1961-06-21

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I should like to make a report to the house on the final accounting of the 1959-60 pool account for wheat. The 1959-60 pool account for wheat was closed as at May 26, 1961. The final accounting has been completed, and I am therefore in a position to advise the house of the operating results of this pool.
Producers delivered 377.4 million bushels to the 1959-60 pool. The 1959-60 pool closed with a surplus of $83,800,885, which included the interim payment of $37,744,417 paid to producers during February and March last. The final distribution to producers, therefore, will amount to $45,297,017, after allowing for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy and the cost of issuing final payment cheques, and after crediting the amount with estimated additional interest earnings.
On producers' deliveries of 377,444,166 bushels the average final payment is 12.017 cents per bushel. This compares with an average final payment on the 1958-59 pool account of 9.2425 cents per bushel.
Final payments for the principal grades of wheat delivered to the 1959-60 pool are as follows:
Red spring wheat grades
Final payment (cents per bushel)
No. 1 Manitoba Northern . .	8.809
No. 2 Manitoba Northern . .	8.674
No. 3	Manitoba Northern . .	9.592
No. 4 Manitoba Northern . .	12.174
No. 5	wheat	
20.997No. 6	wheat	
25.700Feed	wheat	
30.429
Hon. members will note that when the interim payment and the initial payment are added to the final payment the spread between No. 1 and No. 6 is now just 21 cents a bushel.
90205-6-429J
Amber Durum grades
Final payment (cents per bushel)
No. 1 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	18.133No. 2 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	18.358No. 3 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	20.383
Extra No. 4 C. W. Amber
Durum	 23.353
No. 4 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	22.888No. 5 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	20.997No. 6 C. W.	Amber	Durum	. .	25.700
The Canadian wheat board expects to commence issuing the final payment cheques during the last week in June.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the farmers and businessmen generally in western Canada will welcome the announcement that the final payments for wheat are now being made. It is unfortunate that this year the announcement of the final payment is exactly one month later than last year. That is to be regretted. I hope, therefore, that the cheques will be distributed as quickly as possible.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, not being competent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -to comment with knowledge upon the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the report on the full account for wheat, I shall direct the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia to this statement and report, and ask him to comment in the usual way through the facilities of the Canadian Press.



REFERENCE OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN COMMISSION REPORTS TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board was received on Monday and the necessary orders in council were passed on Tuesday, I move:
That the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ended July 31, 1960 which was tabled on March 3, 1961 and the report of the board of grain commissioners for 1960 which was tabled on April 12, 1961 and the supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board on the 1959-60
6808	HOUSE OF
Reports Referred to Agriculture Committee pool account for wheat, oats and barley tabled today, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, as this is a debatable question 1 should like to point out that the interesting proposal made by the Minister of Agriculture this morning in suggesting that this report be referred to the proper standing committee of this house is of course fully in accordance with our practice. He is to be commended for recognizing the rights of parliament in this matter. It is regrettable, however, that the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot use this debate as a means of introducing something which is quite irrelevant; that is, the conduct of the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the house a matter suggested by this procedure which is of vital importance to this country at this time. The practice which the Minister of Agriculture has resorted to, namely of referring the report of the wheat board to the parliamentary committee, particularly when there is no statutory obligation to do so, is a recognition by the minister, who on so many other accounts I have criticized and who today I applaud and warmly congratulate, of the fundamental rights of parliament and through parliament, the rights of the people of this country. The practice which the government has followed in this particular is a practice which the government should follow in all particulars, first of all in the Department of Agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am dealing with the Department of Agriculture. There are other reports of that department which-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are other reports that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are other reports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the only question involved is whether this particular report should be referred to the standing com-
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1

mittee. It would be out of order for him to introduce other extraneous and controversial matters which are not now relevant to this issue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that other reports of the Department of Agriculture likewise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does Your Honour take the position-and I ask this question for enlightenment-that I have no right to mention other reports of the Department of Agriculture or of the government of Canada, such as the report of the Bank of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I take the position that it would be irrelevant to mention any other reports.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this motion. I am not able to go as far as my hon. friend from Essex East has gone in commending the Minister of Agriculture. I am not able to do so because I assume the Minister of Agriculture, acting as a responsible member of the government and representing the collective decision of the government under our system of responsible government, is making this motion in pursuance of a decision made by the government.
Now, sir, the consideration of this report is going to take the time of members of the standing committee on agriculture, and take them away from the business of the house at a time when there is exceedingly important business before it, namely a budget that is alleged to be expansionist. Before we send a matter of this kind to the committee we should consider very carefully the proper use of our time in parliament. I am sure you will agree, sir, that this might well be done because in certain circumstances I would feel, in view of all the other demands upon our time, that perhaps it was inappropriate at this time and at this stage of the session to be taking this matter before the committee until other more urgent matters are taken there.
There is a very much more urgent matter, sir, the determination of which would affect my judgment on this particular measure. Because it would affect my judgment on this particular measure, and because I assume this is still a free parliament where there is freedom of expression of one's views as to the attitude one should take with respect to any motion and all the considerations that may enter into one's mind in determining that attitude, I say, sir, we should not be sending

this report to the committee until after the report of the Bank of Canada is sent to the appropriate committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very prosaic statement after all this by-play. As I announced in the house on May 19, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation offered mortgages to approved lenders and investment dealers at auction in the form of 30 parcels, each covering different geographical areas and each valued at approximately $500,000. The tenders on this issue closed on Monday June 19, at 11 a.m., and I should like to announce to the house the results of this first sale of mortgages at auction.
The mortgages offered all carried an interest rate of 6J per cent with approximately 25 years to run. The average accepted tender across the board was at a premium, at 101.17, and in this connection I might explain that the bidders for these mortgages are all professional buyers of securities who know it costs about one point to put an investment of this kind on their books. Hon. members will therefore understand that, when this cost is deducted from the bid price, the tenders are at about par.
Of the 30 parcels offered for sale, there were five on which no bids were received. On the remaining 25 parcels, worth approximately $12J million, the total bids amounted to $31 million. Allotments of the $124 million have already been made to the successful bidders. In this first auction bids were received from chartered banks, life insurance and trust companies and investment dealers, a fairly representative cross section of those who can be expected to develop a secondary market in mortgages.
The results of the auction are such as to encourage a second offering to the growing mortgage market. In order that dealers may have time to dispose of the first issue, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation undertook not to make a second offering before the 18th of August, and it is likely that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will make its second offering about that time.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that there was some degree of cooperation between the minister and the Minister of Finance at appropriate periods. It is fortunate that this sale was completed before
Starred Questions
the budget came down. I wonder whether the minister would say first of all how many 6| per cent mortgages there are to be sold, and how many are likely to be offered in this fiscal year?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, that will all be a matter for the judgment of the corporation as time goes on. I would be very happy to ascertain for the hon. member for Nipissing the particulars of how many 6f per cent mortgages are held at the present time. As to how we will sell them and the allotments, that depends a great deal on conditions at the time.


John Richard Garland: Will there be mortgages bearing less interest than 6f per cent offered for sale in this fiscal year?


David James Walker: I am glad the hon. member asked that question. Not at this time; the next auction will also be 6f per cent mortgages.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is to be congratulated on the successful and very remunerative sale of the mortgages that were sold. However, I do feel that his announcement that no bids were received on five of the 30 parcels of these mortgages is a sad reflection on the investment houses of Canada. All of us are aware that there is much idle investment capital available in Canada at the present time, and the fact that not even a single bid was received is, I believe, a reflection on the business community of Canada and on their lack of confidence in the government.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary it is a reflection indicating the good judgment of the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



STARRED QUESTIONS


BILL OF RIGHTS


Mr. Tardif: 1.	Have copies of the bill of rights been printed for distribution to the public?
2.	If so, is anything except the bill itself included
in the printing?
3.	How many copies have been prepared?
4.	On what basis are they being distributed?
5.	Has the bill of rights been inscribed on calfskin?
6.	If so, was anything else inscribed with the text of the bill itself?
7.	What was the cost of preparing this document, and what is its purpose?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all parts of this question is as follows: Twenty thousand copies of the bill of rights in English and 7,000 copies in French, suitable for framing and mounting

Starred Questions
on a wall, have been printed. Of these, 15,000 English and 5,000 French, bore, in addition to the bill itself, the coat of arms of Canada and an extract from the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on July 1, 1960, summarizing the effect of the bill of rights, together with a reproduction of the Prime Minister's signature. These were printed on parchment paper. Only the original in English and the original in French were prepared on calfskin, from which the parchment copies were reproduced.
The cost of preparing the calfskin originals was $887.16 paid to the artist; and their purpose, as indicated, was as basic art work for the reproduction of illuminated copies of the bill of rights for sale and distribution to the public. The sale price will be $1 per copy for the illuminated reproduction printed on parchment. The plain copy of the bill of rights, not illuminated and printed on plain paper, will be sold for 25 cents per copy.



C.B.C. SPONSORSHIP, PUBLIC AFFAIRS INSTITUTE

Mr. Pigeon: What has been the cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the sponsorship of the annual meeting of the Canadian institute on public affairs for each year since the said institute was established?
(Translation):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: The C.B.C. advises me as follows:
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has never sponsored the annual meeting of that institute. The C.B.C. has paid to the Canadian institute on public affairs, since its establishment, certain amounts for broadcasting rights, participation, research, etc. Those amounts have been appropriated on a pro rata basis to radio and television. (Text):



MIECZYSLAW WILK

Mr. McMillan: 1.	Was Mr. Mieczyslaw Wilk a landed immigrant?
2.	If so, on what date was he landed?
3.	Did Mr. Wilk apply for the admission to Canada of the wife he had married by proxy?
4.	If so, was his wife within the category of persons admissible under the existing immigration regulations?
5.	If not, for what reason?
6.	Is Mrs. Wilk a prohibited person under the Immigration Act?
7.	Was the application for her admission refused for other than merely technical reasons?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	January 5, 1959.
3.	Yes.

4,	5, 6 and 7. Section 20(c) of the immigration regulations provides for the inclusion, within the categories of persons admissible to Canada, of the wife or fiancee-including the proxy wife-of a person who is a citizen by birth or naturalization of any country of Europe and who has been legally admitted to Canada for permanent residence.
Mr. Wilk's application for his proxy wife, therefore, came within the general provisions of this regulation. However, because of the limited examination facilities available to the department in respect of applications on behalf of residents in Poland, it is not possible to deal with all applications falling within the admissible categories set out in regulation 20(c). In accordance with policies established in 1956 and still in effect, the actual processing of applications is therefore generally limited to applications submitted by Canadian citizens.
Since Mr. Wilk, at the time of application, had not been in Canada long enough to acquire Canadian citizenship, he was advised that it was not possible to proceed further with his application at the present time; but that, if he wished to renew it at a later date, it would then be given further consideration.
Since, for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wilk's application could not be proceeded with, medical and other aspects of Mrs. Wilk's examination for admission to Canada were not completed. It is not therefore possible to state whether or not Mrs. Wilk is a prohibited person within the meaning of the Immigration Act.



OKANAGAN HELICOPTERS LTD.  D.E.W. AND PINE TREE LINE CONTRACTS

Mr. Bourbonnais: 1.	What is the value of the contract awarded to Okanagan Helicopters Ltd., as of now on the D.E.W. line?
2.	What is the value of the contract awarded to Okanagan as of now on the Pine Tree line?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the value of the contract being carried out as of now on the D.E.W. line by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. is $264,960.
With respect to part 2, the value of the contract being carried out by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. as of now on the Pine Tree line is $742,900, with Okanagan Helicopters Ltd. being the prime contractor and Wheeler Airlines (1960) Ltd. being its subcontractor for the provision of required fixed wing air transportation services in the amount of $103,500, included in the total figure which I have just given.
Both these contracts cover the period July 1, 1960, to June 30, 1961.



SUPPLEMENTARY ASSISTANCE TO OLD AGE PENSIONERS, B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the government made any offer to the government of British Columbia to share the cost of supplementary allowances paid to recipients of the old age pension?
2.	If so: (a) on what date was any such offer made? (b) what portion of the said supplementary allowances was offered? (c) was the offer accepted by the government of the province of British Columbia, and have any such payments been made; and, if so, what are the details?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows.
1.	The federal government has always been prepared to share, under section 8 of the unemployment assistance agreement, in additional relief payments to recipients of old age security pensions as well as to recipients of old age assistance, blind persons allowances and disabled persons allowances. To be shareable, such payments have to be made on the basis of an individual assessment of need which takes the requirements as well as the income of an applicant into consideration. British Columbia began making payments on this basis, effective September 1960, and these are being shared by the federal government.
2.	(a) The answer I have already given covers this point.
(b)	The unemployment assistance agreement under which the payments are being made authorizes the federal government to reimburse the province to the extent of 50 per cent of its assistance payments.
(c)	The province has been gradually transferring recipients from its supplementary allowance program under which eligibility was based on a means test, to its supplementary social allowance program which is based on a needs test. This progressive transfer is reflected in an increase in shareable amounts in the claims submitted each month. Provincial supplementary social allowance payments to old age security recipients included in reimbursement claims were $92,041 in September, $119,975 in October and $147,561 in November, the last month for which complete figures are available. The number of persons assisted in each of these months was 5,557; 7,170 and 8,774 respectively. It is anticipated that the number of persons covered by this program will increase for some months because of the continuing transfer of persons from supplementary allowances. If the above figures for old age security recipients are added to the figures for recipients of the three above mentioned assistance programs, the total federal and provincial payments for the months of September, October and November 1960 are
Starred Questions
$117,736, $155,718 and $192,182 and the numbers assisted are 7,033; 9,175 and 11,275.
Total federal payments to the province for the four programs for the three months in question were $247,079.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY    PAYMENT OF FEES TO R.A.C. HENRY

Mr. Pigeon: 1.	What amount has been paid by way of fees to Mr. R. A. C. Henry, Montreal, consulting engineer, for his services in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway, between August 1, 1952, and September 30, 1954?
2.	What amount did he receive annually, and for each working day?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is that	order	in council P.C. 4041 of 13
September, 1952,	authorized payment of a
retaining fee of $2,000 per annum and $100 per day to Mr. R. A. C. Henry for his services as consulting engineer, St. Lawrence seaway project. Remuneration was paid as follows; For	the	period	from	1	August,	1952	to31	July, 1953	
$20,450For	the	period	from	1	August,	1953	to31	July, 1954	
22,050For	the	period	from	1	August,	1954	to30	September,	1954	
2,100Total	
$44,600



OKANAGAN HELICOPTERS


Mr. Bourbonnais: 1.	What is the value of contracts directly held by Okanagan Helicopters Ltd., with the Defence Production Department?
2.	Were the contracts awarded to Okanagan this year alone through public tenders?
3.	What is the total value of contracts awarded to Okanagan since its incorporation by the Defence Production Department?
4.	When Okanagan was awarded the army establishment contract, did it possess and have available for the contract the Sikorsky-58 as required bf specifications?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
1.	$1,033,500.
2.	No.
3.	$6,605,797.89.
4.	No.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Caron: Did the Minister of Finance at any time receive from Mr. John Bassett, publisher of the Toronto Telegram, a suggestion that the government should seek the resignation of the governor of the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, not in any formal sense. I understand that the

Starred Questions
Toronto Telegram believes and has said that it would be, in its view, in the public interest that the governor should resign. I have no doubt that this also reflects the views of the publisher.



REQUESTS TO BANK OP CANADA TO INCREASE MONEY SUPPLY

['Question stands.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the communications between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance have always been regarded as privileged.



Mr. McMillan: 1.	Did the Minister of Finance ask the governor of the Bank of Canada to take steps to reduce interest rates on any occasion since June 21, 1957?
2.	If so, on what occasions?
3.	Did the governor refuse to accede to any such requests?
4.	If so, which ones?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is the same as that given to the previous one.


BANK OF CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has the Bank of Canada a contributory pension plan for its staff?
2.	When was this plan established?
3.	Is any contribution made to the pension plan from the federal treasury?
4.	Is Mr. J. E. Coyne a contributor to the pension plan?
5.	If so, when did he begin to contribute, and what percentage of his salary has he contributed in each year since that date?
6.	Is there any statutory authority for the supervision of the pension fund of the Bank of Canada by the Minister of Finance or any other minister, and, if so, what is the authority?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, of course some of this information is not in the possession of the government, but I will endeavour to obtain from the Bank of Canada such information in order to give a complete answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 146-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the government or any member thereof and the governor of the Bank of Canada since January 1, 1960, relating to fiscal policies of the government and the Bank of Canada and to the matter of pension arrangements for the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, communications passing between the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada have always been regarded as privileged and confidential. That status of such communications was confirmed by the governor at various times, as late as last March. The fact that this week the governor has broken that confidence by releasing a memorandum in what must be regarded as a serious impropriety is no reason why the government or parliament should follow him in that impropriety. It would be intolerable and indeed impossible to carry on public business on any basis except that exchanges of views between the government and its advisers are given and received in strict confidence.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, I regard much of what the minister has said as irrelevant because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has probably not recalled that the motion is not debatable. It is in order for the minister to state an objection to the motion. The minister's objection was perhaps rather longer than usual, but it is not a debatable motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement made by the minister involves the privileges of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can satisfy Your Honour very briefly that it does involve the privileges of the house. In his statement last week the minister has chosen to make remarks about these communications before any of them have been released by Mr. Coyne. Since the minister has chosen to make those statements, it seems to me the house is entitled to be in possession of the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The house has a decision to make as to whether or not it wishes to order the production of the documents. In view of the explanation of the minister does the hon. member wish to drop or proceed with the motion?

