1961-06-17

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. White.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I should like to make an announcement relating to certain initial steps being taken by the government to help in providing alternative employment for persons affected by the closing of certain mines in Cape Breton. My colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys announced on May 30 that parliament would be asked to provide an amount of $1.5 million which would be set aside for approved projects for this purpose this year.
Two of the specific projects for which parliament will be asked to provide, I now wish to bring to the attention of the house. The first is a program of the Minister of Forestry for the improvement of forest stands in the area. This project offers a constructive means of improving the forest resource while simultaneously helping to meet the urgent problem of employment in Cape Breton. The total cost of this program during 1961-62 is estimated at $350,000, and it will provide employment for about 100 persons. It will be proceeded with immediately and the government of Nova Scotia will share in the cost.
Second, the government proposes to proceed immediately with the first stages of a program for the restoration of Louisbourg fortress as a tourist attraction. This was recommended by the Rand commission on coal. This project will also offer a most dramatic means of teaching the nation's history to its citizens and visitors. There are several alternative plans for the development of Louisbourg, and while a final decision has not yet been made among them, the preliminary work to be done this year, is common to all the alternative schemes. This work would involve preliminary surveys, installation of utilities, construction of various buildings for the work compound, rock quarrying and other items. The expenditure during this fiscal year
under this initial program at Louisbourg is estimated at $1,100,000, and it will provide employment this summer and next winter for an average of 145 persons.
A number of other projects, which, in the ordinary course of events would have formed part of the regular programs of various departments, are being accelerated. Taken together, these will provide a further 280 jobs in 1961-62. The entire program will involve an expenditure over several years of some $15 million. In addition, several other possible projects are under active investigation, and where necessary provision for these projects has been made in the supplementary estimates recently tabled.
The national employment service will be taking special steps, as various projects begin, to make certain that information regarding them is made available to persons displaced from employment in the coal mines of Cape Breton island.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on the announcement which has just been made by the Prime Minister. He has announced two specific projects, one of which is for the improvement of forest lands. The Prime Minister did not say how near these lands were to the areas affected by the recent closure of one mine and the prospective closure on July 2 of the Florence mine; nor did he say whether it was the intention of the government to give preference in this employment to the miners. I would assume that would be the case because the fund, if
1	remember the original statement, was specifically for the purpose of providing employment for displaced miners.
The second project for the restoration of Louisbourg will, of course, involve considerable travel problems for any displaced miners because of the considerable distance Louisbourg is from the area in which mine closures have occurred. As I am sure the Prime Minister knows, because I imagine he has received a letter from the united mine workers of which I have a copy here, the workers at the Florence mine which is to close on July
2	are very concerned about the possibility of getting any alternative employment in that area so they can remain at their homes.
While what the Prime Minister has announced will be very far indeed from meeting the whole problem, it is an instalment which I am sure will be welcome.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, this group is very pleased to hear of any proposal to provide employment for a few of the many Canadians at present unemployed.


John George Diefenbaker: The forest area is in reasonable proximity to the closed mine area and as to the work at Louisbourg, the workers will be transported by bus each day.



CRIMINAL CODE

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-110, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Railway Act.


Mr. Chevrier:: Will the minister explain this bill?


Léon Balcer: The purpose of this bill is to bring in an amendment to the Railway Act in order to apply to rapeseed the rates applicable to flaxseed by virtue of the Crows-nest pass agreement.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY TRAFFIC ACT



AMENDMENT RESPECTING PENALTY TOR VIOLATIONS

Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-24 (from the Senate) to amend the Government Property Traffic Act.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You do not explain Senate bills.


David James Walker: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I understand from others with greater knowledge of parliamentary procedure that we do not explain Senate bills.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They explain themselves. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPORTED FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES RESPECTING FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the fight of disclosures widely published in the press this 

morning I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. At the time of the translation of Hon. Henri Courtemanche from the cabinet to the other place, had the Prime Minister any reason to believe that the gentleman was involved in any alleged financial irregularities? If so, were any investigations made by the government before his appointment to a place in the gift of the crown was recommended?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I make it very clear, and emphasize it, that there never was any such suggestion at any time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue and ask him this. Did a federal income tax inspector visit Jean Talon hospital early in 1960 and take note of cancelled cheques issued to Hon. Henri Courtemanche? If such a visit was made, will the minister arrange-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is more properly one for the order paper. It asks for information which obviously will require some research. Furthermore, it relates to a matter which occurred some time in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the question arises out of reports that have been made and which appeared in the press this morning, and out of evidence which was given. I think the question is perfectly in order. It simply asks whether an income tax inspector went to the hospital and whether, if he did, the minister would arrange to have this federal official appear before the public accounts committee and have him examined by that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now raising another question. If notice of the first question has not been given, I think it should go on the order paper because it is not the type of question that an hon. member-


Mr. Hellyer:: The government has really had a year and a half's notice.


Mr. Speaker:: -can expect the minister to have information on relating to some incident in the past.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling may I ask the acting minister to take this as notice of the question?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that all matters pertaining to

any income taxpayer's file are, of course, secret; but at the same time I will give consideration to the question.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disturbing newspaper reports this morning and other disturbing rumours with respect to other activities of the gentleman mentioned, will the Prime Minister give consideration to a complete investigation in order that the house and the country may be informed of the facts, in fairness to all concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the first
notice I received was contained in the press dispatch of last evening. I immediately gave directions that a letter should be written requesting that the Department of Justice communicate with the royal commission of the province of Quebec, asking for an official copy of the transcript containing the evidence in connection with this matter, in order that the question may be studied most carefully.


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the chief of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On what basis would the hon. member suggest that he be given the floor to ask such a question?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: On the basis that there is nothing in the rules that prevents my asking such a question. Such a question was asked once before, if I remember correctly, of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small). The hon. member was asked the question about a year ago, during the 1960 session, by a member of the opposition and I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must refer the hon. member to rule 39, which says specifically that such questions may not be asked unless they relate to a matter of the business of the house of which the hon. member has charge. I do not note that any motions or bills stand in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, nor is he chairman of any of the committees of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. gentleman desires to ask this question because he assumes I will be having charge of the business of the house before long.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question which concerns a member of the opposition under the direction and leadership of the hon. member. The question I wish to ask would lead them to stay in the opposition for a very long time.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not given any reason which would lead me to change my view that the question would not be in order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, could I address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the interest in the house and throughout the country, would the Prime Minister inform the house when consideration will be given to Bill C-72 as amended in the other place, to which amendment there was some "Brunt" opposition and dire warning?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon, gentleman considers the day a failure when he does not have a play on words. In so far as the question, freed of its surplusages, is concerned, that matter will be taken up in the appropriate order.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the house an assurance that a full debate on the budget will take place before the house ceases to sit.


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that the requisite time will be taken. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite will discharge their responsibility and make a full debate of it, I do not know.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena raised a question of privilege on June 7. I have given some thought to it. At that time he did not indicate that he wished to proceed with a motion; if he is still of the same mind perhaps I do not need to take the time of the house, because he explained his position at the same time he raised his question of privilege.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I indicated at the time that I desired to proceed with a motion if it was in fact accepted as a question of privilege. My motion would be one of censure against the government for its refusal to answer the particular question involved.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member has a motion in mind, I think I should explain my views on the point.
On June 7 the hon. member tor Skeena alleged that the government had given incorrect information in a return to an order of the House of Commons made November 30, 1960, and alleged that this was a breach of the privileges of the house. I have the return, which is sessional paper No. 216A tabled by the Secretary of State on May 5, 1961. The questions ordered for return were as follows:
1.	Did any member of the cabinet Incur any travelling expenses between September 1, 1960 and October 31, 1960 Inclusive?
2.	If so, for each member of the cabinet what was, for each day, the amount of expense incurred, the place travelled to and the purpose of the visit.
The return made to that order of the house was as follows:
There is no official record from which the information called for by this order of the house can be drawn. Under a well established practice, expenses incurred by cabinet ministers when travelling on official business are paid out of departmental administration or other appropriate votes without any accounting being required therefor, irrespective of whether or not an advance is made.
In support of his allegation the hon. member put forward question No. 381, asked by the hon. member for St. Denis and answered orally by the Postmaster General on June 7, as reported at page 5965 of Hansard. I do not think I shall take time to read it. Hon. members will find the question and the answer at this page. There the Postmaster General gave particulars of some of his recent travel expenses. The other relevant fact was the assertion by the Minister of Finance at page 5966 that the answer given to the order for return was a correct one and in accordance with the practice of the house.
The problem presented to me was whether the complaint of the hon. member for Skeena, which he is undoubtedly entitled to make at one time or another, was properly made as a question of privilege at the time it was made. If a question of privilege of the house is involved, the rules permit it to be brought before the house at once. If it is not a question of privilege the hon. member would have to wait for an appropriate opportunity to bring the matter before the house, for example as a grievance upon a motion to go into supply, upon the estimates of any department which make money available for travelling expenses of ministers, or by the usual notice of motion which at this stage of the session is not a very practicable remedy.
I do not propose to take time to review the authorities on the nature of parliamentary privilege, but I refer hon. members to May's
IMr. Howard.]
Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, pages 42 and 43; Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice, fourth edition, page 37 and to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 93 and following. There it is indicated that protection against outside interference by the crown, by the courts, by the House of Lords and other outside influences was the origin of privilege. In our house I find no instance where a return of information to an order of the house has been attacked as a matter of privilege on the ground that the return was inaccurate, unduly delayed, or otherwise unsatisfactory as a compliance with an order of the house.
In the report of debates for 1895, at pages 1830 to 1842, there is an interesting precedent, where a complaint was made that the government had failed for more than two years to bring forward a return of information in response to an order of the house. The house was asked to give leave for an hon. member to move the adjournment, as would now be done under standing order 26, to discuss the matter. I shall take a moment to refer to this precedent. At page 1830 of the debates of 1895 the member for Both-well said:
Before the Clerk calls the orders of the day, I desire to call the attention of the government and of the house to what seems to me to be a contempt of the rules and rights of the house; and, if it is necessary to a discussion of this subject that I should move the adjournment of the house, I make that motion. More than two years ago, I moved, in this house, for a return, and I stated that my reason for that motion-
Then he went on to say:
The whole of that session went by without that return being brought down.
The succeeding session went by; he was then in the third session when he brought the matter forward in this way. There was a lengthy discussion of the position. I would just like to refer to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Speaker said at page 1839:
It is a breach of duty on the part of the government; and though my hon. friend from Bothwell took an extreme course in bringing this matter before the house by moving the adjournment, still he was within his right. Let me quote the opinion of Dr. Bourinot on this subject:
"Every care should be taken by the department or officer whose duty it is to furnish the return, to have it strictly in accord with the terms of the address or order. If a person neglects to furnish a return or frames it so as to mislead the house, it will be considered a breach of privilege, and he will be reprimanded or more severely punished, according to the circumstances of the case."
At the same page, Mr. Speaker said:
Before putting this question, I desire again to express my opinion with regard to the inconvenience of this mode of bringing up a discussion. I am, of course, in the judgment of the house in dealing with this matter, but I may point out that there are other ways in which a question of

this kind might be raised without moving the adjournment of the house. In the first place, a motion might be put upon the paper censuring the government. Then there is another way in which the matter might be brought up without any notice at all, that is, on going into committee of supply.
Then he quoted Sir Erskine May. The Speaker then concluded as follows:
That, to my mind, is conclusive that a question of this kind for the redress of a grievance, should more properly be discussed on moving the house into committee of supply.
He treated the matter as one of grievance.
Although I cannot find that it has been done before, it is possible that an open and obvious defiance of an order of the house might be raised as a breach of privilege in the nature of contempt of the authority of the house. Such situation, if it arose would seem to me to go deeper than the privileges of the house, which are ancillary procedures in support of its authority, and would seem to involve a question of the confidence of the house in the government.
In the present case there is no obvious disrespect by the government of the order of the house. The order has been complied with, and the answer was available to the hon. member some time ago. There may be some inconsistency between the return and the oral answer, but as I said hon. members have other means of challenging such inconsistencies without the use of a superseding privilege motion.
In the circumstances, which include an interval of delay in objecting to the return, I do not think the hon. member would be warranted in asking to introduce a motion based on privilege.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport how soon the government expects to be in a position to publish the regulations governing the subsidies for fishing vessels. As the minister realizes, a great many persons are anxious to get ahead with the building of their vessels.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, these regulations should be published within 10 days. This is the latest information I have received from my officials.



THANS-CANADA AIR LINES NUMBER OF PILOTS USED IN VANGUARD AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
90205-6-409
Supply-Public Works
Transport. Has T.C.A. now decided to operate all its Vanguard turbo prop flights into Chicago and New York with three pilots, two regular pilots and one supervisory pilot, on each plane instead of two as originally announced?


Léon Balcer: I will bring this matter to the attention of the management and furnish the answer to my hon. friend.


Lionel Chevrier: I ask the question in view of a statement which appeared in the Montreal Star on June 15, which quoted a T.C.A. official. I might send it to the minister.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is a new formula being used for construction capital grants to hospitals in payments to the provinces?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the administration of national health grants is entirely a responsibility of the provinces. The federal government receives applications for health grant purposes directly from the provinces and never directly from the hospitals. The federal government pays all grant money directly to the provincial treasuries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the hon. gentleman say whether that has always been the case?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
329. General administration including a grant o; $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $10,637,720.
Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the discussion of the minister's estimates I had the opportunity to discuss a seven year plan or program involving projects in which the federal government has an interest. I had the opportunity to deal with the proposed breakwater at the most advantageous place on the south side of English bay in my riding. I also had the opportunity of discussing a plan of proper development of the False creek area, which I hope in the future will be renamed either Kitsilano harbour or Kit-silano bay.

Supply-Public Works
This morning I should like to discuss for a few minutes another matter in which the federal government has an interest. I refer to the major defence installations in the Jericho beach area. Before the war we had at Jericho beach a very fine golf course known as the Jericho golf and country club. This course added considerable beauty to the city and was cherished by golfers and nongolfers alike. Then the war came along and the air force and army took over the property. Wooden barrack-type buildings were erected, and along the waterfront air force hangars were constructed. These buildings have been there now for many years, and the people in the community are anxious to see them vacated.
During the war no one took serious objection to buildings of that type, but as the war is long since over the citizens of Vancouver would like to see a major renovation of the entire area. I suggest that there would be many advantages to the city and to the defence department should the army and air force units be withdrawn entirely from the Jericho and Kitsilano areas. Withdrawal of these units from the city and thus from the waterfront area would allow for that type of city development which, as I have stated, the citizens have long desired.
From the sale of these lands at Jericho beach the defence department could build at Surrey, let us say, a new and modern installation which would satisfy the requirements of the defence department and would certainly permit the city officials to plan the proper development of the Jericho area. The benefits all round would be enormous. In making these suggestions I am not unmindful of what has been done in such cities as London, Berlin and Cologne since the war.
Vancouver, as everyone knows, was never touched by the ravages of war, yet it seems to take us longer to remove the flotsam and jetsam of war buildings than other cities which received terrible punishment. I must emphasize that Vancouver gave up the Jericho and Kitsilano areas in order to prosecute the war, but we need these areas once more in order to set up a reserve of green spaces. I believe the records will show that in 1943 the federal government purchased 7.8 acres of the Jericho golf and country club for the very nominal sum of $55,000. The senior government also acquired 140 additional acres in this area from the province of British Columbia. One of the major issues in Vancouver at the present time is the acquiring of further green areas for park development. One isue at the present time is whether or not another area known as the Shaughnessy golf club should be purchased

for park purposes in the city of Vancouver, but the holdings of the army and air force are almost forgotten.
The armed forces occupy 192 acres of prime land along the Jericho and Kitsilano waterfront. My question is, is it necessary for these twin military establishments to be where they are? Is the military community a multimillion dollar white elephant or a multimillion dollar necessity? These two establishments employ a total of 488 officers and men, which works out to 2.5 men per acre. In addition there are 377 civilian employees of the Department of National Defence.
The removal of the defence installation would provide us with a major public works project in the Vancouver area. It certainly would do so if the military forces vacated. The Minister of Public Works would no doubt be able then to call for the sale of the land and a proper housing and park development could take place there. Therefore I urge the minister to give very serious consideration to the proper development of that area.
As I mentioned yesterday, the defence department occupies a major holding near the south end of Burrard bridge, and if the defence department vacated that area and the Jericho area a major military construction project could be undertaken say in Surrey, which would be carried out by the minister's department. A major establishment could be set up there which would certainly please the military forces. These two important areas in or near Burrard riding are two major issues, and I hope progress can be made at an early date.
I also hope the Minister of Public Works will give consideration to the resolution passed by the city of Vancouver in 1941 which allowed one of the government departments to enter that area upon the condition that they would vacate it at the cessation of hostilities. The war is long since over but these installations are still there, and I hope the present administration will comply with the terms upon which the particular department entered that area.
I noticed in the paper last night that the national capital commission is planning a cultural centre in mid-town Ottawa, on the east bank of the Rideau canal. The newspaper article says that the cultural centre will likely contain a convention hall or auditorium, and perhaps a theatre to start. The project is to rise on 22 acres near the Union station. The newspaper article went on to say that the Prime Minister had suggested that centennial planning for the capital might cover such things as a convention hall-auditorium, a national theatre and even a stadium or arena.

