1901-03-08

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 48) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 49) to incorporate the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the Canadian Mutual Aid Society.-Mr. Sutherland (Essex).
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Clergue Iron and Nickel Steel Company of Canada. -Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 52) respecting the Vancouver and Lulu Island Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Manitoba and North-west Loan Company, Limited.-Mr. Britton.
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Fort Qu'Appelle Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the Arnprior and Pontiac Railway Company.-(Mr. Le-mieux.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) presented a Message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the Message, as follows :-
Minto :
Gentlemen of the House of Commons :
I thank you for the dutiful Address which you have adopted in reply to the Speech with which I opened the session of parliament. I accept with gratitude your assurances that all measures submitted to you will receive your earnest consideration.
Government House,
Ottawa, 7th March, 1901.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, would the right lion, gentleman give us an idea as to the probable date when the government measures will be introduced ? I think it was announced about a week ago that several government measures were still to be introduced.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think all the measures which I mentioned the other day have been introduced. The only measure Mr. SCOTT.
yet to be introduced is the Act' concerning the mint.



SUPPLY-THE CONTRACT WITH THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["There is the expenditure on Port Colborne harbour.\nAt six o'clock, the Committee took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that on the motion that this House resolve itself into Committee of Supply on Tuesday next, I will move the following resolution in amendment :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, the government should take such steps that may be open to it under the law to obtain authoritative interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada of the meaning of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in relation to the exemption of lands from taxation; and
That the patenting of lands earned by railroad companies should be proceeded with all practicable speed.



Mr. AULAY MORRISON (New Westminster).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, there is a matter to which I beg to call the attention of the government, and particularly the attention of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). It is in reference to the bounties on iron and steel as contained in the statutes of 1896, 1897 and 1899. The Bounty Act of 1897 provides for a bounty on steel ingots, puddled iron bars, and pig iron manufactured in Canada, specifying the amounts per ton which the producers of steel may be entitled to. That Act was amended in 1S99, and the statute sets out, with considerable detail, the extent of the bounty which may be earned by those producing iron and manufacturing steel in the Dominion of Canada. A few days ago the press of the country contained the prospectus of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, of Sydney, Cape Breton, over the signature of Mr. Moxham, the general manager of that vast industry, and among the attractions specified in that prospectus I find the following ;