Division


Mr. Howard:: In view of the explanation of the minister there is even more reason to put the motion.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 147-Mr. Benidickson:
For a copy of any letters or documents, memoranda, etc., written to or received from, since July 1, 1960, the governor of the Bank of Canada referring to a possibility of his resignation from his position in the Bank of Canada as governor.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my observations in respect to the last motion apply to this motion as well.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, in respect to this motion a very obvious matter of privilege arises of which I should like to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I fail to see how any matter of privilege arises, but if the hon. member has a matter of privilege perhaps he will state it.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter of privilege is very obvious in this instance, because this motion differs very pointedly from the last, as the relative subject has reference to the resignation of this officer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member indicate how a matter of privilege arises out of the proposal of a motion?
90205-6-430

Division


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, it arises because parliament by statute, in this case, regarding the matter of resignation, has authority under the Bank of Canada Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The matter before this house is a motion which calls for a decision by this house as to whether or not it will call for the production of the papers mentioned. There is no question of privilege arising out of this normal procedure involving a decision to be made by the house as to whether it will call for production of the documents specified.
Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members. Is it agreed that the members are in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the view expressed in this

house on four occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on nuclear testing, namely "Our position is very clear; we are against nuclear tests, period", and as he added on July 15 last, "with or without an international control", still represents the policy of the Canadian government.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question yesterday.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house whether there is any foundation for a report in the press that the government of the United States has been in touch with the government of Canada respecting the findings of the royal commission on publications?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I would say that on June 19 the government of the United States communicated with the Canadian government in regard to two of the recommendations contained in the royal commission report and asked for the opportunity of consultation with regard thereto.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask the Minister of Finance a question supplementary to the one just asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. In view of the economic philosophy advanced in certain portions of the minister's budget speech last night to assist the development of more Canadian owned industry, why was there no mention of the royal commission report on publications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the hon. member's question is one asking for factual information. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to raise it in the budget debate.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was it as a result of the minister's failure to complete consideration of the Clark report that no mention was made of it in the budget speech last night?
90205-6-430J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be advancing an opinion in the form of a question. I suggest that hon. members bring these matters before the house when the budget debate is on.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the widespread interest in the province, will the minister advise the house whether he will be in a position to present the report on the study of a ferry service to the east coast of Newfoundland before the end of June, 1961.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, this matter is under very active consideration and I hope to be able to make a further statement some time in the summer.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has yet come to any conclusion in the consideration he said he would give to the question of whether the memorandum of economic policies of the governor of the Bank of Canada of last February should be tabled?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the observations I made this morning are a complete answer to the question put forward by the hon. gentleman. I refer to my comments on the nature of communications passing between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now that this document has become public, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he would object to any hon. member of this house tabling it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not for any one member of the house to say whether a document ought or ought not to be tabled. This is a matter for the house, but the hon. member seems to have a copy of it. At the moment I fail to see what purpose would be served by tabling a document which when it was sent by the

Inquiries of the Ministry governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance last February was a confidential communication-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is now a public document.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and has never ceased to be that so far as any understanding on my part or on the part of the government is concerned. The disclosure of that document was a very serious impropriety on the part of the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the hon. member is now asking that a document that came into his hands and the hands of other members of the house as the result of an act of impropriety on the part of the governor of the Bank of Canada should be made part of the records of this house. I do not think the house wishes to be a party to breaking down the confidential nature of communications in this manner.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the long answer given by the Minister of Finance, may I ask him whether he does not think there was a good precedent in the act of the Prime Minister in tabling a confidential, secret government report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I just rise on a question of privilege and simply say that the hon. gentleman makes a statement which is completely false.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says I made a statement that was completely false. Does Your Honour regard that as a proper parliamentary term?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event, I say the records of this house show that the Prime Minister did table a document which was confidential and intended only for the scrutiny of members of the government of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege affecting every hon. member of this house, and arising out of the proceedings that have just taken place. My question of privilege is that there is a precedent in this house for the tabling of documents submitted as confidential reports to another government, and that precedent was created by the Prime Minister on the 20th of January, 1958, in the most outrageous act ever performed in this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Another picayune observation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The discussion appears to me to be completely out of order. It is a reflection on a decision taken by the house. The question which initiated the discussion was also out of order, because the tabling of a document is by leave of the house, not by leave of the Minister of Finance. I appreciate that the question was whether he had any objection, but it seems to me that as this is a matter for the house and, as a decision has been taken, it is improper to debate the matter. In any event, the tabling of that document would be a matter for decision of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question not related to the document which has just been discussed. Have there been letters between him and the governor of the Bank of Canada relating to the subject of resignation other than those that have been made public by the governor of the bank?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of any, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a document which has been distributed to the press and to members of the house, namely the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada of February 16, 1961.


Mr. Grafffey:: He still thinks he is a minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member is following a sound precedent, but in any event if a document that is not a public document or one required to be tabled by public law is to be tabled, it will have to be by leave of the house. Pending any other conclusion on this point, I shall ask the house whether it gives leave to the hon. member to table the document. Those in favour will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some protests and therefore-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The document which I have tabled and in connection with which I thought I had obtained leave-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: [DOT]-is a document that has been issued to the public of Canada, has been referred to in our debates during the past few days, and has been distributed by the governor of the Bank of Canada. The

governor of the Bank of Canada, according to the Minister of Finance-and he has good authority for his statement in view of the Bank of Canada Act-is responsible to parliament. As the governor has issued this statement and made it public, then surely, if it has been referred to in committees of the house as it was yesterday, if it has been referred to in debates in this house, in the light of the reluctance of the Minister of Finance to table it himself, a private member, in respect of a matter involving the authority of parliament in relation to the governor, has the right to table a document which has now become public.
If this contention is not accepted we are put in the absurd position of seeing this statement which vitally concerns our discussions printed in extenso by the newspapers, as it has been, while at the same time we are denied something which is open to the press, television and radio services of our country. We would be denied access to this document in the official manner which our practice provides. In respect for the Minister of Finance it was proper that we should ask him first of all to table this statement, but since he is reluctant to do so notwithstanding the fact that it is a public document and as the governor is responsible to parliament I submit to you, sir, with great respect and much confidence in this view, that we have the right to table this document and we do not have to ask the house for leave to do so in view of this situation. If we are denied this right, which you have appropriately placed before the house by way of direction, Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear that we were denied that right as the result of action taken by an intransigent government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the hon. gentleman make a statement which he himself knew was ridiculous when he made it. Indeed, when he makes such statements I study him very carefully, not by way of example but simply to observe the manner in which he makes these presentations. He seems to have forgotten that he is not on the treasury benches any longer, that four years ago today an event took place that he should not yet have forgotten.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: You allowed the hon. member to go on.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Prime Minister is speaking to the question of privilege, and I suggest that he address his remarks to
Inquiries of the Ministry that point. It may be no question of privilege at all, but it was put forward as a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point out this, if I might do so shortly, and follow a course that the hon. gentleman never follows. What he has done has simply constituted a breach of the privileges of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Cite your authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: I see no question of privilege in what the hon. member for Essex East has put forward as a question of privilege. I had some doubts about the right to submit the document at all but I am clear that the house controls what goes on the table. Unless it has prescribed that documents be laid on the table by act of parliament-as certain documents are laid on the table in the ordinary course of events-when hon. members wish to place a document on the table, it is by leave of the house. That leave has not been given.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the effect of your ruling in this case is that any member of the house can prevent the tabling of any document proposed by any member of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: No, that is not the effect of my ruling. It is not unanimous consent that is required, in my view. It is a matter for the house to decide in the usual way by a majority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this problem. You have said that I must have leave to table this document. Your Honour, of course, is aware that under revised procedures many documents now are automatically tabled without any leave being sought of this house. In order that I would not be in contempt of parliament I would ask you if I will have the right now or at adjournment to table this document by handing it to the Clerk, as government members continually do without any resort to parliament at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is a rather important one, of course, because if it were open to any hon. member without leave to place documents on the table of the house and make them parliamentary papers, there would be no control by the house. The citation in Beauchesne's fourth edition with regard to tabling papers is No. 209, which states as follows:
Papers are laid before the house in pursuance of
(1)	Provisions of an act of parliament;
(2)	An order of the house;
(3)	An address to the crown;
(4)	The command of the crown;
(5)	Standing orders of the house.
There are, of course, other instances in which the house asks for possession of papers.
6818	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry For example, where they are referred to in debate and are quoted, an hon. member may insist that the documents be brought before the house. There is a citation on that point. However, that is not the issue today and I think I need not trouble the house with that point, but it will be found in Bourinot's fourth edition at page 245.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance this question in view of the act of the Minister of Agriculture this morning when he moved to refer the report of the Canadian wheat board to the committee on agriculture. In view of the action taken by his colleague will the minister not agree to table the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada and have it referred to the banking and commerce committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do you intend to allow the time of the house to be taken up with this daily question? The answer remains the same as it has been now for days and days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister does not want to follow the example of his colleague.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Minister of National Revenue if he has been able to find out yet whether in fact an inspector of the income tax department did make an investigation at the Jean Talon hospital in Montreal?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that any matters of this sort have always been considered completely secret, and that it would be against good public practice to discuss the tax affairs of any particular taxpayer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister about the affairs of any particular individual. I merely asked whether it was a fact that a tax inspector had conducted an investigation at that hospital, and I was very careful not to talk about any individual file. Surely the question of fact could be determined.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might be correct in making sure that his question was understood, but not in complaining about or debating the answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister answer the question?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Now that the budget has been presented, is he in a position to inform members of the house whether it is the intention of the government to ask parliament to recess during the months of July and August?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after discussion between the house leader and representatives of the opposition and the third party, I will be able to speak with some degree of authority, namely the authority of representatives of all parties in the house.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house, resumed from Tuesday, June 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-113, to amend the National Energy Board Act- Mr. Hees-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The Chairman:: When we adjourned yesterday we were considering clause 3.
On clause 3-Review of orders.


Mr. Hees:: The amendment contained in clause 3 defines more specifically the powers of the board to change, alter or vary orders, certificates or licences issued by it. In exercising its functions the board differentiates between orders, certificates and licences. The amendment also provides expressly that no assignment or transfer of such a certificate or licence is effective until approved by the board and the governor in council, and that in approving any such assignment or transfer the board, with the approval of the governor in council, may attach such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in the circumstances. This amendment would become important only if on proclamation, pursuant to section 87, imports and exports of oil were made subject to licence. The amendment itself removes from section 20 the present requirement that the board would have to hold a public hearing in every case involving the issuing-


George James McIlraith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the minister is not referring to clause 4 of the bill. Clause 3 is now before the committee, and it relates to section 17 of the act.


George Harris Hees: That is quite right. I have gone on to section 4. I am sorry but I did not notice that.


Jacques Flynn: We are on clause 3.


George James McIlraith: Since this clause relates to rather extensive power and authority in the board to change, alter or vary a certificate or licence issued by it, perhaps this is an opportunity for me to make a remark I desired to make.
As to the wording of the clause itself, I have no particular comment. I think the section in the bill being amended required some clarification. However, I wanted to take this opportunity to point out what I think is one weakness, not only in connection with this clause but in connection with the bill generally, and it is this. The bill was introduced in the house the day before yesterday and the printed copies were available yesterday. At this stage of the session I am prepared to go ahead on that basis, but it seems to me that since these amending clauses are nearly all administrative or having to do with the administrative powers of the board, they are of such a nature that there should have been an opportunity between first reading and second reading for their circulation to the industry.
Those mainly concerned in the industry with this type of administrative problem are the oil and gas firms which have their offices and places of business mainly in Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton. This bill can only be available in their offices today. I just want to place on record my regret that it was found necessary to proceed in this way. If there is any explanation as to why the bill itself was not introduced in the house some days or weeks ago so that there could be a delay between first reading and second reading, I wish the minister would give such explanation.


George Harris Hees: It was a slip up which I very much regret, Mr. Chairman. I quite agree with the hon. member that it would have been most desirable to have a longer period elapse between first reading and second reading. I am sorry that procedure has not been possible. I can assure him that steps are now being taken to see that this kind of thing does not happen in the future on bills in general.


George James McIlraith: In the meantime the difficulty is that legislation, once imbedded in the statutes, has a habit of staying there unamended for some time. There may be items in the clauses that were never intended by the government or would never have been permitted to pass by the opposition had they known about them. The amendments are of a nature that do not involve great questions of principle but may involve some inconvenience to the industry. I raise the point now and I hope in the future the minister will take more care in these matters to see that some better practice is followed.
National Energy Board Act
It is interesting that the rules of the United Kingdom parliament at one time I believe, required the lapse of ten days between first and second reading of a bill. I think that rule has long since disappeared. Probably it is not desirable that it be a rule of the house, but it is certainly a desirable practice in legislation of this type, where the subject matter with which we are dealing involves somewhat complex matters of administration on the part of the national energy board rather than great matters of principle.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I might just add that the principle underlying these amendments was discussed with the responsible ministers of the following provinces; British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. In the province of Ontario the minister was not available and discussions were held with the deputy minister. Those are the provinces really affected by the National Energy Board Act and, as I say, the principle underlying these amendments-


George James McIlraith: Some of the sections.


George Harris Hees: -has been discussed with responsible people in those provinces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I support in general the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. The minister has just mentioned that in this case there was a discussion with ministers of the provinces directly concerned and the deputy minister of Ontario, and they generally expressed agreement with the amendments to this measure. Is that correct?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


George James McIlraith: Is it not fair to say the discussion would only be in connection with those amendments that affect provincial rights? Some of these clauses would be of no concern at all to provincial attorneys general.


George Harris Hees: That is correct. I was referring to the clauses affecting provincial rights.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Those are the clauses which would be of particular concern to them and possibly to some hon. members of the house without an explanation?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Public hearings.
George Harris Hees: This amendment would become important only if by proclamation pursuant to section 87 imports and exports of oil were made subject to licence. The amendment itself removes from section 20 the present requirement that the board would have to hold a public hearing in every case involving the

National Energy Board Act issue, cancellation or suspension oi a licence for the importation or exportation of oil.
Oil, unlike gas, is not generally traded on a long term basis, and in the event that it did become necessary to licence the import or export of oil, the licence would be for a maximum period of one year and would probably be for a term of six months. There would undoubtedly be a large number of applications, and it would be virtually impossible for the board to hold a public hearing in each case.
The board informs me that it would be its intention to hold public hearings from time to time to give the industry an opportunity to make representations in regard to any regulation or formula which might be adopted to determine the method of computing the amount of crude oil or products which an applicant for an import or export licence would be entitled to. I also remind the committee that the governor in council would have to approve any licence to import or export crude oil or products.


George James McIlraith: I recognize that the practice would be, in the event of the import of oil, for licences to be granted only for a short term, although there is nothing in the act that I can see which prevents the national energy board, if it so desires, granting a licence for a very long term. There is no statutory protection on that point. However, I think it is reasonable that within the industry such licences, if granted, would be for a short term. Since they are for a short term, the method of public hearings is not feasible and would appear in many instances to be unreasonable in relation to the problem confronting the board with respect to possible oil import licences.
However, there are two problems that concern me. This amendment is made necessary by the reference to section 87 of the act, and would only become of real significance in the event that the governor in council took action under section 87 to bring the import of oil under the provisions of the act.
That raises, of course, the old point that was a point of real difference at the time the act itself was before the House of Commons. I refer to the argument that the governor in council should never have been given the power to take that arbitrary action. The authority to bring the import of oil under control in a nation that has wide trade interests, as this nation has, and a nation that is so dependent on trade, as this nation is, is a right which should never have been granted to the government without some need being demonstrated for the government to have that power. The need has not been demonstrated.
[Mr. Hees.l

While I do not want to open up the whole argument again, I for one persist in my view that this arbitrary authority should never have been given to the government, and that any government seeking to take such drastic action in respect of a commodity of such importance in our trade field should be required to come to parliament and have parliament take the action.
The amendment of this section, bearing in mind that the amendment can only have significance if the government has taken action under section 87 to bring the import of oil under control, raises in my mind at once the question, has the government in mind bringing the import of oil under control? I should like the minister to address himself to that point.
*" Mr. Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add to what I said in this house when I spoke on the national oil policy on February 1. At that time I said I hoped the aims of this act-that is, the aims of the national oil policy-could be accomplished by voluntary action, but if this could not be done, then if necessary section 87 would be proclaimed.
I think the hon. member and all hon. members would agree that the purpose of the national oil policy, which is to materially increase the use of Canadian oil in Canada, is a worthy objective. I feel sure that we are all at one in our desire to see that objective reached. We hope it can be reached on a voluntary basis, but I think the hon. member would agree that if it cannot, it would then be necessary to bring in controls under section 87.


George James McIlraith: Could the minister advise the committee whether there has been any result, under the oil policy as announced on February 1, that would indicate the oil policy targets are less likely to be achieved than the minister indicated in that statement?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, there is no such indication. I am very hopeful that the objectives of the national oil policy will be achieved.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite realize the necessity for this amendment owing to the short term nature of some of these licences for the export and import of these commodities. Is it correct to say that the governor in council has to approve any licence for the import or export of crude oil or oil products? Is that a protection, and is it necessary in the first instance because of government policy in relation to changing economic circumstances?


George Harris Hees: Yes, the governor in council has to approve all licences to export or import gas or oil or power.


George James McIlraith: I have one further question to ask on this clause. I note that the hearings required to be public hearings have to do with the export of gas or power and the import of gas. There is nothing said about the import of power. The Columbia river project has now reached a certain stage. I do not want to develop a discussion on that matter now, because the subject is not before the committee, but arising out of that project is there any prospect of an exchange of power which would make it desirable for us to import power, though I realize that the project basically involves the export of power?


George Harris Hees: I am advised there is no restriction on the import of power, and we cannot see any contingency which might arise where any restriction on the import of power would be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Application for certificate; material to be filed.
George Harris Hees: This amendment is for the purpose of requiring additional technical information to be filed with any application for a certificate to construct a pipe line where the board considers such additional information to be necessary. I can assure the committee that the board will not ask for any additional information which is not necessary, but from time to time some additional information is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Further plans.
George Harris Hees: This amendment requires a company in any case where, for example, a certificate issued to the company relates to equipment for other works connected with a pipe line, to file with the board such further or other plans, specifications and drawings in addition to the plan, profile and book of reference now required under section 29 as the board may from time to time require. This is much the same as the requirement outlined in the previous clause, which provides that the board may from time to time ask for additional information as it may see fit.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the committee what type of equipment is under consideration in an amendment such as this?