This is a wonderful development for this area, and I am not necessarily criticizing it. I also noticed a photograph with relation to a major development at Niagara Falls. The newspaper article says that a multi-million dollar permanent international cultural trade exposition at Niagara Falls has been approved by Ottawa. We also learned from the newspapers earlier and heard in the house that the federal government was prepared to advance to the city of Montreal and to Quebec some $40 million to hold a world's fair in 1967 in Montreal. We are also aware of the fact that at Dawson Creek, a rather small community in the interior of British Columbia, the federal government is advancing a considerable sum of money for the restoration of a theatre in order that the community may celebrate the centennial in 1967. Other cities are planning major projects.
The point I want to make is that Vancouver is likewise in great need of an allpurpose auditorium. We feel that if this type of development can take place in eastern Canada, then by the same argument we should also be able to proceed with such a development in the west. Vancouver is a long way from Ottawa, and I think we can make a special case for the fact that we need a similar building on the west coast. We are in the Pacific trade theatre, and this type of building would help us very much in the field of trade and commerce. As the minister knows, we need a coliseum very badly, and I hope he will give consideration to assisting us with the construction of an all-purpose coliseum in the Vancouver area.
There are numerous advantages to this project. The trade and commerce field will certainly benefit, as will the tourist industry. This proposed building could be used as one of the main buildings for the Pacific exposition, if we are able to proceed with our plans for it in 1967. I think we can make a special case for Vancouver in this regard. Since this is my only request at this moment, I hope the minister will be able to make available to us one of his fine architects who could design us a building in which the C.B.C. could be housed as well as the coliseum. In Boston, the Boston Gardens is built over the top of the Union station.
I understand that the C.B.C. is in great need of storage accommodation for their many properties. If we need a coliseum and the C.B.C. need a building for their properties, surely with proper planning we could design a building to accommodate our coliseum and give the federal government room for the C.B.C. My request in this regard is that the minister try to assist us in constructing an 90205-6-409i
Supply-Public Works
all-purpose coliseum on the plot of land already owned by the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister will be glad to learn that, unlike the hon. gentleman who just preceded me, I intend to keep my observations generally within the ambit of the Department of Public Works. I think everything the hon. gentleman mentioned concerned some other department than the Department of Public Works, that is so far as I was able to follow him. The minister will be pleased to learn also that I do not intend to be quite as harsh in my criticism of the present government as the hon. gentleman who just spoke. This does not mean that I will not have a few critical observations to make.
I join wholeheartedly in the criticism made yesterday by the hon. member for Churchill of the dilatory actions of this government, in which the hon. member was reflecting the views of the new provincial Liberal leader in Manitoba, in dealing with the problem of Churchill. The hon. gentleman ended his remarks by expressing a pious hope that something would be done. If the government moves in the matter of Churchill at the same speed that it has moved in respect of the Red river floodway, then I think the hon. member for Churchill's successor will be addressing another government about this matter before anything ever happens.
I should like also to join with the hon. member for St. John's East in his criticism of the government which appears on page 6422 of Hansard, and which I understand was exceptionally palatable to the minister. As reported on that page the hon. member said:
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister at this time my sense of disappointment at the fact that the vote for Newfoundland under construction of public buildings is substantially smaller compared with other provinces of similar size. It is substantially smaller than the vote for Nova Scotia and substantially smaller than the vote for the province of New Brunswick.
This is true, sir. For the first couple of years this government was able to carry on the building projects and policy of expansion which the minister and his predecessor inherited from Mr. Winters. However, when they ran out of those plans that Mr. Winters had prepared, they had no program of their own so far as public construction in the city of St. John's was concerned. There is no evidence that any plans are being made.
I happen to know, of course, that it was the intention of the previous government, which did things and did not just talk about them, and which had a program of expansion which helped this country to grow as compared with the stagnation of the last four

Supply-Public Works
years, to phase this building program so there would be a reasonably continuous level of employment on public construction in St. John's. Moreover, there is a very strong argument which I have made many times before and which I intend to make again for structures outside of St. John's in some of the smaller places, particularly buildings to house the Post Office Department.
It just so happens, and the statistics have been put on the record many times, that in Newfoundland, unlike New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, there are practically no rural routes. The treasury is therefore saved the very considerable cost of free rural mail delivery which the other provinces do get. Perhaps for a long time to come, because of the nature of the settlements along the coast, Newfoundland will be less adaptable to that kind of thing. It is the custom there to go to the post office to get the mail. In Newfoundland, therefore, unlike the other provinces, the needs of the Post Office Department are quite different. In the first place, in practically all the smaller places the C.N.T. is in the post office, and that creates a different situation at once. The second thing is that in Newfoundland it is entirely unacceptable, for historical reasons, to have post offices in shops or stores or other places of business, which is the usual thing in the rural areas of the rest of Canada. There is, on the ground of laying out a reasonable amount of public funds to give comparable service, every reason why there should be some exception made in Newfoundland, and some exception has been made. I have expressed appreciation to this minister and his predecessor for continuing to replace public buildings in Newfoundland where they existed in the old days.
However, what the government will not do is to put a building in any place that did not have a building before confederation, notwithstanding the fact that some of these places have grown considerably larger than some of the places that do have public buildings. I refer, of course, to a community like Hare Bay, which received a good deal of notoriety only last week when the whole place was almost consumed by the great forest fire. While I have persisted in my advocacy of this policy over the years, and I have not yet had any success, I feel that if I keep on trying there is always a chance, particularly as we get nearer to an election, that the government might decide to do something about this or at least indicate that some day it might.
I do want to join with the hon. member for St. John's East in saying that I think St. John's should be better treated so far as a public building program is concerned. If this

government really meant what it said about having an expansionist policy, then St. John's would have been better treated. The fisheries department there needs a new building, as well as other departments that were referred to by the hon. member the other day.
What is even more distressing than the public building situation is the marine works situation in Newfoundland. After all, this work is even more vital to the economy and to the life of the people in the outports. It is true that if you look at the global figures for marine works in the estimates this year, they are up $300,000 over last year. They have not gone down very much as compared with earlier years. They have varied little from year to year. There is a high proportion of the money now being spent on the harbour development at St. John's, which of course was only started two years ago, though the plans were laid in 1956 and 1957. When you abstract the amount being spent on St. John's harbour you see that there has been a tremendous shrinkage in the marine works program in the province of Newfoundland compared with what it was in the first year the present government was in office, or in the year both governments were in office, or in previous years.
It is not as though there are not projects that urgently need to be done. There are plenty of projects. The minister knows this from correspondence he has had with me, and I think he will testify that I am an assiduous and patient correspondent and that nothing discourages me, even the minister's replies.
The minister will recognize that in one of the seven constituencies there are plenty of works which he and his officials have admitted are deserving of consideration-I have it in writing that he has said that they are deserving of consideration-and which are not getting done.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, they are not getting done at a time when the rate of employment in Newfoundland is higher, unhappily, than the national average-indeed it is considerably higher than the national average -and when a redoubled effort should be made. These works are ones that have a fairly high labour content. They would employ a great many people. They would save the drain on welfare funds or on the unemployment insurance fund. There is everything to be said for getting them done, because they are all works that would add to the income of the community in which they would be situated, or practically all of them are of that type.
I just want to remind the minister of a few of them. I am not going into the details;

he has them all. The first place is Newman's Cove. I feel particularly badly about the situation at Newman's Cove, although I know very well what the difficulty is. Because of the exposed harbour there it is a difficult place in which to build a wharf that will stay put. Of course we do not want built a wharf that is going to be carried away by the ice. That is one of the most active fishing communities in the whole of Bonavista bay, at least, and certainly on the south side of the bay. A great deal of fish is shipped from that place. As a matter of fact there is a structure there now that takes up too much of the space of the present wharf. I would certainly put Newman's Cove at the top of any list I made of places that ought to be served. I feel a certain sense of responsibility-I was almost going to say guilt-about this place because by sheer inadvertence this wharf was not included previously. I may say that it was inadvertence-for which I do not think I have any direct responsibility, but I was a member of the government at the time-that it was not included in 1957, and it should have been included.
Then I wish the minister would have his officials take another look at the situation at Upper Amherst Cove. There is a slipway there, and it is another very difficult place. There are many fishermen there who would earn twice as much from the fishery and would catch twice as much fish if they had a wharf on which to land them. Then in view of the catch I think Plate Cove West ought to have an extension to its wharf. I plead for Plate Cove West, notwithstanding the fact that I did not do very well there myself in the last election and the minister's friend did much better than I did. Notwithstanding that fact, I commend Plate Cove West to the minister. Perhaps that particular commendation would appeal to him more than some others.
The next most important one after Newman's Cove in Bonavista south is Princeton. The minister has had a great deal of correspondence about Princeton, which is frightfully important for two reasons. It is one place where the railway touches the shore, and it is a transshipment point for freight carried on the railway all through the southern part of the bay. Princeton is also a considerable fishing place. There would be more fisheries and much more productive fisheries at Princeton if that wharf could be built. It is a very small structure that is needed, and it would not cost a great deal.
On the south side of Bonavista bay the one other place that really has been neglected is Sweet Bay. I think Sweet Bay gave me a majority once out of three times. Perhaps
Supply-Public Works
the minister would therefore think kindly of Sweet Bay. If everybody had treated me in the way Sweet Bay treated me, maybe I would not have been here. At any rate,, whatever the people of Sweet Bay may have-thought of me, I think a great deal of them and I think they should have a wharf.
Then there has been a recent request, and' this gives me a chance to say a word of commendation of the department. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind saying a word of commendation of the department with regard to many things. However, I want to say a particular word of commendation of the department after I have mentioned this next project. I refer to Lethbridge. Lethbridge is not a fishing place, and I would' not pretend for one second that it was. I would never have asked for a wharf at Lethbridge. There is an old wharf where there is not enough water to get a good sized canoe alongside. That is not the fault of the government of Canada. That was one of the mistakes made by the commission of government. Lethbridge has not too much deep water. However, somewhere on that side of the bay, as opposed to the Musgrave-town side, a wharf is needed because a big pulpwood operation is going to be starting up in that area.
That brings me to my point of commendation. The government spent a large sum of money on an extremely long wharf-the longest one in my constituency and one of the most impressive-at Carmanville. I am sure the minister and his officials will be glad to learn that millions of cords of pulp-wood are being shipped over that wharf at the present time to Italy, bringing an income not only to that settlement but to the whole of that coast, and that dozens and perhaps hundreds of families have been kept from drawing unemployment insurance and have been kept off relief in this area because that wharf is there. It is certainly one of the best investments recently made by the government in expansion.
I am glad to say, of course, that the replacement was planned in the old days, but the government carried out those plans and carried them out very expeditiously, although it was a very big job and I am sure that at times they may have wondered whether it was going to be justified. I should like them to know that it has been amply justified, as would be these other projects, I am satisfied, if they were carried out. If the government want an expansion program, this is the kind of expansion from which they would get dividends. I am not suggesting the waste of public funds on useless wharfs.

Supply-Public Works Perhaps not quite so strong as the plea for Sweet bay, I would also plead for Winter-brook, which is not so much a fishing area generally but where there is a big lobster fishery. A small landing at Winterbrook would be helpful. I would also hope that the minister would take another look at Glovertown north. I should also like to have a careful look taken at the situation at Greenspond, the old capital of the north, on the north side of the bay. It is one of the most historic places in Newfoundland. Unhappily it is an island, and it is extremely hard for these islands to survive. It has the biggest population of any of the islands in Bonavista bay. Most of the rest of them are becoming depopulated. While I would not advocate any large expenditures at Greenspond, because it is a difficult place to get at, still it has a very lucrative fishery, and I should like to think that adequate facilities will be maintained there.
Going around Cape Freels and into Notre Dame bay I come first of all to Lumsden south. I was at Lumsden south one day in the fall in a very rough sea indeed. I saw men bringing in a boat on the rocks on the beach, and two of those men were all but killed; in fact I could hardly believe they would not be killed. It was the most marvellous manifestation of the skill for which Newfoundland seamen are famous that they were not killed, and all because we cannot get an extension to that slipway. In terms of dollars it is a very small project in this great fishing area, one of the most historic fishing areas of the whole of Newfoundland. We are not even asking for a wharf, just a slipway for pulling up the boats. This is desperately needed, particularly in the rough weather in the fall.
Then coming to Fogo island, the minister knows there is a modified proposal now for the development of Fogo harbour. I know it is a difficult problem; no one knows it better than I do, except perhaps the engineers of the department. There are 5,000 people on Fogo island and the town of Fogo is the centre of the island. They are all fishermen; there is no other industry at all. If the town of Fogo cannot have adequate marine facilities 5,000 people are going to be in a very desperate economic plight.
There is another place on Fogo island that deserves some consideration. That is Stag Harbour. They have a nice little wharf there but it is not big enough to handle the traffic. When the wharf was built the people moved off one of the islands just off Fogo island on to Fogo island, doubling the population there. They are fishing people; they are fishing all

the time, and they need adequate landing space and perhaps a little more depth of water.
Then I come to two places in Dog bay, Hor-wood and Stoneville. They had wharves in the past, but their wharves have gone. These unfortunate people are not fishermen; they are woods workers. They have to get away from there to work in the woods because the great mill that used to be there is not operating any longer. They have no way of getting out. The provincial roads program will get there eventually, but the provincial government is strapped for funds and it has so many claims for local roads. These people should have a wharf in at least one of those places. I would like to see wharves in both places. The minister could even flip a coin as far as I am concerned-and I do not mean any pun there-as to which place to put it, as long as he puts one there so the people will be able to get out and the coastal boats get in and land the people properly.
I think the minister ought to take another look at Port Albert and Boyd's Cove. The situations are very different. Port Albert will not get a road for quite a while; it is the other place besides Horwood that will not have a road for quite some time, I am afraid. But Port Albert in the wintertime, in the spring and fall is used by people coming from Change islands and Fogo island to get to the mainland of Newfoundland. It is a small place, but there are fishermen there and I think if we had a wharf we would increase the value of the fishery. In addition we would have certain other advantages accruing. I think in time this would become a big settlement, instead of a small settlement, through the moving in of people from the islands.
Boyd's Cove is a different kettle of fish. The road is being built to Boyd's Cove and will be through there this year. That normally would be regarded by the department as a reason for not building a wharf, but I suggest that Boyd's Cove is now going to become the main terminal for getting out to the islands in the spring and fall. Also, as the minister and his officials know, a causeway is going to be built across to New World island from Boyd's Cove and there will be a need not for an elaborate structure but for a wharf there to handle the traffic that can reasonably be expected.
The minister will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks. I could give the minister a lot more requests than these, but I am only picking out the urgent cases. There is Whale's Gulch. I still think the department could find enough ingenuity to do something for Whale's Gulch. I will not go into the problem because the

department knows it very well, and it is a tough one. These are wonderful people; they are all fishermen, and they should be able to get in and out of that place a little more easily and with a little less peril. I know about this because I went there on a rough day myself and our boat was nearly swamped trying to get in.
Then there is Bridgeport, the most important of all the fishing settlements of New World island. The minister's officials have told me-and this has always hurt my feelings because they should really have known better-that Bridgeport is only two miles from Moreton's Harbour by road. That is quite true, but it is not much comfort to a fisherman who in order to get to the wharf at Moreton's Harbour has to go all the way around Western Head. I went around Western Head in the election campaign of 1958, and I can tell the minister he would not like to have been with me that day. Bridgeport is a real fishing place-


David James Walker: Just that day?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was one day in March or February, 1958, and it was quite a day. At any rate, Bridgeport should have a wharf. It should have had a wharf some time ago. We should have built one there. We made a mistake in not building it, and I am asking the minister to correct that mistake. He can take all the credit he likes for correcting the mistake if he will build the wharf.


An hon. Member:: You made quite a few mistakes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish the minister would look into the question of the dredging needs at Durrell's Arm, particularly, Upper Jenkins Cove. I had a telegram only the day before yesterday from the community council at Crow Head in Twillingate. The minister knows that one of these community stages was built there. No community stage has benefited a community more. There is a wonderful co-operative spirit in that place, and the people are using the stage to such an extent that the wharf just will not handle the traffic. They do need an extension to the wharf in order to carry on their business and in order to make it pay and really be useful. I think perhaps the minister could squeeze the small amount required for that project out of his miscellaneous vote, and he could not use it in any better way.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask about something which is of great interest in my riding. We have a problem in the town of Haileybury. Without a doubt we are going to have to build a post office there, because the lease is up on the building
Supply-Public Works
now being occupied. It has become obsolete, and it is certainly not a satisfactory building for a post office.
I think as we will soon have to construct this building, this would be a good time for the department to consider the needs in that area for federal buildings. For a great many years there has been a legitimate complaint, in Kirkland lake, and it still exists, that a building should be built to house the federal departments in the area. One of the very grave problems for a long time has been the housing of the offices of the unemployment insurance commission. These offices have been located in rented premises. If this is possible, they are even more crowded than some of the offices in the House of Commons, and I think that is probably the height of overcrowding. These people have had to sit in the corridor and in front of the door with the wind blowing in at 60 miles an hour. The conditions which exist would certainly not pass the Ontario factory act, because there is terrific overcrowding.
At no time has the decision been finalized to construct a building in which to house these people. As the minister is aware, renovations are taking place in the federal building. The post office in Kirkland Lake is not going to be changed, but there will be a change to the upstairs part of the unemployment insurance property now housing the post office. This seems to be unsatisfactory, because it will be necessary to move the R.C.M.P. out or put them in less suitable quarters, and the reserve units of the army will have to be shifted around.
It seems we should have a survey which would take into consideration the needs of the federal departments for some time to come. That is why I am asking whether a survey of this type could not be carried out in the Haileybury area. I will arrange that a petition be circulated in Haileybury asking for a federal building to house the post office in that area, but I believe other things should be taken into consideration.
This is one of the reasons I have not pressed this matter in the past. It seems to me that the civil defence organization is bound to need some accommodation in this area, and probably this should be considered in connection with the arrangements made for the Algonquin regiment, which has its headquarters in Haileybury. The land presently owned is sufficient to allow a federal building to be built on it, though I do not suggest that it could not be built in a better situation. However, there is enough land there to serve as a site for the post office, a building which would take into consideration the needs, both present and future, of some of the other

Supply-Public Works
officials working in that area; for example, the staff engaged in carrying out the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act and the work of the Department of Veterans Affairs. There are also the inspectors and officials of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Public Works has no representatives in the area, and the fact that officials have to be sent from North Bay undoubtedly interferes with the speedy handling of requests made from areas further north.
The situation could probably be dealt with better by setting up a permanent office in the area. The unemployment insurance commission has arranged that a branch will be established before the end of the year in New Liskeard. If this is so the officials will obviously have to be housed in a federal building, because rental accommodation in that area is limited. I am suggesting that the minister should survey the requirements of the whole area so that the town of Hailey-bury will be able to get a post office large enough to also house other federal agencies which can be located in the town, and that with the establishment of the new unemployment insurance office in New Liskeard consideration be given to housing in one building the other agencies which are now operating from buildings in adjacent areas.
I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, how we go about arranging these things and getting them done. I am not interested in this question in a political way. If it is necessary to bring the defeated Conservative candidate into the negotiations, if the department feels it is necessary to send him around, it is perfectly all right with me, because we both come from the same area; we both recognize the needs of that area and are sympathetic to them. If this is the way it should be done, I do not object to having some assistance. But I do believe that these projects should not be carried out by bits and pieces. I believe that while we are building premises in Hailey-bury to house the post office we should consider other demands which are likely to arise for accommodation. I suggest that the minister should give consideration to the needs of his colleagues who are concerned with civil defence and the desirablility of finding accommodation for civil defence staff in this area. As I say, this might be considered in close connection with the Algonquin regiment, whose history throughout northern Ontario is highly respected. The fact that the regiment has for many years had its headquarters in the town of Haileybury would indicate to me the desirability of having the civil defence headquarters for the northern region in that area also.

