -so as not to disclose any information that might be of benefit to any possible defendant in a criminal action. But I am glad to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Villeneuve and he said he would settle for that.
I am referring now to Malartic. I just received this information from the department. I have hardly had a chance to read it and I will read the answer as it was written. Routine inspection by departmental engineers showed that the wharf was in disrepair and a hazard to the public. The wharf was constructed in 1935 and very little maintenance had been done since that time. An estimate of the cost of repairs was submitted to the department. The work was approved on April 24, 1959.
As to Duparquet lake, that involves the cleaning of the rivers there. The hon. member for Villeneuve wanted to know who ordered the cleaning of them and the answer is that the cleaning of the rivers was authorized after inspection by a departmental official on April 28, 1959, and after an inspection was made by other officers. I trust that is the information required.
There are a few other matters I should like to refer to as we go along with the different items but at the moment I hope hon. members understand that it is a difficult thing to generalize on these specific questions.
In reply to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, and with this I will bring my remarks to a close, it is quite true that announcements are made. I have always felt that the important people in the government are the backbenchers. They form a very important part in the government. That applies also to hon. members on both sides; but the people of the Dominion of Canada by an overwhelming majority put the Tories in power in 1957. But that is not the point. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate makes an application to get something in his constituency, and other members do the same thing for their constituencies. It is not important to the local member who has done so much to get, say, a post office, a wharf,

a dock, a protection wall or a federal building-whatever it is-to get some credit for what he has done?
Therefore, being a person without ambition, I am not trying to make myself known across Canada and have the honour of making these announcements as Minister of Public Works. I have made a practice, and I do not think it is a new practice, that if a member wants to make an announcement of any local project he can do so. Of course if it is a national project or something which affects the national picture it should be made in the name of the Minister of Public Works; if it is a provincial matter it should be made in the name of the local minister on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, but if it is in a constituency, then by all means the member should make it and say something like "Mr. Joe Blow, on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, has pleasure in announcing that a post office will be built in"-wherever it is.
If hon. members of the opposition want to get in on this I would like to hear from them individually. In fact, the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me about it the other day and I said I would be delighted. He said, "How would it read?", and we arrived in fun at the conclusion that the effect of reading it might mean something like this: "Mr. Douglas Fisher, C.C.F. MP for Port Arthur, on behalf of the Conservative Minister of Public Works, the Hon. David Walker, has pleasure in announcing that the Conservative government at Ottawa is going to build a post office in this C.C.F. constituency". And that is the last I have heard from the hon. member for Port Arthur. He did not think that was a very good idea.
As I say, if there are any hon. members of the opposition who feel it would be a good idea, and perhaps the hon. member who made the suggestion does, perhaps they will let me know and on the next announcement we make in their riding, if they wish to try it out and find its effect, we will be happy to co-operate with the usual notice. There is nothing sinister about this; it is a nice friendly way of giving a person a chance.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Oh.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Ottawa West might like to do it too. We often have buildings constructed in his riding and I would be happy to give him the opportunity, as the well known Liberal member for that riding for all these years, of making an announcement on behalf of the Conservative government about what the Conservative government is doing in the Liberal riding of the hon. member.
Supply-Public Works


George James McIlraith: It does not do anything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we on this side are not very much impressed by the confused and laboured explanation of the minister of his practice of including only Conservative members with himself in announcements of the type he has just mentioned. He has made it quite clear that if anybody else wishes to be included in this practice conditions will be laid down which would make it impossible for them to be associated with it.


David James Walker: Same conditions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It would be much more honest of the minister if he had merely said that he had decided to limit this kind of announcement to his own friends in the Conservative party, because that is obviously the effect of his remarks. That was made quite clear when he was good enough to tell the committee the form of the announcement which he proposed to the hon. member for Port Arthur. Obviously it was a form designed to make it quite impossible for the hon. member to accept, as the minister indicated. So that will do for that.


David James Walker: Has the Leader of the Opposition lost his sense of humour?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is because I have a sense of humour that I am able to appreciate the laboured efforts of the minister at being funny, because obviously he finds it funny. I also have enough of a sense of humour to appreciate the awakening awareness of the minister to the dangers and difficulties and misunderstandings, even the occasional unfairness, that one can get from headlines in the press. He will perhaps pardon me if I say that he did not show the same sensitiveness in earlier years when he, as a member of a committee of this house, was on the contributing rather than on the receiving end of headlines. However, I am glad to see his experience with ministerial responsibility is teaching him that headlines can perhaps even without intention at times be very unfair.
I rise to deal with just one point the minister raised because it concerns something I mentioned earlier in relation to my own constituency. In dealing with this matter the minister indicated his sympathy for and understanding of the problems of this particular area of Elliot Lake, for which he said the government were in no way responsible. We will have a chance to debate that when the trade and commerce estimates are up for consideration, so I will not dwell on that misstatement of fact at this time.

Supply-Public Works
He also said that the dock I mentioned at Cutler had been refused by the late government. It is perfectly clear, as I tried to show when I spoke a short time ago, that the arrangements which the previous government had been trying to make which would have made possible the building of this dock were of a manner which would not have placed the whole cost of the dock on the taxpayers but would have included in the expenditure for building the dock the mining industry and the coal importing company which would have used the dock. It is true that the arrangements were not concluded when the election took place in 1957. But it is also perfectly clear to anyone with any sense of reality at all that the possibility of concluding arrangements of that kind involving expenditures on the part of private industry were bound to fail when it became known to the uranium industry and the coal importing company that the leader of the Conservative party at that time who in a few months was to become Prime Minister of the country had promised during the campaign that the government would build that dock. I am asking the minister now why that particular promise, which was an unqualified one, has not been carried out, especially in the light of the new circumstances in the area.


David James Walker: I would be happy to answer that. The hon. Mr. Winters turned down the dock months before the general election in 1957.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a letter on my file from the president of the coal company in 1958 giving me some information about the negotiations, and saying that at that date they could see no hope for the conclusion of these negotiations which had been continued on a different basis from that which Mr. Winters put forward.
In any event, the Prime Minister made the promise that when he became the head of the government that dock would be built. I mentioned that twice in the House of Commons. I made a specific statement that the Prime Minister had given his promise in 1957 and 1958 and no one on the other side of the house quarrelled with my statement of the Prime Minister's assurance. If the hon. gentleman would like to look at page 1415 of Hansard of November 22, 1957, when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys he can read my specific statement in which I attributed this promise to the present Prime Minister, and no comment was made denying that promise at the time. I repeated the assurance on July 4, 1958, as may be found on page 1916 on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works, and the minister of public

works of that day did not quarrel with my statement that the promise had been made.
I was looking at my press clippings and it is quite true that on May 12, 1957 the Prime Minister did, at a meeting in Espanola, Ontario make that statement. I also consulted my list of the promises made during that campaign and the subsequent one, and this particular promise was No. 113(b). Promise 113(a) was made at the same meeting in Espanola when the Prime Minister made another promise concerning this area. If the minister would like to look at the Ottawa Citizen for May 13, the Toronto Telegram for May 13 or the London Free Press for May 13, he would find a record of the meeting at Espanola at which the Prime Minister strongly criticized the government of the day for not building a dock at Cutler. He said at that meeting that if he was the head of the government he would ensure that Cutler became a port at which deep draught ships could call, because a dock would be built.
I ask the minister if that assurance is going to be carried out at the present time in view of the distressing situation which confronts Elliot Lake at the present time. The minister has said that the matter is under consideration, and I hope he will give it serious and sympathetic consideration. He has pointed out some of the difficulties, and I am not unsympathetic with regard to these difficulties. The chairman of the board of trustees of Elliot Lake was down here the other day, and I have reported to the minister what he said when he got back, namely that he had been informed that there was definite hope that the government's proposal for a dock for Cutler will be carried out. I hope this hope will be realized.
I have just been informed that the date of the Prime Minister speaking at Espanola when he made this interesting speech was May 11, not May 12, 1957. I apologize for this serious inaccuracy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the date of the report of the meeting in the press, and whether the Leader of the Opposition can give us a quotation from one of those press reports?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I can do that. I have a report from our own representative at the meeting-a very detailed report-but perhaps that would not impress the minister very much.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It will not. I can tell the hon. gentleman that right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the minister will look al the Toronto Telegram of May 13-I have not the Telegram here, but I have sent for it- he will find a report which indicated they

were going to make Cutler a port, and as there was no dock or harbour there, that was interpreted by the community as a promise to build a dock. That interpretation was confirmed by the reports which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and the London Free Press of May 13, 1957. The Canadian Press report of the meeting under the dateline Sault Ste. Marie says:
In both speeches he dwelt on local topics-the need for a dock at Cutler-
And in the London Free Press of May 13 the report said:
He (Mr. Diefenbaker) criticized the government for not building a dock at Cutler, on lake Huron, as a port for the uranium mining district.
Ther is no doubt in anyone's mind as to what the Prime Minister said, that there should be a dock at Cutler.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would now like to modify his earlier statement this afternoon that the Prime Minister specifically promised that a dock would be built at Cutler.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not modify my words. When the Prime Minister states that a community is going to be made into a port and when that community has no possible harbour, let alone a dock, and when the Prime Minister criticizes the government of the day for not building a dock, is that not a promise to build a dock?


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the minister intends to give consideration to the questions I asked him about the lock at Carillon. His only reply earlier was that this was a matter for the Department of Transport but I cannot accept that because the application is made to the Department of Public Works under the Navigable Waters Act, part 1, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works, and surely when the plans were approved over a year ago there was provision for the lock and the size of the lock as well as the depth to which the reaches on both sides of the lock were to be deepened.
I intend to be brief. In the course of my remarks I used an expression-a somewhat slang expression-when I said I thought I smelled a rat in connection with this whole matter, and now I believe I hold the proof in my hand, because the Minister of Transport indicated that it was not the lock at Carillon which was the important matter but the building of the new bridge which was announced by the former Quebec government. The newspaper La Presse of today, Wednesday, July 20, carries the headline: "Because there are no plans, construction of the bridges
Supply-Public Works between Montreal and lie Perrot will cease immediately." And the new minister of public works in Quebec had this to say-I will translate as well as I can as I go along- "Before asking for tenders it will be necessary to have plans and specifications drawn up either by the personnel of the department or by experts from outside the department."


David James Walker: This is the minister from Quebec, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The report goes on: "This government feels that it would be reasonable to invite contractors to tender." He did not say how long that would take. That is what I have feared all along, that there were no plans and specifications ready concerning this new bridge. How, therefore, could it be indicated by inference that the whole matter depends on that?
I have put this on record to show that there are no plans whatsoever in connection with this new bridge, and if there is a desire on the part of the government to provide for 14-foot navigation on the Ottawa it will have to meet the Quebec authorities and it will have to offer to pay to the Quebec authorities the cost of raising this bridge to the clearance necessary for ships of this draught, if this is the case. What did the plans which were filed by the minister's department say in so far as navigation was concerned? The minister was good enough to table some plans which I asked for in a notice of motion. I looked at them but I could find nowhere the information which I request now.


David James Walker: I shall be very happy to answer the hon. member for Laurier. As he knows, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Department of Public Works has to approve, and we are required to approve, the plans and site of a seaway bridge at Ste Anne de Bellevue in Quebec over the navigation channel. Our department has also consented to the starting of construction of a hydroelectric power development at Carillon, Quebec on the Ottawa river.
The clearance under the Ste Anne de Bellevue bridge is about the same as or higher than the existing clearance under the railway bridges belonging to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways, located downstream.
The railways do not plan to make modifications to their bridges, at least at the present time. Clearance under those bridges has been the governing elevation for the bridges upstream on the Ottawa river, including the interprovincial bridge at Hawkesbury, Ontario.
The next point I should like to make is that the locks to be built into the Carillon

Supply-Public Works dam were designed to permit navigation drawing nine feet. However, vessels drawing up to 14 feet will be accommodated without major expenses when the need arises.
Finally, the present arrangement of the locks and the bridges appears satisfactory at the present time for the traffic, and such traffic as we -have at the present time is the only traffic expected to be developed on the Ottawa river in the near future.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that information. That is the information I have been trying to get in the questions that I asked. Now it is quite clear in my mind what the position is. It is exactly as I expected it would be, namely that provision is being made for nine-foot navigation all through the area from Ottawa down to the Ste Anne's bridge. When the minister states that the clearance at the new bridge will be the same as that at the C.N.R. and C.P.R. bridges now in existence it is clear I am informed that 14-foot navigation cannot go under the present C.N.R. and C.P.R. bridges now existing between Vaudreuil-Dorion and lie Perrot and the island of Montreal.
Of course, I cannot contradict the minister in so far as the statement he has given with regard to the new bridge at the west end of the islands is concerned because the present minister of public works in the Quebec government says that no plans and specifications have been prepared. That would seem to contradict what the minister has said, but I suppose that even although the plans and specifications have not been prepared, discussions would indicate that the clearance should be the same as under the other two bridges. I do not want to be unfair to the minister, but I would presume that is what took place, and it would follow from that that the clearance is for nine-foot and not 14-foot navigation.


David James Walker: My hon. friend appears to have overlooked one thing. He is not suggesting that we are responsible for the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railway bridges? In connection with what we are doing it is clear that vessels drawing up to 14 feet will be accommodated without major expenses when the need arises. It is very important to know that, and I suppose that answers the question.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have just one word? It is very important, but the point is that if the nine-foot draft is in the lock now, or if you put it in the lock, it will become far more expensive to provide for 14-foot navigation after the power and navigation works have been completed. That is the point I made this morning and that is the point I again bring to the attention of the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, we socialists are always interested in beautiful buildings. I drew to the minister's attention certain criticisms that had been made of the design of public buildings. I gave one illustration in the press, but I have drawn the minister's attention to other sources and suggest that possibly competitions could be held among Canadian architects for the design of larger public buildings intended to be erected by the minister's department. Would the minister mind informing the committee what the present policy is and what his reaction is to this suggestion?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West, the proposal for design competition is not a new one, but it is always novel when it is expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I thank him again for making the proposal. I have examined the possibilities and the comment is as follows:
1.	Owing to the methods of operation of public departments it would be very difficult to set up a competition so that the competitors would appreciate the methods of working of the occupying departments. Unless they appreciate this the design that they will offer will leave much to be required. I believe that any winning design in such a competition would require drastic revision to make it meet the needs of the occupying departments.
2.	In order to hold a competition it would be necessary first to have an official statement of the requirements of buildings to be designed, a complete explanation of the operation and general plans which would meet the requirements of the occupying departments. A board of judges would have to be set up. The competition would have to be published and a suitable time allowed for the submission of designs. The board of judges would then have to meet and review all of the plans, and the judges themselves would have to be well acquainted with the requirements of the occupying departments; otherwise they could not judge the competition fairly. After the competition had been judged and the winner declared, then the winner would have to start in and prepare the working plans and specifications. As I indicated previously, I am sure the plans would have to be changed drastically from the competition design owing to the lack of knowledge on the part of the competitor.
For instance, in our new Sir Charles Tupper building, out at Hog's Back, to get rid of that smell of fish from the Department of Fisheries that we used to have in the west block where they did experiments, we had to have a special design. For the different facilities which we have in the Department

of Public Works and which the Department of Fisheries have, every facet and every need are specially designed. The hon. member for Kootenay West himself appreciates how difficult these things are.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit a question? Does he not know that there is no smell from good fish which is being cooked; it is just a good aroma?


David James Walker: I enjoy it too, particularly when I am fishing and catching fish, but still, will not the hon. member from New Brunswick, the brother of the new premier of New Brunswick-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Gloucester, whom I know better than I know his riding, I thought was the brother of the new premier of New Brunswick. I agree with what he has said. If he had been in the west block where these experiments with fish went on-I do not know what they did -I am sure he would agree it was an awful smell. That has been removed in our new building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit another question?


David James Walker: Certainly. I had hoped to be facetious; perhaps I was not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not being facetious. I should like to know how much it has cost the taxpayers to save the minister from having to smell the smell of fish.


David James Walker: I do not think this new plan cost anything extra. It was just a common-sense design of which a good architect was required to have knowledge. I could make some other comments to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. He can probably imagine what they would be but this is my day of good behaviour and I will refrain from saying anything further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead. They might help me in my campaign.


David James Walker: For the leadership? Item 3: The Department of Public Works has for some years now prepared plans for the projects it has to produce. For instance, we have a wonderful plan for the new agricultural building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have you a site for it?


David James Walker: That is the point. We have not got one that is satisfactory to everybody. May I repeat that the Department of Public Works has for some years prepared the plans for the projects it has to produce and over the years has acquired a knowledge of the working habits and customs of the various
Supply-Public Works departments and can plan their buildings much more rapidly than could any private architect who would be meeting the problem for the first time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Socialism.


David James Walker: It has been found more
practical to follow this method and to have consultants work from these preliminary plans supplied by the department. Item 4: I consider it quite a practical possibility to hold competitions where buildings would be in a classification such as museums, national theatres, convention halls, art galleries, etc. This, of course, will have some place, I would think, when the national capital commission goes into operation on some of its projects.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to thank the minister for his explanation. I do not underestimate the difficulties. I was not suggesting for a moment that other people should replace the competent architects in the department but I did think there was some merit in the suggestion with respect to competitions for suitable exterior designs to which the requirements of any department could be adjusted. I had that in mind more than the details of construction.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I almost wept when I heard the minister speak of taking a position in public life and being criticized. What struck me was that he did not speak that way when he was the leading man in the public accounts committee and was talking about other people. On Monday he spoke about Mr. Cormier, who was not here to defend himself, and condemned him as not being competent although he is known all over the world for his competency.


