Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, with respect to an article which appeared in Le Devoir of September 12, 1950, under the byline of Mr. Pierre Laporte. It is very seldom that I take exception to anything said by Le Devoir because this newspaper's opinions are well known and also because I concede its right to express them. However, I am concerned here with something that is more than an opinion. I refer to an article entitled:

Are we to return to the era of Mr. King's lies? Mr. St. Laurent has deceived us about Korea-5,000 men who turn out to be 15,000.

The article is written in the same key as its title. It pays me the compliment of stating that when I became leader of the government it was felt that I was a man who was not afraid of the truth and who would dare to speak his mind even though his personal popularity might be affected. That is quite true. I admit that I have never anticipated any great personal popularity with the staff of Le Devoir. This does not mean that I do not value my reputation for not being afraid to speak the truth. The statement that I have deceived either Le Devoir or the public is absolutely false.

This matter arose over the difference that is claimed to exist between what we had stated would be the strength of the brigade to be sent to Korea, when ready, if that should be the place where it would serve most usefully, and the limit of 15,000 men mentioned in the order in council which was tabled the other day.

Here is what was said. I have stated several times, and stated again yesterday, what the position is with regard to the government's plans in this matter. Those plans have been set forth frankly to the public and to the house and if at any time there is need to make any substantial change or addition, the government will reach a decision and announce it to the house without having the slightest fear of the truth or of comments

from Le Devoir. We shall make our decisions if we consider it in the interest of the Canadian nation to do so. We shall do so openly and we shall expose ourselves openly to their shafts and criticism. As to the limit of 15,000 men mentioned in the order in council, here is why that limit has been set. It has been stated that the number of men in the special brigade is to be approximately 5,300 but that at the same time we shall train a number of men to be used as reinforcements should events make them necessary.

Up to now, we have enlisted for this brigade a little over 9,000 men. Moreover, as the house has been told, some 1,000 troops from the permanent forces of the Canadian army were added, such troops to fulfil duties for which new recruits are not qualified. This involves some 10,000 men. We have a contingent of the Canadian navy comprising not quite one thousand men whom it will be necessary, from time to time, to replace by others when events may require shifts or changes in the personnel on the destroyers on active service there. There is also a contingent of a little less than 1,000 men from the air force on air transport duty. In order to be able to maintain these three contingents at peak efficiency we have set a limit of 15,000.

Should it ever become necessary to go further than the three groups about which we have given full particulars to the nation, we shall give the additional information to the public and, when we have reached a decision, we shall make it known and we shall not shrink from any truths in connection with what we may consider to be in the interest of the Canadian nation.

(Text):

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has referred to me a series of questions which were put to him on September 6 last by the hon. member for Lethbridge, as reported in Hansard at page 335. I have prepared a statement containing the answers to questions 1 to 9 inclusive. The information required to answer the remaining questions

National Defence-Housing is available only from the province. If the house wishes to give unanimous consent I shall be pleased to table the statement; it might save the time of hon. members.

Agreed.

Mr. Blackmore:

Would it not be preferable to have the minister put the answers on Hansard instead of tabling them?

Mr. Winters:

That was the intention; the statement has been tabled.

Mr. Speaker:

I think the hon. member for Lethbridge would prefer that the answers should appear on Hansard rather than be tabled. If that is correct and if it is the wish

of the house I would ask to have the answers appear in Hansard.

Agreed.

Mr. Winters:

The statement follows:

On September 6 the hon. member for Lethbridge asked several questions of the Minister of National Defence respecting the Sea Island housing project and the Maritime Construction Company Limited. The Sea Island project was a part of the 1949 married quarters construction program of the Department of National Defence, and the contract for the construction of these houses was therefore arranged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

This project has not been satisfactory. I feel it might be better for me to give the house a brief review of the circumstances of this project, rather than make individual answers to each of the questions asked. Some of the questions asked by the hon. member dealt with the corporate nature of the Maritime Construction Company Limited, and the information to answer these questions is not available from government records.

On the 25th of June, 1949, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advertised a tender call for the construction of 35 houses at Sea Island. Tenders were received as

follows:

Maritime Construction Company Ltd $191,465.00

The Housemart Ltd 193,777.84

Dick and Perkins Construction Company.. 204,493.64 Pyke and White Construction Company .. 207,455.00

Allen Burgess 221,435.00

Stolberg Construction Ltd 230,678.45

Marpole Construction Company Ltd 244,338.00

The tender of Maritime Construction Company Limited was the lowest received. Knowing of no reason why this company should not prove a satisfactory contractor, a contract was awarded to the Maritime Construction Company Limited on the 19th July. The standard form of contract used in these cases does not specify a completion date. At the time a contract is awarded, construction offi-

cials of the corporation meet with the contractor and plan a schedule of progress which is satisfactory to both parties. The schedule for the Sea Island project anticipated that the houses would be completed late in the spring of 1950. The contractor reported the houses as being finished in April of this year, but when officials of the corporation inspected these houses, they were not satisfied that the quality of construction was as called for by the contract and the specifications. The corporation therefore would not accept the houses from the contractor. The contractor refused to remedy the deficiencies and could not be persuaded to return to work on the job. These houses were urgently required by the Department of National Defence and, as the contractor would not return to the job under the original contract, the corporation considered it necessary to take steps to have the houses completed. Accordingly the corporation advised the contractor that he was considered to be in default and that other arrangements were being made to remedy the deficiencies in construction. A construction crew, organized on a day labour basis and working directly under the supervision of corporation construction officials, has been engaged in putting these houses in satisfactory shape, and I expect that they will be turned over to the Department of National Defence by the end of this week.

The contractor is presently requesting that an extra payment of some $42,000 be made to him, because he was unable to do the work for the amount of his tender, and because extra costs were involved not contemplated when the job was let. We have suggested that the contractor file a statement of claim for extras which may be accepted, but as yet this statement has not been received. It is not the intention of the corporation to make any adjustment in the basic contract price, and any further payment to the contractor vyill be limited to extras which can be recognized plus or minus the difference between the hold-back and the amount required to complete the units.

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege I should like to refer to two newspaper accounts of what took place yesterday morning at a conference between representatives of the civil service, on the one hand, and the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) and myself, on the other. The two reports to which I refer appeared yesterday afternoon in the Ottawa

Questions

Evening Citizen and the Journal respectively. The reports differ materially as to what I said, and I should like to say that the account in the Citizen is much more nearly correct than that in the Journal.

Perhaps I should inform the house briefty that I covered three main points in my reply to the civil service brief. First, I said that conditions had changed sufficiently during the past six or eight months to justify the government in requesting the civil service commission and the treasury board staff immediately to review the whole question of general salary levels in the civil service which have remained unchanged since October, 1948. Second, I said that any action by the government on the recommendations of the civil service commission would have to await the provision of additional funds by parliament. And third, I said that we should have to review, concurrently with the salary question, matters relating to efficiency, productivity, hours, and size of staffs.

I made it very clear that any decisions by the government would be made in the light of civil service commission recommendations, and, in particular, I expressed no views, directly or indirectly, on the subject of retroactive increases.

I might say that the report by the Canadian Press in the Montreal and other papers was correct.

1. Is there a ferry boat operating between Cross Point, Quebec and Campbellton, New Brunswick?

2. If so, who are the owners or shareholders thereof?

3. Was the contract awarded after tender or otherwise, and to whom?

4. On what date does it expire?

5. Were any amounts paid by the government by way of grants or otherwise in connection with construction of the said boat? If so, in what amount?