George Harris Hees: Compressor stations, meter
stations, pumping stations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
National Energy Board Act
On clause 7-Terms and conditions of certificates.
George Harris Hees: The effect of this amendment is to remove from section 46 as it now stands the words "construction, ownership and operation" so that with the removal of these restrictive words the section will permit the board to issue a certificate upon such terms or conditions as it may consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the purposes and provisions of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Exempting orders.
George Harris Hees: The effect of the proposed amendment is twofold. First, section 25 prevents construction or operation of a pipe line other than by a special act company. Section 26 prohibits operation of a pipe line without a certificate, together with leave to open, both of which are granted by the board. Section 27 prevents the commencement of construction of a pipe line, or a part thereof, until a certificate has been issued and certain technical data have been filed. Section 28 requires a certain type of map to be filed upon a certificate application, and section 29 provides for further technical data and information to be filed. Therefore the board's power to exempt pipe lines or parts of pipe lines from any or all of the provisions of the above sections is extended and made more clear.
The second effect relates to international power lines. Section 40 of the act prohibits construction of an international power line without a certificate from the board. Section 41 requires the filing of certain technical information respecting international power lines, and section 43 prohibits operation of an international power line without first obtaining a certificate. The proposed amendment would give the board power to exempt small international power lines, not exceeding 5,000 kilowatts in transfer capacity, from the provisions of sections 40, 41 and 43. The amendment would permit, for example, a small utility located in one province to build a pipe line of less than 25 miles in length to obtain a gas supply from another province or from across the border in the United States without the necessity of going to the expense of obtaining a special act.
Such an amendment is desirable in order that small power lines carrying relatively inconsequential amounts of power across the international boundary line may be exempted from complying with the aforementioned sections.


George James McIlraith: The proposed new section 49(l)(b) changes the test applicable to power lines, that is lines that may be exempted,



B822 HOUSE OF

[Stage Direction]
National Energy Board Act from one of length to one of capacity. I think I am right in my understanding of this, but I want to be clear that the power to exempt is limited to the construction and operation of the power line and has no relation whatever to the licence to export power.
George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have read the clause carefully and listened to the explanation given by the minister. I take it that it is correct to say, with respect to the international power lines, that this is purely to meet certain incidental needs and circumstances, that it has no effect upon our policy with regard to the commercial export power.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 9

Extended meaning of "oil".
George Harris Hees: Section 59 presently permits the board, subject to such exceptions or conditions as it may prescribe, to require a company operating an oil pipe line to transmit all oil delivered to it for transmission. The effect of this amendment is to extend the board's authority to the transmission of liquefied gases such as propane and butane where they are being transmitted, as is sometimes the case, through an oil line.


George James McIlraith: I take it this is merely due to the practice now developing where certain liquefied gases are now being produced in the oil areas, and under the existing legislation there is no authority to compel a pipe line company to act as a common carrier, though the whole concept is that an oil pipe line is a common carrier; and these liquefied gases are of such nature that they are not bought by a pipe line company, as in the case of gas, in the sense in which that word is presently used, with regard to their transport as a commodity by the common carrier.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Mr. Churchill:: I think there are only four more clauses still to be considered. I notice it is nearly one o'clock, but we might finish in five minutes, Mr. Chairman.


George James McIlraith: I shall have something to say on clause 10, but I would have no objection to our continuing.
On clause 10-Tolls for transmission of gas.


George Harris Hees: I should like to explain this clause. By deleting the words "from any place within a province to any place outside the province", the application of the section is extended to the intraprovincial transmission of gas by a company to which the act


applies, where the gas transmitted through its pipe line is the property of the company. This has the effect of enabling the national energy board to fix tolls for the transmission of all gas through a pipe line subject to federal jurisdiction where such gas is owned by the pipe line company, regardless of the origin or destination of the gas.
I think the house will appreciate the fact that once gas is injected in a pipe line it becomes indistinguishable as to origin or destination. We have one pipe line company which at the present time picks up gas in Alberta and British Columbia and delivers gas at points in British Columbia for consumption in that province, and exports the balance of the gas at the international boundary. As the section stands now it would be impossible for the board to segregate the gas produced and sold in British Columbia and fix tolls on the balance. There is also the implication that some other authority would have the right to fix tolls on the gas produced and sold in British Columbia, or alternatively that no tolls could be fixed for the transportation of gas produced and sold in British Columbia. This is an impossible situation.
By deleting the words "such proportion as the board may fix" of the differential between the amount paid for the gas and the amount for which the gas is sold, recognition is given to the impracticability of devising any general formula for the equitable determination of the portion of the difference that is to be deemed a toll. The amendment would have the effect of permitting the board to rely upon the differential between the cost to the company of the gas and the amount for which the gas is sold as the toll in the case of a company that owns the gas being transmitted. The use of this differential is considered appropriate in this case inasmuch as recognized public utility practice requires that gas transmission companies calculate their earnings as a return on the amount of investment in useful facilities employed in providing the transmission service. There is no profit permitted on the actual purchase and sale of the gas. The costs associated with the purchasing and selling of gas are expenses.
The amendment would also substitute for the phrase "the amount paid by the company for the gas" the phrase "the costs to the company of the gas", to make it clear that any amount charged to the company for bringing the gas to the point where it enters the company's pipe line, for example an amount charged by a provineially incorporated gathering system, shall be a part of the cost to the company of the gas and, therefore, excluded from the amount of the deemed toll, subject to the jurisdiction of the board.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, section 61 of the act which is being replaced reads as follows:
Where the gas transmitted-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could dispense with reading that section.


Jacques Flynn: Yes.


George James McIlraith: At the time the original act was before the house in 1959 it was clear that very few members understood just exactly what the section meant. I must confess that I was among those. I cannot speak for the minister at that time, but I certainly have my doubts as to what it means. Indeed, the hon. member for Vancouver East is reported in Hansard at page 4210 of June 1, 1959 as having asked the following question after reading the section into the record:
What in the name of heaven does that mean?
I think that question aptly describes section 61 of the act, and I am pleased to see that it is being replaced by something which is intelligible as to form. The new section will read as follows:
Where the gas transmitted-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I could also dispense with reading that section.


Jacques Flynn: Yes. Quote.


George James McIlraith: I have a couple of questions which I should like to ask at this time. The approach to the problem, of taking the cost to the company of the gas when it is put into the lines and the price at which it is sold, is undoubtedly a better approach than dealing with the differential between the cost price and selling price, as was done in the act. I am sure it is now clear that the board has jurisdiction in respect to gas transmitted within a province through a pipe line which is wholly under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I share the view of the minister that this is quite within the constitutional authority of parliament, and I am glad to see that approach taken to the problem.
There is one other implication in this clause which has not been dealt with by the minister. Anyone reading the explanatory notes will understand that the new clause bases the fixing of the differential between the cost and selling price of the gas, or the carrying charge, on the formula of permitting the gas transmission company to calculate its earnings on the return on investment in facilities used in providing the transmission service. It will be noted that the test now is based on the earnings as a return on investment, and I believe that is different from
National Energy Board Act what the Borden commission recommended, which was that the test should be based on the earnings of the company's equity in the pipe line. I wonder whether the minister could explain why the Borden commission's recommendation was not followed in regard to that point.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, there is no necessity for me to repeat the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. However, I do intend to ask two questions. This is the section which would be of particular interest to provincial governments, and in respect of which discussions were held during which it received approval.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Second, as to the other amendment which deals with the profit permitted on the actual purchase and sale of the gas in relation to transmission, is it correct to say that this amendment more securely prevents, shall I say, individuals engaged in this business from acting as middlemen and making a profit on the transmission of gas over and above the profit allowed on the investment in the pipe line.


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is correct. With regard to the questions of the hon. member for Ottawa West, I should like to say that I am not too familiar with the thinking of the members of the Borden commission. However, I am advised by the chairman of the national energy board that the method adopted in this measure is according to normal practice. I cannot say anything further in this regard.


George James McIlraith: As I understand that method it is in accordance with the normal practice of gas public utility accounting procedures.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


George James McIlraith: As I understand it, the Borden commission made a different recommendation in respect to the method of fixing tolls. I may be wrong in that statement.


George Harris Hees: No, that is quite correct.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Leave to construct highways, etc., across or along pipe lines.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the amendment contained in clause 12 appears to clarify the situation with respect to the authority of the board. There are two points which I should like to raise concerning this clause. I think I can do so very briefly, but perhaps the minister intends to make a statement in this regard.


George Harris Hees: No.

National Energy Board Act


George James McIlraith: The first point I should like to touch upon has reference to a private bill which was put before this house earlier this session by the hon. member for Middlesex West, which was Bill No. C-5, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works). The debate in respect to that bill appears in Hansard of Tuesday, December 13, 1960, at page 762. The hon. member for Middlesex West dealt with the drainage problem which exists in southwestern Ontario. He sought to have the matter of jurisdiction in respect to Ontario's drainage authority made applicable to the pipe line companies operating under this board. It is interesting to note that he sought to have provincial jurisdiction made applicable to such federal public works. As I understand the effect of that proposal, it would enable the referees under the Ontario drainage legislation to fix costs of certain drainage works against these pipe line companies.
The government did not express its view in respect to that private bill and I should like the minister now to do so, because it relates directly to the point raised by this clause. Perhaps the minister can inform the committee why the government did not adopt the recommendations of the hon. member for Middlesex West.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the board has sufficient power under section 77 of the act to carry out what the hon. member for Middlesex West requested.


George James McIlraith: As I understand the situation, those farmers affected by these drainage works did not have the right to apply to the board to have the charges fixed, as they could apply to the drainage referees.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the owners of the utilities-the farmers or whoever owns the land-may apply.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, clause 12 reads in part as follows:
No highway, private road, railway, irrigation ditch. .. shall, except by leave of the board, be carried across, along, upon or under any pipe line.
I find the meaning of the word "along", as used in that context, very obscure. I do not know whether it means adjacent to, abutting, or travelling along for some distance in a parallel direction. I only hope that as questions arise which may affect safety within a building or with respect to other public works of the nature described in this clause adjacent to a pipe line of relatively high pressure, a larger pipe line, cognizance will be taken by the board of safety requirements, and that if there is necessity for clarification of the meaning of the word "along" in this context they will come back to the house so

the requirements of safety regulations, which will become more acute as time goes on, will be made paramount, rather than have any hesitation about the matter.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-"Oil or gas" substituted for "gas".
George James McIlraith: I take it that the use of the
expression "oil or gas" is merely consequential on the change of the definition clause in this bill and has no other implications?


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to say that this has been the longest five minutes I have ever spent in my life. I stuck it out only out of regard for the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Harbours and rivers engineering services-
357. Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures, $800,000.
Mr. Bourgel:: I wonder whether the minister is going to reply to the remarks that were made by the hon. member for Hull on the question of remedial works and whether discussion should take place between the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to the responsibility for such remedial works.


David James Walker: I would be very happy to do so. On previous occasions, both verbally and by correspondence, I have tried to enlighten the hon. member for Hull on this matter. Because of the mood of the house today I will go no further than to say that I have tried to do so. Apparently I have failed and so I shall make one more effort. Incidentally, I am not referring to the hon. member for Levis.

The history of this matter is that back in the thirties there was an unemployment relief vote whereby funds were provided to carry out work which was not necessarily a federal responsibility. This included protection works. Subsequently, when the vote was discontinued, a general vote respecting protection works was instituted, but by 1954 there were so many demands on this vote that it would have cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars to meet these requests which were not a federal responsibility.
In 1954 the wording of the vote was changed. It was changed, incidentally, by the administration in which the hon. member for Levis was the distinguished parliamentary assistant to the then minister of public works. The hon. member will recall that the vote was changed to provide funds for work which the federal government should carry out.
There are two principles involved. The first is that the British North America Act places property and civil rights under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and the shoreline of every lake, river and creek comes under the property category. It includes water lots, and it may be of interest to point out that in the construction of our various wharves and other projects we are obliged to obtain from the province the administration and control of the shore line and water lot property for the life of the project. There can be no argument, in so far as erosion is concerned, as to the shore lines of our many waters in Canada not being a provincial responsibility. As a matter of fact, there seems to be no question about that.
The second principle involved relates to navigation and here we have a responsibility. The control of navigation was retained by the federal government at the time of confederation and the law in that connection has not been changed up to the present time. As a result, therefore, we have the Navigable Waters Protection Act which is administered by the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport administers that portion dealing with hazards to navigation and is particularly concerned with ship channels. Derelicts or wrecks of ships constitute examples of such hazards.
The Department of Public Works administers that portion of the act relating to the construction of projects under, across or over navigable waters. From this federal responsibility with respect to commercial navigation channels we get a connection between maintaining that channel, which we do through the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and
Supply-Public Works
even by dredging, and the damage that shipping does the nearby shore line.
There is doubt, of course, that erosion caused by shipping is legally a federal responsibility but it has been assumed as such and I think that the responsibility possibly exists. However, erosion from flooding or from natural causes cannot be included in this category and in accordance with the British North America Act that remains the responsibility of lower levels of government.
Shore erosion is also often caused by manmade structures such as docks, wharves and bridges which disturb the natural flow and change the course of the water thus causing erosion. Those responsible for the construction of such projects should be held responsible for the damage thus caused through erosion. The federal government accept this principle and is prepared to repair damage done under these circumstances. This explains why the vote relating to protection works is confined to the expenditure of money for erosion where it is caused by commercial navigation or where there is a federal structure involved. Much as I should like to extend that limit to please different members on both sides of the house, the frightful cost to the federal government in assuming a responsibility that is not a responsibility of the federal government would be so great as to make it a burden which no federal government could possibly bear.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall vote 357 carry?


Maurice Bourget: I am not going to pursue the discussion on that particular item. I know the difficulties that are probably going to be faced if we enlarge the vote. As the minister will recall, and also the deputy minister because he was at the public accounts committee, even the Auditor General questioned the propriety of certain expenditures that have been made; I do not remember exactly whether it was in 1958 or 1959. That shows that even the Auditor General is not too sure of the wording of vote 357. I am therefore wondering whether the minister would not have a look at it and find out whether the wording could not be changed.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 357 carry?


Maurice Bourget: Before it carries, I should like the minister, if he would be kind enough to do so, to supply me with a list of the remedial works that were performed last year and those which are expected to be performed this year. I do not ask for that information now. It can be given later.


David James Walker: I shall be very glad to do that and send it to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Dredging-
359. Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $4,090,205.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to take the opportunity to rise again as we are now proceeding in another day. I placed some restraint on myself last Saturday at the minister's request and willingly so. But on this vote for dredging I just want briefly to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the dredging of channels in the Arrow lakes is somewhat of a different nature from what it has been in the past. Since the passenger steamers are now off the lakes, the channels will have to be longer and straighter or I should say there will have to be longer tangents in the channel-I refer to straight tangents-because of the length of these booms that are towed there. From this time on there will be approximately from 600,000 to 1 million feet of logs a day going from the upper to the lower Arrow lakes proceeding to the pulp mill near Castlegar. It requires a long and deep channel. I am just suggesting to the minister that, whatever happens on the Columbia, we have at least a five year period that has to be taken care of. I hope to goodness it does not happen.. However, this is a very important industry. I suggest that some attention should be paid to this matter by one of the engineers. I suggest that it would be a good idea to get in touch with the officials of the company and those in charge of operating tugs and towing services. They have a fairly good idea of what is required. When the steamers were running the department had excellent relations with the captains on the sternwheelers and as a result of that co-operation were able to do the maximum amount of work to the greatest advantage with the minimum of money. I have been asked to raise this matter and to direct the minister's attention to it because of the changing circumstances.
The other thing I have been asked to bring to the minister's attention is the necessity for a wider channel for vessels going into the Arrowhead dock because of the large ice floes that come down the Columbia river in the spring which make it very difficult on some occasions for the passenger vessel proceeding from Nakusp to Arrowhead to get into the dock. The channel now is quite satisfactory except that it is too narrow. In addition to that, it requires widening because there are millions of pieces of logs towed from the north arm of the Arrow lakes and at that point they make a right angle turn; and no tug with a long tow behind it can make a right angle turn and have the logs or the tow, as anyone knows, follow it exactly. I suggest that some consideration should be

given to that matter in consultation with the persons interested in the forest industry, the towing of logs and so on.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Last Thursday, Mr. Chairman, the honourable or perhaps I should say the Ontario member for Laurier stated that the 27 foot dredged channel at Cornwall enabled this government to construct port facilities in their proposed location. Does he not realize that access to this dock will be at the 21 foot level or 21 foot depth and that at least 80,000 or 90,000 cubic yards of river bottom would have to be dredged in order to provide 27 foot access and a 900 foot radius turning basin? The cost of this will be approximately $1 per cubic yard for soil and anywhere from $12 to $25 per cubic yard for rock. Clearly then, this channel to which the hon. member was referring makes very little difference.
This 27 foot dredged channel to which he was referring is the famous Chevrier seaway which ends in an 80 foot high blank wall. Everyone in Cornwall knows that the only time to have built a Canadian seaway was when the seaway itself was being built, especially in view of the present disappointing volume of seaway traffic. He also pleaded that the new industrial complex adjacent to the Eisenhower and Snell locks in northern New York state was not due to the St. Lawrence seaway being located on the United States side but was due to cheap hydro power in New York. Surely when the seaway was being constructed, this was the time for the then minister of transport, who did all the seaway dealings for the federal Liberal government of that time, to extract concessions from Ontario hydro. This was the time to make deals to extract concessions. Why did not the former member for Stormont and his Liberal provincial colleagues in Ontario protect the interests of their area in the way that Ontario hydro itself is looking out for all of Ontario and putting its electricity on the provincial bridge?


George James McIlraith: What is the hon. member reading from?


Grant Campbell: I should like to quote one sentence from the remarks of the hon. member as found in Hansard of June 15, 1961, at page 6414-


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member is in order in speaking about the subject with which he is dealing at the present time. I think it comes under transport and not under public works.


Grant Campbell: Not at all; I am laying a groundwork.


Mr, Bourgel:: I am not asking the hon. member. I am asking the chairman.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Stormont got off to a good start when he was dealing strictly with dredging as it related to the St. Lawrence seaway. But very shortly afterwards he was straying from the item under consideration which is a very particular item at this stage of the consideration of these estimates namely, "Dredging-Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works". It has to do with public works, harbours and rivers engineering services. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair, if he will, and develop whatever subject he is putting forward on this particular item, so as to relate it very closely to the major consideration or topic which is dredging.