David James Walker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am not complaining about anything that is said here at any time. I can hold my own. I was just making a few comments and I think most hon. members appreciate what I said about headlines about which even the hon. member for Villeneuve was shocked. That is all. I am not complaining particularly about anything the hon. member for Hull had to say. I never have complained. I do my best to hold my own in debate in the house. I have no apology for anything I said in the public accounts committee. If my hon. friend wants to repeat anything that was said either to me or about me or anything I said about anyone else I would be very happy if he would do so. I have no regrets and no apologies for what was said about me or what I said about anyone else. The public accounts committee was a very profitable one that year and,

Supply-Public Works without going into the matter again, may I say that it brought forth a great deal of benefit to the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very profitable to the member for Rosedale.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I prefer what the minister has just said to what he said at the beginning of his remarks. Now he is himself. I had expected the minister would give me what I asked for on Monday, the names of those who inquired about Mr. Langlois and who made reports about work executed by Mr. Langlois. I think it is only fair that those names should be given so that Mr. Langlois may have a chance to prove that what has been said is wrong. I ask the minister now if he is willing to give those names.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, a summary of the information required in connection with Mr. Langlois is as follows: Ste. Fla vie school, bad roofing, general construction very poor, work done by Mr. Arthur Langlois; Mont Joli, bank building, work covering vault over stairs and garage and general alterations, work done a couple of years ago all very poorly executed; tiles loose, roof leaks, extremely bad plumbing; window hinges nailed instead of screws being used. That was also done by Mr. Arthur Langlois. Then there is the Belisle garage, Mont Joli; workmanship very rough, very amateurish, finishing very poor, and the contractor took double the normal time to complete. Shall I go on? The next case is Mont Joli, residence of Mr. Dumais, wood finishing very poor, joints very poor, and the owner had to take two months' holidays to supervise the work in order that it could be completed. General report: No use for building that requires any finishing.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not know about all these ouildings but now that the names of tne Duildings have been given we will have a cfiance to look at them and see what can ne done. The minister referred to a bank building involving a vault and some otner construction and said that the work was very poorly done. I have a letter here from tne architect in charge of this work for the bank which is completely contrary to what tne minister has said. I will read the letter: (Translation):
This is to certify that Mr. Arthur Langlois, general contractor, of Mont Joli, was responsible in the year 1956 for carrying out an enlargement and improvement work on the Banque Canadienne Nationale building at Mont Joli, P.Q., under contract from the bank.
The work consisted of building a new vault and carrying out considerable improvements to the building, both outside and inside, at a cost of approximately $35,000. It was done in a satisfactory way.

(Text):
This is a vault.
(Translation):
.. . and major improvement work was satisfactorily carried out both inside and outside the building.
(Text):
I produce a telegram from the C.N.R. signed by Mr. B. Martin, division engineer, stating that the work was done very satisfactorily. I also have a letter from Mr. R. M. Wickwire, building engineer for the C.N.R., stating that the work was successfully completed in a workmanlike manner to the complete satisfaction of the railway. What I should like to know now is this, I understand that the minister is a lawyer but he has forgotten one of the main principles of British law, that a man is not to be accused of anything without being given an opportunity to defend himself.


David James Walker: We are not accusing him of anything.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Oh, yes, the minister accused him in a letter he wrote on May 17.
(Translation):
The inquiry revealed that, though your financial means were considered adequate, the over-all construction of your buildings, we were told, is of very low quality. It has been noted that the finish of your work was very poor.
(Text):
So he is accusing the man of doing poor work under different contracts. He is accused of that and he is not given a chance to defend himself and to prove that the accusations to which the minister has referred are not correct. I think it is a very poor way to handle things. Now that we have the names of the buildings, we will try to get the names of these informants. Then, I believe Mr. Langlois will be in a position to prove he is a very competent contractor, as was affirmed by the engineer for the Canadian National Railways and by the architect of La Banque Canadienne Nationale. I hope that Mr. Langlois will not have to suffer any further damages because of the poor way in which the minister has handled the matter.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall take a few minutes to deal with another matter which has been raised in several instances in the house and which is of direct interest to the Minister of Public Works. The member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) has dealt with it, and it is of great concern to all members who represent constituencies along the Ottawa river, on both sides.
Mr. Chairman, we want to prepare for the development of the Ottawa river waterway. As the member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) has pointed out, plans are now being

drawn for the locks at Carillon, and those plans provide for a depth of only nine feet. However, to meet the requests of those who favour a deeper waterway, adequate for 5,000 ton ships, the depth would have to be at least 18 feet.
Plans are also being drawn for the construction of a bridge between Hull and Ottawa.
I hope that the sketches that were submitted-I do not know if they are the ones that are to be submitted shortly when the provincial ministers of public works will meet to deal with this important matter-will take into account the required clearance of the bridge, so that if, in the future, the Ottawa river were deepened, all the proposed new bridges will not have to be rebuilt entirely.
I admit that it will be necessary to raise the old bridges, because they were built before the deepening of the Ottawa river was even mentioned. I suggest that in all future works carried out on the Ottawa river, the Department of Public Works take into account the fact that sooner or later-and I hope that it will be sooner than later-the Ottawa river will be navigable a least as far as Hull, and that this deepening could subsequently be extended up to the head of lake Timiskaming.
Account must also be taken of the many industries along the Ottawa river, and of the possibility that the river may be navigable up to lake Timiskaming. In that event, the minister must call for plans providing for improvements along the Ottawa. He must also develop plans allowing for those future projects. It is said that to govern is to foresee; well it would be a good thing if the present minister planned now for future expansion along the Ottawa river.
I also claim that, because the Ottawa river is navigable, several locations on it should be protected against erosion. Every year, the municipality of Gatineau Point is subject to flooding which reaches far inland. It has been the same at Templeton and at Angers where water eroded as much as 200 feet out of certain lands. Floods have also caused damage at Masson and elsewhere.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to take those factors into account, and to give consideration to that area which is in great need of protection and improvement.
Supply-Public Works
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should just like to clear up one point, Mr. Chairman. I gather I was not successful in convincing the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the Prime Minister had, in fact, made a specific promise regarding the dock at Cutler. I should like to try to do so by quoting from a press authority which will be unquestioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, the Toronto Telegram. The report in the Toronto Telegram is dated May 13, 1957, and is datelined "Parry Sound". It reads:
Unloading new pledges as he went along, Mr. Diefenbaker in the various centres he spoke committed a Conservative government after June 10 to several important actions.
Included in those was this one, which reads:
Parry Sound-Improvements would be made to the wharves and docks in Parry Sound and at Cutler to handle large shipping upon completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Since before this statement was made the only dock at Cutler was a very small one capable of handling only rowboats, and small craft, it is quite clear that this was a promise to construct a dock at Cutler which would handle large ships upon completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is that sentence in the article in quotation marks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a report in the Toronto Telegram in which the Toronto Telegram made this statement.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just ask one question? I think all of us believe the minister to be honest. Would he let me have my New York Central brochure back?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have another item which I should like at this time to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. I feel that this is the time for the minister to give to the house all the information he has on this particular item. What I have in mind is a project which is of great interest to the entire population of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, namely the Chignecto canal. For the last three years the Minister of Transport has been referring in this house to a preliminary report or a preliminary engineering estimate on the Chignecto project which was being prepared by the Department of Public Works; and here I am using the Minister of Transport's own words.
6614	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works On March 4 of last year, about 16 months ago, the Minister of Transport advised the house that, arising out of the work that had been done to date by the Department of Public Works, he had asked that certain other estimates be worked out. It was only in April of this year that a report was issued, prepared for the Chignecto canal committee and resulting from a preliminary investigation into the economic aspect of such a project. We were informed in this House of Commons by the Prime Minister on April 13 of this year, as reported at page 3188 of Hansard, that following that report a formal request would be made for a full scale economic study by the federal government-and I insist on those word's "by the federal government"- in order to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal. On June 22 I was surprised to learn from the newspapers, as I happened to be away from Ottawa on that day, the following information. I read here a report from the Gleaner dated June 22, 1960. It is headed "Works Minister Tells Commons of Canal Plan" and it reads in part as follows:
Ottawa (CP)-The federal and New Brunswick governments will share the cost of a study of the feasibility of building the Chignecto canal, works minister Walker said today.
I ask the minister this question: Why should the province of New Brunswick be called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost of an investigation or a study on a project which, according to the Minister of Transport, was under way for the last two and a half years to three years? Why should the province of New Brunswick be called upon-is it because there was an election to follow within the next five or six days?-to pay 50 per cent of the cost of this survey when over a year and a half ago the federal government undertook on its own to pay the full cost of the survey for the Prince Edward Island causeway? I think that we from New Brunswick have a right to an explanation from the minister as to the decision that was reached asking the province of New Brunswick to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the survey for a project which comes entirely under federal jurisdiction.
Before this first item is passed I hope the Minister of Public Works will give to the house a full report of the work which was supposed to have been done to date, the work which has been mentioned here in this chamber by the Minister of Transport, as being done by the Department of Public Works. We should have a report on this survey. If nothing was done, we have a right to find out why the Minister of Transport made such statements in the house. If the province of New Brunswick is to pay 50 per cent of the 

cost of such a survey, I again ask this question: Why did the Prime Minister on April 13 of this year make a statement in the House of Commons that, following the report of the Chignecto canal committee, a formal request will be made for a full scale economic study by the federal government-and I insist on those words "by the federal government"-[DOT] to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal?
We who are from New Brunswick know that the Chignecto canal is a "must" for the economy of our province. We know that statements have been made that following the construction of the canal our great industrialist in New Brunswick, namely Mr. K. C. Irving, is prepared to go ahead and develop industries to the extent of over $100 million. Mr. Chairman, I want to take advantage of this opportunity today, July 20, to pay my respects and homage to Mr. Irving who has today in Saint John the official opening of the new oil refinery. I received an invitation to attend this formal opening but I regret that, owing to the work of this House of Commons, I was unable to be there. However, I want to pay my homage to Mr. Irving who contributes so largely to the development of New Brunswick today, and particularly to the Saint John area.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister intend to reply to this question?


David James Walker: At the end, if I may.


Lionel Chevrier: I just want to say one thing in connection with the matter I raised concerning the city of Cornwall and the team which the two departments, namely the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works, have established with reference to port development along the whole St. Lawrence seaway area. I hope the minister did not misunderstand me earlier when I brought this matter to the attention of the committee. I have no objection-not the slightest-to any credit for what is being done now or will be done in the future being given to the hon. member for Stormont. But I would like the minister to remember that for 18 years I was a member of that community and I still have very close ties with it. He will pardon me if I say that for a period of 20 years my father was a member of the city council. He was its mayor and then he ran for parliament in 1921 and was defeated by less than 100 votes. He ran, I must say, as a Liberal candidate of course.
I do not want any credit for anything which will be done for this community. My only purpose in rising was that I think there is a very serious situation in Cornwall with reference to economic conditions,

and I am sure that notwithstanding what I have said concerning the team the minister will want to see to it, and his officers particularly, that that community is given every opportunity to rehabilitate itself. With so many questions put to him the minister did not have the opportunity to reply to the appeal which I made to him.
I ask him if, in the course of his reply before the first item goes through, he will not ask his officers to give particular consideration to the facilities which are required for this community, and if he will I can assure him I will be perfectly satisfied, having done what I believe it is my simple duty to do.
I would also like to add that there is information which a former minister of the crown has in his possession, either from memory or because of his experience, that fortunately or unfortunately others may not have. I tried to avail myself of that information when I brought the matter to his attention, and it was exclusively with that in mind.
The statement is made from time to time that I want to go back and run in the constituency of Stormont and that that is why I am particularly interested in it. There is no truth whatsoever to that statement. I am perfectly happy to be the member for the constituency of Montreal-Laurier. My law office is in Montreal; I have a residence there as well; and I would not want anyone in the constituency of Montreal-Laurier to think for one moment that I am not perfectly happy with my constituents. But I feel it my duty none the less because of my long association with the community that is-


Mr. Korchinski:: That sounds like an annual meeting in your riding.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not an annual meeting in my own riding. I have indicated why I brought the matter up and I think the minister, by the way in which he has received the remarks which I have made, has taken them in the right vein. I know that under the circumstances he will realize I am rising because of my long association with it and for no other reason whatsoever. I am sure he will ask the team and his own officers to give this particular problem the attention which I think it deserves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when speaking for this group on the first day when the minister's estimates were before the committee, and because of this group's particular interest in satisfactory working conditions, I dealt very briefly with the question of air conditioning. Would the minister when he replies inform the house of the department's policy with respect to the installation of air 79951-0-417
Supply-Public Works conditioning, particularly in view of the fact that commercial firms are installing it to a greater and greater extent, and would he say whether the department is giving consideration to installing air conditioning in the first instance where the climate indicates it is necessary for the comfort of employees.


Mr. Allmark:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make what seems to be an annual appeal for a particular dredging project near the city of Kingston. The place in question is not in the riding of the city of Kingston so obviously it is not for my riding that I appeal. The dredging project which I have mentioned before is one which the minister has heard of on many occasions, and it is located about 25 miles east of lake Ontario. In the planning of the seaway they apparently forgot to dredge a small half-mile section 25 miles east of Kingston, and by leaving this section undredged they have forced shipping on the St. Lawrence seaway to go through the United States channel.
We have recently had a bill before the house amending the Canada Shipping Act in order to regulate the pilotage in the great lakes basin, which is the area between St. Regis, opposite Cornwall, and the head of the lakes. In this section between St. Regis and Kingston, where once only about 20 miles of the waterway east of the area was in United States waters, today because we have located the locks on the United States side and have not dredged this one section to which I refer almost the entire section between St. Regis and lake Ontario is now through the United States channel. I think this is an important point. The dredging of this small section will require a very small amount of money and by so dredging we could bring the extreme western end of the St. Lawrence river back on the Canadian side.
I bring this to the attention of the minister because Kingston is a port from which we ship or bring in about one and three quarter million tons of cargo a year. The deep draught ships which come in and go out of Kingston harbour are now required to go into lake Ontario and down what is the United States channel. I ask the minister to take this small dredging project into consideration so that Canadian shipping can follow that channel to the St. Lawrence river which it has followed since shipping began, and bring it back on the Canadian side giving those opportunities for industry which these communities deserve.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to ask for something in particular for my own riding at this time although there is a need for dockage and dredging on the Welland ship canal which has been

Supply-Public Works brought about by the seaway. However, there are negotiations underway at the present time and I think they are going along quite successfully, so I will not mention that further at this time.
However, I would like to draw to the attention of the minister a problem which has been brought to my attention in connection with the parliament buildings. There appears to be a great lack of restroom facilities and lavatories for tourists and visitors who come to the building. I understand there is no particular place for that purpose, and I suggest to the minister that when the west block is remodelled facilities of this kind might be provided there.
I recall that some two years ago I made a suggestion about replacing the steps in front of the building. That has been done, and it is a very fine job. I would just like to refer the suggestion 1 have made to the minister for his consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I ask the Minister of Public Works whether the allocation of space in the centre block as far as the security police are concerned comes under his jurisdiction or whether it comes under that of the Speaker?


David James Walker: The Speaker.


Maurice Bourget: I think when the minister answered the remarks made by various members who have had occasion to say something on this first item he failed to answer one important question which was put to him when I made my remarks on Monday evening. I asked him if he could justify the fact that there was such an important decrease in the work done by the department at a time when unemployment is reaching alarming proportions and the outlook is none too promising. I think this is one of the most important questions which has been asked during the debate; the minister should have taken note of that question and justified, if he could, the position of the government with regard to it.
There is a further question I wish to raise. In one of the answers the minister gave this afternoon he said that when I was saying that the causeway between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick would not be built in the near future I was only joking. I was not joking at all. As a matter of fact I have read very carefully the report which was given by the deputy minister of public works in the speech he delivered in Prince Edward Island.
In this report it was stated that well known firms, besides many departments of government, had studied very thoroughly the effect that such a construction would have on the

high and low water levels of the strait, the damage that might result to private properties and harbours, and so on. A study had also been made of the surrounding land, and of the movement of the ice, and of which site would be most appropriate for the construction. Soundings and borings had been made, together with analysis of the stone in various neighbouring quarries. In addition designs had been prepared for various types of construction.
I am asking the minister what further technical information he needs in order to be able to make an approximate estimate of the cost of this project and to say whether or not it is economically feasible. In the past two years we have spent more than $600,000 on this scheme. I hope the minister will listen to me, because I was not joking when I spoke. After all, I am an engineer. I know a little about construction, although I am not an expert. I was not joking at all when I mentioned what I did.
I think the department or the government is trying to bury this project. I think that in the circumstances the minister himself should have taken the responsibility of going to Prince Edward Island and explaining the whole situation to the population. The minister will recall that a question was asked in the house by the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi. Part of the question was this:
Was the sole purpose of his visit to deliver a speech.
The answer given by the Minister of Public Works was, no. I can understand why the answer was in the negative. I think the purpose of sending the deputy minister down there was to bury their project. There was another question, part 5, which asks:
Were there any other passengers in the aircraft and, if so, who were they?
I think the names that appeared in the answer were the names of the honorary pallbearers of this project-the Minister of Fisheries and the three hon. members from Prince Edward Island plus a member of the press gallery, an official of the Department of Fisheries and another from the Department of Transport.
I repeat that I have read the report made by the deputy minister to the people of Prince Edward Island and I cannot see why at this stage after we have spent more than $600,000
__and we are being asked to spend another
$50,000-it should not be possible for the consulting engineers in co-operation with the departments of government concerned to establish an approximate price for this project. Unless the minister can tell me there is some important technical information

which is still lacking I think the minister owes some further explanation to the committee.
I have a further comment to make, and it has to do with the question which was asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate on January 21, 1960. The question was as follows:


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Public Works whether in view of the statement he is reported to have made, which appears in Tuesday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, that an estimate of $90 million for the Prince Edward Island causeway was too low, and now obsolete, and that an estimate of $450 million was too high and fantastic, he would now tell the house what cost surveys to date have revealed as to the probable estimated cost of the project.
I would ask the minister to note his words "too high and fantastic". In his answer, the hon. gentleman suggested that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should put his question on the order paper and my hon. friend replied that he would be glad to do so.
The next day, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate came back with another question:
Then I ask the minister how he was able to say that figures which have been published were fantastic?
Then, the Minister of Public Works answered:
If the hon. member wants an answer to that question I do not mind at all giving it. The original estimate as to the cost of this causeway was $60 million without railway accommodation, or $90 million with such accommodation. That was some time ago. Since then our research and investigation into this project has got under way and we have met with tremendous problems, which of course would greatly increase the cost of such a causeway. Consequently, until these problems are analysed and the final reports made it would be impossible for me to come up with another estimate. Nevertheless I do say that the figure which has been bruited about-that it will be between $480 million and $540 million-is to my mind and to the minds of the engineers of my department a fantastic estimate. It is much too high.
The minister will recall that he said the $90 million was much too low; the $480 million was fantastic. Now, he must have had in mind some kind of a figure at which he arrived in consultation with the engineers on the technical information that they have received. That is the reason why, after reading this report and reading all through the answers that he gave to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I say we have now, after two years' study-and if I remember correctly the study of the causeway was started at least two years ago; it was started in 1956-and after spending $500,000 or $600,000, we are entitled to know, even if the estimated cost at this time, with the 79951-0-417*
Supply-Public Works technical information we have, is about $10 million, $15 million or $20 million apart, what is the estimated cost of the project, either the causeway, a combination of a bridge and causeway or a bridge, because I understand the idea of a tunnel was dropped, according to the speech delivered by the deputy minister of public works.
Again I ask the minister in all sincerity to tell the committee whether he has not at this time all the technical information required to give us a real approximate cost of the project. If not, I want to know from him what are the technical details which are missing which are required by the consulting engineers and the engineers of the three departments concerned with the study of the project. I ask the minister once again to give us this information and not brush me aside. I tell him that I have been checking on this project, because I spent some time in studying the report. I am quite sure that at this time we have all-and I repeat it-the technical information necessary to arrive at a fair estimate of the cost of the project.
There is the question of the strength of the ice in the strait. I know this is being studied at the moment, but I do not think it would affect very seriously the cost of the project. I think research is being carried on into this matter at the moment. I think the minister's engineers will have these data either from Canada or the United States. Will the minister give us this information?


