Honourable George J. Ferguson: In answer to the honourable member’s quest- ion, Mr. Speaker, it was voluntary, it was never requested.

Walter R. Shaw: That was just to keep the Department informed of what he was presenting.

Honourable George J. Ferguson: That is correct, Sir.

L. George Dewar: 0h he presented the report to Ottawa himself. Both depart- ments received a copy of the same report.

Walter R. Shaw: Yes, that’s right, just for information.

Honourable George J. Ferguson: The government has received acknowledg- ment of the letter that this Government has forwarded that the report was now being studied as to whether or not any changes in the plans were warranted. I might ment- ion that since we sent this letter that an engineer by the name of Jerry Williams, De- Ipartment of Public Works, Ottawa, held a meeting, what I am quoting from, by the way is The Heavy Construction News. This federal engineer responsible for the guid- ing. “The construction of the Northumberland Strait crossing to a successful conclusion last week faced the severest critics of the design. Fellow engineers met the fairly mild fireworks head on emerging practically unscathed. G. B. Williams, senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Works Department, was guest speaker at a dinner meeting of the Montreal branch of the Engineering Institute, and the controversy surrounding his topic, “The Road, The Railroad between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Islan ’ produced the largest audience to date for the E.I.C. Group. Because of his direct and open approach to the subject Williams left most of the audience reasonably convinced that the Department of Public Works had indeed accomplished a first-class '0b of navigation in threading its way through the tricky political and economic shoa s and under-currents surrounding the inter~provincial project, as much a hazard and as real as the choppy and ice clogged winter waters of the Strait. Mr. Williams prefaced his description of the estimate of $158,000,000.00 scheme by noting that he found it unusual for a s aker to have a critique already published if what he was about to say. He was re erring to the critical assessment of the design repared by the Mon- treal consultant, 0. J. McCullough. The D.P.W. Engineering 0 cials dealt with virt- ually every point of criticism and various details and degrees of detail. He noted that almost every outside suggestion received on the design had been considered by the D.P.W. and its consultants and either utilized or reiected. He implied that the McCul- lough Re rt and its concept recommending a sold level causeway incorporating a shipping ane had been given the same thorough investigation. Correspondence tabled in the House of Commons last week by Public Minister Geo McIlraith reveals that they told Mr. McCullough that the Department of Fisheries ve also carried out studies on the effect of a solid Causeway and they advised that the stocks of salmon, lobster, oysters and clams might be adversely affected. Previous studies indicated that most of the crossing would have adverse effects on fisheries and would be eliminated by adoption of a crossing incorporating a bridge section or other opening that allows relatively free flow of water. Later correspondence notes that the causeway crest elevation does not entirely eliminate the possibility that ice floes may be driven u the slope of the causeway and come to rest on the top of the causeway. Such ice threat constitutes the main attack by Mr. McCulloug ."

Mr. Speaker, at this time if you don't mind, I would like to move the adjourn- ment of the Debate.

( Applause) .

—-207—