GOVERNMENT BOUNTY.
[Stage Direction]
If the production from the company's works be as estimated, 300,000 tons of pig metal and 60.000 tons of steel blooms in 1901, and thereafter 400,000 tons of iron and steel per annum, made from foreign (Newfoundland) ore, the bounties to be received from the Canadian government will be as follows ;-
1901		 $ 870,000
1902		 2,075,000
1903		 1,850,000
1904		 1,450,000
1905		 1,000,000
1906		 625,000
1907		 225,000
[Stage Direction]
In tlie seven years the bounties to be paid by the government of Canada to the Dominion Iron and Steel Company would amount in the aggregate to $8,095,000. It may not be fair for me to surmise, that taking into consideration the vast resources at the disposal of this company, and the tremendous increase in the iron trade probable in the next few years, that that bounty is likely to be double the amount indicated here. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we were confined to paying bounties even to this one company, in my opinion, the matter would be sufficiently serious, but I find that the Cramp Ontario Steel Company have also issued a prospectus, in which they give us an idea of their expectations with respect to this great industry.
They also are in a position to earn and will earn a very large bounty. Then there are other large industries In the Dominion, all of which come under this Act. What I wish to draw the attention of the government to is this, that the Dominion of Canada stands to pay out a very large amount of money in the way of bounties, and I would like to know whether it is too late for the government to take such steps as may, While not invading any vested rights, at the same time prevent further vested interests growing up under the Act. There is no doubt that the principle of granting bounties to industries under certain conditions is a proper one, and one which has been adopted by governments in all civilized countries in the world ; but at the same time it strikes me that in these cases there may be an invasion of that principle. For instance, we find by the prospectus of the Dominion Iron and Steel Co. that they have a capital of some $23,000,000, and they have on their directorate some of the leading financial people of Canada, the United States and Great Britain-men of whom in no sense can it be said that they are financially in dire need of any assistance in respect to any industry or concern to which they may attach themselves. At this juncture-and it is not too early-I think the government should take into their serious consideration this question of the bounty on iron and steel. It may be that the volume of business generated, and the amount of money expended in and about these industries may be commensurate with the amount of bounty the people of this Dominion are obliged to pay to these companies. It is not my intention, in directing the attention of the government to this matter, to advocate the invasion of any vested right that may have been established by this Act. Doubtless the Act was passed with a view to helping the struggling industries of this country ; but I do not think anybody would characterize the Dominion Iron and Steel Co. or the Ontario Cramp Steel Co. as struggling industries that would require such a large amount of tiie money of the taxpayers of Canada
to be given to them in order to earn their dividends.
I would like very much if the government would give us some assurance that the proper interests of the people will be safeguarded in this respect. I think it is a matter of very great importance, and one that interests every taxpayer in the Dominion. The amount of money which will be paid in bounties must be very large ; in the seven years it might amount to anywhere from $25,000,000 to $50,000,000. I am not an alarmist, but taking the statements of these companies themselves, and the tremendous output which is likely to attend the successful operation of their works, there is every indication that the amount of the bounty will at any rate exceed $15,000,000 within the seven years.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. IV. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, I should not care to give a definite answer to the statement which forms the main point of my hon. friend's question, that is to say, whether or not parliament might properly place any restrictions upon the amount which would become payable under these bounty Acts. The matter has already received some consideration, and 1 am not disposed to give any answer to-day which would tie the hands of the government as to their future course. Of course, there is one thing we must clearly understand, that though how far there may be vested rights is a debatable question, yet in so far as we may agree that there are any vested rights arising under these Acts, those vested rights must he respected. There have been on the statute-books of Canada for many years Acts respecting bounties on iron and steel, and in those Acts there has never been any limitation as to the quantity on which a bounty would be paid. In fact, I think the great difficulty hitherto has been that the Acts were not effective in producing a large development of the iron and steel iudustry. I am afraid that the inference might almost be drawn from my hon. friend's remarks, although he might object to it, that if this industry had jogged along in the old way and only made small demands on the treasury, it would be all right ; but inasmuch as is has got out of the old rut and has developed on a large scale, it is all wrong. I should not like to accept that conclusion. I think, perhaps, there is a tendency on the part of the promoter of a company, when issuing his prospectus, to put his best foot forward ; and if he has any government advantages, he is not likely to underestimate them. Therefore, I should not be very much alarmed at the statements of a very rose-coloured character made in the prospectus of any company organized under this bounty system. Still, it is well to point out that the only matter of difference between us on the two sides of the House as respects this Bounty Act was that while we were will-

ing to pay $2 a ton to this Cape Breton corporation on the iron it might produce, my hon. friend who was at that time the leader of the opposition, was quite willing to pay $3 a ton, because he thought we should treat the iron ore of the colony of Newfoundland just the same as we treat the iron ore of the Dominion itself. On that view there would be paid on all the iron produced in Cape Breton from Newfoundland ore the full bounty, whereas in reality we shall properly treat it as a foreign ore entitled to receive only the minimum bounty. I do not, however, feel very much alarmed over the matter, even if we should be called upon to pay a very large sum under this system. We may perhaps agree that if the industry was worth encouraging at all, it was worth being made successful, and on a large scale. One thing is certain, iron and steel cannot be produced in such enormous quantities, either in Cape Breton or in other parts of the Dominion, without there being an enormous development of the business of the country, from which the Dominion in one form or other will receive a very large return. There is that comfort to us in the first place. There is the further comfort that even if this system should result in the payment of large sums of money, that payment will speedily come to an end, because at the very time we provided the scale of bounties, we stated that it was regarded by us as of vital importance that the bounties should be gradually reduced by the terms of the Act itself ; so that after a term of five years, beginning on the 1st of July next, the bounties will cease to exist. If, therefore, for a short time we should be called upon to pay even a large sum for the development of these industries, we would have the comfort of knowing in the meantime that as a result of that experiment there must grow up a vast amount of business in the Dominion which would not probably have grown up except for that development; and that if the bounty should be large, it can only continue for five years, when it will be wiped off the statute-book. And if at the end of that period we should find ourselves with a tremendous development of the iron and steel industry-and my hon. friend knows that it will be not only in Cape Breton, but also in the province of Ontario, where great works are projected-and if that result should be achieved at considerable cost to the public treasury, I am not sure that we would regret it; for we would have established throughout the Dominion great industries which would undoubtedly have a tremendous effect in developing the prosperity of the whole 'country.


Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) When the hon. member for Westminster rose to draw attention to the bounty system, I was in hopes, ill'. Speaker, that instead of finding fault, he was going to urge the necessity I Mr. FIELDING.
for an extension of that system, especially in the province of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman is an old resident of that province, and knows its immense resources. He knows that the people of British Columbia look forward to a not far distant day when we shall have iron works started there ourselves, and he must know that it is impossible to get such works started without a bounty. I do not understand why he should have so much anxiety concerning the large amount Canada may have to pay. As the hon. Finance Minister has pointed out, whenever an amount is paid for bounty, there is considerably more added to the wealth of Canada, as on every ton of iron manufactured a large sum of money is paid out in wages and material. I have in my hand a newspaper clipping, giving a report of the convention of the Boards of Trade of British Columbia held at Greenwood. One of the resolutions passed is the following :
Whereas, there is at present no lead refining, works in the Dominion of Canada, and the initial cost of establishing such a plant is very great, it is the opinion of this association that the Dominion government should encourage the establishment of such a plant by a grant for a term of years of a bounty of $5 per ton upon ail lead of Canadian origin smelted and refined in Canada.
That is one of the resolutions passed by the associated boards of trade at its annual convention, and it shows the feelings of the business men of that province. With that resolution X am heartily in accord, and I am sorry to see an hon. gentleman get up and endeavour to lead this House to believe that the people he represents are not in favour of the bounty system, but are in favour of its being carefully watched at least, if not entirely done away with. Let me say that even if millions be expended in bounties, we would get an ample return for our expenditure from the work done in the smelters. In British Columbia, the business interests are not only asking for a bounty on lead refining, but are looking forward to government assistance to the ship building industry in Vancouver and Victoria. In fact, we hope soon to see the day when the Pacific coast will be the great manufacturing section of the Dominion.


Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: 
Mr. CHARLTON.: I would like to ask the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) whether we are to understand that he opposes the policy of granting a bounty for the manufacture of iron in Canada ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have always professed to be one of the most ardent protectionists in this country, and have always advocated a bounty for the protection of pig iron and steel, so that my position is different from that of lion, gentlemen opposite in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee.
Ottawa Military Buildings, Ont.-New store	 $25,000
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: This work is under contract. It is the new store on Cartier square, just behind the drill shed. The cost is $50,14o.
Public Works-Chargeable to Capital-Harbours and Rivers, Quebec-River St. Lawrence ship channel	 $419,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This sum of money is asked to continue the work which has been going on for several years-for many years I might say -in the St. Lawrence. The depth of the water in the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal was supposed to be 27* feet. But. in 1895, and also in 1897, the water fell. In 1895, during three days of the month of November, the water fell so low that the depth was only 25 feet 10 inches. It was then found necessary to adopt a new basis. When I took office, I may say, the department was not equipped. In 1888 the late government had taken from the harbour commissioners both the work on the channel and their equipment-their plant. Before I took office, my predecessor had built one new dredge, the Laval. Since then, we have built the Laurier, the Lady Aberdeen, and the Lady Minto, and we have another dredge in course of construction, which will be completed by the
first of June. Of these four dredges, two are steel dredges. Perhaps I may be permitted to say, to the honour of our Canadian workingmen, that these four dredges last built, are, as I claim, the best dredges of their kind in America. That may be saying a good deal, but I am quite sure that I am correct in making that statement. We are now dredging the channel to a width of 450 feet, and a depth practically of 30 feet. During the last season, which is practically the first during which the work was carried on, we dredged to the depth of 30 feet, a distance of a little more than ten miles. The intention of the department is to dredge to the width and depth I have named the whole channel, so that about fifty miles remains to be dredged. Within the last fortnight, I have signed a contract with the Poison Iron Works for the construction of a suction dredge, which will have a capacity of between 30,000 and 40,000 yards a day. It seems almost incredible that a dredge could do such a quantity of work. I have seen one of these dredges myself ; in fact, the decision to build this dredge is the result of a trip I made with the deputy minister_ to New York to inspect machines of this kind. We expect to be able to complete the work of deepening and widening the channel within the next season. It may be that we shall be deceived by a few months ; but, if there is no accident, I fully anticipate that the whole work of deepening and widening the St. Lawrence in the way I have just pointed out, will be completed in the next season.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: What is the length '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About sixty miles-that is fifty miles to Cap a la Roche, and ten miles already done.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: On that point, could the bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) give the quantities on the work already done, and on the work yet to be done ?	.


Tne MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think I have that information here. I would not bind myself to exact figures, but I am told by the chief engineer that the quantity in Lake St. Peter alone is 90,000,000 cubic yards.


Mr. CLARKE.: What is the capacity of the dredges now working ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The capacity of the best dredges that are now working-and working night and day- would vary between 7,000 and 8,000 cubic yards a day. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) knows very well that the capacity of a dredge depends a good deal upon the material in which it works. If you strike a boulder or a difficult spot the dredge,

powerful as it may be, cannot do the same amount of work as In soft material. In Lake St. Peter the work is in soft material, and we expect to do that work with the new suction dredge, which is to be completed by the middle of August. I may say in passing that four of the dredges that I have at work now are equipped with electric light so that they are capable of working during the night as well as by day. We intend to equip with electric light the new dredges that are now being built.
Several questions have been raised as to the work now going on. Of course, the main object of deepening and widening the St. Lawrence is to enable the largest ships to come up to Montreal. The Montreal business men have no ambition to monopolize the trade of this country, but Montreal is so located that unless the trade from the west is brought down there, it is certain, I am very much afraid, to go to American ports. Two and two make four, and cannot make five. Now, between the port of Buffalo and the Port of New York the distance by rail is 445 miles. The New York Central have made their road between these two points just as level as the floor of this Chamber. So fine is that road that they are able to attach between 75 and 100 cars to a single locomotive, and draw that immense load to their terminus in the city of New York.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What has that got to do with our canals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will try to show you what it has got to do. Now, the grain comes, as we all know, from the American and Canadian west to Canadian ports. Trade has no law, it goes where it pays best. From Port Colborne to Montreal by water is 375 miles. When the works at Port Colborne are completed we will have a harbour there, which we have not to-day. It is almost incredible that we have no harbour there yet, and how can we expect to have trade ? There is Buffalo on [DOT]one side, with a magnificent harbour, with a breakwater, with about sixty elevators, a port fully equipped, giving a depth of 22 feet; while on our side we have no harbour accommodation whatever. How can trade flowr through our Welland canal to Montreal when big ships cannot load and unload, when big ships cannot enter at Port Colborne to-day ? It is out of the question for shipping to anchor there, the harbour is solid rock. The works at Port Colborne will be completed for the accommodation of trade within a short time, my department has awarded a contract for the erection of a breakwater, and the Minister of Railways and Canals is going on with the works for the canal itself ; and when we have proper accommodation there, the big carriers of grain that now go to Buffalo, and must go there because they cannot go anywhere else, will then be able to come to our Canadian