Harold Edward Winch: What I have to raise at this moment is most picayune in comparison with that raised by the previous hon. member. If the minister is going to answer all questions at once I should like to draw a matter to his attention. I understand he is in charge of the centre block which houses the House of Commons and the Senate. It is my understanding that this building comes under the Department of Public Works. Although this matter is picayune, I want to raise it because it is the only chance I shall have. In what I have to say I have no reference whatsoever to any member of this house or any party in the house.
What I suggest to the minister is that he bring in somebody to do something about the advance of earwigs and cockroaches in this building. I raised this matter some five years ago, if I remember correctly, and about two days later a fumigation took place. That is the reason I said I am not referring either to members or to parties; but I do suggest to the Minister of Public Works, under whom this building comes, that there is need for fumigation of certain areas of the centre

Supply-Public Works block because of the encroachment of earwigs and cockroaches. Conditions have reached such a state that if fumigation does not take place fairly soon you will not need a fumigator, you will need a big game hunter. I draw this to the minister's attention, and if I cannot tell him I know certain members can tell him where to search.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the minister gave some names and some information about work done by Mr. Langlois. Can he tell me where he got this information, and who did the research for the information because I have established that so far as one instance is concerned it is completely untrue since the architect of the bank said that the work was very satisfactory. So far as the others are concerned, I do not know but I should like to know who did the research.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to impose myself again on the committee. I have been up twice already thinking I was imposing for the last time. Is there any other hon. member who wishes to speak before I do because if there is I will sit down?
I am going to answer the questions of all hon. members. The hon. member for Gloucester asked about the Chignecto canal. All I know is that I negotiated with the former premier of New Brunswick, and so did our Prime Minister. He was a great advocate of the canal and he wanted an economic feasibility study made. Of course, as the hon. member for Gloucester knows, there have been a great many studies, but the former premier pressed the matter and we finally arranged to have an economic feasibility survey performed. We did not expect the cost to be too great, and the province and the dominion would pay 50 per cent of the cost.
In connection with this, the hon. member for Gloucester will be glad to know that we are receiving the co-operation of the Department of Public Works and of the Department of Transport and the P.F.R.A., particularly the maritime marshland rehabilitation branch. They are down there all the time and are very helpful. Then the mines and technical surveys department is also interested. We have already had the first meeting and unless the new government under the aegis of the namesake of the hon. member for Gloucester reneges we are going to go ahead with the survey.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the minister leaves this question, how can he reconcile the statement which he has just made that an agreement has been made with the province of New Brunswick for the province to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the survey with the statement made in this house on April 13

by the Prime Minister when he said, and I quote his words as reported at page 3188 of Hansard:
-following that report-
The report of the Chignecto canal committee.
-a formal request will he made along the lines indicated-
In other words, a formal request for a full scale economic study by the federal government to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal. The Prime Minister stated in the house in answer to questions put to him that the survey would be made by the federal government and that it would be an economic survey to study the feasibility of the Chignecto canal. How can the minister reconcile his statement that the province of New Brunswick will be called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost? Prince Edward Island was not called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the causeway survey. This is a federal project. If it were a joint undertaking on the part of the province and the federal government I would say it would be perfectly all right to have New Brunswick pay 50 per cent of the cost, but this is a federal project.
Ontario and Quebec were not called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the St. Lawrence seaway so why should New Brunswick be called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost of what is entirely a federal project which should be paid for entirely by the federal government? That is the explanation I should like to get from the minister.


David James Walker: That was the agreement
reached. I am glad to note the hon. member's remarks on the subject but I would have preferred to have his remarks in advance of the solution or even after it was announced in the house. When I made the announcement I think it was made very clear that it was to be a federal survey with respect to which the province and the dominion were each to pay 50 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it was suggested by us at the time, as the minister will recall, that the federal government should pay it all.


David James Walker: I do not remember that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister will look it up he will see that I asked a question.


David James Walker: Did my hon. friend make that suggestion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did because the hon. member for Gloucester was elsewhere.


Mr. Brooks:: The province of New Brunswick volunteered to pay 50 per cent. Of course, the present government may have reneged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are finally getting an eruption from the volcano.


David James Walker: It is still a federal project. But for years the federal government-I am not being political-has been importuned to have a feasibility study made and, without naming names, no government has been willing to do so. The premier of New Brunswick was very anxious that this should be done and in order to induce the federal government to do so offered to pay 50 per cent. For the first time that I know of a real feasibility study is being undertaken.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? Was the minister's attention ever drawn to the Canadian Press story of the Prime Minister's statement at Saint John, New Brunswick, on May 3, 1957? The report I happen to have in front of me is from the Ottawa Journal of May 4, but at that time the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
On maritime area issues, he said a Conservative government at Ottawa would give the provinces a better tax-sharing deal and carry out a complete investigation into the feasibility of the decades old proposal for a Chignecto canal to link the bay of Fundy with Northumberland strait. The survey would determine "whether the dream of past generations can become the reality of the future" in the Chignecto isthmus linking New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
That was the Prime Minister's statement, a complete investigation into the feasibility of the proposal. That is what the right hon. gentleman promised when he was giving assurances to get into office, and we will recall that it was only last week that the right hon. gentleman boasted in the house that his assurances were always kept. Why did he not keep this one? Why did the government not keep it? Why are they making a relatively poor province like New Brunswick pay half the cost because, as the minister said, the former premier of that province importuned the federal government to carry out something the Prime Minister promised the people of New Brunswick before he became Prime Minister?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: And it is a federal project too.


David James Walker: I do not profess, of course, to answer for the Prime Minister, but I think the government of Canada has made very generous financial arrangements for the province of New Brunswick as well as the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We are carrying out
Supply-Public Works an economic feasibility study and the fact that the province is paying 50 per cent of the cost does not derogate in any way from the fact that an economic feasibility study is being carried out in accordance with the promise the Prime Minister made. In any event, he did not tell them in that statement that he would do it free of charge to the province.
The hon. member for Laurier has made a very telling request on behalf of Cornwall, and in giving credit to the present member for Stormont I am not in any way derogating from the good will and sincerity of the hon. member for Laurier. As a matter of fact, I can assure him that the department has already been instructed to give the question of Cornwall prior consideration and high priority on consideration. The remarks of the hon. member for Laurier have certainly assisted very greatly in the representations which have already been made to us by the present hon. member for Stormont. I can assure him that nothing he has said has fallen on deaf ears.
In reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West all new buildings have the ducts inserted in them for air conditioning but at the present time we are using the next best thing to air conditioning which is forced ventilation so that constantly moving fresh air is going through the buildings. As the hon. member for Kootenay West must know, the actual insertion of air conditioning is a tremendous expense. I have been amazed at the expense involved, and on the advice of my deputy I have personally taken the responsibility of turning down air conditioning because we feel that at this particular stage the expenditure is not warranted. If we are flush some day and great prosperity returns and we have no problems of balancing the budget, we have the ducts available for inserting air conditioning. In some centres where the condition is really serious such as one building in Windsor, we have installed air conditioning.
I can tell the hon. member for Kingston that Wolf island channel dredging is a matter to which we are giving special consideration. He has been to my office with delegations from the Kingston area, and the matter is being very seriously considered. I will save my reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East to the end.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that the minister is not going to answer?


David James Walker: I will answer but I wish to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Levis first. The hon. member for Levis asked me why we cut $25 million from last year's public works budget. There are two reasons.

Supply-Public Works The first reason is, of course, that in the two previous years, in an effort to get out of the recession, a great spending program, although a proper and well directed spending program, was initiated. It was felt that this could not be kept up forever and that it was a very good thing to cut back this year because we had hopes of having a very prosperous year and, aside from the unemployment figures, the gross national product is going to be exceptionally good.
As my hon. friend also knows, when the Minister of Finance made his budget address the hon. member for Levis was one of those who voted for a balanced budget. I am not always in favour of the suggestions made by the Minister of Finance. Sometimes we are at odds. Naturally, all the backbenchers on my side of the house and the other side who want things I am convinced they should have. Sometimes I have to bow to the Minister of Finance and you are quite right when you suggest that.


Maurice Bourget: The minister is forgetting the promises that were made in 1957 and 1958.


David James Walker: Hon. members not only got promises, but they got results. The benefits of a balanced budget are obvious, even to my engineering friend the hon. member for Levis. I do not need to go into that. What would have happened in the country so far as finance is concerned? We have to have our financial institutions operating properly if we want to have business operating as well as possible. I need not go into that. It has been very beneficial. I do not know that anybody has suffered particularly at the hands of the Department of Public Works.
In so far as the causeway is concerned, I cannot say anything more than I have said. If my hon. friend suspects that the object of this tremendous study that has been conducted is for the purpose of burying it, I must say then that he is indulging in the kind of thinking in which the Liberal government indulged for 22 years when they did nothing about the causeway. He will agree with that. The hon. member should try to get the new look, the new view. We must wait for the national research council to make its report, and when it does we will be in a position to come to this committee with the report. The last thing we want to do is to bury this project.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to ask the minister what the technical information is that the department needs in order to make an estimate and ascertain whether this project would be economical. That is all I am asking. I gave my reasons for asking this question.

The minister said $90 million is too low and $480 million is too high. Now he must have relied on some information in order to make that statement. I believe this information could be obtained from the reports the deputy minister made when he went to Prince Edward Island. I think we have all the information we need to state whether this project is economical.


David James Walker: There is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend, who is a distinguished engineer-


Maurice Bourget: I am not a distinguished engineer.


David James Walker: -and the engineers of my department. Then, if you are not, perhaps you will concede that these other engineers might be.


Maurice Bourget: Once again I am just asking the minister what the technical information is that is required. Is it the ice loading on piers?


David James Walker: I have already told my friend that the national research council has many studies under consideration. First, and most important is the effect of the tremendous currents which flow through that area of the causeway; what the effect would be of the ice floes on the causeway, the effect on the adjacent lands and how much of the adjacent shore is going to be destroyed; how it is going to be built up; how the fish are going to be affected by the change. All these things are under consideration.
As the result of the report from the national research council-


Maurice Bourget: It is in the report.


David James Walker: -we will decide how we are going to plan the structure of this causeway. Until that is done, however, I would only be guessing if I were to make an estimate.


Maurice Bourget: The report contains an estimate of the damages that are going to be caused by the causeway. They have been estimated at $13 million. I have read the report. I wonder if the minister has read it? I am not joking; it is in there.


David James Walker: I know my friend is not joking; he has told me that many times. He will have to excuse me if I sometimes think he is.


Maurice Bourget: I have been in this house for 20 years and I know what it is to brush somebody aside.


David James Walker: I would never, under any circumstances, brush my friend aside. May I say this? Somebody estimated the cost at $90 million and somebody estimated it at

$400 million. I said one is too little and the other is too great. That is the best I can do.


Maurice Bourget: How can the minister say that before having this technical information? He cannot.


David James Walker: My friend asked me now to estimate it, and then in the next breath he tells me I cannot estimate it. What does he mean? I want to please him but I do not want to be nonsensical.


Maurice Bourget: I did not say that. I said, how can the minister say that $90 million is too low and $480 million is too high? There must be a figure in between those two figures.


David James Walker: There is.


Maurice Bourget: I am asking the minister on what he is basing his statement when he says that one figure is too low and one figure is too high? He must have some information, otherwise he is speaking without foundation.


David James Walker: We have a lot of information. We have sufficient information from our engineers to say that $90 million is too low and $400 million is too high. However, we have not all the information necessary to be able to prognosticate how much the causeway will cost. My friend would be the first to tell me that I am not an engineer, and I must be a lawyer if I would make a guess like that because only a lawyer would have the temerity to do that. No engineer would ever do so.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me about certain things in the house. I took it that he was speaking not about human beings but about some other animal life. In reply, I should like to say that this matter is within the purview of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I am sure he would be glad to go into the matter. He has heard the discussion which took place tonight. We have charge of the elevator service and we are also in charge of certain repair work. Of course, the Sergeant-at-Arms, on behalf of the Speaker of this house, may request us to do repairs or make alterations. The House of Commons, and particularly the centre block, is within the particular purview of the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms. I shall certainly bring this matter to the attention of both parties.


Harold Edward Winch: At the same time I would ask the minister to take note of something which irritates many members who, perhaps, do not speak about it. There is one elevator, very important to the members of the house-I refer to the one on our right, here-and it goes out of operation at the most important hour of the day in so far as hon. members
Supply-Public Works are concerned. Perhaps the minister would consider the replacement of that elevator which is very important to us.


David James Walker: That is within our province, and we will certainly do that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I appreciate that the minister has given the house part of the information which I requested concerning the Chig-necto canal. The Minister of Transport, I repeat, has been making statement after statement for the last two and a half years that an engineering survey was being conducted by the Department of Public Works in order to determine the feasibility of the Chignecto canal. I should like the minister to tell this house what work has been carried on by his department. What was the cost of the work? How many men or how many engineers were employed on this survey? According to statements by the Minister of Transport, this survey was being conducted by officials of the Department of Public Works.
If this survey is partly completed, why should the province of New Brunswick be called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost for the completion of such a survey? If there was no survey, if nothing has been done by the officials of the Department of Public Works, then let the minister tell us that so we will know where we stand. I think we have a right to know. How far has this survey been carried out, and what has been done? How many officials or employees have taken part in this survey?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member, may I ask if he would like us to call off the economic feasibility project or survey? We would be glad to do so without charge. Is that what you have in mind?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say this? I think this is a good way for the minister to use his usual practice to brush off questions which are being asked of him.


David James Walker: No.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If the minister wants to call it off, all right. I did not make any suggestion that the survey should be called off. In fact, my suggestion was the very opposite. I asked the minister to advise the house what work has been done so far. I have asked the minister this question. If the survey has been initiated by the federal government, according to statements which were made in reply to questions which were asked of the Minister of Transport, why should the province be called upon to pay 50 per cent of the cost for that survey?


David James Walker: I can assure my hon. friend that anything that has been done prior to

Supply-Public Works the agreement with the premier of New Brunswick will not be charged to anybody. I can assure him of that. But he can appreciate that we are going to use all available material from every source in making the survey. That is one of the reasons why it should not be too expensive. We are going to give ourselves the benefit of all the information from every department which I have named to the hon. member. As to what has been done to date by the new committee, as I say, the matter is just in its organizational stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the hon. member for Gloucester asked at all. The Minister of Transport told us in 1958 that at that time in 1958-and I will try to put this slowly so that the minister can take it in-that the Department of Public Works was already then engaged in an engineering study. What the hon. member for Gloucester asked was how many persons were engaged in that study, how much it had cost up to date. That is precise, concrete information. That is an accounting of the expenditure of the taxpayers' money for the obtaining of which the committee of supply exists. That is what we want an answer to.


David James Walker: I will not tell my hon. friend that he has misunderstood what was said because I do not know what was said. I was not the minister at the time. But I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that to date the Department of Public Works has not been engaged in any economic study, that is to say in recent years. I do not know what happened before the hon. member's government took power 22 years ago. I do not know what happened then. But we certainly have not been engaged in any economic feasibility study of the Chignecto canal. Perhaps my hon. friend' has some quotations from Hansard that he could refer me to.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


David James Walker: It was not by me.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I refer to page 1593 of Hansard of March 4, 1959. The Minister of Transport advised this house that, arising out of the work that had been done to date, he had asked for certain other estimates to be worked out by the Department of Public Works. I want to repeat what I said once again, namely that the Minister of Transport has led the House of Commons to believe this for the last two and a half years. In reply to questions which were addressed to him by members of the opposition, including my colleague the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi and myself, he told the house that a survey was actually being carried out.


I have not that reference in Hansard in front of me but on three or four occasions we were told that an economic survey to determine the feasibility of the Chignecto canal was being carried out by the Department of Public Works and in good faith we accepted that statement from the Minister of Transport. Tonight we find from the Minister of Public Works that to his knowledge no officials of his department at any time were employed in such a survey. This is a clear example of what we of the opposition have to face from the present government.


David James Walker: Will my hon. friend be good enough to read that clause again? I would ask him just to read it again.


An hon. Member:: A study, not a survey.


David James Walker: It is a short sentence.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On March 4, as found at page 1593 of Hansard-I have not Hansard in front of me at the moment-the Minister of Transport advised the house that, arising out of the work that had been done to date, he had asked that certain other estimates be worked out-


David James Walker: Just a minute.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -by the Department of Public Works.


David James Walker: Just a minute. Do you mind my interrupting? The words are "arising out of the work that has been done to date". He does not say that was done by the Department of Public Works.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes.