Grant Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I am endeavouring to lay a groundwork. I am endeavouring to set out certain damages that have been caused in our area by certain previous construction and how this can be rectified by appropriate dredging. This is merely a groundwork for this contention that I am endeavouring to promote. I referred to Hansard in which the hon. member is reported to have stated as follows:
-in the old days the traffic on the St. Lawrence canal at Cornwall was tremendous and, in fact, it was responsible in large part for the progress and development of that community.
He also cited certain figures. In 1955, the loaded tonnage on the Cornwall canal was 1,001 and the unloaded tonnage was 323,273 whereas in 1959, there was no loaded tonnage and the unloaded tonnage was down to 181,950. I completely agree with this comment of the hon. member, namely that the previous prosperity of Cornwall was due largely and initially to Cornwall canal traffic. But he states that this decline in traffic was due to the competition of air lines and roads. May I say that it is due to the fact that the Cornwall canal which flowed by our door for 100 years is now a backwater which also ends in a blank wall. I should like also to ask the hon. member for Laurier how much of the $800,000 spent on the seaway went to Cornwall people and how much went to Montreal and Toronto contractors.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order; I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman again but the subject he is discussing would have been applicable to item 352. My recollection is that the hon. gentleman perhaps was not present when that item was being discussed. However, that is the situation, and I would ask him to relate his remarks to the item under discussion or I shall have to give the floor to some other member.
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: Everything is so peaceful and happy here today that I should like to suggest the hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss this subject on the budget. I believe one can talk on any subject during that debate. This is the fourth day these estimates have been under discussion, and I believe the chairman is correct in his recollection that we have passed this item. I am just being selfish at the moment because I am trying to get these estimates completed. However, I would not want to deny the hon. member an opportunity of discussing the subject at an appropriate time. I know what he is talking about, but the item has been passed.


Grant Campbell: I was occupied with business for my constituents on this particular occasion, and the business was of a personal and confidential nature. I shall be glad to take advantage of the opportunity of discussing this matter again and discussing it thoroughly as it deserves.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Perhaps the Chair should apologize and I do so now for making a reference to the absence of the hon. member. I am sure he was quite justifiably absent on constituency business. I am emphasizing that I apologize.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
360. Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $2,676,000.
Frank Howard: The details of this item show an amount for construction or acquisition of plant and equipment allocated to British Columbia and the Yukon Territories, the amount being about $1,100,000 as compared with $1,500,000 last year. I was wondering whether the minister would mind refreshing our memories as to the purpose for which this money will be required.


David James Walker: Most of the item is for the dredge, Fort Langley, that was launched about a month ago.


Mr. Robichaud:: There is an item of $600,000 for construction equipment in the province of New Brunswick. Could the minister give us some details in respect of that item?


David James Walker: Yes, I will be glad to do that. It is broken down into two principal items, one to complete the replacement of dredge No. 4 and the attendant launch, $150,000; second, the replacement of the tug Canso, at an estimated cost of $450,000.


Mr. Batten:: Will the minister give me a breakdown of the $513,000 referred to on page 484, giving just the main headings?


David James Walker: The first item is to complete the replacement of the tug Peel, $375,000;

Supply-Public Works second, a new drill tower, compressor and pneumatic drill equipment for drill boat No. 400, $48,000; new 300 cubic yard steel dump scows, $80,000, and then there is the conversion of dredge No. 400 to diesel power and a new crane.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development engineering services-
362. Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $1,395,000.
George James McIlraith: I wanted to ask the minister about one of the items included in this vote which is for Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges as detailed in the estimates. One of the details is an item of $300,000 towards the cost of the Ottawa-Hull bridge. My recollection at the time of the announcement of the undertaking of that project was that the work would be more advanced than that this season, although I have not the announcement here with me today. Would the minister advise the committee as to whether or not that work is proceeding on schedule, and just when it will be completed?


David James Walker: My friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West, will be glad to know that the matter is proceeding on schedule. We have the liaison groups working nicely together. We have the consultants appointed by each of the provinces and by the dominion, and we expect to call tenders about a year from now.


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister tell us if the Department of Public Works is doing the boring itself or are the borings being made by the consulting engineers?


David James Walker: Well, pending the appointment of the consultants, and so we could get some idea for the purpose of making an estimate of the over-all cost to negotiate with the provinces, we did a few borings ourselves. I can assure the hon. member that we are going to leave this work entirely to the consultants.


Mr. Stewart (Charlotte):: May I ask the
minister if any expenditure has been made under this vote in respect of the Campobello-Lubec bridge?


David James Walker: No, no expenses to date.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to have some information from the minister. I notice that a good portion of this item 362 is to cover a share of the cost of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. I know that $765,000 has been set aside for this purpose. I wonder if the minister could advise this committee of the name of the contractor for the substructure


of this bridge and the amount of the contract. I should like to know also if the work has been completed and what amount has been paid to the contractor to date, as well as whether any claims for extras have been made. If so, what decision has been reached in connection with such extras? In other words, I should like to have from the minister a complete report as to the standing of this project.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Gloucester I would say this bridge was commenced in 1958. At the moment, we call it the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. It is an interprovincial bridge extending between Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec. The department retained the consulting firms of Langevin, Letendre and Monti and Paul Pelletier to prepare the design and supervise the construction of the bridge. The total crossing is 4,180 feet long; the Quebec causeway portion is 960 feet; the New Brunswick causeway portion is 620 feet, and the bridge spans 2,600 feet. There are ten river piers on the main span. Tenders for the substructure were received on November 18, 1958, Ten bids were received, the lowest being that of Belle Construction Limited of He Maligne, Quebec, in the amount of $1,261,592.70. The balance of the bids ranged from this figure up to $1,681,746. Belle Construction Limited, the low tenderer, had not previously done work for this department. However, enquiries of the province of Quebec and private organizations for which they had done work brought favourable reports as to their technical and financial capacities. The contract was awarded to Belle Construction Limited on December 12, 1958.
On March 30, 1960, construction of the substructure was completed, except for minor works. The contractor submitted a claim for payment of $1,343,216.45 over and above his contract amount. In the departmental review of the claim, there were a group of items pertaining to additional work required to be undertaken by the contractor as a result of changes made in the design. These changes were made at our specific request. On these items, the audit services division of the comptroller of the treasury carried out a cost audit of the contractor's books to establish the actual amount assessed against the items approved by the department. This totalled $150,913.61.
The second part of the claim had to do with the fact that the contractor had to carry out the work throughout the winter of 1959-60, whereas he had originally contemplated completing it before the severe portion of the winter season set in. The total amount claimed by the contractor for this portion was

$561,033.64. The audit services division, on examination of the contractor's books, assessed the items claimed as being $453,815.32. In reviewing this claim, the department took the stand that our contract provided for the work to be done and it was the responsibility of the contractor to complete the work before the winter season set in. However, the department did acknowledge that, as a result of certain design changes, the original period for completion of the contract would have to be extended. The extension period was not in itself, however, sufficient to require the contractor to work throughout the winter season and he had, by his own operations, to a large degree created the condition requiring this winter work. On the basis of this, the department felt it should share in these costs proportionately to the additional time resulting from the changes in design. On this basis, it recommended payment of $170,180. The total amount recommended by the department was $321,094.36 against the claim of $1,343,216.45. This recommendation was passed by the treasury board.
The contractor was, as might be expected, dissatisfied with the amounts recommended by the department and placed the matter in the hands of his solicitors who advised they would not accept. The department re-examined its proposal at great length and on many occasions but did not feel that any change should be made. On the advice of the Department of Justice, the department advised the solicitors that the department's offer was firm and, if not accepted, the contractor could take court action. The contractor has now accepted the department's decision and payment on the basis outlined above is being made.
So, to sum it all up, the original contract price, without any changes by us, was $1,261,592.70 which was the lowest of ten bids, the highest being $1,681,000. The changes that we caused were assessed at $150,913.61 for the first part, as well as increased quantities at $34,924.94, and for the second part $170,180 so that the total settlement for the bridge is $1,617,612.00 The amount claimed was $1,343,216.45 and this claim was settled at $321,094.36. The hon. member for Gloucester asked whether this sum had all been paid. No, it has not. There is still a hold-back.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wonder if the minister could also advise this committee if the department has received any claims from suppliers for materials they supplied in connection with this bridge, or work performed and, if so, what action has been taken by the department to protect such suppliers?
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: Yes, there have been claims made by some suppliers with the result that we have held back the sum of $100,000.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister tell the house what is the total amount of the claims received by the department in respect of materials or services not paid for? While the officials are looking for that information, could the minister tell us by whom were the borings at this bridge carried out? Was this work done by employees of the department or by an outside firm?


David James Walker: I understand the borings were done by an outside firm in this instance. This was before my time, but it was done by the same consultants as I referred to in my statement. They arranged for the borings.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell the committee what steps were taken by the department and his officials to assure themselves that the borings were satisfactory? I understand that one of the main reasons given for the claim by the contractor was that the borings were not complete. We have heard in this house in the past a good deal said to the effect that there has been negligence in doing borings for certain federal bridges. Is this not one case where the department may have failed to assure itself that the borings which had been done on the Restigouche river for the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge were really complete?


David James Walker: It appeared initially that the borings were adequate but it was decided that further boring should be carried out to confirm them. After this had been done it was found that the situation which was believed to exist in fact did exist but that there were some differences.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give us any figures regarding the amount of claims that have been made in respect to materials and supplies not paid for.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have only just sent for that information but shall be glad to give it to the hon. member when it arrives.


Maurice Bourget: Was there anything additional claimed as a result of the fact that additional borings had to be made?


David James Walker: Oh, yes, that is part of the claim.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
364. Toward an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $50,000.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I intended to ask the minister to give us some indication

Supply-Public Works
as to that which has been discovered through the surveys made last year, as well as what is expected in the way of work to be done this year, but I saw another hon. member who has perhaps more interest in this subject than I because he lives in the area arise at the same time as myself. I shall, therefore, defer my remarks with the hope that through the questions asked by that hon. member I shall receive the information I desire.


Mr. Phillips:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express regret on the part of the people of Prince Edward Island because of the fact that the report in respect of the feasibility study on the Northumberland causeway is not available during the discussion of these estimates. The minister expressed the hope on an earlier occasion that this report would be made available at the time of our discussion of his estimates, and I wonder whether he can now give this committee any idea as to when he expects the report to be presented.


David James Walker: No. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate some months ago asked me whether I would have the report available during the discussion on my estimates, and in answer to that hon. member I stated that I expected that report would be available. However, it is not available. I had hopes until the last minute that the report would be available during the discussion of these estimates but I am afraid it is not. I expect the report to be made in two parts and I should like to bring both parts into the house at the same time.
As I said earlier this is a tremendous project which has never been attempted before. There is nothing in existence to make reference to, everything must be done from scratch. Because of the enormity of the task it is taking quite some time. That is the best I can say in this regard at this moment. I have attempted to make prognostications before to my sorrow and shall not attempt doing so again.
In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester in respect to the claims which have been made, I can now state that they amount to $104,000. On the admission of even the suppliers themselves some of the claims are slightly exaggerated. We are holding back, not $100,000 as I said before, but $250,000.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, could the minister state whether all the dealings were made with Belle Construction Limited or were some made with its subsidiary, Belle Construction (New Brunswick) Limited?


David James Walker: Belle Construction Limited is the only company of which we have any record.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell us whether he or his department had any information to the effect that at the time the contract was awarded a company had been formed in New Brunswick named Belle Construction (New Brunswick) Limited, and whether the names of the directors of that company had been supplied?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Chairman, we had no knowledge of that.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I was shocked by the answer given by the minister to the hon. member for Prince in respect to the feasibility study of the causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This study was promised two years ago, and only one or two months ago I asked the minister-[DOT]


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: It was
your party that promised it.


Maurice Bourget: We started it but it seems to me that the Conservative government is unable to continue with it. The report as to the feasibility of this causeway was promised as long ago as 1959. A few months ago I asked the minister whether he would be able to give us the report before the consideration of his estimates and he answered in the affirmative. Now, two months later, he tells us he cannot give us this report because it is not available.
Surely after four years of study and the expenditure of over $700,000 we should have some idea of what can be done. I suggest the four hon. members from Prince Edward Island should insist on something being done, and should get after the government and the minister so that the people of Prince Edward Island can receive an answer to their request for a causeway. Surely we are entitled as members of parliament to know what is to become of this project. If we are to be asked to accept only that information which has been presented to this date I am afraid this causeway will become known as the forgotten causeway, at least until after the next election. I know that during some election campaigns the Conservative party called itself the party of the causeway. I suggest we can now call the Tory party the pauseway party and the causeway itself, the forgotten causeway. I suggest it is incumbent upon the minister to inform this committee what has been done in this regard; what the national research branch is presently doing, and when we can expect to receive this report. Surely it is reasonable to ask that question after four years of study and the expenditure of $700,000.


David James Walker: Thank you. The hon. member for Prince and his three confreres from Prince Edward Island have been doing their duty toward Prince Edward Island by importuning me week in and week out to get results. Much as I should like to oblige them, I am a lawyer by profession and not an engineer, and must, therefore, rely upon the reports which I receive in due course from the engineers.
I should like to put the hon. member for Levis at ease by saying that we have been engaged in this project for three years, although he suggests four, which means we have another year. We do not intend to use that further year but will present this report in the near future.
I must state that the project was initiated originally by the late administration in which the hon. member was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of public works. During the period they had the matter under investigation they did not get any further than an examination of the rock.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, as my friend the hon. member for Ottawa East suggests, that administration did not spend $700,000 in this regard.


David James Walker: That administration did not spend anything.


Maurice Bourget: We were asked by the then premier of Prince Edward Island to make a study, and we started immediately to do so. We did not wait three years. The minister cannot say that we did nothing in the three previous years because we had not been asked to do anything at that time. If the Liberal party was in office the appropriate minister would at least have the honesty to inform the people of Prince Edward Island that this project was either economically feasible, or was not economically feasible. I suggest that is the answer which the people of Prince Edward Island expect from the federal government.


Frank Howard: Before the item carries may I ask the minister a question which will not be strictly relevant. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, because there is a connection. Has the minister, his department or his predecessor, received any representation asking for federal government participation in the building of a causeway, a tunnel or some other similar form of connection between Vancouver island and the mainland on the west coast? If any such requests or representations have been received, can the minister indicate what has happened to them?


David James Walker: At one time there was local representation for a tunnel but the water was so deep as to make the whole plan appear to be impracticable.
Supply-Public Works (Translation):


Mr. Latour:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he can enlighten me with regard to the Sir George Perley bridge linking Hawkesbury and Grenville across the Ottawa river.
I understand that alterations are to be made to this bridge as a result of the work being carried out by Quebec hydro; indeed it is said that the bridge will be raised about 12 feet. I should like to know whether the work on this bridge will be carried out by Quebec hydro, and what will be the impact of this bridge in relation to the Ottawa river waterway.
(Text):


David James Walker: Yes, work will have to be done. My understanding is that the cost of it will be borne by hydro.
(Translation):


Joseph-Octave Latour: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I asked another question. I asked what would be the impact of that bridge in view of the proposed Ottawa river waterway scheme. I also asked whether the work would be carried out by Quebec hydro. The reply given to me was not complete enough. The reason why I insist on a satisfactory reply is that for two years, I have been trying to get information from officials of the department, and I must say I have been unable to get a satisfactory reply. I therefore insist on being given a satisfactory answer.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Shall the item carry? (Translation):


Joseph-Octave Latour: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, but I would appreciate an answer to those questions.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I think the hon. member should realize that he is two days late.


David James Walker: It is the hon. member's turn. (Translation):
The hon. member is quite right. Would he be good enough to come to my office so we can discuss this matter? For the time being, it has been decided that the whole cost would be borne by hydro.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
366. Roads and bridges-maintenance and operation including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $300,735.
Frank Howard: Can the minister indicate which bridge this has reference to and specifically what operation is done on it?

Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: The hon. member is speaking now of the railway bridge used by the C.N.R.?


Frank Howard: I do not know what I am speaking of. I ask the minister to indicate which bridge this relates to?


David James Walker: I am sorry, I did not appreciate the hon. member's question. It is the former railway and highway bridge which we took over from the province of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trans-Canada highway-
368. Construction through national parks, $7,476,000.
Mr. Mitchell:: Probably I could take up this matter under item 369. Maybe it should have been taken up earlier in the estimates under item 344, but I was absent in another committee. I wish to bring to the minister's attention something that he probably does not know about. I do not attach any blame to him or to his officials for what has happened. A few years ago in Sudbury tenders were called under the previous government and a federal building was constructed. Between the time the construction was undertaken and completed the government changed but previous to that the cornerstone was laid by the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. The granite cornerstone, or whatever it consisted of, was engraved to the effect that this stone was laid by so and so. As members of the committee know, in the cutting of the stone the letters are outlined by some type of durable paint which makes them readable. After the building had been completed the stone was removed. I took the trouble to ask why. I was told that it was not properly laid. When the stone was replaced the lettering, or the painting of the letters, was removed and I now defy anybody to read what is on that cornerstone. This is probably a small matter to bring to the attention of the minister but at the same time it was a small thing to ask anyone to remove the lettering. I should like to ask the minister to look into this and to have the lettering restored to its original readable condition, particularly since the gentleman who laid the stone is no longer with us.