Mr. TARTE.: ports to load and unload, and transhipment will take place at Port Colborne.
Whether we have 14 feet of water-I have every reason to believe that we have 14 feet-but whether we have that or only 13 feet, or 131 feet, we are certainly in a better position than our American friends with their Erie canal. Then, our Canadian system of canals, with its terminal at Montreal, will be a competitor with the American railways. I do not take the Erie canal into account at all. To-day it is little more than a small ditch, if I may say so without offence it is out of date, and cannot in any respect compete with the great system of American railways, nor with the great system of Canadian canals. On the one hand we have Port Colborne and the Welland canal, 375 miles from Montreal.
On the other hand we have the Parry Sound Railway. The government has, so far, not done much to help the enterprising gentleman who has completed, at his own expense and at his own risk, the Parry Sound Railway. I have asked for tenders for the erection of a breakwater which will enable Mr. Booth, or anybody else, to erect elevators if they wish. When that elevator is completed and when Mr. Booth has completed his work, Parry Sound will be a first-class port. During the past season the Parry Sound Railway has been the principal carrier of grain to Montreal, by the aid of the St. Lawrence route. Unfortunately, that rail-way system has not yet reached the city of Montreal independently. To-day Mr. Booth is obliged to tranship his grain at Coteau Landing and take it in barges to the port of Montreal. In spite of that difficulty, Mr. Booth has been able to carry grain at a profit to the city of Montreal, though not a large profit. Why is he able to do this ? Because he is able to get the western trade. Not many people believed, two or three years ago, that the Parry Sound Railway would be a competitor with the American railways in getting a return trade, but it has done so. You would be surprised to learn, Mr. Chairman, the amount of return trade that Mr. Booth has been able to capture between New Tork and Chicago. And so the Parry Sound system is another feeder to the port of Montreal and to the St. Lawrence route.
A good deal has been said lately of the project of improving the French river. I have read speeches-I have no right, I suppose, to refer to them here-referring to that scheme. I wish the House would give its close attention to that project. The question whether the Canadian Pacific Railway will carry the trade going to North Bay will not prevent anybody from giving that scheme his favourable consideration. From the mouth of the French river on the Georgian Bay to North Bay is 50 miles.
I make bold to say that with the expenditure of about $2,000,000-1 cannot bind myself to any figure, of course, but I have rea-

son to believe that with an expenditure of $2,000,000, that waterway between North Bay by the French river to Georgian Bay, can be made 20 feet deep.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is $2,000,000 on fifty miles.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I have known works shorter than tliar which have cost more money. The Welland canal has cost us $25,000,000, I think. But I am not speaking of a canal, I am only speaking of improving the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much nearer to Montreal are you when you are at North Bay than at Parry Sound ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was going to say that when we have deepened that waterway to North Bay, it will be 330 miles to the port of Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By railway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By railway.


John Graham Haggart: Before leaving that subject, give us the size of the locks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not yet reached that subject, some of my officers are making a survey to-day, .and I am speaking of the project on broad lines. I have no plans made, I have not been authorized by my colleagues to go on with the work. I am addressing myself to the House and to the country, and speaking of a project that rises, 1 am sure, above party politics. The question is whether the St. Lawrence route will handle our Northwest trade and the American trade that we are able to get ; in other words, speaking from the standpoint of the St. Lawrence route, it is a question whether we are ' to be or not to be.' We cannot lose much more time.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: If the hon. minister will allow me to interrupt him


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: He has just recently remarked that he has not the authority of his colleagues to make these statements here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I did not say that.


Samuel Hughes: Do I understand that the hon. minister has the authority of his colleagues to make these statements ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say anything of the kind. What I did say was this : My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) was asking me what was the length of the locks. I told him that I had not reached that point, that I had not been authorized by my colleagues to go on with
that work at all. I am now speaking of the St. Lawrence route on broad lines.