David James Walker: No; he does not. Would my hon. friend carry on from there? After the phrase "arising out of the work that has been done to date", will my hon. friend read on from there?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want to state again that the Minister of Transport has in this House of Commons been referring to a preliminary engineering estimate on the Chignecto project which was being prepared by the Department of Public Works. This can be found-


David James Walker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say this? I know that my hon. friend does not want to mislead the committee. He has read one clause "arising out of the work that has been done to date". I ask him whether he will be good enough, for the benefit of the members of his party as well as of ours, to read the next clause. We want to have fairness here and we want to be fair to hon. members opposite. So far there is no indication in what he has read that the Department of Public Works did the work. Would the hon. member now read on?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman,-


David James Walker: Will you read on?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -I repeat-


David James Walker: Will the hon. member hand it to me and I will read it?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have not Hansard in front of me at the moment but I will get it. I will produce tomorrow the whole of the quotation of the statements made by the Minister of Transport.


William Heward Grafftey: Shame.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There is no shame there. You will find that the records are there to prove it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: While we are getting the Hansard reference in connection with the statement of the Minister of Transport about which the Minister of Public Works seems to be skeptical, perhaps he will be more impressed if I put on the record a statement made by the Prime Minister when he said, according to a Canadian Press report of a meeting on May 3, 1957 at Saint John:
On maritime area issues, he-
That is the Prime Minister.
-said a Conservative government at Ottawa would ... carry out a complete investigation into the feasibility of the decades old proposal for a Chignecto canal to link the bay of Fundy with Northumberland strait.
The survey would determine "whether the dream of past generations can become the reality of the future"-
The minister now tells us that his department has done nothing since that time in connection with that survey.


David James Walker: My friend the hon. member for Gloucester will be glad to learn that I have here Hansard of March 4, 1959. As indicated at page 1593, Mr. McWilliam asked question No. 35 which was as follows:
1.	Has a survey been made on the feasibility of the construction of the Chignecto canal?
2.	If so, has enough data been compiled to determine the feasibility of this project?
3.	If not, when is it expected the data will be completed?
The answer given was as follows. I ask my hon. friend to note this answer. It is all here:


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might deal with all three parts of this question in one answer. The hon. member is, I know, aware that over the years there have been many studies made of this proposal, the earliest one reported being dated 1822. Because of this I rather think the inquiry arises from the statement I made in the house on August 28 last when the estimates of the Department of Transport were under consideration. At that time I said the Department of Public Works had been asked to give us a preliminary engineering estimate on the cost of the Chignecto project, on the basis of which 79951-0-418
Supply-Public Works
it was proposed to have another economic study made and that I would report the findings to my colleagues.
Arising out of the work that has been done to date, I have asked that certain other estimates be worked out, and it is consequently not possible to say at present when a complete report will be put before me.
There is nothing there to say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the most absurd thing, Mr. Chairman. In August of 1958 the Minister of Transport told us that he had asked the Department of Public Works to make this study. That is what appears there, on August 28, 1958. He told us in the committee that he had asked the Department of Public Works. Then he says in the next paragraph:
Arising out of the work that has been done to date-
This statement was made the following March.
Arising out of the work that has been done to date.
If the word of the Minister of Transport means anything which the minister seems to be implying it does not, it means that between August-


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -of 1958 and March of 1959 the department had done certain work and he had then asked them to do some more work. What we want to know is what that work was; how much it cost; how many people were engaged on it and how many people have been engaged on it since.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister just said there was none.


David James Walker: Because the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate makes assertions like this I am very tempted to reply in kind; but I hope this is my good day in the House of Commons and I assure him that no matter the provocation he cannot get me ruffled one bit.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you give it to him?


David James Walker: Someone says "Give it to him". I do not think so at all. We are getting on nicely and I am getting complete co-operation from the opposition. But what the Minister of Transport said on August 4 or on any other day I know nothing about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are a member of the government.


David James Walker: I know what I read in Hansard of March 4, 1959 does not by any stretch of the imagination indicate anything else but what I have already told the committee, and I repeat it again, that the Department of
6624	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works Public Works have not done any economic survey since our government took office.
I hope the hon. member does not think I am trying to mislead him when I talk about an economic survey or a feasibility survey. I certainly will not be caught again by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate like on that embarrassing day in this house when the press had the statement about General Young's forthcoming visit. That is the situation and there is nothing I can add. I cannot interpret the mind of the Minister of Transport; he is always amply able to defend himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said earlier, and if I misinterpret what he said he will correct me at once, that when he referred to the arrangement with Mr. Flemming the government yielded to the importunings of the premier of New Brunswick notwithstanding the fact that many feasibility studies had been previously made. Could the minister tell us what feasibility studies he was talking about when he said that?


David James Walker: As the Minister of Transport said, this matter was very prominently discussed way back in 1822. There has certainly been none undertaken since the Liberal government got into power in 1935. As a matter of fact, I am informed, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will correct me if I am wrong, that the Hon. George Marler, the former minister of transport, at the 1959 Liberal convention opposed a resolution in favour of the Chignecto canal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can give the minister information about that if he wants it. It has nothing to do with the estimates of the Department of Public Works, but the position taken by Mr. Marler was a not unintelligent position. He said he thought a study should be made before the party committed itself to doing the thing.
However, the Prime Minister was very specific and I will take a report from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal which will per. haps reassure the Minister of Veterans Affairs a little more.


Mr. Nesbitt:: What book is that you are going to quote from?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a volume which was produced in the interests of history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by the national Liberal federation so that this country would have on record some of the promises made by the right hon. gentleman who bought his way into office in this country with promises, most of which he did not keep.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh, shame.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did the hon. member make the statement that the Prime Minister bought his way in?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I want to remind hon. members we are on vote 327 of the public works estimates and I would suggest that hon. members please come back to it. The Chair has been quite lenient.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the statement made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate cannot remain unchallenged and I think it should be withdrawn immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is no question of
privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a point of order then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is certainly not a point of order. It is a debating point which the hon. minister has a perfect right to debate if he wants to, but notwithstanding that fact I think I was in error in saying that the Prime Minister bought his way into office. I think too highly of the Canadian people. The Prime Minister talked his way into office because the Canadian people wrongly believed the things he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I hope I will not have to remind hon. members again to please come back to vote 327.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this study which was promised by the Prime Minister-another of those promises which he did not keep-has directly to do with this department because as the Minister of Transport told us, rightly or wrongly, he said he would ask the Department of Public Works to make this study. They apparently do not know anything about that request, but he said he would ask them and that is in Hansard and was read by the Minister of Public Works himself.
Here is another extract of this promise of the Prime Minister's on May 3, 1957, another of these assurances that the Prime Minister said he always keeps:
Investigation of the feasibility of a Chignecto canal connecting the bay of Fundy and Northumberland strait was promised Friday night by John Diefenbaker if a Progressive Conservative government is elected.
"Our intention is to give it the widest possible investigation,"

And so on. The report continues:
Mr. Diefenbaker said he considered the canal part of the St. Lawrence seaway system. The survey would determine "whether the dream of past generations can become the reality of the future."
That promise was made three years ago. Three years later on the eve of a provincial election this government's idea of keeping that promise is to screw half the cost of the study the Prime Minister promised out of the provincial treasury of that province. It is no wonder that Mr. Flemming went down to defeat if that is the way this government treats its friends.


Harold Edward Winch: This past half hour has been a most interesting discussion about who would pay for what in the planning of the Chignecto canal. I have no objection whatever to any work undertaken in the maritimes or any planning done in the maritimes; but after listening this last half hour I cannot help but wonder whether we ever remember that there is also a Pacific coast.
If it is of such importance, as it undoubtedly is, that a connection by the Chignecto canal be paid 100 per cent by the federal government, in view of the fact that although the maritimes has been a depressed area and I think has had pretty fine consideration from this House of Commons over these last two or three years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: -we on the Pacific coast under similar circumstances do not get the same treatment.
So I would like to ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, if I am in order in asking this question, because we are a nation, not a series of Balkan states. In British Columbia we have Vancouver island off the Pacific coast. It is 72 miles wide and I think about 370 miles long, with I believe just under 200,000 of population. Would the minister also give us the same treatment in British Columbia as he gives the maritimes on their Chignecto canal and make an engineering survey or a feasibility survey of a causeway from the lower mainland of British Columbia to Vancouver island? We do not ask for privileges. We ask for equality.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So that the record may be complete and final, and to add to the evidence which has already been put on record by the Minister of Transport which has not impressed the Minister of Public Works, perhaps I might remind the hon. gentleman of some evidence given by his predecessor as minister of public works who when asked on June 13, 1958, as reported on page 1139 of 79951-0-418i
Supply-Public Works Hansard, whether the government was doing anything about the Chignecto canal, replied:
Well, it is under study.
Then when the subject came up again a few days later on June 19, 1958, the hon. member for Gloucester had this to say:
On June 13, the minister said the Chignecto canal is being studied by his department. Is the minister in a position to report to this committee what action has been taken thus far in connection with the canal?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman. The study is still under way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How far has the study been carried? Have any engineers of the department been instructed to make preliminary plans?


Howard Charles Green: This study is being carried on within the department, and I am afraid I cannot go any further than that.
This is the study which the present minister said is not being undertaken and has not been undertaken.


David James Walker: No engineers, as the hon. gentleman knows, have been appointed, and what they are studying are the possibilities of having a feasibility survey, I would take it. If I have been wrong, then I am sorry, but the fact remains that there has been no feasibility survey in the Department of Public Works.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the minister is saying that the study is on the question of whether there will be a study. That is the study which has been going on for three years.


David James Walker: I am going to study, as a result of the observations of many hon. members on both sides of the house; whether or not I am going to undertake certain feasibility projects, I am going to do a lot of studying. That would not mean I am going to do a lot of undertaking, the fact that I am studying-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister was always a good student.


David James Walker: Thank you, professor.


Harold Edward Winch: Since the government is undertaking studies in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway and in connection with the Chignecto canal, will the minister give the same opportunities to British Columbia and study the feasibility of a connecting link between the lower mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver island?


David James Walker: I know the hon. member for Vancouver East desires an answer, though I hate to take up the time of the committee. We always consider carefully the requests of the provincial government of British Columbia which, under its present administration, has never been modest in its demands. I

Supply-Public Works can assure the committee that at no time have we ever been asked for such a survey, but if the hon. member would like to get in touch with his friends the Social Credit government-


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry. They are not my friends.


David James Walker: We have a peculiar habit in this house of referring to people as our friends when they are sometimes our deadly enemies. Perhaps that applies in the case of the hon. member, though not, of course, in a personal sense. That province which, according to its premier, has no funded debt, is always complaining that it is not getting enough, but as one example I would point out that of the $400 million being spent by the dominion government on the trans-Canada highway the province of British Columbia is getting more than one quarter of the total.


Harold Edward Winch: I would point out to the minister that we have a range of mountains there.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: There seem to be a number of contradictory reports with regard to this Chignecto canal survey, and I wish to place on the record the following exchange which is reported on page 243 of Hansard of January 23, 1959. It reads as follows:


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now prepared to report to the house on the progress of the cost survey of the Chignecto canal to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works, as announced in this house on August 28 last, when he promised to report at a later date?


George Harris Hees: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. Has the survey been undertaken?


George Harris Hees: The survey certainly has not been completed. I will confer with my colleague the Minister of Public Works to find out what is the position.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has it been started?


George Harris Hees: I told the hon. member X would speak to my colleague. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works will answer now.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will check his Hansard for last year I think he will find that I said a study had been undertaken by the department.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the Minister of Public Works prepared to report on the progress of that survey?


Howard Charles Green: No.
Again I wish to repeat that this house has been led to believe for the last two and a half or three years that a survey was under way by the department.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have been asking the minister time after time the name of the one who made the investigation in the case in which, as hon. members know, I am interested. I

do so because an injustice has been committed against a person who did not deserve it and I have the proof here that the investigation which was undertaken was a very poor one, if it is the same man to whom the investigation referred. Here I have proof that the investigation was very badly made by the investigator of the department, if there was one. I have a letter from the Banque Cana-dienne Nationale stating that they were satisfied with the work that had been done there.
The minister spoke this afternoon of the work at Mont Joli, which was work covering a vault over stairs and garage a couple of years ago and said that it was very badly executed, that the roof leaked, that there was extremely bad plumbing, that windows were fixed with nails instead of screws and so on. Yet here I have a letter stating the contrary, and if the minister has taken any action against this man on the basis of a report coming from such a quarter I am sorry, because the man who sent in that report had no conscience at all. He did not go to the real persons in order to ask about this affair. He did not go to the chief architect of the Banque Canadienne Nationale in which case he would have got a completely different statement. This is an injustice, and the minister should repair that injustice in favour of that man.


An hon. Member:: Well done.
Another hon. Member: Politics.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Who said "politics"? If there is one politician who is acting only for political purposes it is the present minister because he made that to please one member and all these things which have been said are just said to please the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulange who wanted his man to have the contract.


An hon. Member:: Well done.
(Translation):
Another hon. Member: The minister said it was out of order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Who talks about being out of order? If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) wants to discuss points of order in French, I shall be pleased to do so.


An hon. Member:: You are not a lawyer.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not have to be a lawyer; I can understand justice better than the Minister of Public Works.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What does the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) think of renting space in his building to the telegraph division of the C.N.R.? I think that is disgraceful for a member of parliament.


The Chairman:: Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I am being directly taken to task by the member lor Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Let me tell him this: whenever the hon. member wants to discuss that point, let him say so, and I will prove to him that I am more familiar than he is with the Senate and House of Commons act.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have some questions; I have not a speech to make, but I have some questions about the general administration of the department which can only be asked on the administrative item, that I would now like to put to the minister but I do not want to interfere with any other hon. member who has any speech to make. I am putting questions that I should like answers to because on the answers will depend further questions that I wish to ask.
The first question that I should like to put to the Minister of Public Works is who is the chief architect of the Department of Public Works and when was he appointed?


David James Walker: I will answer them all at one time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that is not very convenient because I want the answers in order to pose certain other questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a simple one: you ought to be able to answer it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister is going to answer.


David James Walker: Quite so; I will be delighted. The chief architect is Mr. E. A. Gardner, and I think the year of his appointment was 1952.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was appointed chief architect in 1952?


David James Walker: Yes.


An hon. Member:: By the Liberals?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Am I right in saying that the present deputy minister assumed office officially on January 1, 1954, but that he actually undertook his duties, or some of the duties, in December of 1953?


David James Walker: Yes, that is approximately the date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the evidence that was given in the public accounts committee.


David James Walker: Quite so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume it was correct. Does the minister recall that on Monday, July 18, 1960 he made a statement which appears at page 6476 of Hansard in reply to
Supply-Public Works my friend from Laurier in which he said this with respect to the printing bureau:
Mr. Chairman, I want to add to what I have said by saying that this term ''incompetent and inefficient" includes all those who were responsible for the planning and the execution of this building-
From January, 1954 the present deputy minister had the main responsibility for the execution of this project, and according to the minister's statement from 1952 the present chief architect of the department was the supervising architect in connection with this matter. I ask the minister whether he regards these two gentlemen as incompetent and inefficient, because that is what he said. He said:
This term ''Incompetent and inefficient" includes all those who were responsible for the planning-
Of course, I do not say these gentlemen were responsible for the planning but the minister took in lots of territory. He also said "for the execution". I can refresh the minister's memory with certain passages from the public accounts committee of two years ago with respect to this matter.


David James Walker: I do not want to enter into a controversy with my friend; he knows that I can, I am not afraid to. I will answer his question very succinctly. The printing bureau, as my friend knows, was started away back in the 1940's, and at that time the plans were, of course, under the direction of Mr. Cormier, the architect, and the chief architect at the time was Mr. Brault, and the deputy minister at the time was Mr. Murphy and the minister at that time was the Hon. Mr. Fournier.
So far as Mr. Gardner is concerned, anybody who was at the public accounts committee meeting will remember how the recommendations which he made constantly in connection with the progress of this building, although he had nothing to do with the original planning, but the execution of it, time after time were refused, snowed under by the deputy minister Mr. Murphy, and the minister, Mr. Fournier. Also, when General Young came to the department in 1954- my hon. friend will recall that he questioned him very thoroughly and very ably, too, I thought-all the contracts had been called except the moving contract in the year 1954, and the deputy minister, General Young, who was brought in by the esteemed former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, to clean up this awful mess in the Department of Public Works, could do nothing else except to complete the building, but he was called in only in 1954. All this was gone into. Surely at this stage we do not want to be called to thresh old straw ad nauseam. I am not
6628	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works trying to blame anybody on this thing tonight. All I was doing on Monday night was giving a recitation of the facts. We are not out to go all over this again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then why did you make the statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I want to take issue with what has been said by the Minister of Public Works in connection with two of the persons he mentioned. I hope that upon reflection he will amend his language. I made a statement in this house not very long ago concerning a deceased person and the cries from the other side of the house were vehement, they were violent, not because I said anything compared with what the minister has said but because I referred to a deceased person. The Minister of Public Works has said that the instructions or the recommendations given or made by one of his officers were snowed under by Mr. E. P. Murphy.


David James Walker: That is true.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Murphy is deceased; he has passed away.


David James Walker: Has he?


Lionel Chevrier: He was listed as a witness at the public accounts committee but my hon. friend who was the-I will not use the term that has been suggested to me-who acted on behalf of the government had the opportunity to call him but never called him. My hon. friend knows that very well and although he has passed away my hon. friend attacked him. I think that sort of conduct should not be indulged in; that sort of language is unbecoming a minister of the crown.
I do want to object very strenuously to what he said about his predecessor, the former minister of public works, now a judge of the exchequer court. The committee had an opportunity two years ago to call him also. There was no hesitation in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines about calling a former minister of transport, now the chief justice of the supreme court of New Brunswick. His name was put on the list. When it came time to call him, after the evidence given by the former minister of transport, Mr. Marler, and myself, it was decided not to call him.
I object strenuously to the language used with reference to a deceased person by the present Minister of Public Works, as I object to language reflecting upon the character of Hon. Mr. Fournier. Mr. Fournier is an honest man, a sincere man, and there was no better minister of public works. I remember when I sat on that side of the house. One of the reasons perhaps why he was called to task in connection with this matter was the


licking that he administered to the immediate predecessor of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, concerning a matter that had taken place on the Pacific coast. That may well have something to do with it.
Mr. Pallet!: He is not fit to lick his boots, let alone give him a licking.