There is another problem and I am not sure what happens about it, but I am concerned with docks, wharves and other facilities on lake Timiskaming. For many years we have, without doubt, neglected lake Timiskaming. I am sympathetic toward the question raised by the hon. member for Hull when he speaks in this house about the forward looking program we should be developing in connection with the Ottawa river. This is only part of the problem, which affects the upper Ottawa river, which includes lake Timiskaming.
This whole area is now faced with all the problems of conservation which other areas faced earlier in their development. One of these is erosion. I have often heard members from the maritime provinces talking about erosion and the assistance which is given to combat it. I think some of this assistance should be available to lake Timiskaming, which is an interprovincial body of water. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is in his seat. His riding covers all the other side of those waters, and he will agree with me, I hope, that the survey which appears to me to be necessary should not be made on a partisan basis. It should not even be on an exclusively provincial-federal basis. It should be on a scale sufficiently large to include both the conservation authorities and the municipalities.
Obviously control dams will be needed in the riding of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. They will be needed on the White river and on the Quinze river as well as on the Wabi, on the Moose, the Matache-wan and on the Montreal river. Each of these rivers will need control dams, and these dams will have to compensate for the abuses which are taking place at the present time in connection with the use of the water by Ontario hydro. Ontario hydro does not give one hoot to what happens to the Ottawa river or to the Ottawa river watershed. They could not care less what happens to it. All they are interested in is getting a head of water to produce a certain amount of electricity.
Last year, on one occasion when I went home, I found that my area was flooded. The town of New Liskeard had water in its streets. I am sure the hon. member whose constituency lies across the lake found exactly the same situation in all the towns along the lake shore on his side. When one is asked to make representations asking that water be let out at the south control dam, one is well aware at the time that both at Britannia, here, and all the way up the Ottawa river other places are flooded also. This is a situation which should not exist, and it would not

exist were it not for the inability of the hydro authorities to look at this problem in a larger light than that of their own interests, which, as I say, consists of maintaining a head of water for the generation of electricity.
I do not know whether this question can be settled now. I do not even know whether the government has any interest in making a survey of the whole situation in the Ottawa watershed, but this is an important matter. Within the next few years it will arise internationally, and we shall be obliged to give consideration to a project which will be as important to the Canadian people as is, presently, the problem associated with the Columbia river agreement. The same situation will arise in relation to the need which has already developed in Chicago, where there is not even enough water to meet the sewage disposal needs in that area. And, of course, the only place from which we can get water is the Ottawa river watershed, supplemented, of course, by water taken from the Arctic watershed.
I am not asking the federal government to make that survey now, because it still seems unrealistic to me. I am not really suggesting to the minister that we survey the Ottawa river with the object of putting in a canal. This seems kind of unrealistic to me as well. The only reason it sounds unrealistic to me is that I am not an engineer and I am not really a conservation expert, and I do not know what the potentials and possibilities are; but many people much smarter than I have said that it a feasible project, and both these things will come to pass at some time in the future. I think we would be foolish not to take these problems into consideration.
Lake Timiskaming is a very pretty and useful lake and a very large resource of northern Ontario. It is a large resource for southern Ontario as well, because if that lake does not continue to serve the purpose it is serving now, namely as a reservoir for power development, we shall pay very dearly for the loss of it. As a first step the department could make a survey. This is just an example. I know the minister is going to have more examples. I know he is familiar with this matter because the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue has brought it to the attention of the cabinet, of caucus and also of the house.
Let us use New Liskeard as an example. The municipality of New Liskeard has been playing around with one of the tributaries of Lake Timiskaming for a number of years. The erosion of the shore is very great in our area. I am not so very old and I cannot remember too far back, but I am old enough to remember that at the mouth of the Wabi river there was a nice grove of hardwood 90205-6-410
Supply-Public Works
trees which was rather unique in that area because they were oak, and normally oak trees do not grow that far north. Most of these oaks have been killed, the shore has eroded and silt piles up in the mouth of the Wabi river.
More important than that, during heavy rainfalls torrents of water come down the river. The lake is muddy about three quarters of the way across Wabi bay, which is two or three miles wide at this point. This was not true 10 years ago, and certainly not 15 years ago. The lake was relatively clear in the past. Many years ago they did have a very large breakwater in the New Liskeard area, and it protected the shore. Over the years it fell into disrepair. The department said it was not as necessary now as it had been in the past, and this is probably true, but its disrepair resulted in a great increase in the rate of erosion, and this is particularly evident since the breakwater was removed. All I am asking is that we give some consideration to this matter.
It is very hard to go back to mining municipalities and say to them "Let us have a conservation organization." How much better it would be if we did that now rather than wait until we reach the same impasse they reached in the United States in the time of Roosevelt, when he took the initiative to set up the Tennessee valley project. After he set up the project millions and millions of dollars worth of benefit accrued from it, but only because they spent the money to put it in. But really it was a little late. It is not too late yet for us to act. It would not be an expensive proposition to bring about conservation in the Ottawa river watershed and prevent the abuses that are bound to take place if we do not take some action. I hope the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue will rise in his place and say something about this because I believe this problem affects all of us in northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It is a serious problem, Mr. Chairman.
In my opinion we were not smart enough in our part of the country to see that a federal law was passed which would prohibit the driving of logs or having logs floating around in the lake all year round. This is not a little pond that we are talking about; it is a lake 85 miles long and 12 miles wide. It is a large body of water. Of course the federal government is responsible for it. It has passed legislation to establish an upper Ottawa improvement company to be responsible for looking after this particular aspect of lake Timiskaming. I am sure it is possible to call up the people concerned and criticize them for not sweeping the particular area and they will get busy and do

Supply-Public Works
it. I think the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue will agree with me that we should have an authority representative of all the municipalities and communities around the lake. We should be pressing the federal government for this survey and for control dams on the headwaters of that system, which would make it much easier to overcome the silt problem and cut down the amount of clay which is drifting into the lake. The other valuable assets and the natural resource that we have in that area in the form of lake Timiskaming should be protected.
I should like the department to give immediate consideration to the land erosion program as it affects three or four of the municipalities. The municipality of Harris is now a very well developed housing area, but the shore line of the lake is usually in very bad shape. The erosion taking place is not legally the responsibility of the government, because the water level in that area was changed. It was placed so high that you would have to drown the town of New Lis-keard before there was any high water problem. I own a piece of land along the shore there which is four or five acres in extent. I think I would be lucky if I could claim half an acre because the rest of it, owing to the very high water level established at the time they changed the water levels with the erection of the dams in south Timiskaming, would be under water. This appears to me rather unrealistic. Surely the reason for establishing the high water level was not to take away from the federal government its admitted responsibility of preventing and supervising erosion. This has come about because of the inability of the department to decide at the time what the high level should be in relation to the level that would have to be maintained by the dam, and the fact that the government did not want to be put into the position, I am quite sure, of having to expropriate a great deal of land for flooding purposes, if that was necessary, when the level was established in the lake. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the reference to the high water level was changed in the deeds about the same time that the water level in the lake was raised by the establishment of the permanent dam in south Timiskaming.
I should like to see more municipalities undertake to do their share of the protection of the shore line. New Liskeard has been doing some erosion prevention work. The department of highways is interested in this problem, because there is continuous danger of their losing the highway which until this year has been a part of the trans-Canada system. There is great danger of

the highway falling into the lake. The water comes up very close to the shore line. It is a rocky shore line, and when the water is maintained at a high level the winds and the ice conditions make it very difficult to maintain a sufficient amount of land on the lake side to prevent a threat to the highway. On occasions the road has to be closed off because part of it falls into the water.
It may be true that the water level is too high. It is also true that the municipalities are ignorant of their rights, Mr. Chairman. They have not applied for assistance in the prevention of erosion. In most instances they have done it themselves without any assistance. While this is to be commended, the fact is that they do not necessarily spend their money in the most efficient manner. I think much more could be achieved if they would spend their money in conjunction with financial assistance from the federal government, and they would also be able to avail themselves of the technical advice and assistance that the federal department is quite capable of giving. The department has had a great deal of experience in other parts of the country in connection with erosion and the protection of shore lines, and their assistance would be very valuable. Yet it always seems to require a great deal of dickering to arrive at an arrangement whereby the federal government will participate in these matters. I say the municipalities are partly responsible for this because of their inability to understand just what their responsibility is and what grants are available to them.
I think such projects could be carried out under the winter works program. I know that the town of New Liskeard would be willing to do their erosion work in the late fall and early spring, because the water level is very low at that time and the work could be done more economically then. I would be pleased if the minister would give some indication when he replies as to what the department is going to do with relation to the whole Ottawa river watershed. This question involves considerations of diversion, canalizing the Ottawa, the system of control to be used, the necessary reforestation under a conservation program, what assistance the government will give in setting up a conservation authority like the Thames valley authority and the Tennessee valley conservation authority in the United States; in other words, what assistance the federal government contemplates giving in this whole field in the future.
(Translation):


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I had a few questions to raise and, first of all, I wanted to refer to the building of an additional post office in the western part of Hull, which in-

eludes Wright, Tetreau, Lafontaine and Dollard wards, and whose population numbers about 30,000. However, I realize that the Department of Public Works has only the responsibility of building post offices, but that it is up to the Post Office Department to decide on the necessity of those post offices and where they are to be built. Consequently, I shall content myself with writing directly to the Postmaster General about the matter.
Mr. Chairman, I should like also to refer to something that does not seem to work too well in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I know that up to May 1960, when regulations to take effect on January 1, 1961 were adopted, loans could be obtained for buildings located in places where there are no sewers.
Not being aware of those new regulations, I recently wrote C.M.H.C. on behalf of Mr. Dupuis. Besides reading the letter I wrote, I will also read the reply I received from the corporation.
Here is what I wrote:
Gentlemen-
Mr. Andre Dupuis, 30 Rouville St., Hull, told me that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refused to approve a $15,000 loan because his house is to be built along McConnell road, where there is no sewer or water service.
Taking into account the fact that his lot is about 200' x 200', that the septic tank is to be installed at the far end of it, more than 100 feet away from the well, and also taking into account the fact that he has a letter from Dr. Gregoire, Quebec health deputy minister, who after an examination of the plans stated that everything is in accordance with the provincial sanitary regulations, how is it that C.M.H.C. refuses to approve that loan?
I know that Mr. Dupuis has a large family of 10 children and that, because of his difficulties in finding proper housing for them, he is forced to build. Do you not think that those particular circumstances deserve special consideration?
I would be very happy if you would reconsider this case in the light of those facts, and if it is not formally forbidden by the law, try and grant his request.
Here is the answer I received from the Ottawa branch manager. I quote:
This letter is in answer to yours of June 2, concerning the application of Mr. Dupuis for a loan for the construction of a house on a piece of land located in Hull South, lot 17-A-10, where there is no sewer system.
His case was considered again and we reached the same decision, that we cannot accept his application since there is no sewer system in a suburban-like area.
This is consistent with our corporation's new policy announced May 13, 1961, and retroactive to January 1, 1961.
90205-6-4104
Supply-Public Works You will no doubt agree that the area where Mr. Dupuis wants to build has a very good residential development potential for the future, with a sewer system and waterworks planned according to accepted city planning principles.
Our past experience proves that it is difficult to carry out such a program in a suburban area where a number of houses have already been built without any such system.
We are really sorry not to be able to grant his request, but he might perhaps consider another site where a loan could be authorized under our rules.
My point is that at least two houses have been built in that area under a C.M.H.C. loan. In fact, a Mr. Tremblay, if I am not mistaken, and another individual have built houses there after the department of health of the province of Quebec had recognized that their system, according to the blueprints, was acceptable to the department of health.
I realize that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has decided it should protect individuals against themselves, and I realize that preventive measures are called for.
However, in areas where there are no sewage systems and where none will perhaps be installed for years to come, when people comply with provincial government regulations requiring septic tanks to be placed at a distance of at least 30 feet from the well, I fail to see why a change was made to the provision which formerly allowed house building loans to be granted. We must not forget that in our cities, there are large families that cannot find accommodation and must go out and build outside the city, something they might be unable to do if taxes were in relation to the services provided.
Moreover, if loans were granted for this type of housing on the basis of provincial health legislation, this would be a tremendous boon to some areas where there is a great need for accommodation for large families.
I therefore leave the matter with the minister. I hope he will consider it and will agree to amend the regulations so that provincial sanitation regulations will be recognized as reasonable housing standards in areas without sewage systems.
Following a number of members who have spoken before me, I should now like to discuss the matter of retaining walls.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, from time immemorial and up to the years 1954 or 1955, the Department of Public Works has at all times, both under Conservative and Liberal administrations, accepted a measure of responsibility for the construction of such walls.

Supply-Public Works I know such was the practice for at least 30 years, and that it was when Mr. Winters was appointed to the Department of Public Works in Ottawa that the system was changed. I think Mr. Winters was advised by lawyers that he had no right to get into this field and that since then, the department has stuck to the same policy.
I had an opportunity of writing to the minister in that connection not so long ago, that is on August 19, 1960, and in that letter I explained the problem as I saw it.
Dear Sir:
I received your letter of August 13, in reply to mine of July 17, concerning the damage caused by floods in the municipality of South East Buckingham. You mention that the damages resulted from the extraordinary swelling of the waters which occurred last spring. That, I will admit, but the whole question remains debatable. As I stated in the house, Mr. Winters took the liberty of giving his own interpretation to the constitution when he said that all navigable rivers were under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Even if Mr. Winters confused "navigable rivers" and "rivers where there is navigation", I took the matter up with the attorney general of Quebec, who claimed that the responsibility lies with the federal government, since, according to the constitution, the latter is responsible for navigable waters.
I then asked Mr. Winters to take advantage of a federal-provincial conference to clear up this matter, which he never did, and I note that you have accepted this version or interpretation given by Mr. Winters; I am all the more surprised since you are a lawyer and I am convinced that a lawyer would interpret a matter such as this better than an engineer.
To clarify this matter once and for all, it should be submitted to the Minister of Justice and, at the same time, to the attorneys general of the different provinces, so as to establish:
1.	The extent of the federal government's responsibility regarding damages caused by navigable waters;
2.	The complete definition of navigable waters; and
3.	The extent of the principle of overpowering circumstances or, as it is called, an act of God.
Then we should not have to treat those matters in a haphazard way in the future.
Here is the minister's reply, dated October 1:
Re: Flood damage in Buckingham, Que.
Dear Mr. Caron:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 19, 1960, and I am sorry I have been unable to reply to you sooner.
I have made a thorough study of your comments in connection with this problem and I feel there is a misunderstanding on that point.
Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act gives the parliament of Canada exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in matters pertaining to navigation and shipping. Parliament has exercised that jurisdiction over the years by adopting statutes such as the Canada Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, etc.

The Canadian government has also carried out its responsibilities in administering that legislation as well as regulations set up under the various acts.
The comments I just made thoroughly prove that the legislative power of the Canadian parliament is restricted to matters which can reasonably be considered as related to navigation and water transport. Those are the limits of parliamentary authority in Canada in this matter.
On this point I do not seem to understand the argument very well. I was told at the start that there is somewhere a misunderstanding with regard to the matter and the government's responsibility is said to be limited to the field of navigation and water transport. Nevertheless, when I submitted that to Mr. Duplessis who, at the time was attorney general of the province of Quebec -Mr. Duplessis was also a lawyer-he said: The waterways are the responsibility of the federal government, and I therefore always insist that the means be found for the two parties to get together in order to know whom to approach. To date there has been no such understanding or discussion, which might have been helpful.
And he says further:
You indicated, in your letter, that waterways are the responsibility of the federal government. The proposition is correct-so the minister told me-as far as you intend it to mean that navigaion and transport on the waterways are constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament.
The problem you are raising in your letter deals with the responsibility resulting from flood damage to properties on the banks of the Ottawa river, at South East Buckingham, in the spring of 1960. You will recall that the flood was due to heavy rainfall when the river had reached its highest spring level.
The conditions prevailing on the Ottawa river, near South East Buckingham in 1960 can in no way be blamed on or related to navigation or ship-pin.
Therefore the parliament of Canada has no authority under the constitution to pass legislation on such matters.
The problem is essentially "a purely local and private matter in the province" under subsection 16 of section 92 of the British North America Act. The constitution gives jurisdiction in this matter exclusively to the provincial legislature.
I hope this explanation will clearly show the distinction between matters under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada and those under the provincial legislature, and satisfactorily answers your first question.
As to your second question, I might say that the expression "navigable waters" has not been defined by the legislator.
Well, how can we gauge government responsibility with regard to navigable waters, if the expression has never been defined in the law.
Things were left that way on purpose, because each case must be decided on its merits.

This is where my opinion is at variance with the minister's and all those who share this opinion.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege based upon a remark made this morning by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville when he made a so-called correction in Hansard. I am sorry to note that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is not in his seat. However, I called his office and talked with his secretary, and she said she would notify him as soon as possible. I would have risen at the time this morning, but I wished to be absolutely sure that I heard the words correctly by checking further with my colleagues.
The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville first quoted the agreement between Canada and Quebec on the Mattagami access road, as follows:
No member of the House of Commons shall he admitted to any share or part of any contract, agreement or commission with respect to the project, or to any benefit to arise therefrom.
He then went on to say this: "Evidemment il s'agit du depute de Villeneuve". In addition, in the course of the debate on the estimates of this department he made a number of statements in connection with professional services which I performed, as a Quebec land surveyor, for the department of mines in the province of Quebec. These services were under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec and were paid for exclusively by the provincial government.
The hon. member certainly left the impression that my conduct in this matter was incompatible with my responsibilities as a member of this house. I cannot allow any such impression to remain unchallenged. I therefore request the hon. member to withdraw the remarks which have reflected on my conduct. If he is not prepared to withdraw I challenge him to make a definite charge and then I will immediately ask that the matter be referred, in accordance with the past practice of this House of Commons, to the standing on privileges and elections. In other words, he should put up or shut up.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I have heard the question of privilege. If I am not mistaken,
Supply-Public Works
I believe it was raised this morning when Mr. Speaker was in the chair, or at least the matter with which the hon. member takes issue was raised when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. Perhaps it would be the part of wisdom to defer the point until Mr. Speaker is in the chair and possibly the hon. member who aggrieved the hon. member for Villeneuve is in his place as well.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I was discussing the second part of the reply, or rather the reply to the second part of my letter dealing with retaining walls. The minister wrote, and I quote:
With reference to your second question, I may say that the phrase "navigable waters" has not been defined in the legislation. This was done on purpose, because it is a matter to be determined in the light of the facts of every particular case. However, the courts have ruled that a river is in fact navigable if, in its natural condition, it can be used for purposes of trade, no matter how the trade is carried on. The standard of navigability of a river must therefore be judged in the light of its natural capacity and its usefulness for trade purposes. The courts have in fact ruled that small rivers of shallow depth in which navigation could only be carried on in small craft were none the less navigable.
Though I am not sure what purpose you have in mind in raising your third question in connection with the present case, I might mention that the phrase "act of God" has been defined in civil law as being "an unforeseen event caused by a major force against which no resistance is possible . Under the law, an act of God is necessarily a very unusual event and is seldom invoked successfully as a means of defence in a damage suit.
The principles applying to the present situation are clear, and I regret being unable to see any advantage in discussing this matter with the attorneys general of the various provinces.
First, I must say that I do not consider the reply as clear as the minister claims it is. I submit that in the minister's letter, there are many contradictions, particularly where he suggests that the responsibility of the federal government mainly concerns navigated waters rather than navigable waters, and quotes as an example the findings of the courts to the effect that shallow rivers and even, if I am not mistaken, a river which perhaps is not normally navigable but on which logs are floated to the mills are considered navigable.
The minister has stated his opinion. I have asked, and I again ask what is the extent of the federal government's responsibility in relation to damage caused by the waters of navigable rivers?
This is a question which has been discussed at great length. I have raised it in Quebec. I have raised it in Ottawa. The opinions

Supply-Public Works
given to me in Ottawa are at variance with the opinions I have received from Quebec. It is claimed in Ottawa, and this is the generally recognized opinion, that navigable waters are a federal responsibility, but that the bed and the river itself are a provincial responsibility in view of the fact that they are the property of the province.
But when I ask both federal and provincial authorities to co-operate in order to clearly define the responsibilities, nobody does anything about it. Neither federal ministers nor provincial ministers take action with a view to finding a method of agreement to define responsibilities.
I do not accept the federal government's version in its entirety; part of it might be correct and based on something sound and reliable. Besides, I do not accept either the provincial government's suggestion that this is a federal responsibility. It seems to me that both governments have a joint responsibility and that they could agree to clearly define it.
The minister says this amazing thing in his letter:
With reference to your second question, I may say that the phrase "navigable waters" has not been defined in the legislation.
Well, if it has not been defined, it is time perhaps we had a sound and complete definition of navigable waters.
We are told that all waters where navigation is possible and on which logs can be floated are navigable waters and that we already have findings to that effect. Well, both governments should meet once and for all in order to discuss this matter and give satisfaction to those who maintain that they have a right to those retaining walls, because if that responsibility were clearly defined and if the present department, like the previous one under Mr. Winters, had accepted to keep on building retaining walls, a great number of projects could be undertaken in many Canadian municipalities, which could alleviate unemployment since local people could carry out such work during the summer.
That is what I am asking the minister. I ask him to kindly see to it that a definite plan be established. This is not my first request on that point. In fact, on December 3, 1957, I asked the minister the following question:
(Text):
Has the minister taken advantage of the federal provincial conference to discuss with the premier of Quebec as to which government is responsible for protection walls along the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers?