David James Walker: I shall be happy to look into it, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to say a few words on this item with respect to the trans-Canada highway because of its construction through national parks. I do so at the request of a number of persons in my constituency. Since in certain circumstances the trans-Canada highway is not an all-winter road, the suggestion is that consideration be given

to making a second trans-Canada route along the southern provincial highway of British Columbia. The southern provincial highway will provide service through a better type of terrain for maintenance purposes. There is less snowfall. It would serve directly a much larger local population and provide several roads for access to United States roads. In this connection I wish to mention an editorial which appeared in the Trail Daily Times of January 16, which deals with the question of the trans-Canada highway being closed because of slides and things of that sort and yet at the same time there was transportation through the southern provincial highway. In one paragraph this editorial writer says:
What are the lessons here?
Well, if Mr. Gaglardi and other members of the provincial cabinet are C.B.C.-T.V. fans, they must have learned several from their television screens on Saturday.
That afternoon, the C.B.C. carried a feature about long-distance road users operating between Vancouver and Calgary and beyond. Asked why his trucks invariably travelled from Vancouver through Everett, the Snoqualmie pass, Wenatchee, Spokane, and back into Canada through Kingsgate, the proprietor of the haulage firm was quite specific:
"The mileage Is greater, it is true.
But we are able to make much better time in spite of the greater distance.
The trans-Canada highway isn't opened in the winter all the way from Vancouver to Alberta.
Anyway, the American highways are so much better."
His comments on the state of the trans-Canada to one side, the trucker made no reference whatsoever to highway No. 3, and the C.B.C. interviewer didn't ask him about the southern trans-provincial either.
Probably neither of them liked to think about the Rossland to Cascade section just before lunch.
That is being changed this year.
But the first lesson came when the C.B.C. showed the long distance truck stopping every two hours in the United States so that its crew could eat, and then taking on 150 gallons of fuel in Spokane.
I know this is not an immediate question but I have been asked to raise it because in British Columbia we believe that when the trans-Canada highway is completed-I am not suggesting that we should undertake more than two things at once-consideration should be given to making the southern trans-provincial route a second route as part of the trans-Canada highway.
There is another matter I wish to raise in connection with the new highway bridge over the Columbia river just west of Revel-stoke. On my way to the house I was taken there by an engineer. I was informed that the bridge is nearly completed and will have cost close to $3 million. I was shown the elevations placed on the bridge by engineers which indicate that if the high Arrow dam is built the water will come within three or four feet

of the deck. There will be no opportunity for large chunks of ice to pass under the bridge and when the level of the water behind the dam is at its peak, which will be for several months during the high water period, there will be no opportunity for logs and forest debris to pass under the bridge and no opportunity for navigation whatsoever on what have been navigable waters for many years.
I was asked to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. As a matter of fact, I had a question on the order paper which was passed as an order for return. I should like to ask the minister whether consideration has been given to this problem in the event of the building of the high Arrow dam. The engineer who took me to the site said that it was not possible to raise the bridge because it is a suspension bridge. I know nothing about that. He also referred to the C.P.R. bridge and the present highway bridge, all of which would have to be renewed. Incidentally, I have a photograph taken from the air by a friend of mine who is interested in the project and chartered a small plane in order to do so. I will send it to the minister as it may be of interest to him and his deputy.
I should like the minister to inform the committee whether this problem has been given consideration and, if it is correct that the about to be completed trans-Canada highway bridge, to which the federal government has made a contribution of 50 per cent, I presume, will be unusable should the high Arrow dam be built, what will have to be done to correct the situation.


David James Walker: We are collecting some information for the hon. member for Kootenay West but it is not ready yet. I must say, however, that the building of a second trans-Canada highway is a matter of policy for the government and it has not been given any consideration. As I have stated before, the Prime Minister feels that the first trans-Canada highway should be completed before we consider anything along that line. The first trans-Canada highway is a very expensive project. Therefore the answer to the hon. member's question whether we have given thought to a second trans-Canada highway must be in the negative. We have not.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did not hear the minister's last remarks. The bridge in question is on the present trans-Canada highway. I quite agree with the suggestion that we should complete the one job first, but I was asked to raise this matter.


David James Walker: Quite so. With respect to the hon. member's question about the bridge in question on the trans-Canada highway, I understand he has a question on the order
Supply-Public Works
paper dealing with it. However, the answer will not be ready for a few days.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I must exhibit some disagreement with my confrere from Kootenay West and I hope that his persuasive voice and gentle manner will not influence the minister too much in the matter of a second trans-Canada highway. We always look upon the southern part of British Columbia, as other provinces perhaps look upon their southern portions close to the border, as getting the gravy with respect to all public services while those of us in the north limp along on what is left over.
On a number of occasions I have raised the question of the development of a second trans-Canada highway and in general terms have suggested the route that should be followed. I wish the minister would pay a great deal of attention to the area between Prince Rupert, Prince George and Jasper as being the route that should be followed in the building of a second trans-Canada highway. While the hon. member for Kootenay West may be somewhat upset about this, I am sure such a route will be much more acceptable and beneficial to the population in the northern part of the province than would an additional so-called trans-Canada highway in the southern part.
All jocularity aside, this is a very serious matter and one of prime concern to the people living in the northern part of British Columbia as I am sure it also is to those living in the northern parts of other provinces. As far as east-west travel is concerned, we are somewhat restricted because of a lack of roads. The minister knows our provincial minister of highways fairly well, I believe, as he is in touch with him regularly and he must be aware that that gentleman constantly gloats about the amount of money being spent on highways in our province each year and every day in the year. The fact still remains, however, that highway 16 in the northern part of British Columbia is not a decent highway. The fact still remains that there is no direct road connection east and west between Prince George and Jasper in Alberta, and it would appear to be a sensible approach to develop a highway through this part of the province under an arrangement similar to that existing now with respect to the trans-Canada highway.
I disagree with the member for Kootenay West, the Prime Minister and others who say that we should complete the present trans-Canada highway before we start another one. In this regard I would make a brief reference, as I did earlier, to the report of proceedings under the Trans-Canada Highway Act for the fiscal year ended March

Supply-Public Works 31, 1960. The report indicates that Saskatchewan has fully completed its section of the trans-Canada highway. The province of Alberta has only four miles of paving to complete before finishing its section. Manitoba has but eight miles remaining to be finished and, as I said earlier, British Columbia has some 152 miles to complete. I do not know whether the Hillsborough bridge in Prince Edward Island has been completed but in any event Prince Edward Island is another province which has nearly completed the building of its section of the highway.
I point out that in the three prairie provinces there are only 12 miles of the trans-Canada highway remaining to be completed while in British Columbia there are some 152 miles. Other provinces have greater mileages to complete, relatively speaking, compared with the mileages they had to build initially. So far as the four western provinces are concerned, when we start to think in terms of a trans-Canada highway, I think we can take steps to start on that second trans-Canada highway right now without waiting for the first trans-Canada highway to be completed from one end of the country to the other. This completion date gets moved ahead every two or three years and is now the end of December, 1963, I believe. In all probability, if past experience is any guide, this 1963 date will be extended when we get close to that period of time. This will mean that some parts of Canada, for a variety of reasons, will find that they will have to limp along continually or limp along until such period of time as the first trans-Canada highway is completed and will have to work on their own with their own finances in developing in the northern part of the province a system of roads which may later on become part of a second trans-Canada highway after the first one is completed. This may require relocation. It may require roads at present being built to fall into disuse by reason of another route being chosen and it could easily result in an extra expenditure of money both from the provincial treasury and the federal treasury if we wait until the last mile of the present trans-Canada highway is completed, and until we can drive from one end of the country to the other.
So far as I am concerned and so far as the people of my constituency are concerned and, I am sure the people in the constituencies in that general northern part of the four western provinces of Canada, a start can and should be made on the development of a second trans-Canada highway tomorrow or as soon as possible or as soon as arrangements can be worked out with the various provincial governments. I think that all that would be necessary, to start it at least, would


be an approach made to the provincial governments by the Department of Public Works or the federal government saying that they are interested and want to work out an arrangement somewhat similar to that which exists with regard to the present trans-Canada highway.
I think this will not be looked upon with too much favour by those individuals, organizations and groups, especially those in my own constituency with whom I am familiar, who have campaigned, pressed, petitioned and written letters about the start of a second trans-Canada highway and who now have it underlined that they will have to wait until the last province completes the last mile of the highway before we will even think about starting on a second one.
I should like to make a comment or two, if I may, about the formula for financing the building of such highways. At the present time it is on a 50-50 basis plus an additional 40 per cent of 10 per cent of the mileage in a province. As I have mentioned on other occasions, such a formula which moves on the assumption that conditions are equal as between each province and every part of Canada and therefore the financial participation should be equal is an incorrect one, in my opinion. For instance, I think that a new formula, once developed, should take into account the difference in construction costs between various parts of the country. I think everyone will know, for argument's sake, that in British Columbia which is a very mountainous region, with a great deal of rock work, some tunnels to build, bridges and the like, construction costs in many cases run in the neighbourhood of $1 million a mile. This is a rather fantastic amount of money to be considering when you are concerned with three or four hundred miles of road through mountainous country of that nature.
I am quite sure that, by comparison, the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba do not have road building costs that are nearly as great as are those experienced in British Columbia. Yet the formula implies or has implicit in it the feeling that road building costs are equal. I believe that some move should be made to adjust the formula now, just as it was adjusted on one occasion earlier, to take into account different road building costs and geographic factors so that those provinces which have high road building costs will not thereby be penalized, as it were, in the building and construction of the trans-Canada highway and of the second trans-Canada highway.
I also think that in the formula itself some consideration should be given to reflecting the

relative financial positions of the various provinces and their ability to find money at the provincial level with which to finance the building of highways. Let us consider Newfoundland, for instance. I pick this province because it is at one end of the country and British Columbia is at the other end. Each has substantially the same number of miles to build on the present trans-Canada highway, Newfoundland having 554 miles and British Columbia 568 miles.
So far as the financial position of Newfoundland is concerned compared with that of British Columbia-and this is not said in a derogatory way; I think it is a fact and that members from Newfoundland have mentioned this matter on other occasions, and I am sure they will agree with me now-it is extremely difficult for Newfoundland, because of its economic conditions and financial position, to finance the building of highways in that province to the same extent as, say, the province of Ontario, a rich industrial province or the province of Alberta or British Columbia. I think this fact must be reflected in that formula also.
We take into account the differences in economic conditions of the maritime provinces, for argument's sake. We take that into account in other matters by special grants. Reference was made to those grants last evening by the Minister of Finance in the introduction of what he has called the budget and for which I have other names. However, the budget took into account the fact that there is a different economic situation existing in the Atlantic provinces and that therefore some special financial consideration should be given to those provinces in the way of grants. I do not see why we do not have that same attitude or feeling reflected when it comes to participating financially with provinces in the building of highways. I think the formula should be adjusted accordingly so that a higher ratio of money will go to those provinces which are in a less fortunate economic position and will thereby have a tendency to balance out the differences financially between the various provinces.
There may also be other factors that it would be necessary to consider and to have reflected in such a formula. I think those two factors of road building costs and the ability to pay are the most important ones. One may deal with the question of mileage, for argument's sake, or the relative mileage as between Prince Edward Island with 71 miles and Ontario with some 1,400 miles, I believe or 1,453 miles and say that perhaps this factor also should be reflected in the amount of money that is contributed by the federal government.
Supply-Public Works
These are matters which I am sure could be worked out on a formula basis after the economics have been studied. I am sure a mutually satisfactory agreement could be reached with the various provinces in regard to such a formula that would reflect the factors I have mentioned, such as the rocky country compared with the prairies, the relative economic position of a province like Nova Scotia compared with Ontario, and so on, in order that equitability is reached throughout.
I only mention these matters-I have mentioned them before-because I hope they will be given consideration. I understand from what the minister has said that he agrees with the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Kootenay West that a start should not be made on the second trans-Canada highway until the first one is completed. I disagree with this entirely and so do all the people I represent.
The minister holds the view, in agreement with the Prime Minister that no move should be made toward building a second trans-Canada highway until the first one is completed, and I know this pretty well ties the hands of the minister in making any definite reply with respect to the approach to the provinces with respect to the formula and the like. However, if the minister would like to hold out some hope-and I know that members of the government have great propensities in this direction-of a change of attitude with respect to this construction policy of not starting on the second highway until the first one has been completed, at least it will be helpful to hon. members of the committee and to the people I represent. Perhaps this ray of hope will be enough to make them a bit more patient than they are likely to be if the policy of not starting on the second one until the first one is completed is carried through to the time when the last shovelful of asphalt is put in place and the last ribbon is severed.
I appreciate that the Department of Public Works is only partially involved in this question by virtue of the machinery of the department for building the trans-Canada highway being also involved in some way with building the so-called roads to resources. I think in these matters, also, a straight 50-50 participation is not-


Mr. Speakman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, item 368 deals with construction of the trans-Canada highway through national parks paid for in whole by the federal government. The hon. member has now been speaking for 25 minutes and has never touched on the building of the highway through national parks.

Supply-Public Works


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my hon. friend that I am sorry he wants to restrict hon. members of this committee in expressing the views of their constituents. However, I think one should look upon this-


An hon. Member:: It would not matter if you were not so long winded.


Frank Howard: -considering the standard practice in committee, that even though there is a statutory item to be voted, hon. members may discuss the operation of that statutory item under the vote which has some association with it. This has been the case every time I have spoken about the trans-Canada highway and the need for a second trans-Canada highway in the committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I have always done this under this particular item covering the building of the trans-Canada highway through national parks.
I think it would be an unfortunate situation, so far as the point of order is concerned, if you, sir, were to agree with it and rule that we do not now have an opportunity of dealing with the building and financing policy of the present trans-Canada highway merely because it is a statutory vote. This would mean the only time we would be able to deal in a more formal way with this question would be when the act itself is occasionally amended.
I do not want to offend the sensibility of my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin too much, who I am sure also has an interest in a second trans-Canada highway and perhaps will participate in this debate and mention something about it. I had intended to go briefly into the question of the roads to resources, but as the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has drawn to my attention that my time is running out perhaps this would be a good place to end. I hope the minister will have something to say in reply to my remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to explain briefly, in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena, that there is no conflict of policy between us. It is just a little difference in the time element with respect to the two projects. When I suggested the southern trans-provincial highway I was considering this a portion of the No. 1 trans-Canada highway; simply a winter detour of the No. 1 trans-Canada highway between the Crowsnest and Vancouver.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment upon the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who said

that the bridge he described was not built with adequate clearance. It is a far cry for the hon. member from Greenwood to be poking his nose into a bridge in British Columbia, but I think we are all interested in the efficiency of work done.
I am quite sure that when the minister inquires into this matter he will provide a satisfactory answer, but I do suggest we should know what the answer is so that we will not be left with the impression, which could be created by the remarks of the hon. member, that this work was not done efficiently.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena I am in this position. It is a matter of government policy and I am not in a position to discuss the suggestion of the hon. member at this time. He will appreciate that.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make some very brief remarks on this item and I rise merely for the purpose of making a suggestion. The item itself reads "Construction through national parks." I want to suggest for consideration in the future a possible extension of this item.
It seems to me that here in the national capital we do not have proper access roads from the major centres of population in the United States. I want to make the suggestion, for consideration, that the Canadian government is going to have to construct, I hope within a reasonably short time, jointly with the provinces-largely at the expense of the federal government-a highway to one of the major international bridges on the United States side.
I merely put forward the suggestion at this time. It would seem to me that an extension of this item would be the appropriate place to put it forward. It could be put forward, probably, under national capital items.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to remark briefly on the desirability of completing the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and to again express the hope that the minister will look with favour upon the federal government making it its business to pay for the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the province of Newfoundland.
Mention has been made of the possibility of a second trans-Canada highway. I should like the minister to look beyond the immediate needs-and among the immediate needs is the completion of the trans-Canada highway on the island of Newfoundland-to the possibility of constructing roads in Labrador. A vast new area is being opened up there. A road up the

coast of Labrador as well as through the interior is highly desirable and would serve the purpose of opening up new territory. Eventually, when the second trans-Canada highway is built, a road through Labrador, perhaps through a tunnel under the straits of Belle Isle and then down the coast of the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, might be kept in mind by the government as a great new project worthy of consideration.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a word to the hon. member for Skeena's remarks about the development of a second trans-Canada highway. It seems to me-


Jacques Flynn: I shall not stop the hon. member immediately, but I must warn him that in my view this subject should have been discussed under the first item of the estimates of the department.


William Arnold Peters: I shall not abuse this opportunity to make a few observations. I have in the past spoken often in this house in favour of a second trans-Canada highway. I am particularly interested, as are my constituents, in having one go through what we consider to be northern Ontario where the old trans-Canada highway went for a number of years. It is a vast area, and the government has now completed No. 17 highway around the head of the lakes. We still have in our part of northern Ontario the old No. 11 route. The amount of traffic passing along that route is considerable and there are still vast resources to be opened up. This, in our opinion, would best be served by the extension and expansion of the trans-Canada highway program.
The government has seen fit to call this the trans-Canada northern route, though I think this is probably a technical designation given to that part of the highway for the sake of the tourist industry. But the need for this route is apparent. I believe the minister could improve the employment picture in that area if he would work to bring that section, which, previously, was the only trans-Canada route, up to the standard generally set for this great highway. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the maintenance of this particular section of the highway.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I can assure the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and others that I shall leave no room for doubt as to whether or not I am in order. I should like to deal with the
90205-6-431
Supply-Public Works
particular parks through which the highway can go. The latter remarks of my friend from Kootenay West will provide me with an opportunity of protecting him against my constituents if they hear of the matter.
There are 140 miles of highway listed to be built through the national parks, as may be seen from page 4 of the annual report, with a passable mileage of 105 miles and a paved mileage of 80 miles leaving an unpaved mileage, in some parts unpassable, of some 60 miles. Could the minister give us some indication of the progress being made through the various parks and tell us when it is expected that this phase of the construction of the highway will be completed with respect to each of the parks mentioned?


David James Walker: We expect to have the grading done by the end of this season.


Frank Howard: So the total 140 miles will be either paved or graded. When is it expected that the paving will be completed?


David James Walker: In due course, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: The minister seems to have been overcome by his assumed gentle attitude in the committee.


David James Walker: The best estimate we can make at the present time would be about two years. But that may not be accurate. The hon. member for Skeena will appreciate the tremendous difficulties there.


Frank Howard: Yes, I do and I appreciate also that the latter answer, even though it is an estimate, is much better than the "in due course" type of answer which the minister gave a moment before.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to seize this opportunity of our having reached this item to renew my request to the minister last week, for an exercise and recreation room for the members of parliament and the House of Commons' staff.
May I tell him-though he is, of course, aware of it-that some changes are being made inside the west block. Last week the minister was kind enough to tell us that a place for exercising would be set up on the top floor. Now, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it would not be advisable to consider also bowling alleys, either in the west block or elsewhere, but near the centre block.
I think I speak in this regard on behalf of about 100 members, some ministers included and of the House of Commons' staff. As a matter of fact, the minister knows that,

Supply-Public Works
during the past year, about 100 members and their wives, secretaries, messengers, the sergeant-at-arms, the assistant clerk, etc., were members of the bowling league. Such exercise is, to my mind, sound and healthful, without being too much of a strain for people of our age. Moreover, it is a very popular game. If the minister watches television, he knows that, in the United States as in Canada, bowling matches are a matter of great interest.
I believe that the cost of these alleys would soon be paid off. I am aware that each bowling alley costs about $5,000, and that eight bowling alleys, representing an expense of $40,000, would be enough to accommodate 200 people a week. I am sure that if bowling alleys were set up, the minister might count on at least 200 players who would form a league. That league alone would bring in sufficient returns to pay off the interest for the money spent, and even the capital. As it is now, about a hundred civil servants go downtown at the noon hour to bowl, and do not hesitate to walk ten minutes, in summer or winter, to practise a game which the majority of sports minded people certainly appreciate.
We know that the bowling alleys now at our disposal are so obsolete that several bowlers decided to retire from the league. Therefore, if the minister does not give us bowling alleys, we will not be able to find a sufficient number of bowling fans to play the game next year, as the other bowling alleys are too far away from the parliament buildings.
I therefore repeat my request to the minister that he consider having bowling alleys set up which would make all civil servants and others most happy. I am taking this opportunity of challenging the Minister of Public Works. I am sure he will be a member of the league.