Lionel Chevrier: If the government whip who interrupts had been in the house at that time, and I do not remember whether he was, and had listened to the discussion which took place he would know that there was no doubt in the world that if anybody ever took a licking on that occasion it was the predecessor of the Minister of Public Works at the hands of Mr. Fournier.
Mr. Pallet!: That is one member's opinion only.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a fact. You can get the
record and read it. I regret very much that this matter has been dragged in. I certainly did not drag it in.


Mr. Chambers:: Who dragged it in?


Mr. Thrasher:: There is who dragged it in.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not drag it in. Let me
answer the question of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It was brought in as an aside the other evening by the Minister of Public Works. In fairness to him I am sure it was not brought in deliberately but brought in as an aside, and that is what brought on the whole discussion the other evening and again tonight. I deprecate the fact that two men have been attacked by the minister, one a responsible, industrious and honest man and the other a man who is now deceased and passed away, a man whom the committee could have called but decided not to call.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, in view o: the interjection of the hon. member for St Lawrence-St. George I want to point out that I made no reference to any person except two officials of the minister's own department. It was the minister who dragged in this business about Mr. Fournier and Mr. Murphy tonight. I asked him whether he considered the present deputy minister and the present chief architect incompetent and inefficient as he said he did on Monday night. That is what I asked him. Instead of answering my question, which is what he should have done if he had any respect for proper procedure in this house, he started in by making a threat that, if he wanted to, he could enter into a controversy with me. There is no doubt he could, Mr. Chairman,

Supply-Public Works
and there is no doubt that in that contro- I should now like to put to him about the ad-versy he could reach depths to which I would ministration of the department since the not wish to descend.	present government came into office.


Mr. Starr:: Because you are there already.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I was not asking for any controversy. I was asking the minister to moderate his language about his own officials and to assure us that he did not consider the present deputy minister and the present chief architect as incompetent and inefficient, that he had been in error when he said that. Lest the minister think that their responsibility in this matter was small, I would refer him to proceedings of the standing committee, particularly to certain passages on pages 164 and 165, where the evidence of the deputy minister shows that from a very early period, almost from the moment he assumed his present office, he took the responsibility himself for this matter. I asked him a number of questions to which he gave very candid and, I am perfectly certain, quite truthful replies. I will read them if I am asked to read them. The deputy minister's replies show quite clearly that he satisfied himself, before he asked Mr. Winters to make recommendations to treasury board about the matter, that these expenditures were justified. It is also a fact, since the Minister has dragged up this matter-


Egan Chambers: The minister did not drag it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that every one of these contracts was performed for a lower amount than Mr. Cormier estimated, and in most cases the amount with extras and everything else was lower than the second bid. Far from showing any incompetence or anything of that sort, if anybody examines the record dispassionately he will find that while it is quite true that somebody made a guess somewhere about 1945 that a printing bureau might be built for $6 million, the first serious estimate ever given in the house by Mr. Fournier was very little different from the ultimate cost of the building and was well within the percentage given in evidence by the chief architect as to the increase in building costs between the time that estimate was given and the time the building was completed.
I have refreshed my memory about this matter. I had to sit in the committee this afternoon and I thought I might as well make good use of my time. In the standing committee the minister, who was then a great expert in this field, laid down certain principles as to how public works should be carried on. It is because of the principles he laid down that I have a number of questions


David James Walker: Before my friend proceeds would he mind if I said a word?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


David James Walker: I regret to learn that Mr. Murphy, whom I never met, is deceased. I have heard that now for the first time and naturally I am very sorry to hear it. I will also say that my friend will remember that this committee met almost until the eve of the house adjourning at the beginning of September, I think, and we were left with a great many witnesses whom we were unable to call, including Mr. Murphy. I do not think we were going to call Mr. Fournier who was suffering from ill health.
I did not want to discuss this matter at all but when my esteemed subordinates, the chief architect and my deputy minister, are included by my hon. friend in an attack, I must explain that anything they did was done under direction and in spite of the good judgment of Mr. Gardner. I just wanted to explain that. I will not enter into a discussion of this matter. It is all a closed book now. We might have a debate on it sometime in which I would be very happy to take part but not tonight. I think my hon. friend will agree that I did not drag up this matter. I had no intention of doing so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed.


Jacques Flynn: Will the hon. member permit me to say at this point that it is not my intention to prevent a continuation of this discussion but from my view the proceedings of the public accounts committee of two years ago are not relevant to the item under discussion. Of course, at this point I would not want to interfere with anybody. If hon. members feel that they should continue I will not prevent them. I am simply pointing out that to my mind this discussion is not relevant and the sooner it is terminated the better.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I completely agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to revive it at all. I intended to get the minister to withdraw words which applied to his deputy minister and his chief architect. Mind you, I do not agree with that view. I have a very high opinion of both these gentlemen with whom I have had dealings for many more years than the minister has had.


Mr. McPhillips:: Naturally you would; they are all Grits.
6630	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) want to make one of his distinguished contributions to our debates?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Naturally you would have; they are all Grits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very glad to let him have the floor to do so. As I was saying when the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) erupted, these two gentlemen are gentlemen of whom I have and always have had a very high opinion. I was sorry to hear the minister say that they were inefficient and incompetent. After all, if the Minister of Public Works thinks his chief executive officers are incompetent and inefficient that has nothing to do with the printing bureau but has to do with the estimates now before us. But since I gather that in a rather oblique and indirect way the minister withdrew that observation I will now proceed to put to the minister the questions I wish to put to him about the general administration of the department.


Egan Chambers: Relevant to the estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very relevant to the
estimates.


Egan Chambers: That will be nice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman need have no fear that they are very relevant to the estimates and to the way in which money is being spent in this department under the present administration. I hope the minister will attempt to confine himself to the activities of the present administration and not give us any more of these distortions of history which he is so fond of giving whenever he is asked an embarrassing question.


Mr. Monleilh (Perth):: You are really doing your best at needling, aren't you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for the certificate. What I should like to know is the number-


David James Walker: It is all good clean fun, anyway, so go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think spending millions and millions of the taxpayers' money is fun or should be so regarded. I must say that it does seem to be the attitude of the present minister.


David James Walker: I meant your needling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister would like to hear my questions, then we might speed up the proceedings. It might be that it will take a few minutes for the minister to answer these questions. I can put two or three of them at once, and then he can answer. I should like to know the number of buildings
IMr. McPhillips.]

which have been started by the present government where the departmental estimate was that the building would cost over half a million dollars. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask for all the buildings the department has built. However, there cannot be so many built that have been started since June 21, 1957 by the present government costing over half a million dollars.


Egan Chambers: What has that got to do with the 1960-61 estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman will find that at the speed with which this government moves very few buildings will have been completed. It is only for the purpose of comparison because we are being asked to spend large sums of the taxpayers' money and we are entitled to this information.
I should like to know where each-


An hon. Member:: Whose money were you spending?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The taxpayers' money, and we spent it very prudently. What is more, we were able to collect enough in taxes to pay for what we did. We did not have to put the country hopelessly in debt.
I should like to know where these buildings are located, in each case, and the departmental estimate of the cost, the amount of the contract and the extras which have been so far incurred. What progress has been made?


David James Walker: If you do not mind, I know my friend imputes that I am rather stupid but I got as far as question four, the departmental estimates of the cost. What was next?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What was the amount of the contract in each case, so that we can compare that with the amount of the estimate? What extras have been incurred to date, over and above the contract price, and what progress has so far been made with each of these buildings?
Now the minister will recall that there is a certain familiarity about these questions; they have a pattern.


Mr. Kucherepa:: There is plagiarism involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, there is a certain amount of plagiarism involved, as the hon. member for High Park has suggested.
I should like also, regardless of the amount of the contract, to have a list of those cases since June 21, 1957 where more than one contract was called for a particular project. I am not interested where one contract covered the whole project, but where more than one contract was called for a project.


David James Walker: I take it my friend is still referring to buildings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, every project.


David James Walker: We have projects all over Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know. The minister will find there are very few of these because the minister will recall the principle he enunciated at the public accounts committee so forcibly that we were making a horrible mess of things-those were his words-if we let more than one contract for any project. There cannot, therefore, be more than two or three of these. It should not take the minister very long, bearing in mind those words of wisdom uttered a few years ago, to find this handful of projects where more than one contract was awarded.


Egan Chambers: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The questions the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has been asking are plagiarised, he admits, from the public accounts committee of some years ago. There is a difference, Mr. Chairman, between the public accounts which deal with past expenditures and estimates which deal with expenditures for the present and future. These questions are obviously out of order. They have no application to the estimates that are before us. If there are individual items of buildings that were started in the past and for which amounts are still included in the estimates, naturally the hon. member as a right to ask for information about those projects. However, his questions are obviously directed to past business and are out of order when we are considering the estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I anticipated precisely this kind of objection from some hon. member opposite. If I had waited until the individual items to ask these questions, there would have been other objections. I might remind the hon. gentleman, who is young and rather inexperienced in the house and who apparently has not attended many of the committee of supply meetings up to now judging by his observations, that on the administrative item of every department it has been always the custom to discuss the general administration of the department. I might also remind the hon. gentleman that ministers are suppliants in this place and that we are the representatives of the taxpayers. It is a time-honoured principle of parliament, about which perhaps he could get some lectures from his leader, that before supply shall be granted any grievances shall be redressed.
What I am seeking to find out is whether this minister is living up to the principles
Supply-Public Works that he himself enunciated as sound principles of administration. The only way one can find that out is to inquire what has been done by him and by his immediate predecessor who was in the office he now holds at the time he enunciated these lofty principles. I do not suppose, sir, you wish to take the time of the committee by making any ruling on a point of order which is obviously not a serious one.


John William Kucherepa: You are being judge and jury at the same time.


Egan Chambers: Is the hon. member finished speaking to the point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Egan Chambers: I thought it would be appropriate to apologize to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for my youth. However, I should like to say one more word. There are procedures in this house for obtaining information. A question can be put on the order paper. The hon. member has had months in which to do this, thus giving the department an opportunity of bringing forward the information in an orderly fashion. No one is asking a denial of the opportunity to inquire into the general administration of the department, but we have here an inquiry going back to 1957. I apologize again for my inexperience to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, but at this time this committee is not concerned with 1957.


Jacques Flynn: I think the questions by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were somewhat along the lines of the ones about which I made a comment some minutes ago. I indicated then that at that point I would not dare to rule those questions out of order although I would say that in principle they did not appear to me to be directly relevant to item one. The only point, of course, is that I do not see how it could be relevant to revive the debate in the committee on public accounts or to make comments on the role played in that committee by the present minister.
I shall rule as I have ruled before, that I will not intervene at this point for fear of being unfair. I am just asking the co-operation of hon. members and asking that they be as relevant as they can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question I was asking, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. membei intervened-perhaps I should add that I meant no offence to the hon. member by saying that he was young; it is just that I am getting old and I am envious.

Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: I know my hon. friend will appreciate my saying this, that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George was not too young to win the military cross and bar away back in 1943.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is not too young to make from time to time very distinguished and very good natured contributions to the debates of the House of Commons. The question I was asking some little time ago and which I will now resume for the benefit of the minister was as to all those projects since June 21, 1957 where more than one contract was called for a particular project and the reason for departing from the principle enunciated by the minister, namely that a plan for a project must be completed before the contract was called and that a single contract called for the whole project if there was not to be a horrible mess-to quote his words-in the administration of the department. As I say, those cases since 1957 must be very few because of the principles enunciated by the minister.
Then I should like to know of every case since January 1, 1958 where extras have been paid. I do not go quite so far back here because I want to be fair to the minister. I do not want to involve him in things that were not started by the present government. Perhaps I should amend this date to April 1, 1958. I should like to know of every case since April 1, 1958 where extras have been paid on any job involving more than $100,000.
Then I wish the minister to tell us about the Jackson building. We know there was an explosion near the Jackson building. I am not blaming the minister or the government for that explosion. However, we know there was an explosion, that the employees had to be moved out and that the building had to be renovated. I should like the minister to go through the various steps in connection with this matter. I should like him to tell us whether a complete plan was prepared for the renovation of this building before any work was done, whether tenders were called, whether there was a single tender for the whole job and whether there were any extras.
I should also like the minister to tell us this. Here, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about something that happened since the public accounts committee had experience with the printing bureau. I should like the minister to tell us how much has been spent since the present government came into office on the air conditioning in the printing bureau; how many tenders were called; whether any tenders that were called were subsequently withdrawn and, if so, why; what tender was


eventually awarded; what the contract was; whether the contract was satisfactorily performed and whether it is functioning properly at the present time.


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When do you expect the answers to those voluminous questions? Do you expect them tonight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I expect the answers during the course of consideration of the estimates, of course. These questions are of a kind that the hon. gentleman and his friends used to ask of ministers. I can remember some of the questions that were asked of Mr. Fournier when he was sitting over there on the other side of the chamber and also of Mr. Winters when the previous government was in office. My hon. friends felt it was their duty to have the information about the affairs of all departments at their fingertips-the questions were far more voluminous with all these details in them-and it did not take hours and hours and hours.
After all, I have confined these questions to matters which are exceptional. I should draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that I have confined these questions precisely and exclusively to those matters-except for my first question-which are exceptional. I have not asked about any case where one contract was let for the whole project and whether it was performed within the scope of the whole contract. Under the wellnigh perfect administration of this department which we are led to believe there has been since 1957 I cannot believe that the number of exceptions would be much more than can be counted on the fingers of two hands. I think the committee as well as the country will be surprised if the minister preached one thing and practised another.
That is precisely why I am asking this question. I am asking this question in order to see how close the minister has kept to that principle he enunciated a couple of years ago, namely that it was bad business, bad administration and bad for the treasury to call a tender until the plans were completed, until an estimate from the department was available, and then one single tender should be called for the whole project and that any other procedure was unbusinesslike and improper. Those were the principles the minister enunciated very clearly as the guiding principles for the biggest construction department of the government or one of the biggest construction departments.

It is true, of course, that the Minister of Transport follows an entirely different principle, as he has told us over and over again. He is not a bit impressed by these views of the Minister of Public Works. He blithely lets dozens of contracts for the same project and they seem to grow and multiply and the cost grows and multiplies with them. But I suppose it is like this other case we had earlier of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
However, in view of the high principles enunciated by the minister, Mr. Chairman, I say that the committee is entitled to know whether they are being carried out.


Mr. Regier:: I was most amused to observe the great effort that the pot made to label the kettle black. When it comes to the matter of awarding contracts in the Department of Public Works I think the Liberal record is so lousy that it smells to high heaven. The Canadian electorate at the last election knew what they ought to do with that Liberal record. I think it ill behooves the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to attempt now to interrogate the relatively new Minister of Public Works on awards that have been offered because, as he well knows, the minister has not been in office for very long.
This is a rather rare occasion in my life's history, Mr. Chairman, because whatever there is in me that is good or bad I have to ascribe it not only to myself but to my parents and to my mentors. I have in the gallery here this evening two of my former school teachers, namely Messrs. Epp and Bergen and I want to pay my respects to them.
To return to the issue, I notice with considerable dismay that the Minister of Public Works has been obliged to suffer a reduction in the amount of money allotted to him, I assume because of the orders of his colleague the Minister of Finance. The reduction is from $226 million to $195 million. As many other members who have preceded me have stated, at a time when there is mass unemployment in the nation I feel that this reduction is most unwise and ought not to have been undertaken at this time. If anything, in order to relieve the employment situation I feel there ought to have been an expansion in the amount of money made available to the minister at this time.
I notice in particular that he has been reduced in the amount of money that is available to him with regard to public buildings construction and services. Whereas a year ago the department was allowed to spend $50 million, this year it is being permitted to spend only $34 million. I also notice that under harbours and rivers, engineering services, whereas a year ago the department was
Supply-Public Works permitted to spend $33 million this year it is permitted to spend only $26 million. I can understand that there may be circumstances when a reduction in public spending may be advisable. However, at a time of mass unemployment I feel it is most unwise to reduce expenditures in the field of erecting new public buildings and in the field of harbours and rivers engineering services.
I hope the minister will be able to tell us why the amounts of the votes this year are identical with the votes of a year ago. I have particular reference to vote 355, which is to the extent of $2,800,000 exactly what it was a year ago, and also to vote 356 which is $3,606,075, again identical with the amount allocated a year ago. I have looked over the details and I notice there is a variation. Knowing the minister to be an honest and well meaning man I would like to ask him how, with increased wages which are acknowledged in the details and increases here and there, he yet manages to arrive at the identical number of dollars.
It reminds me of an occasion a number of years ago when the former member for Nanaimo completely floored the Liberal minister of national defence of that day when he called attention to the fact that the estimates of national defence were identical even to the last dollar to what they were the year before.
In other words, this indicates a certain sloppiness in the department. It indicates that a departmental official has authorized the spending of as much as was spent last year but no more. I know that the minister has been under the axe of the Minister of Finance and his over-all expenditure is much less. The minister is only being allowed, even in the light of the unemployment situation today, to spend $195 million whereas a year ago he was permitted to spend $226 million.
However, as I said, the over-all amount is identical and unless the minister has a real explanation to offer it indicates sloppiness on the part of someone in his department. I have particular reference to vote 355, which is identical with the same vote of a year ago even though the details are not identical, and vote 356 which is identical with what it was a year ago although the details reveal there are alterations. But I think the minister is called to account to this committee how in the world he manages to end up with exactly the same amount of money.


Maurice Bourget: I only have one question to ask the minister and it has to do with personnel. Can the minister tell us what is the regular staff in the architect district office in Montreal? Also, has there been any increase in the number of supervisors and foremen?

Supply-Public Works


Jacques Flynn: Shall the item carry? When the information is available perhaps the minister will answer later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to letting the general item carry if the minister will give an undertaking to answer my questions before the estimates are completed.


Jacques Flynn: The questions of the hon. member for Levis are relevant to this item, but perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate might ask for an answer when we come to the specific item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think my questions, with one possible exception, relate to specific items; they are questions about the general administration. But I have no desire to hold up the passing of this item provided the minister will give an undertaking to answer the questions as soon as the answers can be prepared.