(Translation):
I never obtained an answer. And I asked this supplementary question:
(Text):
Is it the intention of the minister to discuss the matter with the Quebec authorities who claim that it is the federal responsibiliy?
(Translation):
I did not get an answer to that question.
I asked another one:
(Text):
Due to the controversy between the Quebec and the federal authorities regarding the responsibility towards the building of protection walls alongside of navigable rivers, even if not or little navigated, would the minister satisfy all the interested parties by submitting the case to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification?
(Translation):
There again, I got no reply.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time that the governments agree on a precise definition as to who is responsible for navigable waters and who is responsible for the prevention of farm land erosion by navigable waters. There is a great deal of farm land in my constituency-the same thing can be said about several other constituencies in Canada-which is being eroded gradually by the water in the spring and in the fall. Farmers who are not rich have lost hundreds of feet of land in a space of 25 years.
The government must attend to that. I am not blaming entirely the federal government and the provincial governments. My criticism is aimed mostly at the ministers who do not want to clear up this matter.
I know that in the committees where there are a lot of lawyers, plays are made on words. But when the question to be cleared up is one of such importance to the people of those areas, it seems to me that they could take the trouble of coming to an agreement to clear up this situation, so that we may know where to apply when damage is caused by some river, whether it be the Ottawa, the Gatineau or any other river.
I know that retaining walls were built at certain places. I am not blaming the ministers who authorized them. However, I feel that that should be the over all policy as it was until 1954 or 1955. That had been the constant practice under all the ministers of public works and all administrations. Municipalities and farmers who had damage caused by erosion always received assistance from the federal government.
And that practice was followed by lawyers. I know that Mr. Fournier, now a judge of the exchequer court, and who was, of course, a lawyer followed that practice. So did his

predecessor, Mr. Cardin, also a lawyer. In short, the ministers of public works who were mostly lawyers, always recognized this as a federal responsibility.
I wonder why there was a change of attitude since that time? If it is only for the sake of economy, I think it ill-advised. Because, such a saving does not help the people. If expenditures were made in different counties to assist the population who suffers damage on account of erosion by water, it would reduce unemployment, since such works would call for local manpower.
That is why I ask the minister once again to take up this matter with the provincial authorities, in order to have a definition of navigable waters, to know who is responsible and to see whether navigable waters must be taken to mean waters on which there is navigation. Let us have a clear definition of these words and we will know if we must direct our requests to the provincial government.
But, pending the clarification of this matter, I submit that we must request the federal Minister of Public Works to revert back to the sound policy that obtained before 1954. That is what I am asking today.
(Text):


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, before coming to the main items which cause me to rise today I should like to support the plea put forward this morning by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, for a revision of the government's policy with respect to public buildings in general, and in particular to post office accommodation for small communities.
We raised this matter when the estimates of the Postmaster General were before the committee, and subsequent correspondence which I received from the Postmaster General indicated that we had given him the impression that we were asking for a post office building in every community that has a post office. Of course, that was not so and I should like to take this opportunity to correct that impression.
As my colleague pointed out this morning, we have a special situation in Newfoundland because of the difficulty of integrating the policy of the Newfoundland government prior to our becoming a part of Canada with the policy of the government of Canada. Many small communities which were able to get a public building for post office accommodation from the Newfoundland government prior to confederation, are now smaller than many other communities which have grown since confederation and which are not able to qualify for these buildings under the present

Supply-Public Works
We are not asking for a post office building in every community, but there are many communities where the public cannot be served satisfactorily by the post office being in some part of a person's residence. Particularly in the larger communities which have a population of five or six hundred or a thousand people, we feel the best solution is to have a little post office building. We ask that every case be considered on its merits. There would not be very many; in my own riding there might be five or six communities in that category. So I would urge the minister to consider the details which my colleague has put on record in Hansard and to take another look at this policy respecting postal accommodation in these communities which have grown and expanded since confederation.
I think there is no department of government which touches the lives of so many of my constituents or affects them more closely than the Department of Public Works. I have in my riding about 55,000 people most of whom are dispersed in some 160 small communities stretched along a coast line which, if it were straightened out, would reach for hundreds of miles. It can be realized how important to these people are the services provided by the minister's department. When it is considered that about 80 per cent of these people are fishermen and that all of them are facing the sea-and even those who do not earn their living directly from the sea often use the sea as a highway- we get some idea of the importance of the structures which the Department of Public Works provides. In our smallest communities there is a need either for a little landing place where small boats can dock or for a ramp to help fishermen haul up their boats more easily without damaging them on rocks and boulders.
I know that from a strictly economic point of view many of these structures could not, perhaps, be justified but I raise this question today mainly to point out to the minister that there are factors other than purely economic ones to be considered, and in my opinion these other factors are more important. The usefulness of these structures is not limited to the people who actually live in the settlement. Once a wharf or landing place has been provided it serves the interests of everybody in the area and, from time to time, of people throughout the province or even those who live outside the province. To be able to tie up alongside a wharf in a small boat, instead of having to lie at anchor all night and pass sleepless hours wondering whether the wind might change and your vessel be blown ashore, is a most comforting experience. It is much

Supply-Public Works
better to be able to lie alongside some sound structure and have a good night's sleep without worrying about whether you will have to run for your life or whether you will drift ashore during the night. In our larger communities we need wharves in order that the C.N.R. ships may tie up for the convenience of passengers and for the handling of freight. If such structures do not exist, the work which has to be done is multiplied many times. People have to go out in small boats in all weather to deliver cargo and bring it ashore. Inconvenience is caused especially to old people and to women and children who have to clamber over boulders and climb down rickety stages. All of this could be avoided by the expenditure of comparatively few dollars to build a landing place or small wharf in these communities.
I should like to point out that many of the structures which have been provided so far in many communities have led to a considerable decrease in the cost of living. If a community facing the sea has a harbour and can bring in its coal direct from Sydney or St. John's it can save as much as four or five dollars a ton on that item alone. Multiply the saving by a large number of communities and you will realize the total advantage to the people who live in this region, though the statistics in any one place may not be impressive.
Then there are the breakwaters. These not only provide shelter for the boats which are moored in the harbours but very often they save lives as well. In our winters in Newfoundland we experience very stormy weather and it is not unusual to find waves 14 feet high rolling in on the land. Last winter, in particular, the weather was severe and there were cases reported when walls of water 17 feet high rolled on the beaches. That is the height of a two-storey house, and hon. members can imagine what damage would have been done not only to shipping but to lives and property along the water front if breakwaters had not provided some protection. Last winter in several of the communities in my riding the force of these seas was strong enough to upset several of these breakwaters, but the very fact that they were there saved not only the fishermen's property but their dwellings and, possibly, their lives.
These are all factors which must be taken into consideration apart from strictly economic considerations. I wish to express my appreciation to the minister for the kind and thoughtful attention he has always given to the many cases I have brought to his attention during the last year and for the careful and sympathetic consideration he has always given to them. Since I am speaking mainly of the work of the harbours and engineering

branch I want to pay a special tribute to the chief engineer, the district engineer and the officials of the harbours and rivers engineering service, because it was with them that I had most of my contacts. I have always found them most co-operative in trying to solve the problems and to work out what is best for the fishermen, or for the community concerned.
I note that the vote for harbours and engineering services in Newfoundland is up this year by about $316,000. I realize that a large part of this amount is earmarked to take care of the contracts that have been let with respect to St. John's harbour. I do hope that this large project will soon reach completion and that the minister will then be able to give more consideration to these smaller works which I have brought to his attention.
I mentioned a while ago, Mr. Chairman, that I have 160 settlements in my riding. I think I could find something that would be useful and needed in each one of them, but I assure the minister I am not going to make a list of them. There is already on record in the department a list of recommendations that will take care of his votes in this regard for perhaps several years to come, but I do want to mention one particular place, perhaps two. I am not going to go into detail about it because I have already given the minister complete details in a volume of correspondence. The place I refer to is Seal Cove in Connaigre bay. I brought up this matter in his predecessor's day. It has been deferred from one year to another. I merely mention it now to point out to the minister that the situation is getting more and more desperate the longer it is deferred. This is a large, important and growing community. The provincial government has lived up to its part of the bargain in this instance. They put the road to the new site. I do hope that the minister will see fit to include in his estimates next year an item to provide a sort of combination breakwater-wharf which is necessary to provide a harbour for those people and also to permit them to earn a livelihood because if this is not done they will have no means of earning a living at all.
I should like to bring one other place to the attention of the minister, namely the town of Marystown. The town of Marystown has a public wharf which is pretty much in the same condition today that it was 10 years ago when Newfoundland became a part of Canada. It has been repaired and strengthened, but it is not at all in keeping with the kind of facility the department has provided for other communities of similar size and importance. This picture is not now adequate to the needs of Marystown. Again this is a

structure that has been deferred from year to year. I do hope the minister will make a special note of this along with Seal Cove. I should be very happy if he can have these two items in his estimates next year.
One other point I should like to mention to the minister has to do with policy or perhaps I should say priority. I know it makes a very good argument to say that if a community has a road, then its need for a wharf is thereby lessened. Well, that argument is not as sound as it appears because the road that it has is usually very poor; it is not a paved road; it is just a small narrow dirt road, usually very dangerous and usable only for a very short part of the year. To truck freight over that kind of road is very costly.
Despite the fact that communities seven or eight miles away, may be linked up with other settlements by road, I would ask the minister to keep in mind that during the wintertime the road will be blocked and nothing will be able to get over it. There is still need for an outlet by the sea, and that can only be had by providing the proper facilities.
I have one particular case in mind that I wish to bring to the minister's attention in this regard, namely Harbour Mille in Fortune bay. I understand it is not the fault of the department that this structure has been delayed so long. There again the situation is getting more and more acute. The population and the need are growing. Therefore I ask the minister to reconsider this project and see what can be done in his estimates next year.
During the past two years there has been a great deal of rumour and press reports in my riding about the development of a transshipment harbour at Mortier bay. I understand an interdepartmental committee has been considering this project for many years. There is so much rumour that I think it would be advisable to have some official pronouncement about this project in so far as it concerns the minister's department. If the minister can reveal anything of any plans in the process of being worked out for this project I would be very grateful to him if he would tell us about it when he replies.
Then there is need for clarification of policy with respect to erosion. As has been pointed out by a good many hon. members, at the present time it is difficult to define where federal responsibility ends and provincial responsibility begins. If the federal department accepts responsibility for erosion caused by lakes and rivers, it would seem to me logical that that policy should apply also to harbours and to the approaches to harbours. I personally would like to see a clear-cut definition of policy with respect to protection works to take care of erosion of the sea shore.
Supply-Public Works
There are two other matters that I wish to mention before I take my seat. I notice that the vote for repairs and upkeep, vote 358, has been reduced by $100,000. This happens to be the year when we have the most need of repairs, following the very severe winter that we have just gone through, with all the storm damage that I mentioned a few minutes ago. I do hope that this reduction in the vote will not delay the necessary repairs to put those structures back into shape before another winter comes.
I am glad to see that vote 360 for dredging, construction or acquisition of plant and equipment, has been increased by $366,000. That is a relatively small increase. I do not think the minister will be able to secure very much new equipment with that much money. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, dredging is one of our most urgent needs in Newfoundland. Although we have modern equipment, we do not have any heavy suction dredging equipment. We have been trying for two years to pry loose the dredge of that type operating in Nova Scotia but it seems to be stuck there, and in the meantime our needs are becoming more and more acute. There is certainly a need for more heavy suction dredging equipment than we have and there is also a need for more shallow dredging equipment.
I hope the minister will look at this need, particularly with regard to Newfoundland, because the amount of equipment we have there now has not been able to look after the needs that were inherited ten years ago when Newfoundland became part of Canada and very soon some of these situations will have to be looked at again. If we are going to keep abreast of the problem and maintain our harbours in proper shape, we must have more dredging equipment than we have at the present time.
I am a little disappointed that vote 371 for miscellaneous works is slightly less than last year. It is now $2,450,000 compared with $2,500,000 last year. This is a reduction of $50,000 but certainly the trend is in the wrong direction. If there is one vote that needs to be increased more than any others, it is that for miscellaneous works not otherwise provided for. Most of the structures in small communities in my riding of the type to which I referred earlier have to be financed from this vote. Many of these communities have been waiting for six or seven years now for something to be done. Because the amounts are too small to be listed separately in the blue book, this is one vote that should be doubled instead of decreased.
When one considers that the $2,450,000 has to be distributed all across Canada from the

Supply-Public Works
Atlantic to the Pacific, it is certainly not a very large sum. When one considers further that projects costing up to $25,000 can now be financed out of this vote, it becomes apparent that no provision has been made for the extra drain on this fund. To reduce the total amount only makes the drain all the heavier and will certainly result in deferring still longer many small projects costing $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 for which we have already been waiting for several years.
I am not going to burden the minister with further details. I have tried to speak in general terms, but I hope the minister will heed what I have just said about the need for a further increase in the dredging vote and particularly in the vote for miscellaneous works. Finally, I thank the minister and his officials again for what they have done in the past and I hope they will be able to do even more in the future.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the general item of these estimates. I represent Leeds, a riding in the very heart of what has been characterized as the golden triangle of eastern Ontario. Various tourist publications describe the area as being directly north of New York state, a land of hundreds of clear lakes, sparkling trout streams, thousands of picturesque islands, lofty evergreens, rugged mountains and so on. It is a lot more than that, Mr. Chairman, but may I say that under earlier administrations certain great projects flowed from the co-operation of Mr. King and Mr. Roosevelt first of all with respect to the Thousand Islands bridge at Ivy Lea. In respect of that bridge I think that a tribute should be paid to a man who worked indefatigably for it for many years long before it became a reality. I refer to George Fulford. He travelled up and down eastern Canada and particularly upstate New York. The Ivy Lea bridge is just over 300 miles from New York city, the most populous and wealthy part of the United States of America. It is right in the centre of that golden triangle bounded on the east by the charming village of Bainsville, on the north by Hawkesbury, the Ottawa river and Deep river and on the south by that ancient, great and historic city of Kingston.
The Thousand Islands bridge at Ivy Lea, in which Mr. Fulford had so much interest in years past, has actually transformed the face of eastern Ontario. Unquestionably my riding, all of which is within 40 miles of the bridge, is vitally interested in tourism. Extending to the west we have historic sites as far as Kingston. Extending to the east we have Glengarry park, Upper Canada village and so many of the great areas along the river

including the parks of the parks commission which are now attracting thousands of United States tourists to this country.
We now see indications that the Canadian dollar appears to be slipping and no doubt this will lead to greater tourism, particularly if the minister can impress upon his colleagues the urgency and importance at least to our part of Canada of soft-pedalling anti-Americanism. Those of us who live in this part of Canada feel that we are very closely related to upstate New York and, indeed, to all of the United States. We feel that our wealth is partly dependent upon a happy and close relationship with the United States and we believe that at times definite harm has been done to our area by comments that have been made and by policies that have done our area no particular good.
It happens that the Leeds area, which has such attractive places as Gananoque, Seeleys Bay and Westport on the west, Charleston and the Rideau lakes system, is very popular with United States tourists and a most happy relationship exists between our people and them. We hope that this relationship will continue to exist.
We were pleased when the minister spoke on May 25 last of a contract having been let for a public wharf at Westport. Westport is only a tiny place but it is immensely important. It is located on a beautiful body of water which is connected with other bodies of water and it is really important so far as the tourist business is concerned.
The minister also spoke of Seeleys Bay, which was the home of my very fine predecessor, Mr. Hayden Stanton. Seeleys Bay is also important from the tourist standpoint. On May 24 the minister also referred to contracts that have already been let at Gananoque and other work to be performed. I would impress upon the minister that anything that is done in this area in the way of public works, however small it may be, will add to the general economy, welfare and benefit of this part of Canada. We do not expect from the minister, perhaps, great projects of the type of the deep sea waterway or such things as the Thousand Islands bridge. These works have already been completed and the whole area has been elevated and enriched by the co-operation, for example, that existed between Mr. St. Laurent and, in the first instance, Mr. Truman. This has transformed this part of Canada. Still, the natural beauties are there. They are very much appreciated and we can go forward with new heart.
I urge the minister kindly consider, from the standpoint of unemployment, any of these projects in that part of the riding which is bounded on the north by Smiths Falls, on the

east by Brockville, on the south by Ganano-que, and on the west by Westwood, because they are very urgently needed at this particular time.


Mr. Bourgel:: Before this item carries, I have a few questions I should like to ask the minister. Have some of the architects and engineers left their jobs, either in Montreal or Toronto? If so, how many and for what reason?


David James Walker: I will obtain an answer to that question.


Maurice Bourget: I should like also to ask the minister if he will tell us why one Charles Bankley of Montreal who, I understand, was working as a janitor from March 3, 1959 to June, 1960, was fired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been very quiescent during the initial stages of this discussion. Before this vote carries, is the minister going to reply to a few of the questions that were put, or is he going to reply on the appropriate items?


David James Walker: On appropriate items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
334.	Quebec, $4,680,000.
Maurice Bourget: I should like the minister to tell us when the plans and specifications are going to be ready for the public building to house the unemployment insurance commission. The minister will recall that we have had this item in the estimates for the past three years, but so far nothing has been done except to demolish the old hospital. We should be entitled, after 2J years, to get some information as to when the people of Quebec can expect the building to be erected.


David James Walker: The hon. member is speaking of the unemployment insurance commission building in Quebec city?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


David James Walker: The delays in this project have been caused by discussions necessary to settle the requirements for space in this building. The development of the site plans has now been agreed upon, and the architect has developed them into preliminary elevations and other matters. The architect has indicated a completely stone faced building. This has been a change, and the department has requested changes in order to lower the cost of the project. It is expected the architect should be able to complete the plans and specifications by the end of this calendar year.


Mr. Deschalelels:: Referring to page 461 of the details, I notice that there are three projects for the city of Montreal. Is there
Supply-Public Works
any project for the construction of an office for the national employment service, since the office on Delorimier street is too narrow for present purposes. Is there any project to cover a new office building in the east end of Montreal?


David James Walker: No, not for the east end.