An hon. Member:: Why not the Postmaster General?
Another hon. Member: He would be like a bull in a china shop.


Azellus Denis: It is healthy exercise. Mens sana in corpore sano: a sound mind in a sound body. I think the minister could very well use $50,000, out of the million and a half we are asked to vote, to provide a bowling alley. In any event, the money would be refunded through contributions. 1 feel sure that not only the hon. members and their wives, but also the staff of the house would be grateful to the minister.
(Text):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to emphasize and point out to hon. members of this committee the fact that the hon.

member for St. Denis is the champion bowler of the House of Commons, as a result of which we give serious consideration to his comments. I should like to remind that hon. member that there does exist a plan called the 5BX for physical fitness developed by the Royal Canadian Air Force, which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate uses, although perhaps he is not a good advertisement in regard to the results which can be obtained.
It is nice to hear suggestions from the hon. member, and I should like to assure him that, as far as I can ascertain, no space exists for such an alley in the reconstruction program of the west block. We always do take seriously the advice and suggestion of that hon. member, whether they are in respect of horses, post offices or physical fitness. However, I think he will agree that $50,000 is a considerable amount of money to be expended on a project of this kind, even if we had the space.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the observations made by the minister I should like to remind him that at least 200 people would make use of such a bowling alley for at least six months each year and that they could be charged 50 cents per week, which would amount to $2,400. In arriving at that figure I have not given consideration to the amount which could be derived through fees charged to those individuals who wished to bowl without belonging to a league. I suggest in this way the $50,000 cost of construction could be recaptured within a very short period of time.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Chairman, as another alternative I would suggest that perhaps a swimming pool could be constructed where the minister could go to cool off on those occasions when he becomes heated.
I should like to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the discussion on these estimates of asking the minister whether he has made any commitments or intends to make any in respect to a joint study with the United States regarding the Richelieu-Champlain waterway. As the minister is aware, Canadian parliamentarians recently visited Washington to confer with their United States colleagues. While I was not in attendance at the committee which considered this matter I understand that the reason for its consideration was because those United States colleagues felt that a Richelieu-Champlain waterway could be an alternative to the proposed Hudson river waterway. I should like to bring this project to the minister's attention and ask him to give it serious consideration.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a thought to that expressed by the hon. member lor St. Denis in respect to the construction of a bowling alley, a swimming pool or some type of facility for other sports. If the minister is having difficulty in finding available space I should like to remind him of the existence of a room on the other side of this building which is approximately the same size as this chamber which could very effectively be used as a bowling alley or a swimming pool. I am sure the hon. gentlemen who occupy that space at this time could then find better work elsewhere.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to a matter of general public importance relating to municipal road closings in the province of Ontario. I suggest this subject falls within the discussion of the minister's estimates because there is a land registry within the Department of Public Works in connection with land requirements.
Briefly I should like to state that road closing by-laws in the province of Ontario require the approval of the governor in council if federal government land is involved. For many years applications for approval which have been made under this by-law have been approved only after the receipt of a letter from the Department of Transport stating that it had no interest in the area involved. Until this time the provincial government authorities have been satisfied to accept such a letter from the department. Last fall, in September I believe, a decision was reached by the administrative section of the Ontario municipal affairs department as a result of which a general certificate from the federal government stating that no crown lands are involved is required. This change is of concern to me because, by reason of this ruling, which I think is ridiculous on the part of the provincial government department, the approval in respect to approximately 15 road closings for subdivision development plans in the district of Muskoka is being held up. I suggest there are perhaps many other such delays experienced by other communities in the province of Ontario.
I understand the land registrar and the Clerk of the Privy Council have been attempting to organize federal departments so that such certificates could be provided. It is my understanding that the land registry of the Department of Public Works is not prepared to circularize the other departments so that their files could be searched in a speculative manner. This is the only way that certificates could be issued as to whether crown lands are involved.
Supply-Public Works
This situation has reached a stalemate because the provincial authorities will not approve road closings until they receive certificates from the federal government, but the federal authorities are not prepared to issue these certificates.
I hope the minister can bring this impasse to an end either by informing the provincial department of municipal affairs that these certificates cannot be provided, or by instituting the system of providing certificates so that those individuals who are waiting for approval can be relieved.
(Translation):


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I endorse the suggestions made a moment ago by the hon. members for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) and Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). After all, I think in heeding those suggestions, the minister would render great service not only to hon. members but to the whole nation, because for some time now, members on the opposition side have been stressing the need for physical exercise. They probably remember the Latin saying: Mens sana in corpore sano. I think if given an opportunity to get a bit of exercise, they might build up a healthier body and perhaps their mind would also improve.
Perhaps I have a preference, and would give prior support to the suggestion of the hon. member for Trinity, who wants a swimming pool. I would ask the minister to make an effort, indeed a very strong effort before the next elections, in order that the few Liberal members who will be re-elected to the house may find a proper place to drown their sorrow.


Azellus Denis: The hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) does not seem to know what a swimming pool is for. A pool is used to wash up. Perhaps the hon. member needs it.
It may be, of course, that Conservative members would rather keep a stiff body and do without physical exercise, and get themselves painted over like some of their friends in the province of Quebec. There is nothing like a whitewashing to make one look white, but it does not clean a reputation.
Instead of indulging in petty politics and insulting people some hon. members should recognize that sports have a place in life and that those who practise sports are not necessarily people who think along the lines of the Union Nationale. I therefore humbly suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet has missed a fine opportunity to hold his tongue.
(Text):


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to recall to the minister a suggestion I have

Supply-Public Works
made from year to year regarding Sussex street drive. The government has a great interest in Sussex street. I think the Dominion of Canada owns almost all the property on the north side. I understood from time to time that the south side north of the car tracks was to be reserved for buildings in the future, including public buildings owned by the government. The situation at the present time is this. I am not sure that anything has been done at all to take over-I may be wrong in this-any part of the property lying north of the tracks. That is, the south side of Sussex street drive. On the other hand, many applications are coming into city hall at the present time for permits to construct substantial buildings on this property. If these permits are granted it will be too late. Once these new buildings have been erected by individuals it will be too late to start a program to acquire the valuable property which will face government property on the other side, such as the national research council, embassies, and so forth, as well as the new bridge.
There is no better site in the city of Ottawa than the south side of Sussex drive facing the research council and the new bridge.


David James Walker: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but when the national capital commission item comes up Mr. Hay will be here and I shall be able to discuss the matter to which the hon. member is referring.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I would bring up this matter under the national capital commission item if it were a national capital commission matter, but these properties are not to be acquired unless the minister is ready to tell me that the national capital commission wishes to acquire them for its own purposes. If the property was required for public buildings no doubt it would be acquired, as properties were acquired across the street, some of them by the Department of Public Works.
I should like to know whether the government has any plans at all to acquire any of the property and to erect public buildings on it in the future. It would be too late if that were put off too long; probably it is too late now. We may find that in the future the government would like to put up some public buildings facing the river, the national research council and the embassies, but by then it may be too late. It is only recently that new buildings have been erected on that site by individuals. I do not blame this government particularly. Action in this matter has been lagging for many years. It is a decision that the department should make.


Mr. Pitman:: I should like to ask the minister one question on this item. Is any of the money under this item being used to plan shelters against nuclear attack? Either we

are serious about this emergency measures organization or we are not. If we are serious, then it is about time we started doing something. As it is now, it is left to the individual to erect his own shelter. It may cost him $700 to put up some kind of a shelter in his own home. I do not think very many people have done so; in fact very few-


David James Walker: Again I hope the hon. member will not think I am being impolite. This is an item having to do with the acquisition of land. It has nothing to do with shelters which the hon. member refers to. Under this item we certainly have nothing that could be contemplated in so far as the erection of shelters is concerned. This item deals only with the acquisition of land.


Walter George Pitman: On this very point, I am wondering whether the minister has any plans for the acquisition of land because the facilities I am suggesting should be built in the centre of cities, which might be related to-


Jacques Flynn: The minister has indicated that he has no responsibility for shelters and if there is nothing provided in this item for shelters the hon. member will agree with me that it would be irrelevant; or if what he is discussing is relevant, then any subject would be.
(Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief, but I have a suggestion to make to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) with a view to helping all present members of this house and those who will be replaced by others in the future, as well as the general public.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, there is a most unfortunate situation regarding the possibility for voters to meet their member of parliament in their constituency. This is why I do not think I am out of order in raising this matter under the item under discussion and in asking the minister whether he would consider the advisability of assigning an office in a federal public building to the member for the constituency. It seems to me that such a policy would be quite normal, since the building costs of federal buildings are paid by the Canadian people and federal members are at the people's service.
I feel that it would be appropriate for the federal government to put some accommodation in a federal public building at the disposal of the member of parliament so that the latter may serve his constituents more efficiently.
In addition, the Department of Public Works should provide a private secretary whose salary-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but, in my opinion, the point on which he is speaking now, namely the provision of offices for members of parliament, could have been dealt with under the first item of the Department of Public Works, but I doubt very much that his present remarks are relevant to item 369 which we are considering now, especially when he asks that a staff be provided for members of parliament. I feel that this last question would come under the estimates of the house rather than under those of the Department of Public Works.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would point out that item 369 covers advance planning of projects, including acquisition of sites, etc., but mainly project planning, and since the matter was raised a moment ago-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member will surely understand that the project planning mentioned here means more than theoretical planning, because all the projects the hon. member for St. Mary could think up would be relevant to this item, if I would let him continue.
(Text):


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member for Beauce.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question of the minister on this item "advance planning of projects, including acquisiton of sites". Could the minister tell me if the funds we are called upon to vote under this item provide for the construction of a federal building in Beauceville?
(Text):


David James Walker: Yes, we have a site now. (Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the department bought the land or site for the construction of a federal building. Will the construction of that building start soon?
(Text):


David James Walker: We propose construction in 1962 and 1963.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear as to just what the purpose is of this vote for advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites. Taking the wording of the item, do I understand that the vote is for the acquisition of sites for various projects of the Department of Public Works on behalf of the federal government? For argument's 90205-6-432
Supply-Public Works
sake, let us say you needed a site for a federal building. Is that what this vote has reference to?


David James Walker: The object of this particular item is so that when we do not have something voted in the estimates we are still able to acquire sites and to make plans and as a result we do have something tangible when we put an item in the estimates the following year. Does that answer the question?


Frank Howard: That is generally what I wanted to know. Following upon the comments of the hon. member for Peterborough, I wonder whether any sites have been acquired or if it is planned to acquire any sites for the purpose of bomb shelters or radiation fall-out shelters?


David James Walker: The answer is no, we have not.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what has transpired I think that what I was saying was very much in order. Just because there is nothing in the item covering the point certainly does not mean that you cannot speak about the point. There is nothing in the item regarding bowling alleys but two or three members have spoken on the matter of bowling alleys.


Jacques Flynn: I agree with the hon. member that it is very difficult to keep hon. members relevant to the item being discussed. I have indicated before that items which would be the responsibility of the department but which are not covered by a specific item can be discussed on item 1. With respect to the problem that the hon. member would like to discuss, it seems to me that it would be the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Part of the responsibility for shelters or problems relating to radiation falls on the Department of National Health and Welfare and otherwise it seems to me the responsibility would be that of the Department of National Defence. I agree that it is not easy for the Chair to keep everybody in order but sometimes the Chair has to intervene and it happened that I did so on this particular point.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, with relation to this particular matter and following along that line, it may well be that some phase of the responsibility is that of another department. The Department of Public Works deals with every other department in acquiring sites for certain types of buildings. They have dealings with the R.C.M.P., the Department of Finance, the Post Office Department and so on. The planning and acquisition of sites is done by the Department of Public Works. I gathered from the minister that this vote is used to plan for the future and

Supply-Public Works
so that they can make sure that a site will have been acquired when they get around to putting an item in the estimates in order to proceed with a certain project.


Mr. Chambers:: On a point of order-


Jacques Flynn: I think the hon. member for Skeena was pursuing the point of order. I will hear him a little further and I will then hear the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence.


Frank Howard: The minister indicated that this item had to do with work for the future. Surely we are entitled to say that some of that planning for the future should be with regard to a particular type of project. Under this item I am quite sure that I should be able to deal with the necessity of acquiring a site in the community of Prince Rupert for the construction of a new federal building. This is in the books and I am quite sure we can talk about the need to do that on this item. Certainly in such an important matter as fall-out shelters where the very lives of people are involved we should be able to talk about it if the matter means anything at all to the government.


Egan Chambers: On the point of order, may I suggest that this matter would be more appropriately dealt with under item 315 and 316 having to do with the emergency measures organization which has responsibility in this field.


Mr. Regnier:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


William Arnold Peters: Could I point out, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have indicated my views. I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Skeena, and while it may be that the services of the Department of Public Works could be used in the acquisition of sites for the purpose indicated the decision would surely be made by another department. That is why it would not be relevant to discuss this matter under this item. I suggest that the items mentioned by the parliamentary secretary would be the appropriate items under which it could be discussed.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this matter could properly be discussed under items 373 and 374 because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is making loans for shelters. I intend to speak on this matter myself when we reach those items.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member will
appreciate that the Chair is called upon to make a ruling whether the matter can be

discussed under this item. When we come to the other items we will see whether any problem arises.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, it is urgent that the Department of Public Works enlarge the Joliette post office because the staff is cramped for room. Therefore, it would serve the general interest of the Joliette population to have this building enlarged. Besides, the Minister of Public Works wrote me some time ago to inform me that this possibility was under consideration. I would ask him to act as soon as possible to ensure that the population of Joliette, as well as the devoted staff of the post office, do not suffer unduly.
I should like also to endorse the suggestion of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) as regards exercise rooms, as well as those of other hon. members who made similar suggestions, like the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis).


Mr. Roberge:: Before taking up the matter I intend to discuss, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) for having supported our suggestions, unlike the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin).


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You misunderstood what my colleague from Montmagny-L'Islet said.


Louis Fortin: I support it because it would do you good.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I refrained from interrupting my hon. colleague and I trust he will extend me the same courtesy.
I should like to ask the minister if his department is considering building small post offices in the county of Megantic next year.
(Text):


David James Walker: The hon. member will appreciate that this is not the proper item but I will answer the question anyway. St. Ferdinand is in the hon. member's riding and we are planning to build that post office this coming winter.


Gabriel Roberge: Has the site been chosen yet?


David James Walker: The site has not been chosen yet.


Gabriel Roberge: Can the minister say why the site has not been chosen yet? I understand there was some discussion about it last year.


David James Walker: The item under which this matter comes has been passed and the officials have gone back to their offices. If the hon. member will agree, I will be very happy to write him on the subject.


Walter George Pitman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you allowed the hon. member for Jo-liette-L'Assomption-Montcalm to speak about the advance planning of a post office where the decision is that of the Post Office Department. You have denied me the right to speak on this matter of advance planning of projects which will include a project which will have a great deal to do with the security of millions of Canadians. I must appeal this ruling. It would seem to me that nearly all of these advanced projects will be in the jurisdiction of some other minister. But the point is that the minister is responsible for the kind of projects which I am suggesting, not under the National Housing Act but under the kind of advanced project which this country must have if we are to have any kind of security in large cities.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that as the matter stands today, a man's survival depends on whether he has money and I do not think that is what we want. I am appealing to this minister, with his energy and his ingenuity, to do something in this area in order to show the people of Canada that this emergency measures organization has some importance. As the situation stands today, nobody is the least bit interested simply because they know that probably they will be at work when the bombs start to fall.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to speak as long as did the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


David James Walker: Just to clear up that matter, because I appreciate that also, may I say that this is a planning vote for projects within the purview of the Department of Public "Works and, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence has said, the matter under discussion by the hon. member for Peterborough is one which is dealt with under the privy council vote.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Chairman, I had a supplementary question to put to the minister.
I understood him to say a while ago that the site of the federal building, at Beauce-ville, had been selected; will he indicate whether the department has bought the site, the price that was paid and from whom the site was bought?
(Text):


David James Walker: No.


Frank Howard: May I ask the minister
whether under this vote and the departmental officials and staff who operate under it, would not be the machinery used to plan and acquire sites for such bomb shelters and radiation fall-out shelters? Would this be where it would be had?
90205-6-4324
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: The answer is no.


Frank Howard: It would not?


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 369 carry?


Frank Howard: Can the minister tell me whether or not his department would be involved in any way with the building of such shelters and sites for federal purposes?


David James Walker: If we were instructed by another department and they put up the money, we would be involved. Does that answer the question?


Frank Howard: Yes. I take it that the original answer "no" was not really correct but that you would be involved, if requested by another department and the money was provided, and that this would perhaps be the machinery you would use to plan it and acquire the necessary sites.


David James Walker: The answer "no" was the correct answer.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 369 carry?


Erhart Regier: I wonder whether I might ask the minister whether this particular vote which reads "Advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites" includes the possible purchase of a site to protect the reeve of Burnaby, the mayor of the city of Port Coquitlam, the reeve of the district of Coquitlam, the mayor of the city of Port Moody and also the mayor of Fraser Mills in case of emergency. Are there are any plans to protect these very important people? Are there any plans to acquire a site where these people might take refuge in case of a possible nuclear war?