David James Walker: I do not mind doing that but I would not want to be held up on the estimates for that reason. I am informed that it would take at least a week. There is a tremendous amount of research to be accurate for the hon. member. That is on the first of his major questions. I will be very happy to get the information if the hon. member will wait for it, because it is more like an order for return, is it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as the first question is concerned I suggest a very simple way of doing it would be to take the blue books for the last three years and look at every project listed of over $100,000. It does not seem to me to be a very big task but I may not understand these things. In any event, if the minister gives an undertaking to provide the information as soon as it can conveniently be made available I would be satisfied with that.


David James Walker: I would be glad to get the information for the hon. member for Levis as well; I do not think it will take very long.


Maurice Bourget: I would not like to hold up the passage of this item and I agree, if the information will be ready tomorrow. But I may have some remarks to make on that and I hope I will be allowed to do so.


David James Walker: In reply to the matters raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam with regard to items 355 and 356, surely he appreciates we have to have something in reserve. We never know when there will be a storm or some act of God, or some sudden happening or emergency which we have not been able to anticipate. That is why we usually put in a little more than we expect

to spend. We try to get a figure which we have found from our experience in the past to be an adequate one and I think it is safe to say that we are not doing a good job on the estimates if we actually spend in a year as much as we put into these particular items because we have to have a reserve for emergency. Does that answer the question?


Erhart Regier: I want to thank the minister for his answer and to ask him a further question about another matter. The hon. gentleman's predecessor announced it was no longer the policy of the government for the Department of Public Works to take a lease enabling a person to erect a public building for the purpose of renting it to the government over a fixed period of years. I should like to know whether this policy still obtains or whether it has been altered since the advent of the new minister.
I know a number of instances where individuals have entered into an agreement with the Department of Public Works whereby the government undertook to pay so many dollars a month for the facilities which they needed over a stated number of years, and the man concerned was then able to go to a bank with the signed lease and get the whole of the money necessary in order to put up the building, which up to then had not even existed, and at the end of seven, eight or nine years the rentals which had been assigned to the bank against the loan had accounted for all the principal together with the interest, and the originator of the scheme was left holding the real estate and continued either to milk the public first by collecting further rentals, or to dispose of his property in another manner. I have a couple of particular enterprises in mind, and I should like to ask the minister whether the clear announcement of government policy by his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, is equally valid today.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is perfectly right. The policy of the government is to build its own buildings. That is still the policy; to make the capital expenditure and do the best we can. Otherwise, we are mortgaging our future as has been done in some states of the union and also in one of our provinces. If you ask an entrepreneur to put up a building for you and then pay him over a period of years we find that it is usually an expensive procedure in the long run. However, there are occasions when it is advantageous to enter into a five-year lease. We do not even do that more than we can help, but if there is an interim period while things are being adjusted we find it sometimes pays us to do that rather than put up a building for the interim period.


Erhart Regier: I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for his reiteration of the policy announced by his predecessor. As he well knows, this is one of the main sources of campaign funds of the Liberal party in British Columbia, at least in years gone by and I hope he will look into the economics of the rental agreement which the department now has with the owner of the Port Moody post office and that at an early date he will negotiate the purchase of that building, because on a square foot basis he is now paying one of the highest rentals that is being paid anywhere in the dominion of Canada. I know the owner is most anxious to dispose of the property. The lease expires next year and I hope the government will begin at once to negotiate with the owner in order to avoid a continuation of an unduly high rental expenditure on the part of the taxpayers of Canada.


[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-
328. Newfoundland, $150,000.
Mr. Batten:: On vote 328 I wonder if I could ask the minister what is now the present position of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police building at Port Saunders, Newfoundland?


David James Walker: We shall look that up and get the answer.


Herman Maxwell Batten: While the minister is getting the answer to that question I should like to ask questions about one or two other places. Can the minister give me any information about the proposed Royal Canadian Mounted Police building for Corner Brook, Newfoundland? This item was announced last fall and later withdrawn. I was hoping at that time that the minister would carry on with the construction of this proposed building at Corner Brook and regard the building as a winter works project at a time when unemployment is rather high in that city.


David James Walker: Our difficulty is that we build for the R.C.M.P. when we are asked to do so, and if the Minister of Justice were here I could give the hon. member an answer. But this is their contract and they pay the money. Therefore it is not a vote in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I would be happy to obtain that information and pass it on to the hon. member, but it really does not form part of the estimates.
Supply-Public Works


Herman Maxwell Batten: I recognize the correctness of what the minister says, but I ask this question on the basis of the fact that the minister announced last fall that this building would be built and it was he who later announced that the program was cancelled for the time being. It is in the light of that statement that I ask him my question now.
Is it agreeable that this item should stand for the time being?


David James Walker: I am sorry, but even if I had the answer for the hon. member, the expenditure would still not form part of these estimates. I will undertake to get the information from the Minister of Justice and I will give it to the hon. member tomorrow. Would that be satisfactory?


Herman Maxwell Batten: That would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
331. New Brunswick, $765,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Early this afternoon I asked the minister to give us some information in connection with the public building under construction at the present time in Camp-bellton, New Brunswick. What I want to know is on what date was construction started; what progress has been made to date; has there been any delays during the construction, and what were the reasons for such delays? Were any additional costs involved besides the contract which was awarded for the building? I have further questions to ask in connection with this particular item. I think the minister should be in a position to give me this information because it comes under his department, and in item 331 there is an amount of $100,000 to complete the building which I have mentioned.


David James Walker: I am sorry about the delay. The date of the award of the contract is September 11, 1958; the amount of the contract was $307,000, and it was awarded to Kenney Construction Company Limited. The work on the Campbellton, New Brunswick, public building is now about 86 per cent completed; it will be completed, we hope, in 1960. No extras have been asked for by the Kenney Construction Company in regard to the contract which they signed. However, the department has made some changes in the public building as the result of subsequent representations as to the plans of the building. As a result, the department has agreed to pay for these extras, shall we say, by a supplementary contract for $16,172.30. There have been no extras on the contract awarded to the original contractor, the Kenney Construction Company, for the original work to be done.

Supply-Public Works


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want to follow up my questions about this particular building because on January 20 of this year I placed the following questions on the order paper:
Were tenders called for the construction of the federal building at Campbellton, New Brunswick?
The reply was:
Yes, on August 18, 1958.
My second question was:
If so: (a) what was the amount of the lowest tender?
The reply was $307,000. My next question was:
(b) To whom was the contract awarded, and at what amount?
The reply was:
Kenney Construction Company Limited, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, at $307,000.
My next question was:
Has work been started and at what date?
The answer was:
Yes, on October 1, 1958.
This is just an ordinary building to cost $300,000, which has been under construction for almost two years and it is not yet completed. I was not satisfied with the reply which I received from the minister to my questions and I came back again on February 2 and asked the following questions:
Is the Department of Public Works spending any amount of money on the federal public building at Campbellton, New Brunswick, in addition to the amount awarded to the contractor as per his original contract?
The answer was "yes". My second question was:
If so, what is the additional amount (a) spent to date; (b) estimated to be spent before the building is completed?
The answer was, $411.80. Today the minister advises the house that the department has agreed to pay an additional amount of $16,172 for changes in planning. The answer to the second part of my question was:
No additional expenditure anticipated.
These answers were given on February 2, a year and a half after the work had been started on that particular building. My third question was:
Have there been any delays in the construction since October 1, 1958?
The reply was "yes". My fourth question was:
What were the reasons of such delays? Have such delays occasioned additional cost and to what amount?
The reply to the first part was:
Defective concrete and damages resulting from freezing action during the placing of the concrete.

The reply to the second part was "no". It is a well known fact, that for reasons known to the minister and to the department the work on the public building in Campbellton was delayed considerably. After the building had been framed, after the steel structure was put up, after parts of the walls had been erected, after part of the plumbing had been installed, it was noticed that the building was sinking. The building had been erected over and above a frog pond and it was sinking four or five inches.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Almost like the printing bureau.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister knows something about it; that is why I want to bring it to the attention of the committee. This has taken place under the minister's administration. The work was stopped. Part of the plumbing that had been installed was dismantled; cement pilings were put under the building at a cost which I have good reason to believe was well over $16,000, referred to by the minister. This committee has a right to know the facts about this building. I want the minister to advise the committee whether it is true that it was found that this building which was being built over what is known in Campbellton as a frog pond was built without proper soundings having been taken and that the additional cost may reach the figure of $50,000, or even more. I do not know, but I want to find out from the minister what is the total expenditure? The changes which have been made for the additional amount of $16,000, according to the minister, were changes in planning. There is quite a difference between additional costs for planning and additional costs because the proper borings had not been done by the department to satisfy itself that the foundation was being placed on solid ground; that water was not running under the building and that the building was not sinking after it had been partly constructed.
We have a right to know the details about this building; we have a right to know why on February 2, after all this work or 90 per cent of the extra work had been done, I was told in the house that no additional expenditure was anticipated for that building. I have further questions but I want a reply to the questions I have asked so far before I proceeed further.


David James Walker: I think I have given the answer. As a matter of fact, I did not tell my hon. friend this, for whom the public building is being erected in Gloucester and it is not necessary for him to be so vehement,

vindictive and arbitrary. After all, the government of Canada is constructing a building for his constituents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not in his constituency.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On a point of order, it is not in my riding.


David James Walker: Is it not in your riding?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: No, it is in Restigouche county.


David James Walker: Then that is the explanation for the arrogance the hon. member has shown. In any event, just control yourself or I will answer in kind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is this a threat from the
minister?


David James Walker: My friend, the whip across the way, is shaking his finger at me. We have an agreement-no threats. The bad foundation about which the hon. member for Gloucester is complaining was paid for in full by the contractor. I think it cost him $60,000 extra. He had to pay that himself and this amount of $16,172.30 is what we decided should be added afterwards.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gloucester has asked the minister if he can explain what on the face of it seems like gross inefficiency in the construction of a public building and in asking that question he is accused of being arrogant.


David James Walker: I never heard the Leader of the Opposition talk like that and I am sure the hon. member for Golucester has not followed the example of the Leader of the Opposition.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Public Works should be the last member in the house to use the word "arrogant" in view of his past record in the house. I asked straightforward questions.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And you got the
answers.


David James Walker: Just take it easy.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I want straightforward answers to my questions. I would say that the answers I have received from the minister contradict the information I received in answer to questions I placed on the order paper on January 20 and again on February 2 of this year. Is the government trying to hide the facts? I am concerned about the taxpayers' money just as much as is the minister. I knew that additional money was being spent and I wanted to find out who was
Supply-Pub lie Works paying the cost and what amount was involved. The minister now says that the contractor has been called upon to pay $60,000 extra with regard to work which had not been properly planned by the department. I think it is not right to ask any contractor to assume such an additional charge. The minister should at least explain to the house why on February 2, 1960 he informed the house that no additional expenditures were anticipated outside of an amount of $411.80 which he stated was being paid to the contractor for additional work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has not answered the hon. member's question. On the 2nd of February the minister told the house in answer to a question that some $411 was being spent on the project. He has told us tonight that an additional $16,172 is being spent. There is a considerable difference between $411 and $16,172. I want to be very careful to explain this as the minister explained it. The minister said, I think, that the department had decided on changing the plans and that this was in effect a second contract. I think the committee should be told at what date they decided to change the plans, what was the reason for doing so and when the tender was called for this additional work and, if not, how they arrived at this figure and whether on February 2 when the hon. member was told that no additional expense was anticipated they had no inkling whatever of this extra $16,172.


David James Walker: My friend is quite right. I think the question is properly asked and it is a very simple one. The original return was made in February, was it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: February 2.


David James Walker: At that time no other change was anticipated by the government but in June a decision was made which went to treasury board and on June 29 permission was obtained for a series of changes to be made. I might say that this was done by the government of its own volition and not at the request of the contractor. It does not form any part of the original contract.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Again I want to follow up a question I asked on February 2. At that time I asked whether there had been any delays in the construction since October 1, 1958. That was a straightforward question. The reply I received was, yes. I also asked what were the reasons for such delays and the answer I received was there was defective concrete and damages resulting from freezing action during the placing of the concrete.
The minister has just admitted that the contractor had to do $60,000 worth of additional work and I have every reason to believe

Supply-Public Works that on February 2 that extra work had been completed by the contractor, and that that was the reason for the delay. The minister cannot tell me, having regard to the fact that this is a $300,000 building which was started almost two years ago and is only 86 per cent complete, that there has not been unreasonable delay. Why did they try to hide information with respect to the straightforward questions which I placed on the order paper?
I should like to ask the minister another question. He said that the contractor had been involved in an additional expenditure of $60,000. Is there any correspondence with the department from the contractor claiming part or all of this amount?


David James Walker: The contractor certainly asked us to pay. In fact, he insisted that we should pay. He was in the office from time to time and I believe there is some correspondence on the subject. However, we insisted that the fault was his and that he should pay and so he paid the $60,000 himself, which was all included in the original contract price I gave the hon. member at the beginning.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There were no extras like under the previous government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of National
Health and Welfare has anticipated a question of mine that the minister did not answer. Why were these changes in the plans made? I presume there was some purpose in spending the extra $16,000. Could the minister say what the purpose was and why it was not anticipated when the original tenders were called?


David James Walker: Keeping in mind that the
$60,000 was paid by the construction company and not by us, we ordered the extras because of a decision we made that there should be differences in partitions as well as differences in the basement and these amounted to $16,172.30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say what was the purpose of these differences in partitions and differences in the basement and why they were not foreseen under the general principles he has laid down that such things should always be foreseen by the department before the original tender is called? Who was responsible for the lack of foresight?


David James Walker: My friend is getting back to the $60,000-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about the $16,000.


David James Walker: The Liberal administration would have paid the $60,000; we did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is another of the minister's typical answers.
[Mr. Robichaud.l


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a typical answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has nothing to do with the question.


An hon. Member:: A complete answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is why we are still on the minister's estimates.


David James Walker: The answer in regard to the other matter is this: There should be no criticism by my hon. friend if the government decided later on to make some substantial change which is merited and which is going to improve the building. There could be no fault to find because it has not cost anything extra. The extra work is being done by providing the partitions and the building is being improved. It is not costing the taxpayers any more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, $16,000-


David James Walker: But they are getting in return an improved building for $16,000 extra. Does my hon. friend from Bonavista-Twillingate not understand that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not and I should like it explained.


David James Walker: Of course, none are so blind as those who will not see.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that when I build something, and I have had some recent experience in building, and then I decide to make a change in my building which is going to cost, if my arithmetic is correct, over 5 per cent of the total cost, I think twice about whether those improvements are worth the extra cost. The minister has not said one word to indicate what these improvements were, or why the necessity for them could not have been foreseen originally.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister has stated that the department has refused the contractor, Kenney, his claim of $60,000. Has the matter been finally settled or is there still an opening for Kenney to claim a certain amount from the department?


David James Walker: That is a fair question. So far as we are concerned, it is like the payment of the sum which the Liberals would have us pay Mr. Cormier, that $55,000. We are not going to pay it and I as Minister of Public Works invite him to sue us for it. I also invite Kenney to sue us. The matter has been finally settled, so far as we are concerned, and we are not going to pay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister say whether or not the departmental engineers made borings on this site to satisfy themselves this was a good site before the property was bought and the building started?


David James Walker: I have no idea. In reply to the hon. member for Levis who asked for the total staff of the district architect and the office of the property building management, may I say that in 1959-60 there were 727; 1960-61, 734, an increase of seven. The supervisors in 1959-60 number 14 and in
1960-61, 14. The foremen in 1959-60 numbered 19, and in 1960-61, 18.


Maurice Bourget: Did I hear correctly when the minister said there were 774 employees?


David James Walker: No, in 1959-60, 727 employees in the district architects office in Montreal.


Maurice Bourget: And that includes everyone in that office?


David James Walker: It also includes the property and building management. The district architects staff cannot be distinguished. Would the hon. member like me to find out how many are allocated to the district architects?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


David James Walker: The hon. member asked for the answer which I am now giving. If he wants me to segregate that, I will have that information for him tomorrow morning.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
332. Quebec, $3,673,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I see on page 441 of the details, Hudson public building; is that the post office in Hudson?


David James Walker: Yes.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is that the same post office for which the department has paid $3,085 too much by not giving the contract to the lowest tenderer?


David James Walker: That is a matter of opinion. My hon. friend will not think that I have any
Business of the House
grudge against him if I do not agree with his opinion.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I have received some more information on that matter. This afternoon the minister mentioned Belisle's garage. This building was not constructed by Mr. Langlois but by another contractor. No official of the Department of Public Works went to see Mr. Belisle at any time, so the information is wrong.
Then the minister cited another building, the residence of Mr. Dumais. This residence was accepted by Central Mortgage before Mr. Dumais took it. Everybody knows that Central Mortgage is a very difficult organization to satisfy in connection with work of any kind. Out of the four examples which were given, therefore, I have proven that three were wrong. The man who furnished this information, if he is an employee of the department, should be fired tomorrow morning.


David James Walker: There were two men.


Maurice Bourget: I think we should call it eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jacques Flynn: It being now eleven o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business for tomorrow and Friday will be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on with public works, followed by veterans affairs, followed by northern affairs and national resources.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received protests from any person, persons, or associations regarding the import of United States outfitters equipment to the Quetico park area?
2.	If so, from whom, to what effect?
3.	What action was taken as a result of such protests?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):
1.	Yes.
2.	Protests were received from William Benidickson, M.P., on behalf of Thunder Bay district tourist operators association; Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario; John Richardson, Saganaga Lake, Ontario; northern Ontario tourist outfitters association; Roger Thew, Kawene, Ontario; and from F. A. Mac-Dougall, deputy minister of lands and forests, province of Ontario, on behalf of the northern Ontario tourist outfitters association.
3.	The advice given in reply to these protests was that non-residents of Canada are entitled under the regulations made pursuant to the Customs Act to import temporarily boats, canoes, sporting and camping equipment for health or pleasure purposes, whether such articles are their personal property or are on hire from commercial outfitters. It was pointed out that this privilege is not available to residents of Canada.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Public Works-
327.	General administration, $9,784,537.
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-
328.	Newfoundland, $150,000.
329.	Nova Scotia, $1,225,000.
330.	Prince Edward Island, $45,000.
331.	New Brunswick, $765,000.