Maurice Bourget: I wonder if the minister could give us a progress report on the post office building in Quebec city? Have there been any extras in the work or any changes in the plans and specifications since the main contract was awarded?


David James Walker: There have been no extras, and we are getting along nicely. It is 36 per cent completed.


Mr. Denis:: Has the minister considered the advisability of constructing better looking post offices? Many complaints have been received from all parts of Canada about the new post office buildings, especially in so far as the small post offices are concerned. These buildings are erected by the federal government, and if they do not look well in their surroundings they give the appearance that the federal government is the poor member of the family.
I know the minister agrees that, since there are so many complaints, there should be some improvement.
I know that in the province of Quebec a committee has been formed to study the decoration of public buildings, and this commute is composed of architects and painters.
I should like the federal government to be at least on the same level as the provincial government in so far as public buildings are concerned.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item carry?


Maurice Bourget: I think that the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Denis, deserve an answer. This is an important question because many of these small post offices have been constructed all over Canada. We have noticed that, generally, they look like square boxes. Surely the minister has a sense-I do not know how to say it in English, but "sens de l'esthetique, comme on dit en frangais". I hope he will pay particular attention to that because I know he has seen, as we have, these little square boxes. Even if it costs $2,000 or $5,000 more to erect a different building it would be worth while. The federal government should set an example in the erection of these buildings so that the people of the municipality will be proud of them.


David James Walker: I was accepting the remarks of the hon. member for St. Denis as advice, and I was giving them consideration. If a reply is required, I may say that the small post offices erected during the winter, of which
6504	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
there were 90 last year-I refer to the small ones of 800 to 1,200 square feet-are contemporary architecture. Some people do not like them. However, during the discussion of these estimates, we have heard a tremendous amount of comment about how pleased the different members were with them. It is a question of taste. These are modern post offices, streamlined and very businesslike, but with good lines, so I am told by architects.
As to the post office in Quebec city, I think the hon. member for Levis and the hon. member for St. Denis will agree because I am sure they have seen the plans, this is going to be one of the most magnificent post offices in Canada.


Maurice Bourget: I am not speaking about the large one. I am speaking about the small ones.


David James Walker: I regret the situation in Rouyn. They needed more space and it was a question of adding to the present post office or getting a new site altogether. I understand the original building was constructed in 1956 or so. It was not considered practical to scrap it and so an addition was planned on the same architectural design as the building constructed in 1954 or 1956. One consequence- and I think it is regrettable-is that it comes up very close to the street line. It is not set back. However, now that the exterior has been cleaned up around there it is looking much better. I agree that, if we could have done so, it would have been better to get rid of the old building. However, these things must be looked at from an economic standpoint. I agree that if we could have got rid of the old post office there and could have built a brand new one, it would have looked much better because we could have given it more space. However, we had to add to it under the circumstances.


Armand Dumas: In view of the fact that the minister has mentioned the post office in Rouyn which is in my constituency, I think he would like me to correct an assertion just made by him to the effect that the building was constructed in 1954. It was constructed long before 1954. It was built in the 40's or in the 30's. I agree that the government did the right thing by putting on an addition to this building. However, this is only a one-storey addition and it does not look too good.
I wonder whether the minister would give consideration to putting perhaps another storey on the addition that was made in
1958-59 or 1959-60.


David James Walker: I accept my hon. friend's correction as to when it was built. I personally have no idea as to the time. I can only depend on my officials and apparently we 

have not any information here as to the time at which it was built. I apologize to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
335.	Ottawa, $11,320,000.
William Arnold Peters: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I raised three or four problems in relation to the public buildings in Ottawa. One was with regard to the establishment of departmental administration offices on Wellington street and the federal government working out a plan with the city of Ottawa for expropriation of the area in order to allow centralization of administration at least of our government departments. Then there is the problem that is uppermost in the minds of many people who are interested in agricultural development and experimental work. It is in connection with the difference of opinion that appears to exist as to whether the experimental farm should be considered to be a land assembly scheme on which any department can put government buildings if they cannot find a site somewhere else. The other side of the coin, as it were, represents the opinion that no buildings should be constructed on the experimental farm except those that are closely allied and connected with the continuation and the furthering of agricultural experimental work.


An hon. Member:: Which coin?


David James Walker: I wish to admit to the hon. member that I am no authority on town planning. However, the former government brought in from France probably the greatest town planner in the world-I refer to Mr. Greber-and he submitted a plan to the predecessor of the national capital commission for a more beautiful and greater Ottawa. After many adjustments his plan was approved by the national capital commission, the government of Canada and the city of Ottawa. It is a decentralized plan, but in being a decentralized plan it follows the tendencies of Madrid, Paris, London and latterly Washington. I should like to be able to engage with my hon. friend in a learned talk on this subject. However, in matters of this kind, I always rely on experts. However, I would think that his views might be brought up for consideration in committee at some time or other. There is certainly an argument for what he has said as certain people object to decentralization.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Under this vote I believe
there is an item "West block-alterations and improvements". I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell me when the extremely useful but extremely noisy activities

of the tunnelling company outside my window and other members' windows are likely to cease?


David James Walker: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition may I say this. We really thought the session would be over now when we were making the plans with the contractors. We are somewhat responsible for the fact that the explosions have started at the present time. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am, I guess, the closest person to it. I get soot in my windows every day and when I am having my snooze at noon, I am wakened up each day. I know exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is speaking of. However, it will continue all summer. We expect it to be completed in the early fall, I believe in October. Although those explosions sound fairly noisy at times I am assured over and over again, because I keep asking the question, that they are harmless as far as the main structure of the central building is concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not criticizing anybody. I am just reminding the minister that while all the explosions may be harmless, they are also reminiscent.


Maurice Bourget: While we are speaking of the tunnel, I think we can discuss this matter on this item. When were tenders called for the tunnel, how many tenderers came in on the contract and at what price?


David James Walker: It was all in the main contract. Does my hon. friend know how many tenderers there were there, or will I look it up? I am informed that there were 12 on the main contract.


Maurice Bourget: When were tenders called?


David James Walker: We will look up that information.


Maurice Bourget: I understand that they are also working in two shifts. Is there any extra cost for that work, if they work in two shifts?


David James Walker: No extra; no.


Maurice Bourget: With regard to the west block alterations-


David James Walker: In order to get rid of the noise of the explosions mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, we suggested having three shifts but that was really going to be expensive.


Maurice Bourget: I do not suppose the minister has a snooze during the night in his own office. He goes home for a good sleep.


David James Walker: I paddle back to my river place.
Supply-Public Works


Maurice Bourget: With regard to the alterations to the west block may I say this. Last year, when we were discussing the estimates, the minister, in answering a question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, said that the alterations will be done in two parts, meaning that they will work on one part and then after it is completed, will work on the other so as not to disturb the members who are located there. I should like to ask the minister also about the tenders. Were tenders called last year on that matter? I do not remember exactly because at the time, when the estimates were discussed on July 21, the minister said this as reported at page 6685 of Hansard of that year:
The consultants have almost completed their estimate and I expect it will be ready in about a month's time at which time I would be glad to give the information to the hon. member.
The session ended. A month elapsed after July 21. I am therefore wondering whether the minister can inform the house what was the amount of the estimate, what was the name of the firm which was the lowest bidder and what was the price submitted by that firm.


David James Walker: It is one contract, and it is to be done in two parts. I believe the tenders were called in December. We have not the exact date here. The contract was awarded on April 13 this year. The original estimate was $6,400,000 and the contract was awarded Perini Limited in the amount of $5,088,000.


Maurice Bourget: I understand that is a firm contract.


David James Walker: It is a firm contract, yes.


Maurice Bourget: And so far there have been no changes in the contract?


David James Walker: There has been no change in the contract.


Maurice Bourget: While we are dealing with this subject, is there any date for completion of the work in the contract?


David James Walker: February 18, 1963.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In Washington, where they have this type of tunnel between the congressional building and the house and senate office buildings, they have little trolley that runs back and forth so the members do not have to walk. Is it the intention to have that kind of facility in this tunnel?


David James Walker: No.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that. We are becoming a nation of sissies.


William Arnold Peters: This raises another problem. I mention this matter as we are discussing the tunnel itself and repairs in the west

Supply-Public Works block. One rumour that is prevalent-and there are thousands of rumours in the House of Commons, of course-is that the new cafeteria accommodation will be built in the tunnel. Was this contemplated at the time the contract was let, or is this just a rumour?


David James Walker: That is a very interesting thought as to where the cafetaria is going to be, but it is not the fact. It is going to be where the present courtyard is in the west block, and on the ground level.


Maurice Bourget: Is the cafeteria also included in the main contract?


David James Walker: Yes, it is.


Azellus Denis: While these alterations and improvements are being made in the west block and other buildings, would it be possible to have a kind of recreational centre to which members of parliament could go and take some exercise? As the minister himself has noticed, and other people have noticed this, we are far from healthy and one only has to look around to see the big bellies which are caused by lack of exercise.
In past years members of parliament, their wives, staff, messengers and newspaper men used to be able to bowl-and paid plenty of money for it-outside the parliament buildings. This would help House of Commons personnel to get some exercise, and I do not think it would be very expensive to have that kind of recreational centre with bowling alleys in the west block or any other public building close to the parliament buildings. I am sure this could be done by charging a fee less than we used to pay outside.
I am sure it would be a good thing for the members of parliament and the staff to have this kind of recreational centre. As the hon. member for Kootenay West has just said, there might be less sissies around and more people would be physically fit for work.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is to be such a recreational centre, would the minister make sure it includes a punching bag?


David James Walker: I could have used one the last couple of days. I have been sitting here silently for two days. In answer to my hon. friend from St. Denis may I say that there is to be an exercise room on the top floor of the west block, and also showers in connection with it. It will not be a large room. It will include a rowing machine, and that sort of thing. At the present time, as hon. members know of course, we have an excellent new steam bath just adjacent to the barber shop and we have Sam from the Chateau Laurier, who is a very good physiotherapist.


Azellus Denis: I was speaking specifically about bowling alleys, which would not be very expensive and would be good for us all. I am sure members of parliament and the staff would be quite willing to pay their share if they could go and bowl in such a recreational centre.


David James Walker: We have not found room for the bowling alleys, but we may find room for the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that we put in punching bags. That would be a very, very excellent idea.


Azellus Denis: It would be good exercise against the Tories.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I understand that many members of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition himself are very much concerned about the leisure of hon. members, but since this question has been raised I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the minister.
I should like to know whether there are provisions for parlours in the west block for people who might be visiting their members of parliament. I can understand that this might not be a question which interests hon. members from far away, but hon. members whose constituencies are not far from Ottawa often have to receive visitors, and it is very difficult for them to find a convenient place in which they can wait. These people have to wait to see their member of parliament in order to discuss some matter with him.
At the moment we have to share an office with another member of parliament, and when we have visitors it disturbs our partner.
I understand that when hon. members' offices are transferred to the west block we will not have to share offices and each member of parliament will have his own. However, we still will not have a waiting room for visitors, I understand. It might be convenient to put such a waiting room on each floor at least. We could have one parlour on each floor, with a telephone, for accommodating visitors who have a right to come and see their member of parliament in Ottawa.
While I am on my feet-and I will try not to rise again-I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that every time hon. members whose constituencies are not far from Ottawa come to Ottawa during the recess, they are very much concerned because they cannot telephone unless the Department of Public Works is notified that the hon. member intends to stay in his office for quite a while. If that is the case, the department sees to it that we have a telephone. If the member of parliament comes

to Ottawa for only one day, I understand he does not have any telephone facilities. I also understand that if an hon. member comes from the Union station to the House of Commons at 10.30 in the morning he has to run in order to get a secretary, and the secretaries leave at 4.00 o'clock during the recess. By the time the member reaches the minister or an official of the Department of Public Works, for instance-the minister has his offices way on the other side of the city- it is difficult for the minister to do anything.
It is sometimes important that members of parliament should phone ministers or departments from the House of Commons, and if they come to Ottawa for only one day they have a very difficult time finding a telephone in order to reach the minister or the officials of his department.
Would it be possible to establish at least pay phones in some parts of the building, either in the main building or the west block, for use during the recess? The best thing to do would be to have telephones at the convenience of hon. members, of course; but if the government is too poor to do that, at least let it put pay phones in different sections of the building and in the waiting rooms. They could be put in the corridors or the hallways of the west block and on the main floor of the centre block.


Mr, Walker:: In reply to my hon. friend I shall be glad to take up that matter with the Speaker because this is something which is within his purview.


William Arnold Peters: With regard to the modifications which are going on in the west block, has any decision been reached about what is to happen to the cafeteria in this building? Does that fit in with the building program? I have advance information from another committee, though I may be misinformed. The suggestion which has been made in that committee is that there would be only a coffee shop and a restaurant in this building and that the cafeteria would be in the other building. If so, I want to put a claim in for a room in that part of the main building which the cafeteria will have vacated.


David James Walker: There will be two cafeterias, one here in the main block and one there. Then, of course, there will be the dining room upstairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
336.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $6,332,000.
Mr. McMillan:: This item has to do with the voting of money for public buildings in Ontario outside Ottawa. I wish to bring up a matter which concerns the hon. member for Niagara Falls who is engaged elsewhere in a standing committee.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Brunsden:: Where?


William Hector McMillan: She was a few minutes ago so engaged. On page 463 of the estimates appears an item:
Niagara Falls-public building-addition and alterations-to complete, $375,000.
I am informed that no start has been made on the construction of this building as yet.
I believe that in a previous year moneys have been voted for this proposed building in Niagara Falls and I should like to ask the minister if these sums were voted in respect of the acquisition of adjacent property. I should also like him to give me some idea as to the total cost of these additions and when they are likely to be started and completed.	.


David James Walker: At the request of the church which was adjacent we delayed proceeding with this building until they felt it was satisfactory for us to proceed. The original vote was $200,000 in 1959. The plans will be completed in July.


Mr. Matheson:: Can the minister provide the committee with details respecting the $500,000 federal building to be built at Brockville? My questions are as follows: 1. Has any property been acquired? 2. Have funds been provided for the acquisition of such property? 3. Have funds been provided for the construction of the building? 4. What firm of architects in Kingston is preparing plans for this building? 5. When will tenders be called?


David James Walker: Several of the lots have been acquired. We are not sure at the moment whether or not there are two other lots yet to be acquired in connection with this building. The architects are Beaver and Smith of Kingston. They have been sent the plans and they are working on them at the present time.


John Ross Matheson: May I ask whether funds have been provided both for the acquisition of such property and for the construction of this $500,000 building?


David James Walker: I should say to the hon. member that the planning vote is for the purpose of doing just what we are doing at the present time. It is not allocated to any particular project.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister when he expects the plans to be completed?


David James Walker: Some time during the winter. You mean the Brockville federal building?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister what land the federal government holds in the town of Haileybury and if this is sufficient land upon which to build a post office? I

Supply-Public Works also should like to know if it is contemplated building a post office on that land or whether the department intends to acquire a new site. I understand that the lease of the present building expires in October, and so this question has to be decided in a few months. I believe the federal government does own the armoury site and maybe one or two lots close to it, but I am curious to know whether this is sufficient to allow for the construction of a government building.


David James Walker: I wish to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming. We shall be glad to have the help of any advice he has to give us in this connection. It is not too late to consider that advice, because the whole plan is now under study-whether it is possible to expand or whether we shall have to put up an entirely new building. The hon. member's assistance would be welcomed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if the minister can
tell me when it is anticipated that the federal building in Elliot Lake will be completed.


David James Walker: It is 97 per cent complete and when it is completed and we go up there I intend to ask the Leader of the Opposition to come along for the opening ceremony.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a good idea. The minister might need a little protection up there.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps I am a little slow, but may I respectfully ask the Minister of Public Works if funds have been provided for the federal building in Brockville and also when construction is likely to begin. This is a matter of great importance to my riding.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Leeds we do not provide funds in the estimates until it is necessary to do so, and as I explained we have in the planning vote sufficient money to acquire the land and complete the plans.


John Ross Matheson: I also asked the minister when construction may be expected to begin.


David James Walker: We anticipate that construction will commence early next summer if the Kingston firm has completed its plans and if everything works out as we anticipate.


John Ross Matheson: On May 24 the minister was good enough to indicate there would be a new post office at Portland costing $25,000. Has property been acquired for the post office at Portland? When will tenders for this building be called?


David James Walker: This is a winter works program. We will seek the information from our officials and I shall let the hon. member know as soon as it is received.


William Hector McMillan: I asked a question on behalf of the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I said she was attending a committee. An hon. member to my left, I think it was the member for Medicine Hat, suggested that that was not right. She is in the railway committee room at the present time. I asked the minister when it was proposed to call tenders for the public building at Niagara Falls and I think the minister said the plans would be completed by July of this year.


David James Walker: By the middle or end of July this year.


William Hector McMillan: Will tenders be called immediately thereafter?


David James Walker: Tenders will be called immediately after that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
566. Saskatchewan, $1.
Mr. Rapp:: I should like to take the opportunity to say just a few words on this item. The proposed amount in the supplementary estimates is $30,000 for a public building at Naicam. May I express on behalf of the residents of this community and on my own thanks to the Minister of Public Works for giving consideration to this project. I am sure the people of this community will receive this vote with satisfaction and gratitude. This public building is something the people of Naicam have looked forward to over the years. The minister has given consideration to this matter and because of the efficient work the officials in his department are doing and the remarkable understanding they have displayed in instances such as this, the people in this community are to have the public building. When will work commence on this building under this item?


David James Walker: It will be a winter works program, starting this fall in October.


Mr. Speakman:: I do not wish to delay the committee on this item but on behalf of the residents of my constituency I express their appreciation to the minister for two winter works post office buildings completed last winter, one in Calmar and one in Devon, and now for the fine new federal building which is going to be provided for the town of Lacombe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
340.	British Columbia, $2,680,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In rising to speak even briefly on this item, Mr. Chairman, I am very conscious of the row of gentlemen opposite who would prefer to be on the golf course than to be captives of our eloquence and curiosity.


David James Walker: I do not play that game any more.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a few words to say on this item. I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that I received considerable correspondence from organizations and residents in the city of Rossland who are very interested in the proposals of the minister's department for improving their post office facilities and are anxious to see something started as soon as possible. They realize the difficulties in assessing the situation and the circumstances surrounding it; but I have been asked to bring to the attention of the minister their anxiety to have this work proceeded with as soon as possible.
The residents of Kootenay are very pleased with the decision of the minister's department to consider as a winter works project the building of a post office there. It is a very active and aggressive community. This post office was needed very much indeed.
What is the latest situation with respect to the acquisition of a site for a post office at Montrose? If the minister has any information I should be very pleased to have it, since it would save my writing a letter.
I think the Department of Justice has had under consideration for a year or 18 months the erection of an R.C.M.P. building at New Denver, British Columbia. I was informed that it would be considered for a winter works program this year. I am all in favour of delaying the construction of those buildings so that they will be undertaken when they will employ persons who are more likely to be unemployed at that time than they are, particularly, during the summer months. I would apreciate it very much indeed if the minister could inform the committee when the department intends to commence the construction of this R.C.M.P. building at New Denver?