David James Walker: That is a question vraiment, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: In relation to these votes may I say that maybe everybody else is satisfied but I am not satisfied. I am not satisfied with the whole presentation of this particular section of the department. We have asked a number of questions. Obviously this advance planning of projects means this. In every municipality in this country where the federal government anticipates any type of public building they are continually on the lookout and certainly must be on the lookout for a reasonable, economical site. They must have some kind of schedule or some system by means of which they are going to acquire sites for government buildings in the future. This must mean that the government, when they find that there is a site available in a place where they are thinking of constructing a federal building, will buy that site even though it means holding it for four or five years. This procedure is not unreasonable because in

Supply-Public Works
almost all the towns that I know of the federal government at some time or other in the last 10 years, 15 years or 20 years have bought some land which they have held for just that purpose.
It seems to me if we do not get from the department any better answers than we get when we ask these questions and if the rest of the items in this particular general section are as vague and as incomplete as is this one, we are not going to find out anything about the matter and there is close to $6 million about which we have no understanding at all. Maybe it is impossible to change this situation at this time. However, I would strongly recommend to the minister that he have his department break that figure down. I have looked at the details, and the details are even more vague and even more misleading than are the items in the estimates themselves. If some hon. members have not read them they might look, for example, at page 490. Less is said there except in a financial way than was said on the front page. The heading is "Advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites" and "Advance planning of projects and acquisition of sites" is repeated with the figure (13). Then there is given the amount this year and the amount last year. Then it goes on: "Fiscal year, 1959-60, expenditure, $1,390,066." and so on. It is a financial statement, but it does not say anything at all.
I think the request we have been making is a legitimate one. I am quite sure the minister does not disagree with what we are saying, namely that we should be in a position to acquire sites when there appears to be any use for them. I think the hon. member for Peterborough is not incorrect in thinking that in some of the major towns it is much easier to buy land or to acquire sites on availability than it is on need and that sometimes there is a considerable difference in price. Just let us take an example. If we wanted to do what I suggested the other day, namely to acquire sites on Wellington street for government buildings, how much better it would have been for us to buy the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company site before they built that big building on it. It may be that we might be interested in using that big building, but it seems to me that if we were planning ahead and wanted any site on that street, obviously the time to buy them would be before they built a big building that may not suit the needs of the government if the government decides it wants that site. I think this has been the argument that has been made by two or three members here this afternoon. I only suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the details on these items are vague and maybe they should be vague. I have no objection to

the fact that $1,500,000 is available for the buying of sites, but I really think the committee has a right to know what type of sites the minister might be interested in buying and the type of procedure he uses in the acquiring of those sites.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 369 carry?


Erhart Regier: No. I do not agree at all. In the light of the minister's reluctance to supply adequate information to this committee I would move:
That vote No. 369 be reduced to one dollar.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Regier) negatived: Yeas, 4; nays, 44.


Jacques Flynn: I declare the amendment lost. Shall vote 369 carry?


Frank Howard: 
David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member will appreciate, this is a planning vote and only applies to Department of Public Works projects. It only applies to projects which are initiated by the Department of Public Works and has nothing to do with projects which are planned by other departments.
To state at the present time what plans the Department of Public Works has in connection with the future might not be in the best interests of the department because somebody might start and buy up the sites we contemplate buying. I think my hon. friend will appreciate, from his business experience, that sometimes it is not a good thing to indicate in advance the different sites the government is considering buying.


Frank Howard: I do know that it is becoming a practice of this government to become more secretive about things as time goes on. Could the minister tell the committee what sites were acquired during the last fiscal year?


David James Walker: I would be very happy to show the hon. member how the money has been spent in the past. I can give the hon. member lists in this connection; we have them all here. On the other hand, I could ask permission of the committee to table them for the last year, for instance. Would that meet the request of the hon. member?


Frank Howard: Yes. Is it a very extensive list?


David James Walker: Yes, there are two pages of detailed items. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to table it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Put it in Hansard.


Jacques Flynn: It depends upon the length of the document. If the committee is agreeable to having it printed in Hansard at this point, I have no objection. The minister has asked for permission to table the document.


An hon. Member:: Include it in Hansard.


Jacques Flynn: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it will now be in the record of Hansard, I assume, just as if the minister had read the document. I wonder whether it would be possible to obtain a copy of it in order that we may at this stage ask additional questions, if necessary, about some of the items contained therein? Otherwise I think it perhaps leaves us in the position of looking at Hansard tomorrow, seeing the table and saying, "I would have liked to know something more about this". I am sure other hon. members of the committee agree with what I have said. It only puts us in a more awkward position, even though it is acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


David James Walker: This is our only copy, Mr. Chairman.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman-


David James Walker: Just a minute now. I know there is a game going on among the C.C.F. members this afternoon. They are trying to get me to say some hasty words about something or other, or to blow my top, but I can assure them they can go on ad infinitum. I am going to be here anyway until the end of June. I find this all very pleasant, very pleasing and very instructive. I can assure all the hon. members who are taking turns to speak one after the other on complete ir-relevancies that I appreciate it; I am enjoying it; it is very, very helpful to me; it has given me a wonderful experience in selfcontrol, and whatever bets are up I can assure the hon. member that the person who says I am going to blow my top will lose the bet. This is an unique experience.
I must say, in fairness to some of the hon. members of the C.C.F. group, that I do not think they are all engaged in this, what I
Supply-Public Works
suppose is a lottery. Perhaps they had their chance to pick either yes or no, "will he, or won't he"? But whatever the bets are, let me assure them that the person who picked "yes" is going to lose.
Perhaps that will resolve this matter once and for all. If there is not a lottery going on and if the information that I have been given is wrong, then may I suggest to the hon. members of the C.C.F. group, for whom I have a certain amount of respect, that they are not increasing my respect for them, the respect of hon. members of this house, or the respect of the public generally, as was indicated by the recent Gallup poll, by asking such irrelevant and fatuous questions. There is, after all, a limit-


William Arnold Peters: Some of us will be blowing our tops if you keep that up.


David James Walker: I expect you to do so; you started it. I am enjoying it, but do not feel we are not on to your game. If you are doing this in the interests of the public, that is another matter. I suggest that in your self-interest also you should consider the plan you have adopted here and which you have been engaged in now for four days. Had it not been for the C.C.F. group the estimates of the Department of Public Works would have been passed on the second day.
I think it should be pointed out to the public, and I hope that due note will be taken of this, that the hon. member for Skeena, who probably knows less than any other hon. member of the house on almost every subject, has talked more on every subject. I say that with the best of good will to the hon. member and hope that "while the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return".
I suggest to the hon. member for Skeena that it is a game, but it gets a little tiresome for hon. members of the committee. I am enjoying it because I am the subject of it all. Will the hon. member-I know he will not, otherwise I would not ask him-take cognizance of this? Some time he should go home at night and look at himself in the mirror and say to himself, "Am 1 as big a-", and I leave him to fill in the word, as he appears to pretty nearly all the Canadian public.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, words come to my mind which I applied on another occasion to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs about certain accusations they made. I will not repeat those words now, but they could apply equally well to the Minister of Public Works.

Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: I suggest to my hon. friend, don't get angry; just answer in the way I have asked the question. I say this for the benefit of the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: For all his flowery phrases, soft tones and protestations, what the minister is asking the committee to do is to give him a blank cheque so that he can squander millions of dollars without having to account for them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: We are trying to find out precisely for what purpose this money is required. That is the simple question we ask. When the minister makes these accusations, not in a decent way, I might say, about playing games and about making bets about what the minister might or might not do, he is not enhancing his position in my estimation, and I might add it was never very high anyway. All he is doing is attempting, by way of that, to cast slanders and slurs on individuals, myself particularly, in the hope that he will not have to answer questions concerning why he should want particular sums of money. Surely to heaven this is an attempt, though by means of a gentle approach, to hide from parliament information which it is desired that parliament should have. Any hon. member has a right to ask why a certain expenditure is required, and so on. No one complains about it. When hon. gentlemen who support the minister spend time in this house on miniature throne speech debates on a variety of bills and items no one complains about it. It is the right of the individual to express his opinions and to ask questions.


David James Walker: May I ask the hon. member a question? Just say yes or no, and if you say no I shall sit down.


Frank Howard: Well, just sit down. That is the best approach. All I am attempting to do is to elicit information and I am not getting it. We are getting a request for a blank cheque. The minister, in reply to one question, asked that a certain document be tabled in Hansard. I understand that the chairman is not going to allow it to be printed in Hansard but that it will be merely left on the table. Is that what is going to happen?


Jacques Flynn: I wanted the committee to express its views as to whether it should be printed at this point. I had understood that the document was more extensive than it is. If it is the wish of the committee that it be printed at this point I will do it. I did not object. I did not rule on the point.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member-


Jacques Flynn: Is the minister asking that the document be printed at this point?


David James Walker: No. There is no object in it. It is irrelevant. We are talking about this year's estimates and with regard to this planning vote we are talking about the future. We should not need a planning vote if we had planned, now, what we were going to do in the future. Therefore, the hon. member for Skeena-and one can understand him asking the question-when he asks what our future plans are during the years in which these opportunities occur to purchase sites, I must say to him that we cannot foretell the future. All I was saying with respect to last year was said in an attempt to indicate what we did last year. That was for the benefit of the hon. member for Skeena. I do not think there is anyone else in the committee who would ask such a question or who would be interested in seeing this particular piece of paper. The planning vote is a future vote for the future acquisition of sites as they turn up, because it is too late when the opportunity comes to purchase a site to then get a vote; parliament might have adjourned. Surely that is a sufficient explanation. I am sure it would be for anyone except the hon. member for Skeena.


William Arnold Peters: I am involved in this, too, because I asked these questions. I should like to say this, that I would be pleased to know that the minister went over and stood in front of a mirror, looked at the minister and said: "I won't get mad, I won't get mad". General Young used to tell me that if it looked like he was getting mad he would sit down and tell himself "I won't get mad" and he would not get mad.


David James Walker: I apologize. I should have included the hon. member for Timiskaming, the two of you.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to this. I think it is a good thing. Let me tell the minister one thing. If we had had bets on whether the minister was going to get mad or not we would have brought the hon. member for Port Arthur here, and he would have made the minister mad at any time and we would have won our bet. But he is not here and we have no bets.
Let me thank the minister for two things. One is that in this particular vote we are discussing two things which were not clear to me and I do not think they were clear to any other member of the committee. One was that in this particular vote when they set "general" as a heading they should have said "general" for public works only. We have, for the last two or three days, been discussing votes which did not necessarily affect the

Department of Public Works only but departments for which the Department of Public Works was acting as an agent. Now the minister, after he had been asked three or four questions, got up and said that this sum is only for public works buildings and buildings which come within the jurisdiction of the department. We thank him for that information. This draws attention to the fact that if the wording in the heading itself were a little broader this question would have been eliminated.
We are not interested in delaying the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. We appreciate that he has been as courteous in giving answers this year as he has. I do not think this can be said with regard to some years in the past. We appreciate this new attitude. We may have developed a sudden interest in some of these things, because we have many different interests. One of them is the acquisition of these sites by the government.
This brings me to the second point. The minister says his department wished to be in a position to be able to buy sites advantageously, avoiding competition with real estate agents or others who might have heard of rumoured projects in a particular area. We are in complete agreement with that, and if the hon. gentleman had got up and said that in the first place, I certainly would have raised no question about it. I think this is really what the hon. member for Peterborough had in mind. In Peterborough there may be a site available in the near future. We have a project for the future about which we are all thinking in the back of our minds, and I agree it might be advantageous to pick up a site if one were to become available at a reasonable price.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
371. Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for. including expenditures on works on other than federal property: a maximum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000, $2,450,000.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a question to ask on item No. 371 which I think the minister may now be in a position to answer. Part of this item concerns miscellaneous work not otherwise provided for. Last Thursday I asked the minister if it was the intention of the department to carry out the project at Ferguson Gulley. This involves the dredging of a sandbar to allow the fishermen to get to the fishing grounds. I wonder if the minister is now in a position to tell me if it is the intention of the department to carry out this project at the earliest date.
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: I regret to have to say to the hon. member that the dredging of which he speaks does not come under this vote. I will be happy to get the information for the hon. member and give it to him either in a letter or in the house, whichever he prefers.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question to ask the minister, and I think this is the proper item. Some years ago, on occasions, the department of public works would make a grant to a city or a small town toward the cost of ornamental lights on the street directly in front of a public building. I think this was done usually by order in council on the recommendation of treasury board. Would the minister inform the committee if this practice is still continued?


David James Walker: Certainly the practice has not been continued, but it would come under this vote if it were. It has been discontinued, but the hon. member is right in asking the question under this vote.


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Chairman, in respect to vote No. 371 regarding miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, the amount provided is $2,450,000. Could I ask the minister how that amount is arrived at and whether there is a list of works not provided for?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Russell may I say that some of the projects included in that item are small post offices, small wharves, as well as a substantial provision which we have found over the years is necessary to cover unexpected damage resulting from severe storms.


Paul Tardif: Then there is a list or tabulation amounting to $2,450,000?


David James Walker: Yes, that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
373. Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $540,000.
John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may ask the minister a few questions in connection with this item. Could the minister tell us, apart from the parcel of mortgages which were offered for sale this month, the dollar value of the mortgages sold in 1960 and the dollar value of the mortgages sold in 1961, up to May 31? Perhaps we could proceed in this way asking these questions and receiving answers as we go along in order to facilitate the minister.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, what was that question again?

Supply-Public Works


John Richard Garland: Apart from the offering of mortgages for sale in this particular month could the minister tell us-


David James Walker: Would the hon. gentleman wait just a moment until the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation experts arrive? I ask the hon. member to do so because I always consider his questions very sincerely, particularly in regard to housing.


Jacques Flynn: Does the hon. member for Nipissing not consider his question more appropriate under vote No. 601, because it seems to me that vote 373 has specific reference to the construction of married quarters?


John Richard Garland: I am in the hands of the chairman.


Jacques Flynn: I just asked the hon. member whether he thought it would be more convenient to discuss this subject under vote No. 601.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been the commonly accepted practice during the discussion of the first item of a division to allow hon. members to refer to over-all policy, and I believe that practice would be desirable at this time, unless the minister objects.


Jacques Flynn: The first item concerns the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and its operations, and it seemed to me that vote No. 373 had reference to a specific subject.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that the first item of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, which includes this vote in respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the national capital commission, was the item under which discussions of a general nature should be carried on. At that time questions in respect to housing were raised which we tried our best to answer. I do not want to curtail the debate, but my respectful suggestion is, we should follow the practice of last year, by which special subjects are dealt with during the discussion on the vote concerned.


Jacques Flynn: The only reason I made my earlier suggestion was because it seemed to me that this item concerned a specific subject.


John Richard Garland: I shall be glad to follow the suggestion of the chairman.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should have dealt with this a little earlier, but there is one suggestion I should like to make before we go on to the problems relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The Department of Public Works is certainly the department which has the most


frequent contacts with the people. It is the department which is probably most often approached by hon. members who wish to discuss problems of local interest. I think the suggestion I have to make to the minister is of some value, and I am sure it will meet with the approval-


Jacques Flynn: Order. Has the hon. member understood the ruling I made a moment ago to the effect that problems generally related to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be discussed under item 374, in view of the fact that item 373 deals with a very special case.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, my suggestion has nothing to do with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I wanted to bring it forward before we started on item 373, and the floor was given to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland).


Jacques Flynn: If it has no connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it would certainly have no connection with item 373.


Louis Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rose when item 372 was called, and at that time, the hon. member for Nipissing rose and asked for the floor and started to discuss Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Nipissing rose when item 373 was called.


Louis Fortin: But when you called 372, Mr. Chairman, I rose to ask for the floor.


Jacques Flynn: Well, if the remarks of the hon. member have to do with item 372, I might ask the committee whether the hon. member is allowed to raise his point.


Louis Fortin: I will come back to it later, Mr. Chairman-
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: It appears that the hon. gentleman wishes to discuss item 372 and that the committee is agreeable to his reverting to that item.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Louis Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I said at the beginning that my suggestion should have been made earlier. Now, since item 372 is the last departmental estimate before those of the corporations I would like to make my suggestion at this stage, since I could not do so earlier. It does not directly concern item 372, I admit. The suggestion I intended to make to the Minister of Public Works was that, because of the ever increasing importance of his department, I believe, he should consider the possibility of appointing,

for the benefit of the 70 French speaking members of parliament, another deputy minister, and a French speaking one.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
374. Additional amount for housing research and community planning as contemplated by part V of the National Housing Act, 1954, and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $585,900, $1,649,000.
John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I suggested that perhaps we could proceed with dispatch by asking questions and receiving answers as we go along.
In respect to the sale of mortgages, apart from the mortgages that were sold recently amounting to $15 million, could the minister tell us the dollar value of the mortgages sold by C.M.H.C. during 1960 and 1961 to the last available date, which I presume is May 31?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, none were sold in 1960 and the only group sold in 1961 was that completed yesterday amounting to $12,500,000.


John Richard Garland: I thank the minister. The minister earlier today in his announcement to the house indicated that 30 parcels of mortgages were offered for sale of which five were not sold because there were no bids received. Could the minister explain why there were no bids received?


David James Walker: It is very difficult for us to tell why people do not bid but let me inform the hon. member that there were no bids received in connection with certain areas. As my hon. friend will appreciate, because he is interested in mortgages and knows that sometimes approved lenders discriminate against certain areas, it would not be in the interests of those areas, would it, for me to disclose them? The hon. member will appreciate that. What I am always trying to do with approved lenders is to get them into different areas. Last year, when we had a shortage of funds for direct lending, I was always, on behalf of hon. members from the west and from other areas which are somewhat far distant, trying to get the approved lenders to invest in those areas. I do not think it would be appropriate, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me, to insist that we disclose the particular areas in which there were no bids on the mortgages held in those areas.


John Richard Garland: I agree with what the minister has just said and his reasoning is quite logical. But it is fair to assume that it was because of the area-
Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: Yes.


John Richard Garland: -in which mortgages were located that no bids were received? Will the minister tell us what formula or basis is used in putting those parcels and packages together? Are they all one builder or are they all in one area? Could the minister say a word on this?


David James Walker: Each of the parcels was for an amortization term of 25 years. One parcel would be for Quebec, the different places in Quebec where money is lent. Another parcel would be for Nova Scotia, including Halifax and the other places where loans are made. There was a different grouping according to territories for each of the parcels.


John Richard Garland: By "territories" does the minister mean by provinces?