[Stage Direction]
Statistical Summary or Federal Contributions to the Provinces and Certain Payments to Institutions and Individuals in the Provinces for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1960-61
The statistical information for section A, unconditional grants, has been drawn from the public accounts of Canada. The information for section B, conditional grants, has been drawn for the fisca! years 1949-50 to 1952- 53 from D.B.S. publication "Financial Statistics of Provincial Governments" and from fiscal year 1953-54 to 1957-58 from D.B.S. publication "Financial Statistics of the Government of Canada" which commenced publication for the former fiscal year. There are minor differences between the two publications occasioned by differing year-end adjustments, as the former publication is based on the public accounts of the provinces and the latter publication on the public accounts of Canada. The figures for 1958-59 are a compilat ion from the 1959 public accounts of Canada. The figures for 1959-60 and 1960-61 are from various departmental sources and are preliminary. While the information is generally complete, in some cases no provincial distribution has been available and this has then been made on the basis of previous or anticipated experience.
The information in sections C and D is drawn from the public accounts of Canada, departmental and agency sources.
Federal unconditional and conditional payments to municipalities other than the grants in lieu of taxes on crown property have not been included in the following tables. These payments include such federal payments as payments to municipalities for railway grade separations, slum clearance, operation of municipal airports, etc.
[Stage Direction]

Statistical Summary of Federal Contributions to the Provinces and Certain Payments to Institutions and Individuals
in the Provinces for the fiscal years 1949-50 to 1960-61
(thousands of dollars)
A.	Unconditional grants
1.	Statutory subsidies....
2.	Transitional grants
(Nfld.)	
3.	Tax rental (>)	
4.	Equalization	
5.	Stabilization	
6.	50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	
7.	Atlantic provinces adjustment grant	
8.	Term 29 award (Nfld.).
Sub-total	
B.	Conditional grants
1.	Agriculture	
2.	Health	
3.	Hospital insurance...
4.	Welfare	
5.	Vocational training etc..
6.	Highways and transportation	
7.	Resource development..
8.	Civil defence	
9.	Other	
Sub-total	
C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions.
1.	University grants	
2.	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on federal property	
Sub-total
										Esti-	Esti-	
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	nidltid 1959-60	1960-61	Total19,169	18,734	20,108	20,108	20,108	20,353	20,272	20,571	20,571	20,571	20,748	20,689	242,0026,500	6,500	6,500	5,650	4,800	3,950	3,100	2,250	1,400	1,050	700	350	42,75076,881	94,122	96,869	308,571	309,229	327,445	319,624	365,938	213,868	249,039	279,730	295,552	2,936,868-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	135,978	143,438	182,985	178,464	640,865-	-	3,458	5,676	-2,315	-	6,8191,375	4,565	3,734	4,369	6,831	7,294	7,948	6,613	7,360	8,682	4,754	9,000	72,525-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	25,000	25,000	25,000	75,000-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13,550	7,300	7,650	28,500103,925	123,921	127,211	338,698	340,968	359,042	350,944	395,372	382,635	467,006	518,902	536,705	4,045,3292,543	1,717	1,336	977	1,081	853	773	938	1,037	1,867	8,194	1,833	23,14913,094	18,970	24,70S	27,259	29,477	32,017	33,700	36.43S	34,596	46,097	46,004	40,142	382,502-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	54,708	149,800	166,984	371,49290,808	103,623	84,522	22,205	23,194	24,177	29,517	38,353	48,149	73,736	86,949	90,310	715,5434,055	4,088	4,244	4,928	4,401	4,380	4,315	4,668	4,562	7,583	8,457	8,435	64,716311	7,116	14,002	13,373	13,806	18,507	16,503	26,909	50,943	53,652	58,138	53,028	326,2884,024	-	-	1,935	2,836	2,237	3,097	2,717	4,517	8,741	15,980	12,344	58,428-	-	-	160	286	512	728	814	968	1,025	1,816	2,177	8,486313	14,031	840	103	25	386	496	137	72	663	7,952	13,727	38,745115,748	149,545	129,652	70,940	75,106	83,069	89,129	110,974	144,844	248,072	383,290	388,980	1,989,349-	-	6,993	5,117	5,246	5,392	5,529	16,049	16,558	25,524	26,114	19,031	131,553450	1,373	2,017	2,516	3,355	3,371	7,215	9,676	17,535	21,852	22,446	N.A.	91,806450	1,373	9,010	7,633	8,601	8,763	12,744	25,725	34,093	47,376	48,560	19,031	223,3596642	HOUSE OF COMMONS
D. Payments to individuals
1.	Old age security....	-	-	76,018	322,924	338,746	352,961	365,948	378,830	473,514	558,871	573,600	589,600	4,031,0122.	Family allowances...	296,927	308,840	319,809	333,518	349,411	365,726	3S1.750	396,697	436,979	473,796	490,200	506,800	4,660,4533.	Unemployment insurance benefits	
89,307	93,326	90,851	135,414	1S6.964	257,798	92,277	231,509	385,078	478,631	415,242	N.A.	2,456,397Sub-total	
386,234	402,166	486,678	791,856	875,121	976,485	839,975 1,007,036 1,295,571 1,511,298 1,479,042 1,096,400 11,147,862TOTAL t2)	
607,357	677,005	752,551 1,209,127 1,299,796 1,427,359 1,292,792 1,539,107 1,857,143 2,273,752 2,429,794 2,041,116 17,405,899
(') The recovery oi the overpayments under the 1952 agreement for the fiscal years 1957-S to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for these provinces: Newfoundland $102,315 per annum; Prince Edward Island $228,221 per annum; New Brunswick $182,201 per annum; Manitoba $209,938 per annum and Saskatchewan $304,180 per annum.
(2) Excludes the value of abatements in Ontario and Quebec estimated at $157.4 million in 1955-57; $275.6 million in 1957-58; $275.1 million in 1958-59; $299.6 million in 1959-60; and $332.0 million in 1960-61.
N.A.=Not available.

1.	NEWFOUNDLAND-1949-61 (in thousands of dollars)
Esti-	Estimated	mated-	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	TotalA. Unconditional grants	1. Statutory subsidies	1,925	1,540	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	1,569	19,1552. Transitional grant	6,500	6,500	6,500	5,650	4,800	3,950	3,100	2,250	1,400	1,050	700	350	42,7503. Tax rental (1)	4,860	7,220	7,733	12,789	11,825	12,547	12,484	13,805	4,449	4,737	5,725	5,784	103,9584. Equalization	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	11,579	12,155	14,292	14,738	52,7645.	Stabilization	
6.	50 per cent share of In-	-	"	-come tax on power utilities	62	98	161	190	208	214	247	286	177	296	1,9397. Atlantic provinces ad-	justment grant	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7,500	7,500	7,500	22,5008. Term 29 award	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13,550	7,300	7,650	28,500Sub-total	13,285	15,260	15,864	20,106	18,355	18,256	17,361	17,838	19,244	40,847	37,263	37,887	271,566B. Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	-	-	-	-	8	33	81	130	137	171	152	160	8722. Health	390	980	729	835	857	824	1,011	1,026	1,095	885	1,005	1,629	11,2663. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2,858	4,700	4,977	12,5354. Welfare	1,468	4,719	3,224	952	1,019	1,020	1,126	3,716	3,456	5,266	5,712	5,532	37,2105.	Vocational training, etc. 6.	Highways and trans- portation 	-	47	63	90	84	414	142	406	385	182	215	513	2,541-	958	999	527	877	2,018	2,240	1,171	861	4,760	4,483	7,551	26,4457. Resource development..	-	-	-	-	-	647	66	56	165	616	497	2,0478. Civil defence	-	-	-	-	3	21	31	33	14	25	34	50	2119. Other	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	25	-	75	25	57	182Sub-total	1,858	6,704	5,015	2,404	2,848	4,330	5,278	6,573	6,004	14,387	16,942	20,966	93,309C. Payments for the benefit	of provincial institutions	1.	University grants	
2.	Grants to municipalities	-	-	181	187	192	199	206	415	426	657	674	690	3,827in lieu of taxes on federal property	-	15	48	17	-	47	-	33	133	76	N.A.	369Sub-total	-	-	196	235	209	199	253	415	459	790	750	690	4,196D. Payments to individuals	1. Old age security	-	-	1,697	6,996	7,243	7,460	7,599	7,738	9,491	11,013	11,200	11,500	81,9372.	Family allowances	
3.	Unemployment insur-	9,747	10,224	10,614	11,039	11,498	11,968	12,415	12,881	14,131	15,163	15,600	16,100	151,380ance benefits	3,291	4,042	2,257	3,553	5,877	7,532	3,261	9,896	15,189	17,860	16,576	N.A.	89,334Sub-total	13,038	14,266	14,568	21,588	24,618	26,960	23,275	30,515	38,811	44,036	43,376	27,600	322,651TOTAL	28,181	36,230	35,643	44,333	46,030	49,745	46,167	55,341	64,518	100,060	98,331	87,143	691,722
(1) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $102,315 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
N.A.-=not available.
6644	HOUSE OF COMMONS
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-(in thousands of dollars)
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	Esti- mated 1959-60	Esti- mated 1960-61	TotalA. Unconditional grants 1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax rental (')	
3.	Equalization	
4.	Stabilization	
5.	Share of income tax on power utilities	
6.	Atlantic provinces ad- justment grant	657 1,746	657 2,076 13	657 2,156 19	657 3,951 23	657 3,657 30	657 3,913 43	657 3,681 52	657 3,073 36	657 769 2,955 412 52	657 785 3,074 418 49 2,500	657 1,544 3,005 -159 36 2,500	657 1,254 3,341 51 2,500	7,884 28,605 12,375 671 404 7,500Sub-total	2,403	2,746	2,832	4,631	4,344	4,613	4,390	3,766	4,845	7,483	7,583	7,803	57,439B. Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	26	24	31	34	35	34	39	38	56 (58-59) 39 (57-58) 73	74	503187	216	237	234	224	276	357	300	335	436	354	367	3,5233. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	400	885	1,2854. Welfare	905	988	791	93	114	128	190	305	366	475	504	519	5,3785. Vocational training, etc.	36	41	38	30	149	53	51	33	62	111	171	60	8356. Highways and transportation	134	400	429	112	23	528	434	1,233	535	947	600	5,3757. Resource development..	-	-	-	7	10	14	15	15	17	21	1,037	1,041	2,1778. Civil defence	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	16	21	389. Other	-	-	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	1	2	11Sub-total	1,154	1,403	1,504	827	644	528	1,180	1,125	2,052	1,636	3,503	3,569	19,125C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions 1. University grants	49	52	53	53	54	99	99	150	153	155	9172. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal government property	26	58	76	89	113	N.A.	362Sub-total	-	-	49	52	53	53	80	157	175	239	266	155	1,279D. Pavments to individuals	1. Old age security	-	755	3,156	3,204	3,262	3,314	3,371	4,140	4,810	4,800	4,900	35,7122. Family allowances	2,411	2,467	2,496	2,523	2,558	2,591	2,622	2,641	2,824	2,994	3,100	3,200	32,4273. Unemployment Insurance benefits	505	582	555	755	1,085	1,284	451	1,601	2,505	3,057	3,222	N.A.	15,602Sub-total	2,916	3,049	3,806	6,434	6,847	7,137	6,387	7,613	9,469	10,861	11,122	8,100	83,741TOTAL	6,473	7,198	8,191	11,944	11,888	12,331	12,037	12,661	16,541	20,219	22,474	19,627	161,584
(*) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $228,221 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
N.A.-not available.

3. NOVA SCOTIA-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	Esti- mated 1959-60	Esti- mated 1960-61	TotalA. Unconditional grants 1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax rental	
3.	Equalization	
4.	Stabilization	
5.	50 per cent share of in- come tax on power utilities	
6.	Atlantic provinces ad- justment grant	2,005 9,631 125	2,005 11,367 200	2,057 12,541 138	2,057 20,310 173	2,057 19,509 279	2,057 20,475 300	2,057 19,856 356	2,057 22,333 238	2,057 9,032 17,375 401	2,057 11,824 15,575 460 7,500	2,057 11,280 20,665 233 7,500	2,057 11,981 20,273 477 7,500	24,580 180,139 73,888 3,380 22,500Sub-total	
B. Conditional grants	11,761	13,572	14,736	22,540	21,845	22,832	22,269	24,628	28,865	37,416	41,735	42,288	304,4871. Agriculture	1,370	564	295	73	70	76	72	62	93	128	132	132	3,0672. Health	412	715	1,286	1,120	1,530	1,556	1,565	1,719	1,855	1,910	1,360	2,327	17,3553. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1,573	8,100	8,901	18,5744. Welfare	5,814	6,832	5,458	1,147	1,279	1,325	1,560	1,573	2,127	2,961	3,416	3,286	36,7785.	Vocational training, etc.. 6.	Highways and trans-	200	213	249	273	274	375	399	420	452	488	516	634	4,493portation	32	-	-	-	-	76	636	951	3,532	2,938	4,659	3,313	16,1377. Resource development..	-	-	-	-	24	88	123	64	51	111	1,159	1,110	2,7308. Civil defence	-	-	-	-	4	18	31	25	39	49	110	110	3869. Other	10	-	7	3	5	5	5	5	5	6	355	770	1,176Sub-total	
C. Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions	7,838	8,324	7,295	2,616	3,186	3,519	4,391	4,819	8,154	10,164	19,807	20,583	100,6961.	University grants	
2.	Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal government	321	327	332	337	342	695	702	1,065	1,074	1,083	6,278property	-	233	325	384	463	594	1,061	1,194	1,892	1,922	2,138	N.A.	10,206Sub-total	
D. Payments to individuals	-	233	646	711	795	931	1,403	1,889	2,594	2,987	3,212	1,083	16,4841. Old age security	-	-	4,124	17,259	17,702	18,150	18,411	18,706	23,008	26,780	27,000	27,800	198,9402.	Family allowances	
3.	Unemployment Insur-	15,292	15,660	15,950	16,297	16,716	17,148	17,597	17,973	19,400	20,560	20,900	21,600	215,093ance benefits	5,268	5,361	4,382	6,444	9,690	11,682	4,652	11,055	17,146	23,089	20,438	N.A.	119,207Sub-total	20,560	21,021	24,456	40,000	44,108	46,980	40,660	47,734	59,554	70,429	68,338	49,400	533,240TOTAL	40,159	43,150	47,133	65,867	69,934	74,262	68,723	79,070	99,167	120,996	133,092	113,354	954,907
N.A.-not available.
6646	HOUSE OF COMMONS
79951-0-419
4. NEW BRUNSWICK-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
Esti-	Estimated	mated1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61 TotalA.	Unconditional grants1.	Statutory subsidies..	1,632	1,632	1,679	1,679	1,679	1,6792.	Tax rental(*)	
7,618	10,131	9,432	17,516	16,178	17,0473.	Equalization	
-	-	-	-	-	-4.	Stabilization	
-	-	-	-	-	-5.	50 per cent share of income tax on powerutilities	
25	264	164	187	283	2166.	Atlantic provinces adjustment grant	-__________-_________-_________-_________-________-Sub-total	9,275	12,027	11,275	19,382	18,140	18,942	18,517	19,714	23,153	31,645	35,578	36,107	253,755Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	108	76	89	60	60	60	51	53	51	94	127	126	9552. Health	636	565	1,104	1,172	1,543	1,472	1,296	1,926	1,813	1,732	1,587	1,766	16,6123. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	4,400	6,496	10,8964. Welfare	4,873	5,720	4,674	1,388	1,512	1,556	1,784	1,848	2,332	2,934	3,120	3,197	34,9385.	Vocational training, etc. 6.	Highways and trans-	550	233	276	218	228	253	234	248	278	358	400	945	4,221portation	-	-	1,110	649	284	511	1,286	3,982	3,977	11,682	8,258	7,448	39,1877. Resource development..	-	-	-	305	1,012	333	333	664	1,074	582	966	1,263	6,5328. Civil defence	-	-	-	-	-	13	13	21	34	38	85	85	2899. Other	-	16	27	1	-	-	-	-	63	260	460	827Sub-total	
6,167	6,610	7,280	3,793	4,639	4,198	4,997	8,742	9,559	17,483	19,203	21,786	114,457Sub-total	
6,167	6,610	7,280	3,793	4,639	4,198	4,997	8,742	9,559	17,483	19,203	21,786	114,457C.	Payments for the benefit of
provincial institutions
1.	University grants...	-	-	258	263	268	274	279	555	565	866	885	905	5,118
2,	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on federal government
property	
-________________78	116	175	213	219	563	494	781	926	904 N.A.____________4,469Sub-total	
-	78	374	438	481	493	842	1,049	1,346	1,792	1,789	905	9,587D.	Payments to individuals1.	Old age security....	-	-	2,935	12,255	12,607	12,946	13,246	13,528	16,748	19,584	19,900	20,500	144,2492.	Family allowances...	13,375	13,708	13,893	14,288	14,701	15,073	15,452	15,779	17,075	18,202	18,600	19,200	189,3463.	Unemployment insurance benefits	4,389	4,327	3,374	6,667	9,110	11,145	4,553	12,680	19,891	22,271	19,610	N.A.	118,017Sub-total	
17,764	18,035	20,202	33,210	36,418	39,164	33,251	41,987	53,714	60,057	58,110	39,700	451,612TOTAL	33,206	36,750	39,131	56,823	59,678	62,797	57,607	71,492	87,772	110,977	114,680	98,498	829,411
(l) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $182,201 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
N.A. =not available.
1,679	1,679	1,679	1,679	1,679	1,679	20,05416,630	17,807	12,609	13,613	9,433	9,426	157,440-	-	8,645	8,651	16,865	17,293	51,454208	228	220	202	101	209	2,307
5. QUEBEC-1949-81
(in thousands of dollars)
Esti-	Estimated	mated1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61 TotalA.	Unconditional grants1.	Statutory subsidies..	2,867	2,867	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	3,301	38,7443! Equalization." .'!!!!!'.!*!!	-	43,060	55,004	68,631	62,735	229,4304.	Stabilization	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5.50 per cent share of income tax on power
utilities	
-	1,247	559	910	2,120	1,661	1,009	1,186	1,675	2,281	1,504	2,365	16,517Sub-total	
2,867	4,114	3,860	4,211	5,421	4,962	4,310	4,487	48,036	60,586	73,436	68,401	284,691B.	Conditional grants1.	Agriculture	
616	632	638	529	639	424	305	350	278	783	7S6	790	6,7702.	Health	
2,434	6,047	7,261	7,496	9,635	9,653	10,137	10,291	8,332	15,874	13,231	10,009	110,4003.	Hospital insurance..	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-*	-	-4.	Welfare	
23,643	25,909	21,107	8,024	8,245	8,422	10,955	11,746	16,069	20,457	28,300	32,919	215,7965.	Vocational training, etc..	943	1,147	1,062	987	923	649	648	648	5	-	-	-	7,0126.	Highways and transportation	
-	-	123	32	128	17	-	445	99	440	2,016	1,453	4,7537.	Resource development.. -	-	-	-	9	21	-	64	16	109	125	412	7568.	Civil defence	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-9.	Other	
-	1,219	-	22	1,526	3,215	5,982Sub-total	
27,636	34,954	30,191	17,068	19,579	19,186	22,045	23,544	24,799	37,685	45,984	48,798	351,469C.	Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions1.	University grants	-	-	2,028	-	-	-	-	4,628	4,758	7,326	7,499	-	26,2392.	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on
federal property	-	53	15	40	139	310	886	1,170	2,424	2,769	3,958 N.A.	11,764Sub-total	
-	53	2,043	40	139	310	886	5,798	7,182	10,095	11,457	-	38,003D.	Payments to individuals1.	Old age security....	-	-	16,580	69,570	72,033	74,725	77,111	79,651	99,490	116,993	120,000	123,300	849,4532.	Family allowances...	95,902	99,558	102,884	107,084	111,441	116,057	120,390	124,368	136,081	146,278	150,600	155,700	1,466,3433.	Unemployment insurance benefits	
29,771	32,494	29,531	47,042	66,005	83,564	32,534	78,240	121,861	157,790	134,201	N.A.	813,033Sub-total	
125,673	132,052	148,995	223,696	249,479	274,346	230,035	282,259	357,432	421,061	404,801	279,000	3,128,829TOTAL	156,176	171,173	185,089	245,015	274,618	298,804	257,276	316,088	437,449	529,427	535,678	396,199	3,802,992
N.A.-not available.
6648	HOUSE OF COMMONS
79951-0-4194
6. ONTARIO-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59
Estimated
Estimated
1960-61 Total
A.	Unconditional grants
1.	Statutory subsidies..	3,155	3,155	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	3,641	42 7202.	Tax rental	
-	-	-	123,327	134,448	142,747	138,345	160,558	74,379	93,322	106,211	117,558	1,090,8953.	Equalization	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	___ _________ _________ _________ _________4.	Stabilization	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	___ _________ _________ __________5.	50 per cent share of income tax on powerutilities	
-	815	630	474	1,097	1,342	1,574	1,428	1,333	1,590	1,043	1,648	12,974Sub-total	
3,155	3,970	4,271	127,442	139,186	147,730	143,560	165,627	79,353	98,553	110,895	122,847	1,146,589B.	Conditional grants1.	Agriculture	
131	86	69	62	63	44	52	63	91	92	115	117	9852.	Health	
4,332	4,569	6,883	8,857	7,492	8,300	9,278	10,606	9,955	11,930	15,949	13,823	111,9743.	Hospital insurance..	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	13,140	71,000	78,724	162,8644.	Welfare	
28,643	30,895	24,753	5,219	5,328	5,856	7,243	7,134	11,173	20,404	24,130	21,784	192,5625.	Vocational training, etc. 1,415	1,146	1,325	2,017	1,494	1,367	1,342	1,234	703	3,066	2,873	2,821	20,8036.	Highways and transportation	
-	2,790	5,068	4,104	2,692	6,583	3,366	5,184	12,927	16,579	16,375	11,770	87,4387.	Resource development.. -	-	-	431	544	502	944	850	1,237	2,925	3,603	2,121	13,1578.	Civil defence	
-	-	-	-	27	85	191	348	451	449	693	793	3,0379.	Other	
24	3	415	14	-	357	461	27	27	222	2,685	4,190	8,425Sub-total	
34,545	39,489	38,513	20,704	17,640	23,094	22,877	25,446	36,564	68,807	137,423	136,143	601,245C.	Payments for the benefit of provincial institutions1.	University grants	-	-	2,299	2,383	2,449	2,523	2,592	5,405	5,622	8,705	8,928	9,152	50,0582.	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on
federal property	450	782	1,406	1,639	2,236	2,016	3,994	4,762	8,166	9,821	9,771 N.A.	45,043Sub-total	
450	782	3,705	4,022	4,685	4,539	6,586	10,167	13,788	18,526	18,699	9,152	95,101D.	Payments to individuals1.	Old age security....	-	-	28,195	120,083	125,775	130,296	134,644	138,793	172,804	203,257	208,200	214,000	1,476,0472.	Family allowances...	84,941	89,035	93,207	98,304	104,410	110,492	116,604	122,539	136,706	150,186	156,700	162,000	1,425,1243.	Unemployment insurance benefits	
22,329	21,671	26,612	37,854	51,763	87,685	27,877	66,014	120,719	149,130	130,829	N.A.	742,483Sub-total	
107,270	110,706	148,014	256,241	281,948	328,473	279,125	327,346	430,229	502,573	495,729	376,000	3,643,654TOTAL	145,420	154,947	194,503	408,409	443,459	503,836	452,148	528,586	559,934	688,459	762,746	644,142	5,486,589
N.A.=not available.