David James Walker: The Rossland extension or alternation is now under study and when the study is completed the alterations will be proceeded with. Plans for the R.C.M.P. building at New Denver have been 90 per cent completed. As to Montrose, we have no information. We will get that information and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
341.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $1,410,000.
Mr. Hardie:: I do not want to hold up these estimates any more than anyone else does. I am wondering whether the minister can tell me if the item of $560,000 for federal government housing at Fort Smith and the item of $200,000 for federal government housing at Inuvik will complete the major
Supply-Public Works
portion of the federal government's housing programs in these two locations?


David James Walker: The answer is yes. May I on behalf of all hon. members express our delight at seeing the hon. member back in his seat.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Is it intended to proceed with the administration building at Hay River this year? If not, can the minister tell me whether the plans and the location of the land have been settled?


David James Walker: We are just in the planning stage. Even the site is under consideration. Because of a possible conflict, as my hon. friend will know, with the railway terminal there, it is very difficult to give any estimate of when construction will begin.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
342.	Outside Canada, $250,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister a question about an item in this vote that deals with the Canada House building in London, England, on Grosvenor square. What is the total expenditure that has been made on the property, on the building itself and on the remodelling that was required?


David James Walker: Up to the end of the fiscal year we have spent $4,283,503.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is there any further expenditure required or is the building now complete, occupied and used?


David James Walker: We expect the interior alterations yet to be done to be completed in another two months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister tell the committee whether all the Canadian offices in London now, except those of the Department of External Affairs, are housed in this new building on Grosvenor square?


David James Walker: When the alterations are completed my understanding is that it will house all the offices of Canadian departments in London.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Including all the offices of the Department of National Defence and the joint staffs?


David James Walker: Yes, including the Department of National Defence although I understand that at the moment there is some problem about security. The defence department has not completed moving.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is there any occupier of the building now apart from Canadian government offices? I think there was a flat in the building last year leased to a private individual which had not been given up.

Supply-Public Works


David James Walker: There were three tenants who had life-time leases and they have been moved to the top floor. When I answered some questions of the Leader of the Opposition last year, I think I indicated that we anticipated having too much room at this time and that we would be leasing the top floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So that within a short time, when these difficulties to which the minister has referred are cleared up, we can anticipate that all Canadian government offices, except those in the old Canada House, will be in this building and there will be no outside leases in London at all?


David James Walker: That is my understanding, yes.


William Arnold Peters: Has any further consideration been given to establishing accommodation of some sort for the missions at the United Nations? There was some suggestion that Canada would be buying or erecting a building suitable for housing missions.


David James Walker: This is a matter for external affairs. I take it the hon. member for Tim-iskaming is referring to the Canada building in New York.


William Arnold Peters: I have reference particularly to the delegations that go to the United States, the permanent staff there and the accommodation provided for them. I do not want to get into a discussion of the Canada building. There was some talk that a building would be constructed to house these semipermanent delegations to the United Nations.


David James Walker: I am afraid I cannot enlighten the hon. member. It is a matter for external affairs.


Maurice Bourget: Is there an office of the Department of Public Works in Europe since we are looking after all these buildings, and what kind of a staff is there?


David James Walker: We have established an office in London in the new accommodation in Grosvenor house and the staff at the present time numbers three.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister inform the committee what the exact responsibilities of the Department of Public Works are in connection with Canadian buildings abroad, diplomatic and trade commissioner buildings and that sort of thing?


David James Walker: We give the Department of External Affairs any technical assistance they may require. Having learned from them what they wish, we assist them with the plans. When a decision has been reached in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs,

we then proceed to erect the building or arrange the lease or do whatever else is required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
343.	Improvements generally and miscellaneous buildings-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $1,000,000.
Maurice Bourget: Will the minister tell us why the amount is doubled this year? If you look at the details on page 466 you will see that up to November 1, last year, the expenditure was $177,282 and the estimated amount for the balance of the year was $322,718, or a total of $500,000. This year the amount is doubled. What are the reasons for the increase? What are the big projects?


David James Walker: The extra amount represents two storage buildings for the storage of war material, one of which is at Kemptville and the other at Carleton Place.


Maurice Bourget: Are these new buildings?


David James Walker: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
344.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $44,794,200.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that some general seems to have halted the attack on the patina covering the statues on parliament hill, would the minister inform the committee whether the attack is to be resumed or has it been definitely abandoned?


David James Walker: It has been definitely abandoned. The hon. member for Kootenay West really has a point there. Although this chemical treatment is suitable to London, England, where there is salt in the air and different climatic conditions, it has not worked out too well here. It did not do D'Arcy McGee too much harm but if some of the nudes who are looking up at D'Arcy McGee were treated in this way it might at times prove to be embarrassing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It was a bit damaging to Molly.


David James Walker: Damaging to modesty, yes.


Mr. Bourque:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the correspondence we receive continually from the graphic arts association of Montreal about the printing bureau, I should like to ask the minister some questions. I understand that everything in connection with the bureau is paid for by this department, the upkeep, maintenance, lighting, heating and so on. What charge is made to the printing bureau for all these services?


David James Walker: No charge.


Romuald Bourque: No charge whatever. It is all at government expense. The reason I ask the question is that there seems to be quite a controversy between the printers in private industry and the government printing bureau. The bureau claims it can do work much more cheaply than private industry. If they are provided with their building free of charge and are also provided with heating, lighting and everything else free of charge, their costs must be very much lower than those of private printers who have to erect their own buildings, pay taxes and all the other charges.


David James Walker: I do not think I can make any comment. I have completely forgotten about the printing bureau. I think it was three years ago since I had anything to do with it.


Romuald Bourque: In order that there might be a basis for a fairer comparison between the costs of private industry and those of the government-owned plant, would it not be possible for the minister in some way to arrive at a charge that could be made for these services so that there would be some method of arriving at the costs of the government plant? They do not seem to have any basis whatever now. If there is no charge made to them for their plant, lighting, heating or the machinery they buy, it seems unjust for the government plant to say that they can manufacture more cheaply than private industry because the bureau has no basic figures in order to arrive at their costs. If you have a plant worth $5 million and do not have to pay rent or interest or carry anything on your books, it seems obvious that you cannot have any basic figures to indicate that you can manufacture more cheaply. The government will never know whether or not it is losing money in this plant.


David James Walker: I thank the hon. member for his comments. This is matter for the Secretary of State, and I understand it is presently under study not only by the Auditor General but also by the public accounts committee.


William Arnold Peters: We have had a discussion recently relating to recreational facilities for the members of the House of Commons. This is obviously a difficult proposition, but one suggestion was that a swimming pool be installed. Has the minister given any consideration to the fortunate situation in so far as some of his people are concerned, in that there is a ready made swimming pool located near at hand? Has there been any consideration given to the development of this to provide recreation for the people in the minister's building as well as those in the other buildings located nearby?


David James Walker: I will refer that suggestion to the national capital commission.
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Batten:: When the estimates of the Post Office Department were under consideration I referred to the public building at Corner Brook. At that time I recognized that this did not come under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General, but I thought he would take an interest in a building that is locally referred to as the post office. This building is well kept inside. I think the standard of maintenance is one that the minister would be willing to commend. However, the grounds are not as well kept as they might be, and are not at all compatible with those of the other buildings around the city of Corner Brook. I believe the Postmaster General has written the minister about this matter. I would assume, from the letter I had from the minister, that something will be done about these grounds during the present year. I wonder if my assumption is correct?


David James Walker: Because of the manner in which the hon. member has pressed this matter, and the justness of his claim, it is not only being looked into but I expect something will be done about it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have another question to ask the minister on this item which I overlooked before. I raised this matter last year, and have mentioned it on quite a few occasions. I am referring to what the newspapers call "Lovers' Walk". I do not know whether or not that is the correct name. Last year the minister said he would give consideration to the cost of restoring this walk between the parliament buildings and the Ottawa river. Has any consideration been given to the matter, and has there been an estimate of the cost?


David James Walker: I know that the hon. member has a particular interest in this walk. I accept his word that it is purely a platonic interest. I know he is a great admirer of nature. However, the hon. member for Kootenay West is the only member who has really pressed this matter and the mounted police as well as the national capital commission, are still adamant that lovers' lane should remain closed. I regret that I must deny the hon. member anything, but I am afraid I must be governed by the advice I get from these two departments.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation. I can understand, to some extent, the reasons for this stand. However, I was the spokesman for a great many members of his own party who did not have the courage to get up and speak about it.


Maurice Bourget: My Colleague, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska being absent,

Supply-Public Works
has asked me to ask the minister whether or not a decision has been taken concerning repairs to the clock in the public building at Arthabaska. The minister will recall that Arthabaska is a historical place in the province of Quebec because Sir Wilfrid Laurier stayed there for many years.
The minister wrote my colleague on May 18 of this year telling him that if the repairs could be made, they would be made. I know that in the past this question of repairing clocks in public buildings has been a headache for the department because there have been so many complaints from people. However, since this is a historical place, the people would like to keep that old building and the clock, and I wonder if special attention could be given to these minor repairs?


David James Walker: Yes, I will have that looked into at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
345.	Furniture and furnishings for government departments, $2,943,808.
Maurice Bourget: I noticed lately that a competition was advertised by the civil service commission for a purchasing agent at Quebec city. I am asking the minister if any changes have been made in the purchasing department. If I remember correctly, there was a regional staff set up by the Department of Public Works for supplying what was needed for public buildings. I am asking whether any change has been made in this practice.


David James Walker: There has been no change. There was a vacancy to be filled.


Maurice Bourget: Are the materials needed for public buildings supplied by Ottawa or by the regional office in Montreal? I do not want to translate this advertisement, Mr. Chairman, because it might be too long, but it sets out in French the functions of the purchasing agent as follows:
(Translation):
To carry out instructions given by the chief of purchasing and stores for the proper operation of the stores-
So, if I understand correctly, in this case-
(Text):
This purchasing agent will be required to buy some materials, and that is why I was wondering if a change had been made and a regional office had been established in Quebec city. I have no objection. I think it would be a good place to establish a purchasing office because it would be centralized. If I recall correctly, however, in the past all materials needed for public buildings were sent from Montreal or Ottawa. I think it would be a good idea to decentralize and have an office in Quebec city to take care of that district.


David James Walker: While we are looking up the answer to the last question, may I answer the hon. member's question about engineers and architects who resigned in Toronto and Montreal. Mr. A. Gagnon, a district engineer, resigned on May 2, 1961, to join as deputy minister for the Montreal area the provincial service of Quebec; Mr. P. R. Martineau, district architect at Montreal, also resigned on May 2, 1961 to join in a high post the provincial service at Quebec. In Toronto, Mr. K. A. Rowswick, engineer grade 3, resigned on March 31, 1961 to accept a position with a private firm.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I revert for just a moment to item 344. I am not one of those Conservative members who appointed the hon. member for Kootenay West to act as his spokesman. I should like to speak for myself. I think the reasons given by the police and the national capital commission are utterly inadequate.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very pleased to have a supporter in this one man crusade, which has now become a two man crusade.


Maurice Bourget: I was wondering if those officials who resigned from the service left the service because they could not get an increase in salary. These officials had a good deal of experience. The minister and probably the deputy minister also must realize that it is very difficult-and I am speaking of Quebec particularly-to get architects and engineers of experience. I know it is not the fault of the minister because he cannot prevent that situation. However, if it is a question of salaries I think it should be looked into. I think some increase should be given to these men who have rendered service for many years. The time will come when the department-and this statement applies not only to the Department of Public Works but to other departments which are concerned with the construction business- will have great difficulty in getting architects and engineers of good standing and good experience. I know that because I was with the engineers and the architects of the department for four years.
I think we are extremely fortunate to get such good and experienced men having regard to the very small salaries they are getting. When we consider the fact that we are spending nearly $100 million in building and that on harbours and rivers we are spending about $35 million or possibly more, I think the question should be looked into and that an effort should be made to see that they get salaries which are comparable to those being paid in private industry. Some people might think that this is an unnecessary expenditure, but I do not think so. The minister

realizes that when we have good and experienced engineers and architects we are saving to the country every year thousands and thousands of dollars. I therefore think the minister would not be criticized if he looked into the question and, if there is a chance to do so, gave consideration to the salaries of those employees who have experience and whom I think we should keep at the service of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers engineering services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
347. Newfoundland, $6,593,500.
Herman Maxwell Batten: I should like to make one or two comments with regard to the amount of money that is spent under this heading in Newfoundland. I think that most of us recognize that the work going on in St. John's is a special job; and as a special project I do not see any reason why the amount of money being spent on this project in one area should be taken from the rest of the province. I think that the money being spent on this project at St. John's is going to be well worth the effort; but because it is a special project, I think that a special grant should have been made for it and that the money to be spent there should not have been taken from projects in other parts of the island.
If we look back over the amounts of money spent in various years under this item in Newfoundland, we find that the amount has been consistently decreasing since 1958-59. I should like to support that statement by some figures which I have here. Expenditures on harbours and rivers for the year 1955-56 amounted to $3,173,601. For 1956-57 the amount was $2,741,601. For the year 1957-58, the amount spent under this item was $3,015,100. For the year 1958-59-and I think this is the first year in which there was in the estimates an item for improvements to the St. John's harbour-the total amount under this heading was $4,606,500, with $1 million for harbour improvements at St. John's leaving for the remainder of the province $3,606,500. For the year 1959-60, the amount under this vote was $4,237,200. The allocation for St. John's harbour was $1,250,000, leaving the total of $2,987,200 for other projects in the province. Last year the total amount under this item was $6,277,501, with harbour improvements in St. John's at $4,500,000, leaving $1,777,501 for the remainder of the province.
Supply-Public Works
Last year the amount spent outside the city of St. John's on harbours and rivers was only slightly more than one-half the amount spent in the same area in 1958-59. 1 am sorry; I should say it was a little more than one half the amount spent in the year 1955-56 and only a little less than one half of the amount spent in the year 1958-59, or I should point out that the total amount of money spent under this heading last year was divided in this manner: 72 per cent for harbour improvements in St. John's and 28 per cent for the whole remainder of the province. This year the estimate gives a total of $6,593,500 and for the St. John's project $4,850,000 leaving $1,743,500 for other projects within the province. For this year it means that the total amounts spent on the St. John's project will be 74 per cent of the total expenditure for the province, with the remaining projects in the province receiving only 26 per cent. Again, the amount for this year is slightly less than half of what was spent in the year 1955-56 and a little less than half of what was spent in 1958-59. I think that anyone who wants to examine these figures carefully will note that since 1958-59 the amount spent under this item outside the city of St. John's has been decreasing consistently.
I hasten to point out to the minister that I am not objecting to the amount of money being spent in St. John's. My contention is that since this is a special item there should be a special vote and that it should not be carried out at the expense of the rest of the province. Around the island of Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, there are many projects in need of being undertaken. It appears to me that some of these projects are being delayed because of the large amount of money being spent on the St. John's project. At this time I am not going to go into any long description of specific points in my riding that need attention. However, I wish to take two particular areas as examples. I refer first to the strait of Belle Isle in the northern part of Newfoundland. I have written to the minister on a number of occasions not only about the area known as the strait of Belle Isle but also for every specific place in that area. Here these people are all fisher folk. I cannot see how they can manage to carry on their work unless the facilities which they cannot be expected to provide for themselves are provided for them. They are living in an area where rough seas are very common and it is impossible for these men to protect their boats unless they are hauled up in the evening and launched in the morning.
The hon. gentleman, being a small boat owner, will know exactly what I mean. I

Supply-Public Works
recognize that in the area in which he operates his boat the waters may be a little bit calmer than they are in the strait of Belle Isle, but I am sure he has some conception of what I am talking about. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the ability with which the hon. gentleman manoeuvers his boat, or should I call it prowess in this case, but I am sure he does it well enough to be able to understand the difficulty of a man in the northern part of Newfoundland who has to handle a big boat in stormy weather.
I also recognize, and I think the minister recognizes this too, that this is not an area where marine works can be built cheaply. In some places where marine works are urgently required it may be true that they will cost a little more than in the average place in Newfoundland. However, I cannot accept that as an argument against having these projects carried out.
In this section of Newfoundland we have one of the few places on the eastern seaboard of Canada where people make their living almost entirely from the fishery. Again I appeal to the minister to give consideration to the representations that have been made on behalf of these people who live and work in the straits of Belle Isle. While it may be true that some of the projects recommended would cost a considerable amount of money, I think the amount of money which might be spent on these projects is small when compared to the return the fishermen will get.
One of our problems in the fishing industry of Newfoundland is that we are not able to get our men working early enough in the year and we are not able to get them working late enough in the fall because they have no protection for their boats. I hope that in an effort to keep these men in their own occupation-one which means that no other type of employment will have to be found for them-this money will be spent. It will be money well spent, and again I describe it by saying that it would be well spent in providing for them those marine works which they could not be expected to provide for themselves.
Again I want to bring to the attention of the minister, as I have on a number of other occasions, the situation in the peninsula of Port au Port. Port au Port is a peninsula that juts out into the sea on the west coast of Newfoundland. It has over 25 small and large communities and exists on the outskirts of the large United States base at Harmon field. Over the last 20 years people from the Port au Port peninsula have been able to earn a living by doing construction work on this United States leased base. Obviously this construction work cannot continue, and as

construction begins to taper off some other alternative employment must be found for these people.
It seems to me that if alternative employment is to be found, it must be found by using the resources that exist in the area. In this particular area there is an ample supply of various types of fish, from the catching of which men could make a living. Here again the shore line is rather rugged. The cost of marine works will be higher than the average, but again I believe that if employment is to be found for these men, to a large extent it will have to be found in the fishing industry. However, these men will certainly be unable to carry out their work as fishermen unless they have the marine works that will provide all the protection and all the convenience they require.
I have had a good deal of conversation and correspondence with the minister concerning what he very affectionately refers to as the Irish town of Piccadilly. Another admirable site for marine construction would be Port au Port. I can also think of Ship Cove, Boswarlos and Mainland. These are places where there are large numbers of fishermen and yet there is no marine protection at all for their fishing boats.
I hope the minister will give some consideration to the needs of the people who live in the strait of Belle Isle and those people who live on the Port au Port peninsula. Last year and the year before I made some recommendations to the minister regarding a settlement on the St. Barbe coast known as Parson's Pond. Some dredging is needed at Parson's Pond. The minister has advised me that a certain amount of dredging will be done there this year.
I am very pleased to hear that and perhaps the minister will not mind if I just say this to him, knowing the situation as I do-and I know it from firsthand experience-and knowing, too, something about the sea.
I do not think that the work the minister intends having done this year will be sufficient to solve the actual problem. It may be that the minister has in mind doing this work and seeing what happens, and then perhaps completing the job another year. If this is all the department intends doing at Parson's Pond I would very respectfully suggest to the minister that a second look should be taken in regard to this matter.


