October 13, 1949

CCF

Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Thatcher:

Moose Jaw too.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

When anything is done foi Regina, Moose Jaw always comes in for c share.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
CCF

Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Thatcher:

Always?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Practically always.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

We always look after our suburbs.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

The fact is that the storage of water that would be provided by the construction of the south Saskatchewan dam would be nearer to Moose Jaw than it would be to Regina, and Buffalo Pound lake is nearer to Moose Jaw than Regina. Any work that is done in order to assist Regina will assist Moose Jaw. The water passes along the way and can be taken down to Moose Jaw without as much ditch being dug as is required for Regina.

The question that was asked by the hon. member for Regina City is whether there is sufficient money in the estimates, as they are now brought down, to take care of any work which might be necessary to take water out of the Saskatchewan river, pump it over the height of land, run it down into Buffalo Pound lake, and keep the level of that lake sufficiently high to make it possible for Regina and Moose Jaw to take water out of it over the period during which construction of the south Saskatchewan dam may be taking place. All I can say about that is that there is enough money in the estimates, but it is not definitely stated anywhere in the estimates, or in connection with them, that the money will be spent for that purpose. There is $2 million in the estimates to take care of anything that we may require to do touching upon the south Saskatchewan river project which will help to determine the question whether or not we should proceed with it. It is conceivable that money could be taken out of that vote in order to do this job.

The present position is that representatives from Regina came down here and asked us what we were prepared to do. Representatives of the Saskatchewan government also came with them. The representatives of the Saskatchewan government presented the case to us, which was to the effect that they thought we should spend all the money in order to provide for the taking of water to the city of Regina. We replied then exactly as I have replied to the house tonight. We said that it was not our responsibility, that it was the provincial government's responsibility, and asked them what they were prepared to do. In reply to that the city of Regina said that they were prepared to find one-third of the cost, and the representatives of the provincial government refused to say that they would find one-third of the cost. It was suggested to them, not by myself but by the minister concerned, that the government might give some consideration to the

Supply-Agriculture

proposal if they put forward a three-way proposition, but up until now such a proposition has not been made.

That is the present position of the whole project. There is sufficient money in the vote to take care of anything that might require to be done, provided it can be shown to be a part of the south Saskatchewan project-and I believe this might be shown to be. The government intimated that they were prepared to consider a proposition put to them by the city of Regina and the province combined. Up to now we have not had a proposition of that type.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
CCF

Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Thatcher:

Will the minister say

whether this estimate means that no actual construction work will be commenced this year on the south Saskatchewan irrigation project?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

I think that was the intimation given to the house when the estimate was first brought down, which was prior to the election. This is the same estimate as was brought down last spring.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
CCF

Wilbert Ross Thatcher

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Thaicher:

But you are not talking the same way.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Oh, yes, I am talking exactly the same way. Members of the committee and of the house asked the same questions then as are being asked now and tried to force the government to take the position that we were going to proceed with construction. We said that it was necessary to spend another $2 million before we could make a definite decision on the question whether we should proceed with construction. That $2 million is in this estimate. Up to now we have committed ourselves to an expenditure of $634,000 out of the $2 million, and we have a considerable number of months to run. In other words, we have spent a considerable part of the first six months' allotment from the vote down to the end of the six-month period.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

I should first like to correct a small item of geographic misinformation on the part of the minister a short time ago. The irrigation lake immediately to the east of Calgary, which the minister mentioned in reference to the highway passing it, is not McGregor lake but Chestermere lake. McGregor lake is considerably to the south of that. I hope that the minister will not produce a newspaper advertisement to prove to me that those two lakes had changed places.

I was glad to have the minister give us some information in connection with the St. Mary river dam and irrigation project. I should like to ask a few more questions about

Supply-Agriculture

it. He will remember when this matter was last before the house on his estimates we had a considerable discussion about the St. Mary river project. At that time it developed that the original contractors for the rock tunnels, and so forth, were in difficulty, and I believe the contract was taken away from them and given to somebody else. Will the minister tell us whether the rock tunnels have been completed, if the amount of $2,200,000 which we voted last year covers those rock tunnels, and if any portion of the $2,900,000 which we are now voting is for the purpose of those rock tunnels? If it is not for that, or a major portion of it, I wonder if he would tell us how much of that has been expended on the earth fill, the water gate construction and so forth, and also what stage of completion the St. Mary river dam has reached. Would he also tell us about the work which is going on at the present time and when the project is likely to be completed.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

The dam is 125 feet high now and it will be 190 feet when it is completed, which will be about a year from now?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

It will be completed about a year from now?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

We figure it can easily be completed by a year from now. The spillway, which I understand the hon. member has in mind, which has been decided upon, and which is somewhat of a change from the original plan-

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

Is that the one tunnel that is used?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Wait till I get through with the spillway; then I will deal with the tunnel. The proposal has been made that the spillway should be constructed by the contractor who is now on the job at the same unit rates as he gave in his contract in 1946. I think anyone will agree that rates established on a contract in 1946 would be comparatively low if applied to a contract now, and we are considering whether something should be done in respect to the present contractor. The concrete part of the structure is such that there were no unit prices in the original tender, and we shall be calling for tenders on that, whatever may be done with regard to the remainder.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

What do you mean by unit prices?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

So much per yard of earth, so much per yard of rock, and so on. First a tunnel had to be put through in order to take the water by the dam. Then a tunnel had to be put through to take the water from the dam down to where it is delivered into the ditch for irrigation purposes. These

tunnels were through a sort of sand rock in both cases. The diversion tunnel is not quite as long as the irrigation tunnel. It is true, as was stated, that tenders were called on both tunnels back in 1946. Three concerns tendered. At the time it was intimated to us by our engineers that the work could not be done at the unit prices of the lowest bidder.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
PC

Douglas Scott Harkness

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Harkness:

That was Bennett and

White?

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Gardiner:

Yes. We called in the contractors and explained to them that this was our information, but they said they could put in the tunnels at the prices they had quoted. We had our advisory engineer from the United States, General Ferguson, who has had great experience with dams of this kind, come up and look over the project. He saw Bennett and White and gave it as his opinion that he doubted whether the work could be done at the prices they were quoting. They still insisted that they could do it at those prices. We told them that this was the first project of the kind we were undertaking, and we said, "We cannot go ahead accepting bids on a basis on which, according to the best engineers, the work cannot foe done, and then later find ourselves in the position of having to raise the price above the bid of the second bidder or even perhaps above that of the highest bidder. We cannot get into that position". In spite of that they said they were prepared to go ahead, and they did so. Their costs ran higher than the figure quoted by the second bidder, and I think even higher than those of the highest bidder. After some discussion they asked for further payments. We called attention to the discussions that had taken place in the beginning, and finally it was agreed that it would be better for them to quit their contract on completion of their first tunnel and allow the job to be carried on by someone else. The work has been given on a cost plus basis to the second bidder.

Topic:   FISH INSPECTION ACT
Subtopic:   FISH AND FISH CONTAINERS
Sub-subtopic:   EXPORT AND IMPORT REGULATIONS
Permalink

October 13, 1949