David James Walker: Not necessarily, more by areas within each province.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation allowed the bidders to inspect those properties before the bids were made?


David James Walker: They had time to do so if they wished. They knew the location of the properties and had they wished to inspect them they could have done so.


John Richard Garland: I make this suggestion to be helpful. Could some encouragement be offered or could it be suggested that they do have the opportunity? I am not sure that it was known to all the bidders that they did have the opportunity of inspecting. My reason for mentioning this is quite simple. I am very much in favour of the establishment of an effective secondary mortgage market. I should not like to see anything done which might in any way stand in the way of its success. It seems to me that if it were known to the bidders that they did have the opportunity to make an actual inspection of the properties concerned it might be useful.


David James Walker: What the hon. member has just said is certainly something that we should take into consideration. I should also say that we have had no requests from any of the bidders.


John Richard Garland: Am I to assume from the minister's answer that no inspection was made?


David James Walker: No, I cannot say whether or not any inspection has been made. As I say, so far as the knowledge of the president is concerned, we know of no requests.

Supply-Public Works


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell us the amount of direct lending done by the corporation in 1960 and also the amount of mortgage payments received so that we might have an appreciation of the net lending?


David James Walker: We will look that up for the
hon. member.


John Richard Garland: May we have the number and the dollar value of the foreclosures in 1960 and also the same figures for 1961, up to the latest available date, whatever that might be?


David James Walker: We will be glad to supply the information, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):


Mr. Campeau:: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) for the new grant of over a million dollars he has kindly made to the Jeanne Mance housing development in the constituency of St. James. This grant will greatly help the city of Montreal to complete that project which I would say is of prime importance from a social point of view. As a matter of fact, the Jeanne Mance housing development has had remarkable success. All apartments are now occupied and while opposition members offered some criticism, there is now a long list of applications for that development. In fact, hundreds and even thousands of applicants are on the waiting list.
I also want to congratulate all those who contributed to the success of the project, namely the personnel of C.M.H.C., the staff of the Jeanne Mance housing development, and particularly the present manager, Mr. Leopold Roger.
Mr. Chairman, that waiting list of applicants for homes in the Jeanne Mance project shows the urgency of implementing the studies on urban redevelopment made by the city of Montreal, thanks to federal subsidies. In fact, two of those studies have now been completed, one concerning slum clearance and the construction of low rental housing in the eastern part of the city, the other concerning the general slum conditions throughout the city.
I know that the reports on those studies have been produced, and it is urgent, indeed, to implement them, especially with respect to the slum clearance project which is required for the C.B.C. project in Montreal east. The implementation of those reports is urgent, because there is some concern, at present, as a result of the delay and procrastination involved in the carrying out of that project.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate the Minister of Public Works who recently invited municipalities to take better advantage of the National Housing Act for studies involving slum clearance and town planning.
Town development across the country fully justifies the invitation extended by the minister urging municipalities to make use of such financial assistance as C.M.H.C. can provide for effective town planning projects.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the minister that federal assistance to urban redevelopment is too strictly limited to housing. In my opinion, such subsidies should be provided within a larger frame so as to help municipalities in general town planning, the emphasis being on housing.
Cities are becoming more and more important in Canada. It has been proved that, in a period of one year, two cities the size of Ottawa are being created in this country and it seems that the tendency toward more and larger cities will be on the increase as years go by. I am sure we should take into consideration the attitude adopted in the United States toward urban development. You have an example there. They have reached a point where President Kennedy is considering having a municipal representative in his cabinet.
Mr. Chairman, one must remember-and I speak here as a representative from a city riding-that a Department of Agriculture was created some generations ago because agriculture was of vital concern at that time. It has probably remained so, although there is no doubt that urban development and the difficulties encountered by the cities in their expansion plans have taken a national importance. For those reasons, it is surely desirable to enlarge the scope of the National Housing Act so as to promote town planning, redevelopment of the older cities, and the development of new cities all across Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the minister's attention to another point, which concerns co-operative housing.
It seems that under the National Housing Act assistance has been provided for people whose yearly income is less than $3,500. That would cover subsidized housing, such as the Jeanne Mance project.
There is also the financial assistance which, thanks to direct guaranteed loans of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is given to those whose salary is over $5,000. Therefore, there is a sort of no man's land between those who earn less than $3,500 and

those who earn more than $5,000, where the National Housing Act does not provide any practical assistance.
As a matter of fact, I recently had the opportunity of studying a co-operative housing project in the north of Montreal, where this difficulty was encountered, in spite of substantial help from authorities of the city of Montreal. There was under the National Housing Act, no means of helping people with an income between $3,500 and $5,000 to enjoy low rental housing, and such an income represents the salary of the great majority of people in the larger cities like Montreal. In the United States, the housing legislation provides that whoever participates in a co-operative development may deduct from his income tax a certain part of the capital and interest he is paying for his house, or his accommodation. I believe this provision should be examined and similar legislation enacted in Canada, so that co-operatives might overcome this impediment in our National Housing Act.
We would then be able to help our citizens whose income is over $3,500 and under $5,000.
(Text):


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that since last year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been making an amount of $500 available by way of additional loan for the construction of fall-out shelters. I think it is important to have statistics as to how many loans have been made in connection with fall-out shelters, how many dwellings have been provided with such shelters and what is the total amount of loans made for this purpose. If people are not interested in building shelters voluntarily with the assistance of a government agency, probably it might be advisable for the government to make provision for the construction of a shelter in every home for which they provide a mortgage. I think it is very important to know whether the voluntary scheme is working.


David James Walker: I will take that under consideration. I should like to reply to the hon. member for Nipissing by giving these figures. In 1960 C.M.H.C. direct loans numbered 15,404, with a total lending value of $161,089,000. Repayments on principal only amounted to $35.7 million. In reply to the other question as to the number of foreclosures, may I say that for approved lenders the number in 1960 was 31 and claims paid amounted to $328,879. In 1961 the number was 86 and claims paid amounted to $734,552.
Supply-Public Works


Laurier Arthur Régnier: 1961?


David James Walker: Yes, and the number of claims pending in 1961 is 103. With respect to direct loans made by C.M.H.C., the number of foreclosures in 1960 was 97 and the claims paid amounted to $1,058,785. In 1961 the number was 91 and the claims paid amounted to $996,770. There are 46 claims pending.


John Richard Garland: To follow along the same line, with respect to the Elliot Lake area can the minister give a comparison of how many foreclosures were made in 1960 and how many in the comparable period in 1961 together with the dollar value?


David James Walker: Perhaps we could pass this item now and come back to that later. I will get that information but it takes a little digging up.


John Richard Garland: Thank you very much. Can the minister say whether there has been any change in thinking on the part of the government with respect to the compulsory insurance aspect of N.H.A. loans?


David James Walker: These things are always under consideration but there has been no decision to change our policy because we feel that from the point of view of contingent liabilities the fund is not excessive. Does that answer the question?


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell us the total amount in that fund as of the last date for which figures are available?


David James Walker: We will get that information.


John Richard Garland: I have one further question. I have no wish to delay the committee but I wonder whether the minister can give us a report today on the progress that has been made on the urban military housing development at North Bay?


David James Walker: While we are looking up the information with respect to that question I will give the information concerning Elliot Lake. With respect to C.M.H.C. loans the number of claims paid from the mortgage insurance fund is seven and in the case of approved lenders the number is 72, making a total of 79. Mortgage insurance fund claims in process number one for C.M.H.C. and 94 in the case of approved lenders.


John Richard Garland: Was the figure of 79 for 1960 or 1961?


David James Walker: That was as of June 6, 1961, our latest figure.

Supply-Public Works


Erhart Regier: I should like to call to the minister's attention the old request of the lower mainland regional planning board located in New Westminster. They applied to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for a grant to aid in the cost of a survey of housing on the lower mainland. I know that the matter is in the process of negotiation and that no firm decision has yet been reached. However, I should like to endorse this request because I believe that the attitude taken a year or two ago that this matter was the sole responsibility of the local municipalities involved was possibly adopted in haste. I understand that the department and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are reconsidering this request at the present time and I hope that the decision will be that the federal government through C.M.H.C. will assume certain responsibility in this regard. This has to do with the particular item mentioned in the vote.
I wish also to refer to another matter, namely the offering by the minister of mortgages. When he replied to the hon. member for Nipissing I noticed that he waved his hand at what he thought were the western members in this chamber and he appeared to indicate at least that the five blocks on which no bids had been received were out in western Canada. I hope the minister will clear this matter up.


David James Walker: If I did so-and I know the hon. member will want me to clear this matter up-that would be a false impression, as they were from all over Canada.


Erhart Regier: I had intended to assure the minister that the economic prospects of western Canada exceed those of any other areas of Canada. I did not hope that he was indicating that these areas from which he had received no bids were out in western Canada. However, before I continue my remarks, I should like to ask the minister this question. Were not all of the offerings that he placed on the market insured as to repayment of principal? If the minister would answer that question I would be willing to continue my remarks.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman; they are all insured.


Erhart Regier: In that case, I completely fail to appreciate how the managers of investment funds of Canada failed to submit a bid on any of the five packages to which the minister referred on motions this afternoon. As I understand it-and I hope the minister will immediately interrupt me if I am wrong -these mortgages carry an interest rate of 6J per cent and are insured as to repayment of principal and interest. Yet not a single

bid was received. Here was an offering to the investment houses of Canada of $12i million worth of paper that had an insured interest rate of 6f per cent. Not only was the interest insured but the basic principal also was insured. However, earlier today the minister informed the House of Commons that not a single bid had been received.
To me this is a horrible indictment of the managers of investment capital available in our nation today. I read the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada as released as recently as Monday last. In it he refers to the resources and the lending capacity of Canadian banks. In addition to the resources available to and the liquidity of the banks of Canada today there are the insurance companies, trust companies, mortgage companies and many other like organizations. We in our group have often called upon the government to assume responsibility for the direction of investment capital. Under the Income Tax Act Canadian corporations, by way of depreciation, depletion allowances and the like, have been able to have at their command hundreds of millions if not in fact billions of dollars for re-investment purposes in the past. Yet if you look at the economic forecasts and the investment picture of the future, you find they are holding back; they are sitting tight. Our banks, insurance companies, trust companies, mortgage companies-our Canadian corporations-are sitting back.
I do not know whether they lack confidence in the administration of our country or whether they are anticipating the day when they can invest their money and get even more than 6J per cent. However, I think they ought to be thoroughly condemned for refusing to submit a single bid on insured mortgage paper offered by C.M.H.C. which is, in my opinion, as completely valid as is the dollar in your pocket or as is a Canadian savings bond. It is a mortgage insured as to repayment of basic principal and interest at 61 per cent. Yet the minister is obliged to report the sad fact this afternoon that not a single bid was received on this offering of five of the 30 packages that he offered.
I congratulated him, as he will recall, on the successful sale of the 25 packages. However, he was obliged to report to the house, not a single bid had been received on the offer of five of the 30 packages. In other words, there was offered $12J million worth of paper insured both as to basic principal repayment and as to return of the interest of 6f per cent and not a single offer had been received.


David James Walker: If I am not correct, I do not want to correct the hon. member. But the figure is $15 million. There were many bids

on parcels totalling $12,500,000. There was only $2,500,000 worth of parcels where there was no bid. There is a big market for this sort of thing.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister for his correction and he is absolutely right. These deals were offered in packages of half a million dollars each and half a million times five is only $2,500,000. However, be that as it may, I do not believe the minister will deny the fact that there was offered on the money market of Canada $2,500,000 worth of paper which had the guarantee of the federal government as to repayment of basic principal and also interest at the rate of 6| per cent and not one single offer was received. I think this underlines our old contention that the day has arrived when the federal government must assume some responsibility for what happens to available investment capital in our nation. When these people are going-


Egan Chambers: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we are now dealing with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The criticisms the hon. member is making are of the financial community of Canada and might more properly be made in the budget debate which we will be having very shortly. They do not apply directly to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the point of order, I believe it was agreed we would discuss this item under this particular vote. I should like to appeal to the parliamentary secretary to abide by an earlier decision of the committee in this regard. I have just about concluded my remarks in any event.
I do feel that the government of Canada ought to consider the implications of this event. I say this in all seriousness. I do not even suggest that the financial community of Canada has lost confidence in the government of Canada. I mention it only as a possibility. However, if these people are determined that they are going to sit back -and as the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada which was released on Monday last indicates very clearly, there is a quantity of available investment money in Canada-holding out for higher profits or a higher interest rate than 6J per cent, I think it is up to the government of the day to tell these people that they will either react in a responsible manner in the national interest or the government will have to move in, assume responsibility and determine the direction of the flow of available capital, and will
Supply-Public Works
also have something to say about the level of earnings that available capital ought to receive.


Mr. Beech:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of commending the minister and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the splendid job they are doing in the field of housing. I also express my personal appreciation for the very great consideration that has been given to the problems I have placed before them.
The question I wish to ask the minister arises from a letter addressed to him by the metropolitan Toronto housing authority in relation to the possibility of securing a fixed rate of interest for projects built by municipalities or non-profit companies for housing elderly persons.
This is an annual appeal which I have made for the last four years. I am hoping the minister will give this request serious consideration, because it does help these people in planning these projects. It takes one to two years to plan these projects, and after the planning is all completed the interest rate is raised and they have to start all over again. I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to arranging a fixed rate of interest on these projects, the same as is available at the present time under the Veterans' Land Act, farmers loan legislation and other acts.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister is in a position to comment on the urban military housing development that I mentioned.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The North Bay military housing project will probably be built on several individual sites. One site, for 200 units, has already been optioned and planning has started. Other sites are now being looked at. The total housing requirement is 575 units.
In answer to the other question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing, the mortgage insurance fund as of May 31, 1961, amounted to $82,113,390, against loans in excess of $4 billion.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister, with the aid of his officials, is in a position to indicate when tenders are likely to be called for this housing development at North Bay.


David James Walker: It will be the fall of this year. We cannot ascertain the exact month at this time.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect of housing in which I have a particular interest. I should like to make a brief

Business of the House
comment on it. I refer to housing in so far as Indian people are concerned.
The National Housing Act was amended in 1956 to provide that the corporation may make loans to Indians as defined in the Indian Act for the purposes of housing projects on reserves. I have been given to understand that not one single loan has been made. The reason for that is that not one single application has been made for such a loan.
This matter of home building is of extreme importance to native Indian people. I do not know whether this failure to apply for loans arises because they are not generally familiar with the fact that an Indian can apply to the corporation for a loan, or from the fact that Indian lands are not mortgageable for any purpose whatsoever; they are lands held in trust.
I am inclined to think that the latter reason is the correct one, that is, it is impossible to make loans to an Indian person for home building purposes because he cannot mortgage his land as security for the loan. There are a couple of means which might be used to overcome this difficulty and which I think the corporation should consider, or the governor in council should consider because the amendment to the act says these loans are subject to and in accordance with regulations of the governor general.
Perhaps some way may be found to overcome this particular difficulty and assist Indians to have the same opportunities as non-Indians in so far as borrowing money for home building purposes is concerned. Mr. Chairman, before I get into that question I wonder whether I may call it six o'clock.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Is it agreed that the committee call it six o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, is there any chance of passing the last four items? This is the fourth day we have been on the estimates of the Department of Public Works, and there are other departments still to be considered.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be called six o'clock. The national capital commission, for instance, is an extremely important matter and will perhaps require extensive discussion.


David James Walker: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will look in the mirror tonight.


Frank Howard: That would be more pleasant than looking at my hon. friend.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the leader of the house could indicate what the government proposes to take up for the succeeding days of this week, or perhaps he would confirm what he has already indicated to the house, namely that there will be the budget debate on Thursday and Friday and estimates on Saturday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, when I made the forecast for this week I thought we might have the budget debate on Thursday and Friday, but it was only a forecast. I will inform the house tomorrow what the business will be for Friday, and similarly for Saturday. At the moment I anticipate we will have estimates on Saturday. I have been waiting since Monday for a conference of the three parties in order to make certain decisions concerning the winding up of the session. I would like to confer with the other parties before specifically naming various items for discussion. As far as tomorrow is concerned, it will be devoted to the budget debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is not able to say definitely whether the budget debate will go on on Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not under any obligation to announce the business except from day to day. I think that tomorrow we will make decisions with regard to other days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest to the minister that that is not an attitude conducive to co-operation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We had a great example of co-operation just at six o'clock tonight from the one hon. member who held up the house again, I think for about the sixth time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any complaint to make about my friends?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not making any complaint about the members of the official opposition nor with regard to most of the members of the corner group.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Veterans Affairs- the leader of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Frank Howard: It is fine with me that it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, but this merely indicates that hon. members opposite wish to permit the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make slanderous accusations such as he has just made.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
357.	Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures, $800,000.
358.	Repairs and upkeep, including reconstruction and replacements for the maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken. $3,000,000.
Dredging-
359.	Maintenance and operation of plant and contract and day labour works, $4,090,205.
360.	Construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, $2,676,000.
361.	Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams, $808,765.
Development engineering services-
362.	Canada's share of the cost of international and interprovincial bridges, as detailed in the estimates, $1,395,000.
363.	Towards replacement of low level Burlington canal bridge, $1,900,000.
364.	Towards an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry, $50,000.
365.	Towards installation of a water supply system at Churchill, Manitoba, $967,000.
366.	Roads and bridges-maintenance and operation including authority to make recoverable
Supply-Items Passed
advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $300,735.
367.	Testing laboratories-operation and maintenance, $1,112,591.
Trans-Canada highway-
368.	Construction through national parks, $7,476,000. General-
369.	Advance planning of projects including acquisition of sites, $1,500,000.
370.	Balances required to complete any projects undertaken in previous fiscal years and for which no specific provisions is made in the fiscal year 1961-62, $1,000,000.
371.	Miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for, including expenditures on works on other than federal property; a minimum of $15,000 may be expended in respect of any one work and, with the approval of treasury board, that maximum may be increased to $25,000, $2,450,000.
372.	To supplement, on approval of treasury board except where less than $1,000 is required, any of the appropriations of the Department of Public Works, $700,000.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
373.	Expenses incurred in constructing and supervising construction of married quarters, rental housing, schools and related services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, $540,000.
576. Maintenance and operation of graving docks, locks and dams-further amount required, $75,000.


[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 2, 1961