David James Walker: We will do that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I think the dredging that is going to be done will be of some advantage, but whether or not that advantage will last very long is a matter which will have to be decided. I will be very pleased if the minister

goes ahead with what he has decided to do this year, but I think another look should be given to this problem of Parson's Pond.
Mr. Chairman, I know that all around the coast of Newfoundland there are various projects that need attention. I hope that when the minister makes his estimates next year the amount of money he will spend on projects outside the city of St. John's will be restored to the former amount.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 347 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes to say a few words which are frankly intended to be complimentary of the minister and his officials with respect to what has been the expenditure of a small amount of money which has achieved a great deal of good in the area in my constituency known as Lesser Slave lake, which is about 70 miles long. There is taken from this lake more fish than from any other part of the province of Alberta, about three million pounds a year, three quarters of which is coarse fish for feeding to mink, and the other quarter is commercial fish.
Thirty years ago there was a rickety pier built by the government of the day. It was destroyed and taken out by the ice. Since then for 30 years the fishermen-and there are some 80 or 90-go out in small, open boats across that lake. They have to do this without any form of harbour or wharf at all.
I have frequently travelled past there and seen, after a hard blow from the north, half a dozen of these boats cast up on the shore. Eventually I was able to dent the armour of the department about three years ago and they showed an interest in it. Finally the regional director came up, and just at that time the fishermen in a small community called Faust gave up the ghost and attempted-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot relate what he has said heretofore to the item under consideration. If the hon. member can relate it for me, he may carry on.


Gerald William Baldwin: Am I speaking on item 347?


An hon. Member:: You should be on 354.


David James Walker: The hon. member was just about to finish I think. Could he not finish?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This might well have reference to other parts of Canada as well. The regional director came up and saw that these fishermen had then started on their own to build a canal
Supply-Public Works
in the harbour. He was so taken with the fact that they had shown this initiative that he endorsed the plan which I had proposed. Since then the minister and officials of his department have devoted approximately $50,000 to this, as a result of which some 5,000 people have their means of making a livelihood greatly improved. This will be a matter of great interest to the people in that community and I am sure the minister and his officials should be commended upon what has been done.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Before item 347 carries, may I ask the minister one question? On page 475 we see the entry: items not required for 1961 and 1962, $1,125,500. Would the minister tell us what is included in those items not required for the present year?


David James Walker: It is a balancing item to complete the accounts for last year, a question of bookkeeping. We could table the particulars if the hon. member wishes us to do so.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
351. Quebec, $6,926,000.
Maurice Bourget: On this item, the report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1960 states that members of the branch made on-site surveys of various harbours. The report says that an interdepartmental group consisting of senior officials of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport continued to investigate major harbour requirements. I should like the minister to tell us what harbours have been investigated and, perhaps, to give us a brief report on each of the main harbours concerned.


David James Walker: Baie Comeau, Windsor, Sept lies, Cornwall, and Goderich.


Maurice Bourget: Has any final decision been taken on these reports? The minister has mentioned a few places. I should like to ask him if in the case, for instance, of Gros Cacouna, an investigation has been made of this particular project.


David James Walker: Yes it has.


Maurice Bourget: And are the conclusions favourable? Does the department intend to proceed with it?


David James Walker: This is a very complicated matter as the hon. member for Levis knows. No decision has been made as yet.


Maurice Bourget: The minister will recall that there was a delegation from Riviere du Loup. Following the visit of this delegation I asked

Supply-Public Works the minister, on May 3, I think, whether an answer had been given to the city of Riviere du Loup. Has an answer been given and, if so, what is contained in that answer?


David James Walker: An excellent delegation came from Riviere du Loup. Because of the complex nature of this project, which would be a large one, a model study has been begun at the national research council and is proceeding at the present time.


Mr. Keays:: I trust tempers will be restrained for a few minutes, as I should like to speak about a few projects on the Magdalen islands. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, our people are humble, but they still have the pioneer spirit. They wish to earn their own living without having to call too often on the government for means of subsistence.
On the Magdalen islands there are, as hon. members know, a number of fishing harbours. The present government has done a great deal of work which has enabled our fishermen to pursue their calling more efficiently. However, there are further harbours, unloading docks and facilities needed to enable them to take advantage of every day of the month and of every month of the year. In some instances we find 50 fishermen fishing out of one harbour while the following month there may be 100 fishermen fishing out of there. In these circumstances the facilities are not sufficient to accommodate them all. I trust the department will take into consideration the fact that this situation does exist and that further developments might well be undertaken.
I can assure the minister and his officials that what has been done is deeply appreciated by those people. I should like to mention a few places to which I believe consideration needs to be given, among them, Oyster Basin where the development of a harbour and not the establishment of a fish processing plant is desired. I understand the department requests that we should have an assurance from the department of fisheries of the province of Quebec that the province will consider moving its fish processing establishment to this area before the government will consider a further development there. However, (he problem there is not to give facilities for fish processing but to be able to harbour the boats which fish out of the area.
I was down in the riding recently and at Old Harry I saw fishermen having to pull their fishing boats over a sand bank between 50 yards and a 100 yards wide before they could get out into deep water. I assure the minister this is not what we expect our fishermen to have to do today. Therefore I suggest that at Old Harry the construction

of a slipway should be immediately undertaken. At Gros lie where the fishermen go in the fall of the year and where there are not sufficient fishing facilities, I would ask for an extension to the present wharf and breakwater. At Havre Maison, or Harbour House, where there are now three different harbour facilities I would recommend that one main harbour be built for the whole island. This would result in a lessening of the expense which the department now has to incur due to sand. Bryan island is the most prolific fishing area of the Magdalen islands although there are no inhabitants there. Since it is situated approximately 15 miles from the main island, many of our fishermen go there on Mondays and return on Friday nights. They are requesting an unloading facility there. Although the land which is owned by one of the co-operatives consists of a few acres I think there is sufficient land on this 600-acre island to be able to build the unloading facility and to give the residents of the Magdalen islands a most prolific area where they can go and earn a living.
At Etang du Nord the problem is very well known. Last year reconstruction of the breakwater was cancelled owing to the fact that the petitioners could not agree on the plan submitted. I trust that the department will undertake another plan immediately and thus be in a position to start this development as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
352. Ontario, $10,786,500.
Mr. Habel:: On this item I should like to ask the minister whether the amount of $50,000 in last year's estimates has been spent on the survey at Moosonee? Has the survey been made? Has the minister received a report on the survey?
Yesterday the hon. member for Timiska-ming mentioned the fact that many people have been playing politics with the Moosonee seaport. I am the last one who would want to play politics with this question. It is one which deserves consideration and a thorough study. It is a question which I myself have taken up with the division of the department having to do with harbours. I did this in 1956. I must say that in that year I happened to be in the offices of the department when a vote was taken. It was the only vote recorded during the special session of 1956 which took place at which I did not record my vote. As I say, I did not record it because I was in the office of the engineers discussing this very matter with a man from Montreal who at that time had a boat at Moosonee and could not get it out that fall. He was very much interested in the possibility of the development of a seaport at

Moosonee. We went over the whole matter. I received information with respect to the whole matter. As much as I am interested in the welfare and advancement of my riding, I want to be fair with the Department of Public Works. Even if the provincial government wishes to take the federal Department of Public Works for a ride I would not be a party to it. I would rather give the Department of Public Works the chance to study the feasibility and all the angles of the case for a seaport there. I would be the last one in fact to try to play politics with such an important project that may be very prominent some day. It should not be tackled in 24 hours and should not be dragged into politics.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Cochrane for these observations. I know that he would not play politics in this matter even though he is the whip of the opposition.
In reply to him may I say that the basic surveys have been completed and the information derived therefrom is being forwarded to the province of Ontario, as a matter of fact next week. From these surveys a feasibility study of the whole port project can be made. If there is anything further to report the next time we meet I shall be very happy to inform the hon. member.


William Arnold Peters: The minister made reference to the report of the survey. I presume this is the one in which the provincial and federal governments have co-operated?


David James Walker: Yes.


William Arnold Peters: I would appreciate it if it was made public.


David James Walker: It is survey data of a technical nature; it is not in the form of a report.


Mr. Garland:: Do I understand that this is technical data only and has no reference to economic feasibility?


David James Walker: My hon. friend from Nipissing is quite right; it is hydrographic.


William Arnold Peters: I presume it would include a survey of the problem that I suggested was evident to a number of the members concerned in relation to the upper Ottawa river watershed. Can any consideration be given to a survey of this nature by the department? Has any consideration been given in the past to a survey of that type?


David James Walker: Yes. I understand that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has a commission appointed to study that area.


John Richard Garland: My question is in respect of the Moosonee survey. I understand that no funds are provided. Although we have no
90205-6-411
Supply-Public Works
control over the matter and nothing is submitted by the province, can we conclude that no action is proposed this year other than a review of the study?


David James Walker: Nothing more. We have no further obligations at the present time. We have carried out our undertaking with the province. The $100,000 has been spent on this basic survey, of which we pay $50,000.


William Arnold Peters: One further question. Is the department anticipating any repairs to the harbour dock facilities at Haileybury this year?


David James Walker: Yes, I understand some small repairs are expected to be made this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
355. British Columbia and Yukon, $2,414,500.
Mr. Payne:: I have a few observations to make on this item. Probably they could more appropriately have been made on item 1 of the estimates. However, I thought it would be more co-operative to make them at this time. Generally, and before getting to specifics, I should like through the minister to congratulate Mr. Walkey, the chief engineer of harbours and rivers for the British Columbia and Yukon area, on a magnificent job of work done over the past several years. I should like to add to that the very profound thanks of thousands of people in the lower mainland for the splendid work he has done in connection with the planning committee of the port of Vancouver.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion this afternoon has been most interesting. I will also say to the minister it has been somewhat disturbing for we have listened for some time during the discussion of these estimates, particularly those on harbours and engineering, to some of our fellow colleagues from the province of Newfoundland sitting in the opposition. It does seem to me there is internal disagreement as to where the vast sum of money allotted to the province should go, whether it should go to the main harbour and port of St. Johns, or whether it should be more generally distributed.
I would say, against this background, and I do hope the minister will pay attention to this, it is indeed disturbing, while we are talking about the distribution of funds, to see amounts such as that allotted to Newfoundland. I say this not for the sake of being parochial in any way whatsoever. It is disturbing when we look at the vast coast lines of the province of British Columbia, including an island certainly in economic importance, in area, and in boat requirements greater than the province of Prince Edward Island, and see a sum of a little over $2
6518	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
million to supply the public works requirements, the boat shelters, the rock-filled breakwaters that are so urgently needed in so many areas of British Columbia.
I say quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that I look with some alarm at the general breakdown of these items under harbours and engineering services, and I would ask the minister to take a very careful look at this matter in future years and try to establish a balanced program based on the economic needs of various areas of Canada and making provision for the safety of the thousands of craft that are plying the waters off our shores.
I wish to thank the minister for certain splendid undertakings such as that going forward at Okeover arm and the Westview small boat harbour. I wish to discuss these briefly. They are of a somewhat different concept in the provision of shelter on the west coast. They are rock-filled shelters where small craft can go for a short period or for a longer moorage. I would very much wish the minister to take cognizance of the fact that, though these works have been done and are appreciated, much of the thanks should go to the people living along that coast. I consider, and I am sure the minister will agree, that they have co-operated in a most wholehearted way by allowing his department to dispose of various wharf facilities which no longer fit the economic and trading pattern formerly prevalent along the British Columbia coast. In other words, today motor connections and the ramp loading of cars have become a major factor and wharf facilities built on piles are becoming less and less important. In the case of these unnecessary works the people of the west coast have been most co-operative. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate gets up and catalogues the vast requirements of the people of his riding, leaving me to wonder what he did for them while he was a minister of the crown. In this case we have works going forward which have been contributed to in a major way by the people surrendering works of a nature not now required.
Quite aside from the commercial necessity, we have a requirement today for shelter for small craft. Today on a week end between 40,000 and 45,000 small craft ply the inner waters of the strait of Georgia and Malaspina strait, and only in very rare cases have we ever recognized our responsibility to provide shelter to which these thousands of craft can run in the event of a sudden squall. Unless steps are taken now, one of these days we are going to be faced with a tragedy.
I would ask the minister to think about this matter very seriously. I would point
fMr. Payne.]

out that the difficulty of proving the need for shelters along the long exposed coast line of the Sechelt peninsula is such that it is almost impossible to surmount. The historic requirements of the department are that first of all you must show economic need. This is certainly putting the cart before the horse. Nobody can make use of a shelter along that coast line unless shelter exists and it. is impossible to try to establish in a statistical way a situation that cannot develop until the much needed shelter is provided. Such statistics cannot be supplied to anyone until shelter is provided.
In a not too critical way, I hope, I say, as a British Columbian who feels a responsibility to those who ply the waters of the Pacific and the sheltered waters of our inland canals, that I believe that greater emphasis and attention must be placed on the needs of the west coast. Surely a great maritime province such as British Columbia with its apparent needs is justified in expecting an amount to be provided for such services far greater in ratio than that which is before us in the estimates this year.
My criticisms and my suggestions in this connection are not directed against the minister in his capacity as Minister of Public Works. This pattern is a historic one. The same recognition of the need of Canada's west coast has been shown by past ministers over many years. All I am asking today is that the matter be looked at closely and put in its proper perspective.
Before taking my seat, I should like to thank the department again for its continuing program with respect to the building of a sea wall around the historic area of Stanley park. I should also like to make one suggestion. Much of the harbour of Vancouver is taken up by what is known as the north shore area, which is the southern boundary of my beautiful riding. I would urge that some consideration be given to establishing a continuing program, as has been done in the case of Stanley park, whereby the approaches to Canada's western gateway may at long last have the sea wall which they so badly need.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few observations. First of all, I wish to refer to the surface of the wharf at Crawford Bay. The wharf is a rock-filled crib structure that cost around $30,000 and it is an excellent wharf. There is an earth covering over the rock fill and owing to large trucks using the wharf for the unloading of logs and so on the surface has been very much

cut up and has been somewhat neglected until recently. The minister's department is going to look into the matter and improve the surface at the first opportunity.
I suggest that the department investigate the possibility of providing an asphalt surface like that at the Kaslo wharf. It makes an excellent surface for these rock-filled, earth-topped wharves. I am not suggesting any large expenditure but I do ask the department, because of the requests of a number of residents, to look into that question. It makes an excellent launching ramp for small craft belonging to local people and for the many tourists who use the highway which passes nearby.
I want to say that the residents of Kootenay Bay are delighted to know that the department intends to build a launching ramp or proper launching facilities there because there is an increasing number of people coming from the United States particularly who will use these launching facilities and they will also serve the local people.
The people of Slocan city have requested for a couple years the consideration of the building of launching facilities there. I understand the policy of the department is that these launching facilities are provided where the major industry is catering to tourists. I would ask them to look into that question again because the number of tourists who stay in that small city is increasing every year. It is a historical place, an old mining community that was very much larger at one time than it is today. It was at one time the smallest city in North America having a population of about 272 persons in an area a mile square. It is in a most attractive spot at the south end of Slocan lake, with an excellent beach three quarters of a mile long fronting this small city, which of course attracts tourists there in increasing numbers.
I come to one other question, and I hope the minister does not think I am at all avaricious. I am just putting forward the views of my constituents. The Nakusp launch club, supported by the chamber of commerce and other organizations, asked the minister to give reconsideration to the necessity for a small breakwater behind which United States small craft can shelter. Last year, we had about 125 of these small craft come up. I just got word today of about 20 being there. Under storm conditions, it is very difficult for them to find satisfactory shelter. Some of these craft are too large to beach. Some of them are quite expensive cruisers, and are quite elaborate. They come from as far south as Portland, being portaged around the Grand Coulee dam and the Bonneville dam on huge trucks or lowboys, as 90205-6-4111
Supply-Public Works
I think the term is. Since the people of the United States have discovered this paradise in which we live, they are coming in increasing numbers.
I have a suggestion to make. I am under the impression, and I know something about the cost of piling and logs, that the department has, on occasion, possibly paid an unnecessarily high price for piling and logs required for the foundations for breakwaters and that sort ol thing. Since the war all the lumber companies have been very busy. These small orders have been somewhat of a nuisance to the larger operators. There would be possibly two or three people who would bid on these contracts for piling and logs under these circumstances and because the order is small and a particular effort is required to get these materials out, the prices have been somewhat high. I do suggest consideration be given to calling for tenders for these piles and logs that are required in the construction of wharves during the winter when there are many unemployed men with families who would be very pleased indeed to undertake this work at a reasonable cost. I make that as a suggestion in respect of this breakwater.
I am of the opinion that this is a very necessary breakwater because Nakusp is the main port on the Arrow lakes, in fact it is the capital of the Arrow lakes. These boats usually come up from as far south as Portland and stay there overnight before continuing their journey to Revelstoke. I have been rather astounded at the estimated cost of this work as given by the minister's officials. I know something about the construction of these facilities. I believe the high estimated cost is due to the cost of the raw materials. The piledrivers are there and the driving of the piles would not occupy more than a day. The other facilities needed for this kind of work are there, too. I suggest that with some co-operation with this launch club and the local organizations, this breakwater could be built at about half the cost of the estimate provided by the minister when the matter last received consideration. I just put forward that suggestion.
I want to say a word or two about Duncan river.


David James Walker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Kootenay West, but there was some suggestion that we might be able to get through some of these items by six o'clock. The hon. member for Kootenay West often drops in to see me. Could he outline the details of some of these projects to me during a private visit? I do not want to interfere in any way with the hon. member in presenting his comments, but it would

Supply-Public Works
be appreciated if we could get through some of these items. We have had three hard days so far.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am in a very co-operative mood. I was going to say a few words about Duncan river and the dredging of the Arrow lakes. However, I shall accept the minister's suggestion and call on him at the first opportunity that is convenient to him.


David James Walker: Thank you very much.


Frank Howard: I do want to underline, if I may, the remarks made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano with regard to the great need which exists for boat shelters. I expect this need is more prevalent in the lower coastal area because of the population than it is in some of the outlying regions. I spent almost a year travelling up and down the coast by small craft, and know from personal experience the need that exists for these breakwaters and shelters.
At this stage, I would not want to become involved in any difference of opinion which might arise between the hon. member for Coast-Capilano and some hon. members from Newfoundland about the relative importance of each coast or the different amounts of money that are assigned to each coast. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that on a number of occasions I have expressed similar thoughts with regard to fisheries and, on another occasion, with regard to the subsidies for shipping and transportation. I pointed out the disparity that exists between the two coasts.
Over the last two years there has been some work developing on the northern coast of the Queen Charlotte islands at Wiah point or Seven Mile point. Perhaps the minister could give us an account of this work, if he would. I am sure it would be very brief. Before the minister replies, I should point out for the benefit of the hon. member for Kootenay West who raised the question of the initial estimates of such projects, that the initial estimate of the Wiah point project was greatly in excess of what it actually cost to do the dredging and the breakwater work that was necessary. Some thoughts have been expressed to the effect that it is sometimes the policy of a minister who does not want to say no to a particular project and be accused of being unfair to one part of the country as compared with another, to take the initial estimated cost and double or treble it, then say it is far too costly to do that this year. I do not say this Minister of Public Works does that.
However, as I say, I have met this situation with regard to Wiah point. The initial estimates were far in excess of the actual cost. I am sure the minister of highways for

British Columbia sometimes does this overestimating in order to curtail argument and pressure from groups in the community in relation to proceeding with particular road projects. We have seen, on a couple of occasions, that the final cost was less than the initial estimated cost, which seems to be a bit difficult to understand.
I wonder, too, if the minister would give us an account of what is taking place with regard to the dredging of Metlakatla bar, just outside Prince Rupert. I have exchanged a lot of correspondence with the department. Once they said yes; at another stage they said no, then yes, and then the captain of the dredge was involved in the argument, too. The last information I received was to the effect there was going to be some dredging at Metlakatla bar. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of what is happening in connection with those two items.