7. MANITOBA-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
Esti- Estimated mated
A.	Unconditional grants
1.	Statutory subsidies...
2.	Tax rental (1)	
3.	Equalization	
4.	Stabilization	
5.	50 per cent share of income tax on power utilities	
Sub-total	
B.	Conditional grants
1.	Agriculture	
2.	Health	
3.	Hospital insurance..
4.	Welfare	
5.	Vocational training, etc.
6.	Highways and transportation	
7.	Resource development..
8.	Civil defence	
9.	Other	
Sub-total	
C.	Payments for the benefit of
provincial institutions
1.	University grants...
2.	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on federal property	
Sub-total	
D.	Payments to individuals
1.	Old age security....
2.	Family allowances...
3.	Unemployment insurance benefits	
Sub-total	
TOTAL	
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total1,767 10,743	1,750 13,981	1,755 14,568	1,755 26,036	1,755 25,039	1,852 26,201	1,820 25,656	2,032 27,889	2,032 18,418 13,932	2,032 20,688 12,889	2,065 26,472 12,980	2,054 25,859 14,197	22,669 261,550 53,998225	225	331	383	569	28	114	51	61	46	20	48	2,10112,735	15,956	16,654	28,174	27,363	28,081	27,590	29,972	34,443	35,655	41,537	42,158	340,318821 5,764 332	4 1,052 6,189 281	2 1,084 4,896 273	7 1,361 1,190 246	79 1,737 1,260 257	36 2,052 1,275 196	22 2,199 1,437 366	108 2,676 2,213 262	156 2,241 2,523 362	157 2,437 7,148 3,767 314	1,696 2,288 12,000 4,615 405	187 2,067 12,742 4,566 425	2,454 22,015 31,890 39,695 3,719279 7	340 12,500	772 43	1,060 66 16 48	1,530 138 25	2,097 126 26	1,382 196 37	3,124 78 32 18	2,747 316 33	1,820 489 61 69	2,033 1,497 112 466	1,858 1,286 152 845	19,042 4,192 494 13,9967,203	20,366	7,070	3,994	5,026	5,808	5,639	8,511	8,378	16,262	25,112	24,128	137,497-	-	388	399	405	414	425	850	860	1,305	1,328	1,350	7,724-	21	17	64	39	14	63	788	1,040	1,545	1,259	N.A.	4,850-	21	405	463	444	428	488	1,638	1,900	2,850	2,587	1,350	12,57415,669	16,236	4,457 16,703	19,020 17,284	20,053 17,980	21,051 18,705	21,953 19,419	22,842 19,889	28,562 21,521	34,030 23,092	35,100 23,700	36,100 24,500	243,168 234,6984,221	5,217	4,831	6,263	8,226	11,200	3,961	10,571	15,040	17,589	15,657	N.A.	102,77619,890	21,453	25,991	42,567	46,259	50,956	45,333	53,302	65,123	74,711	74,457	60,600	580,64239,828	57,796	50,120	75,198	79,092	85,273	79,050	93,423	109,844	129,478	143,693	128,236	1,071,031
(1) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $209,938 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
N.A. = not available.
6650	HOUSE OF COMMONS
8. SASKATCHEWAN-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
											Esti-	Esti-	
											mated	mated	
-	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	Total
A. Unconditional grants													
1. Statutory subsidies	2,072	2,062	2,041	2,041	2,041	2,088	2,072	2,080	2,080	2,080	2,098	2,092	24,8472. Tax rental (1)	12,605	15,416	16,513	26,121	25,254	26,647	25,986	27,432	13,874	14,399	20,052	18,977	243,2763. Equalization	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	19,197	19,862	20,180	21,487	80,7264.	Stabilization	
5.	50 per cent share of in-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-come tax on power utilities	25	43	33	31	43	44	47	50	66	96	51	100	629Sub-total	14,702	17,521	18,587	28,193	27,338	28,779	28,105	29,562	35,217	36,437	42,381	42,656	349,478B. Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	29	32	33	37	30	33	47	30	55	186	3,246	56	3,8142. Health	1,430	1,470	1,628	1,728	1,951	2,588	2,845	2,095	2,275	3,101	2,598	2,433	26,1423. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8,430	13,500	16,099	38,0294. Welfare	5,518	5,970	4,812	1,116	1,156	1,239	1,463	2,199	2,577	3,813	4,227	4,135	38,2255.	Vocational training, etc.. 6.	Highways and trans-	535	405	414	341	243	327	310	340	216	446	1,593	717	5,887portation	-	341	1,021	1,704	2,058	1,997	2,001	2,919	3,351	329	185	330	16,2367. Resource development..	-	-	-	75	86	96	89	49	419	1,116	1,820	1,292	5,0428. Civil defence	-	-	-	29	34	43	39	49	43	51	121	121	5309. Other	9	130	138	-	-	4	10	42	10	45	334	667	1,389Sub-total	7,521	8,348	8,046	5,030	5,558	6,327	6,804	7,723	8,946	17,517	27,624	25,850	135,294C. Payments for the benefit	of provincial institutions	1.	University grants	
2.	Grants to municipalities	-	-	416	422	431	439	445	881	879	1,332	1,353	1,374	7,972in lieu of taxes on federal property	-	34	16	12	7	19	50	284	625	726	747	N.A.	2,520Sub-total	-	34	432	434	438	458	495	1,165	1,504	2,058	2,100	1,374	10,492D. Payments to individuals	1. Old age security	-	-	4,399	19,037	20,111	21,203	22,331	23,335	29,420	35,100	36,000	37,000	247,9362.	Family allowances	
3.	Unemployment insur-	18,954	19,237	19,425	19,723	20,245	20,895	21,401	21,645 7,431	23,242	24,789	25,300	26,200 N.A.	261,056ance benefits	2,552	2,957	2,466	2,937	4,008	6,629	2,608	10,381	12,416	12,155	66,540Sub-total	21,506	22,194	26,290	41,697	44,364	48,727	46,340	52,411	63,043	72,305	73,455	63,200	575,532TOTAL	43,729	48,097	53,355	75,354	77,698	84,291	81,744	90,861	108,710	128,317	145,560	133,080	1,070,796
(1) The recovery of the overpayment under the 1952 agreement which amounts to some $304,180 per annum for fiscal years 1957-58 to 1961-62 has not been deducted from the tax rental payments for those above years to which the deduction applies.
N.A.=not available.

9. ALBERTA-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
Esti-	Estimated	mated1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61 Total
A. Unconditional grants
1.	Statutory subsidies..	2,086	2,063	2,127	2,127	2,127	2,228	2,195	2,274	2,274	2,274	2,400	2,358	26,5332.	Tax rental	
11,889	14,765	14,799	32,322	29,803	31,816	31,593	37,311	28,892	38,350	40,261	41,459	353,2603. Equalization	
-	-	-[DOT]	-	-	-	-	-	14,744	7,991	15,109	15,781	53,6254.	Stabilization	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-5.	50 per cent share of income tax on powerutilities	
425	767	793	991	1,396	1,658	1,958	1,767	1,980	2,216	1,239	2,297	17,487Sub-total	
14,400	17,595	17,719	35,440	33,326	35,702	35,746	41,352	47,890	50,831	59,009	61,895	450,905B.	Conditional grants1.	Agriculture	
218	241	121	99	46	65	60	66	67	68	1,644	73	2,7682.	Health	
1,274	1,600	1,737	2,411	1,841	2,313	2,562	2,589	2,888	3,525	3,503	2,544	28,7873.	Hospital insurance..	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	8,775	15,600	16,717	41,0924.	Welfare	
4,904	5,924	6,241	1,211	1,243	1,310	1,685	1,648	2,148	4,487	4,615	4,573	39,9895.	Vocational training, etc.	261	321	311	483	459	470	495	528	1,380	1,645	893	848	8,0946.	Highways and transportation	
-	15	814	1,270	2,748	1,806	1,627	2,019	5,398	2,229	1,908	335	20,1697. Resource development..	-	-	166	82	55	29	21	184	476	1,907	1,315	4,2358.	Civil defence	
-	-	-	-	85	119	172	119	142	126	295	395	1,4539.	Other	
62	11	-	12	10	10	10	10	20	12	1,377	2,167	3,701Sub-total	
6,719	8,112	9,224	5,652	6,514	6,148	6,640	7,000	12,227	21,343	31,742	28,967	150,288C.	Payments for the benefitof provincial institutions	__	______1.	University grants....	-	-	470	485	501	520	533	1,123	1,160	1,802	1,865	1,928	10,3872.	Grants to municipalities
in lieu of taxes on
fedora! property	-	94	2	65	93	76	252	330	1,045	1,676	1,605 N.A.	5,238Sub-total	
-	94	472	550	594	596	785	1,453	2,205	3,478	3,470	1,928	15,625D.	Payments to individuals	_ „1 Old a<'e security	-	-	4,333 IS, 745	20,138	21,418	22,682	23,942	30,443	36,535	38,200	39,300	255,7362.	' Famify allowances..	19,822	20,762	21,573	22,576	23,958	25,391	26,753	27,953	31,030	34,123	35,700	36,900	326,5413.	Unemployment insur-	„ .ancebenefits	
3,158	4,128	3,628	4,929	8,200	11,956	4,533	10,174	17,410	20,826	19,029 N.A. 107,971Sub-total	
22,980	24,890	29,534	46,250	52,296	58,765	53,968	62,069	78,883	91,484	92,929	76,200	690,248TOTAL	44,099	50,691	56,949	87,892	92,730	101,211	97,139	111,874	141,205	167,136	187,150	168,990	1,307,066
N.A.=not available.
6652	HOUSE OF COMMONS
10. BRITISH COLUMBIA-1949-61
(in thousands of dollars)
Esti-	Estimated	mated-	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	1954-55	1955-56	1956-57	1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	TotalA. Unconditional grants 1.	Statutory subsidies	
2.	Tax rental	
3.	Equalization	
4.	Stabilization	
5.	50 per cent share of in- come tax on power utilities	1,003 17,789 550	1,003 19,166 991	1,281 19,127 1,005	1,281 46,199 1,099	1,281 43,516 853	1,281 46,052 1,812	1,281 45,393 2,422	1,281 55,730 1,415	1,281 51,446 4,491 3,046 1,325	1,281 51,321 8,237 5,258 1,456	1,281 58,752 11,258 -2,156 350	1,281 63,254 8,619 1,509	14,816 517,745 32,605 6,148 14,787Sub-total	19,342	21,160	21,413	48,579	45,650	49,145	49,096	58,426	61,589	67,553	69,485	74,663	586,101B. Conditional grants	1. Agriculture	45	58	58	76	51	48	44	38	70	132	223	118	9611,178	1,756	2,759	2,045	2,667	2,983	2,450	3,210	3,807	4,267	4,129	3,177	34,4283. Hospital insurance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12,784	20,100	21,443	54,3279,276	10,477	8,566	1,865	2,038	2,046	2,074	5,971	5,378	9,172	8,310	9,799	74,9725. Vocational training, etc..	383	254	233	243	290	276	328	549	719	973	1,391	1,472	7,1116. Highways and trans-	-	2,538	3,695	3,598	3,377	3,379	3,437	6,680	16,818	12,340	17,274	18,370	91,5067. Resource development..	4,024	-	-	885	931	1,002	721	846	1,147	2,747	3,250	2,007	17,560-	-	-	115	108	187	214	187	212	225	350	450	2,0489. Other	201	152	203	25	10	10	10	10	10	148	923	1,354	3,056Sub-total	15,107	15,235	15,514	8,852	9,472	9,931	9,278	17,491	28,161	42,788	55,950	58,190	285,969C. Payments for the benefit of Drovincial institutions . _ .	1. University grants	-	-	583	599	615	633	653	1,398	1,487	2,316	2,355	2,394	13,0332. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on	federal property	78	105	89	148	123	273	596	1,453	2,245	1,875	N.A.	6,985Sub-total	-	78	688	688	763	756	926	1,994	2,940	4,561	4,230	2,394	20,018D. Payments to Individuals 1.	Old age security	
2.	Family allowances	
3.	Unemployment Insur- ance benefits	20,814 13,823	21,953 12,547	8,543 23,064 13,215	36,803 24,400 18,970	39,880 25,904 23,000	42,450 27,406 25,121	44,657 29,097 7,847	46,924 31,029 23,847	59,408 34,969 44,936	70,769 38,409 54,603	73,200 40,000 43,525	75,200 41,400 N.A.	497,834 358,445 281,434Sub-total	34,637	34,500	44,822	80,173	88,784	94,977	81,601	101,800	139,313	163,781	156,725	116,600	1,137,713TOTAL	69,086	70,973	82,437	138,292	144,669	154,809	140,901	179,711	232,003	278,683	286,390	251,847	2,029,801
N.A. = not available.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, July 21, 1960

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Macnaughton.