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Skeena, I would say he is quite right. This work is being planned and I understand we hope to get it under way very shortly.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I just want to make a few brief comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I do not want to become embroiled in any argument as to the relative importance of the Vancouver coast and the Newfoundland coast. I do not know anything about the coast of British Columbia. I therefore do not propose to have anything at all to say about it. If there are needs on the British Columbia coast, I would think that those who are representing British Columbia here in the House of Commons will be well able to speak for the constituencies who sent them here. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that nobody will ever hear from me any complaints about any hon. member talking too long in order to place before parliament the needs of the area which he represents. I am just a little bit annoyed that anyone should take occasion to object to my representing the area from which I come. I do not know the length of the Vancouver coast or how many projects are required. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman has requirements and I have no doubt that he does a good job of placing those requirements before the minister. However, I should like to do exactly the same thing.
In my province we need a large number of marine works. I come from an island where the coast line is 6,000 miles long, and where along that coast line there are 1,200 small settlements; to that figure you will have to add another 3,000 miles for the coast line of Labrador. Surely on the coast line it is to be expected that there would be a

great need for marine construction. True it is that in the early thirties many of the marine works that were built along the coast of Newfoundland were destroyed and the government of the day was unable to replace them. However, coming into the mid 40's and well before Newfoundland came into confederation in 1949, a number of these marine works were replaced. From 1949 until the present government came into office a good deal was done to provide the needed marine works. Let us be fair about this matter. Since 1957, the present minister and his predecessor have done exactly the same thing. But because all this has been done I see no reason why there should be any objection to explaining to the minister what further things are required. The Newfoundlanders who sit in this House of Commons listen for days and days to members from western Canada talk about agricultural products, but you never here any complaint from Newfoundlanders, and I am certainly not going to complain. They have their case to place before parliament and they have a right to do so. I claim the right to do exactly the same thing. I may not talk about exactly the same problems that exist in British Columbia or the prairies. Maybe in the case of Newfoundland we are talking about fish; in the case of the prairies we are talking about wheat. However, they are all products of Canada. Let me say to some of the western members that you cannot live by bread alone.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 355 carry?


Frank Howard: Before it carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to relate to the minister a couple of following thoughts I have or rather thoughts following upon what I had originally said about the need for breakwaters and the like. I have had correspondence over this matter with the department and with the minister and have had discussions with them for some time. The department and the minister's officials have been kind enough to conduct in some instances, surveys and investigations of the requests and in others they have not yet quite reached that stage. However, I would point out that the north coastal area is to a great extent, at least on the coastal part, dependent upon the fishing industry. The north coastal part is not so well protected as is that area between the mainland and Vancouver island on the lower coastal part.
Throughout the entire Queen Charlotte islands and the entire north coastal area we are at the complete mercy of the Pacific winds and storms from the southeast in the fall and winter months and it gets extremely
Supply-Public Works
dangerous to go fishing on many occasions, with no shelter in sight. This Wiah Point that we mentioned earlier was a case in point of being the only possible place on the whole north coast of the Queen Charlotte islands that could be developed into some sort of haven for the fishing fleet that fish out of there. Some work was done and that is most helpful and most appreciated by the trawlers that work off the north island and Seven Mile, Masset inlet and the parts along the north coast of the Queen Charlotte islands.
In the middle of the Queen Charlotte islands, on Skidegate inlet there is another group of settlements containing a fairly large number of people who are fishermen with rather expensive boats. This is near Queen Charlotte city or Skidegate. There are a dock and two floats there, but generally the boats are at the complete mercy of any storms that blow up anywhere along the north coast. There is no shelter whatsoever and they are moored out in the bay and Skidegate inlet. The people have been complaining and asking for and insisting upon a breakwater to be established there-a rock filled breakwater-for many years now but so far no breakwater exists; and any time that a storm blows up or storm warnings are up those individuals who have boats out in the inlet have to get up, whether it is in the middle of the night, middle of the morning or any other time or off fishing days and row out to the boats, unmoor them and move away down the inlet in order to gain some protection from the winds that blow up there almost overnight in the fall and in the winter parts of the year.
This is an extremely important matter. I wish the minister would undertake to delve into this particular question of a breakwater at Skidegate. When he is doing this, I wish he would pay less attention to the question of cost as it relates to the number of people who might use it. The lives of individuals are involved as well as the value of their ships just as is the case at another community, namely Port Simpson just north of Prince Rupert. The minister's department made some investigations there. They came back with the answer that it would cost too much to provide the breakwater facilities; that there were not enough people here with boats of enough value that would get enough benefit out of the breakwater even if we were to put it in, but it cost too much anyhow. To look purely and simply at the dollars and cents end of it and to establish some arbitrary rule, if that is what is done, about whether or not a breakwater, a dock, or some other safety device of that nature is established I think is the wrong thing to do.

Supply-Public Works
Port Simpson, for instance is an Indian village and I think it will remain for some time at generally the present level of population and that the increase will come from an increase in the birth rate. It will remain for some period of time, I would think, in relatively the same economic position, with relatively the same number of boats and the same number of people operating them, with gradual increases arising out of population alone or perhaps intermarriage into the bands. To me this means that for a long period of time to come those people are going to be denied the right to safety and a safe mooring place behind a breakwater because it is considered to be uneconomic by the department.
I could mention a number of other places on the north coast that are in the same position. The minister I am sure has under consideration one that immediately comes to mind at Hartley Bay where a great need also exists for a breakwater. This is also an Indian village and it is also going to remain in relatively the same position economically and with respect to population for quite a number of years to come.
Without going into all of these other requirements and needs by name at this time, I just wanted to use these one or two instances in order to point out to the minister and I think in a number of cases, far too much consideration or almost exclusive consideration appears to have been given-or at least this is the feeling that the people in those communities have-to the question of cost and that the sole concern is dollars and cents related to the number of people who might be using that particular facility. When the lives of individuals are involved and when their investment in boats, fishing equipment and gear is involved, I think if this is the criterion the department uses, it is an incorrect one.
I wonder whether the minister would also say what is happening with respect to the requests of people at Oona River who wanted to participate jointly with the department in some work at that particular community by supplying labour and the like if the department would supply some additional equipment and money in order to establish facilities there. I would like the minister to give an account of what is happening there.
I was not able to be in the chamber earlier, unfortunately, and perhaps at that time the minister dealt with the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East yesterday, namely the situation at San Juan in which the minister had quite a bit of interest prior to the by-elections and indicated to the house, as I read his words, that all that was necessary was to elect the Conservative candidate for Esquimalt-Saanich and the breakwater

would be built overnight. If the minister has already dealt with that matter and it is on Hansard, perhaps he will let me know and I will find it. If he has not, perhaps he will deal with this particular point.


Mr. Broome:: Are those all the afterthoughts the hon. member has?


Frank Howard: I beg your pardon?


Ernest James Broome: The hon. member made one speech and then said, "I have some afterthoughts". I wondered whether he had any more afterthoughts.


Frank Howard: If my hon. friend invites me, I will be glad to accept the invitation. What I said was not that these were afterthoughts, but thoughts which I hoped to express after I received a reply from the minister on the question of Wiah point and Metlakatla bay. Also, I saw the hon. member for Humber-St. George's rising at the same time as myself and I thought perhaps he wanted to deal with the question of the relative treatment of the east and west coasts. I certainly did not want to take up all the time and prevent him having an opportunity of taking part in the debate.
I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs has accused me of doing this before, that is, preventing hon. members like my hon. friend from Vancouver South having a say in this house. That is a pretty sad situation. However, I may be able to follow the invitation of the hon. member after the minister has replied to the questions I have asked.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the Esquimalt-Saanich matter, I think my answer to the question in connection with the breakwater was very non-committal, because I gave no encouragement; I said the matter was being investigated by the engineers. If the hon. member for Skeena had been the minister of public works, does he think he would have given as non-committal an answer?
In regard to the other questions the hon. member has raised, I can give no information at the present time except to say that we are noting the remarks of the hon. member.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 355 carry?


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Chairman. I think this question of San Juan is one in which we should perhaps get involved a little more, because the minister with a smirk on his face the other day when questions were asked about this, obviously meant-and in fact almost said it-that he had been in touch with an individual who was the reeve of Saanich. When he was asked a question a couple of days later he qualified that and said this was the individual who would be the next member

of parliament representing the constituency of Esquimalt-Saanich; and he was.
This is what happened, and there is no doubt at all that the statements of the minister were used to advantage in that particular constituency. Perhaps anyone who had been in the same position would have used them in the same way. I think perhaps all candidates take advantage of using government information of this kind, if they can, in order to get a few votes. The unfortunate thing that develops out of this practice is that such projects and matters are purely and simply vote-getters and do not mean anything in so far as concrete action is concerned.
One would not want to see this particular request carried on year after year after year waiting for other elections and by-elections for the minister to consider it. I know how long these things carry on and how much delay takes place in giving them what is known as proper consideration. I know how many petitions have to be signed, letters written, requests made, resolutions passed and everything else before action is taken. Esquimalt-Saanich is not my constituency and I only raise this matter as an incidental in this discussion because I have asked questions about it before.
I have been in that part of the country. The hon. member for Vancouver East dealt with the subject last evening. Perhaps the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich at some time intends to ask the minister about this particular item or perhaps he has already done so. Perhaps the hon. member has been in touch with the minister and may want to deal with it further.
I suppose the minister has an excuse if this is not contained in the estimates now before us, because they were prepared long before the by-election was called. The minister has that excuse, perhaps, if he wants to use that sort of excuse. However, there are supplementary estimates which we will also be dealing with, and I notice it is not included in there either. I only want to say that I hope this is not one of those items which drags on and on and on, year after year continually being given consideration, with no action being taken.
This is what happens to requests for so many projects of a similar nature. I have mentioned a couple of them already. I have mentioned the one at Port Simpson and the one at Skidegate. The projects I have mentioned would be of great benefit to the people there, just the same as the projects mentioned by the hon. member from Coast-Capilano would be of benefit to the people of that area.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the minister a question. I know I am out of order, but I have not
Supply-Public Works
been in the chamber because of committee work. The minister may have answered this question earlier. It is in connection with the report of his officers and those of the Department of Transport about the facilities along the waterfront from Dorion to Oshawa. Are there any other recommendations apart from that covering the expenditure at Cornwall?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier asked some questions yesterday and the answers, as I have them seriatim, are as follows:
Dorion, Quebec. No steps are being taken to develop a major harbour at Dorion.
Cornwall, Ontario. Engineering investigations have been carried out under the advance planning program of the Department of Public Works to prepare an over-all plan with cost estimates for a harbour development to handle both bulk and package freight. Any development undertaken is to proceed in stages, with only a modest outlay in the first instance, with further stages to depend upon the growth traffic.
A single berth wharf, 400 feet long, providing for ships with a 21-foot draft, but expandable both as to depth and length of face, is to be constructed this fiscal year. Tenders are expected to be advertised next week.
Morrisburg, Ontario. There is not now sufficient basis to warrant a major deep water harbour development at this place. Morrisburg will rapidly increase in importance as a tourist centre and, consequently, there was a reasonable case for the provision of tourist wharfage facilities.
An L-shaped timber cribwork and span structure, 180 feet by 16 feet, is presently under construction. This wharf is nearing completion and the contract price was $22,280.
Prescott, Ontario:
(a)	A deep water facility is not warranted at Prescott;
(b)	There are the Johnston national harbours board deep water wharfage facilities on the west side of the elevator slip which can be utilized for general cargo, provided that a transit shed facility is installed;
(c)	The Department of Public Works has constructed such a transit shed about 60 by 200 feet on the national harbours board wharf, west of the elevator slip; this shed is being administered by the national harbours board.
The approximate cost of this shed was $58,000.
At Brockville, Ontario, no steps are being taken to construct deep water harbour facilities at Brockville until such time as there

Supply-Public Works
are firm indications of the volume and nature of traffic which would use the harbour.
At Oshawa, Ontario, a wharf structure, 500 feet long is to be constructed on the eastern side of the harbour to provide additional berthing. The cost of this construction will approach one half million dollars.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister. There was another question which I put, namely, why the construction work would not begin until the month of August, as stated in the local press.


David James Walker: The wharf site has been approved by the industrial committee, by the mayor, the town planner and other parties but the job has been delayed somewhat as the consultants' original plans required substantial revision. The plans and specifications are now ready and tenders will be advertised next week.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
357. Remedial works where damages are caused by, or endanger, navigation or federal government structures, $800,000.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I have asked the minister time and time again, and I ask him again today, what can we expect from the department by way of protection wharves. I have stated that before Mr. Winters became minister of public works successive ministers in both Conservative and Liberal governments had always recognized a certain responsibility for the provision of protection wharves along navigable rivers. When Mr. Winters took over it was decided that "navigable" should be construed as "navigated" and from that time ministers of public works have refused to accept responsibility along navigable rivers.
I have written to the minister stating my case. I have told him that while Ottawa was saying, "it is not our responsibility", Quebec was saying that it was the responsibility of Ottawa because damage was occurring along navigable rivers, not navigated rivers. For this reason I have from time to time asked the minister why the federal and the provincial authorities should not get together to decide exactly who is responsible in these cases. It is claimed that erosion by waters in the spring is an act of God. But we also suffer from the effects of erosion every Sunday because the numerous dams on the Gatineau and Ottawa rivers are opened Saturday. Then the water rises and it goes into the land affecting the land belonging to farmers along the river. They close again on Saturday night so that they can get water for power, and the water goes down. This certainly cannot be called an act of God. It is an act of man. We should like to know definitely who is responsible for these things.

The minister wrote me a letter two and a half pages long but I cannot accept it as clearing up the situation perfectly. The only way in which we could have a clear answer would be for the federal and provincial authorities to get together and accept the joint responsibility they might have, together with their individual responsibilities. I should like to hear from the minister whether or not he intends to submit the problem to the provincial authorities to see what can be done.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item
carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I should like to have an answer from the minister. I know that in the letter he sent me he does not admit he is obliged to. I understand that he is not forced to take action but if he wishes to clear up this matter this would be a way of doing so. The minister will have to do so one way or the other-either he or his successor. If this matter were cleared up we should know where to strike when we want to get something done. Farmers in a great many places in my riding along the Ottawa river have been affected including those at Gatineau Point, Templeton, Masson and Buckingham. They have been affected in all parts, and I know this situation exists not only along the Ottawa river and the Gatineau river but along many other rivers in Canada. The minister should give us the necessary answer so that we might know who is responsible and where we should strike if we need help in these matters.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item
carry?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not ready to let it carry in this way. I think the minister should at least give the committee an answer.


David James Walker: The answer is fully set out, with clarity and detail, in the long letter which took hours and hours of preparation so that the hon. member for Hull might be able to understand. There is no change in government policy. I had hoped the hon. member would understand the letter. If he does not, I shall be glad if he will come to my office and I will go over it point by point.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not ready to accept it that way. The minister seems to have made up his mind that the answer he gave was satisfactory. I know that the provincial authorities say it was not so. They claim this is the responsibility of the federal government. The federal government denies this. How can we get a clear-cut answer with regard to this matter? Either we shall have

to send cases to the supreme court in order to have a ruling or the two parties must get together to decide. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: The leader of the house indicated last night that today he would give us the order of business of the legislative program for Monday and Tuesday. I wonder if he would be good enough to do that and at the same time indicate what estimates will be taken up during the course of next week.


Mr. Churchill:: The legislative items for Monday and Tuesday are 10 in number. The order in which they will be considered is as follows: No. 1, a bill to amend the Criminal Code; No. 2, Bill No. C-109, with regard to the Financial Administration Act; No. 3, Bill No. S-28, with regard to the Trust Companies Act; No. 4, Bill No. S-29, with regard to the Loan Companies Act; No. 5, Bill No. S-24, with regard to the Government Property Traffic Act. No. 6 will be the resolution in my name, followed immediately by consideration in committee of the whole of Bill
17, 1961	6525
Business of the House
No. C-101, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act. No. 7 will be Bill No. C-108, concerning the Export Credits Insurance Act. No. 8 will be a bill to amend the Energy Board Act. It will appear on the order paper Monday morning; it is in Votes and Proceedings now. No. 9 will be a bill to amend the Railway Act; and No. 10, a resolution concerning the Pine Point railway.
This is the business available for Monday and Tuesday, followed on Tuesday night at 7.30 by the budget. Wednesday will be available for other legislation or estimates, I have not decided yet. It depends on the progress made on Monday and Tuesday on these legislative items. Thursday and Friday will be given over to the budget debate and Saturday will be devoted to estimates.
I think it is a little early to predict the estimates that may be taken up next week. We have now completed nine departments, we have dealt partially with four others. Two are in committee. Therefore there are not very many left but the house will have to determine how rapidly it would like to progress with the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
90205-6-412
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
329.	General administration including a grant of $2,000 to the Canadian good roads association, $10,667,720.
Public buildings construction and services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
330.	Newfoundland, $205,000.
331.	Nova Scotia, $1,425,000.
332.	Prince Edward Island, $45,000.
333.	New Brunswick, $1,070,000.
334.	Quebec, $4,680,000.
335.	Ottawa, $11,320,000.
336.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $6,332,000.
337.	Manitoba, $715,000.
338.	Saskatchewan, $1,554,000.
339.	Alberta, $1,312,000.
340.	British Columbia, $2,680,000.
341.	Yukon and Northwest Territories, $1,410,000.
342.	Outside Canada, $250,000.
343.	Improvements generally and miscellaneous buildings-not more than $25,000 to be expended on any one project without the approval of treasury board, $1,000,000.
344.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $44,794,200.
345.	Furniture and furnishings for government Departments, $2,943,808.
346.	Work in the interests of fire prevention including a grant of $5,000 to the Canadian joint fire prevention publicity committee, $202,780.
Harbours and rivers engineering services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
347.	Newfoundland, $6,593,500.
348.	Nova Scotia, $2,981,500.
349.	Prince Edward Island, $475,000.
350.	New Brunswick, $1,896,000.
351.	Quebec, $6,926,000.
352.	Ontario, $10,786,500.
353.	Manitoba and Saskatchewan, $130,000.
354.	Alberta and Northwest Territories, $292,000.
355.	British Columbia and Yukon, $2,414,500.
356.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $220,500.
Public buildings construction and services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects -further amounts required-
561.	Nova Scotia, $119,000.
562.	New Brunswick, $75,000.
563.	Quebec, $1.
564.	Ottawa, $1.
565.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $1.
566.	Saskatchewan, $1.
567.	Alberta, $175,000.
Harbours and rivers engineering services- Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates, including expenditures on works on other than federal property, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
568.	Newfoundland, $1.
569.	Nova Scotia, $320,000.
570.	Prince Edward Island, $181,000.
571.	New Brunswick, $1.
572.	Quebec, $1.
573.	Ontario, $1.
574.	British Columbia and Yukon, $1.
575.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $150,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 19, 1961

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on external affairs-Mr. White.