Samuel Hughes: Are we to take the hon. minister as merely airing some of his own private opinions, or is he following the principle of responsibility by speaking witli the authority of the government ? Are we to hold the government responsible for the utterances of the hon. gentleman here to-day ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my colleagues will be very glad to say that they are responsible for what 1 say, when I say that the distance is 330 miles between North Bay and Montreal. I am just speaking of the possibilities of the St. Lawrence route.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. minister if he will assume the responsibility of telling us what the distance by rail is from Parry Harbour to Coteau Landing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The length of the Booth system, or of the Parry Sound Railway, between Parry Sound and Montreal, is 384 miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the distance from Port Colborne to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From Port Colborne to Montreal by water the distance is 375 miles. I may be mistaken by half a mile, but in the main figures I am right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the hon. minister tell us the distance from Midland to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot really say. Of Midland I can only remark that a large part of the trade which flows through there is not carried to Montreal, but is carried to Portland. If I had any way of making the Grand Trunk Railway take their trade to Montreal, I would certainly do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They handled 11,000,000 bushels last season.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know it, but, unfortunately, nearly all of that trade went to Portland.


Mr. BENNETT.: The hon. minister must not give Midland a black eye. The Grand Trunk Railway Midland system carried within a million bushels as much as the Booth system.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not to Montreal. I do not call it a crime. Money knows no law. The Grand Trunk Railway have located at Portland, and the harbour facilities at Montreal are so inadequate that I could not blame them too much for having done so. I deeply regret that they have located themselves in Portland, but the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway have a right to


Joseph Israël Tarte: 
Mr. BELL (Pictou).: How much additional do you require ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. minister the figures as to the tonnage of freight that has been moved westward by the Booth railway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have you any idea as to the quantity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only trade point I investigated was as to the grain trade.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That freight is coming east.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I will be very glad indeed to bring down that information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the minister was speaking, I understood him to refer to the gratifying fact that the Booth road was able to obtain a quantity of the traffic moving westward toward Chicago. If the hon. minister could tell us the tonnage of that traffic it would be very interesting information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I had the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. Booth a few days ago, and he told me that he had handled a very large amount of return freight, and that if he had been able to get accommodation he would have been in a position to make contracts for double the quantity.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Accommodation where ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He did not tell me how much it was, but I will be glad to ask him.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where was the accommodation lacking ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course he lacks accommodation in Montreal, and he wants more accommodation at

Parry Sound. Mr. Booth has built a large elevator at the latter place, and I suppose he has spent nearly a million dollars of his money there.


John Graham Haggart: What is the cost per yard of this excavation at Montreal ? When you dredge it out, do the prisms remain perfect or does it require a dredge all the time to keep it open.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have only a couple of places, and these not important, at which we are obliged to dredge occasionally. Lake St. Peter was dredged fifteen years ago, and it will be a pleasure for the House to know that the middle of the channel is deeper to-day than it was then. The St. Lawrence does not fill in. We had a little accident a couple of years ago at one point, where there had been some little filling in of sand, but not of much importance. As to the cost of dredging it varies, but I think I may say that the suction dredge we have contracted for will be able to dredge at about half a cent a yard.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Half a cent a yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, yes. The cost of dredging with our last improved dredges varies from 3 cents, 5 cents, 6 cents, to 7 cents. Of course some of the dredges cost more, for when you strike a boulder it may take a day to get it out, but with our improved dredges the cost has been reduced very greatly indeed.


John Graham Haggart: This information confirms the statements I made last year in the House as to the cost of dredging. I drew the attention of the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) to the cost of dredging at Liverpool and New York, and today the Minister of Public Works tells us that he can do dredging in the St. Lawrence at a less rate than 1 cent per cubic yard.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In soft material.


John Graham Haggart: Oh. yes, I understand that. I congratuate the minister on getting the improved style of suction dredge which has been adopted in European countries and in the United States, and it is the dredge above all others that we ought to have had long ago in the St. Lawrence. Y'ou have no harbour accommodation at Montreal suitable for the western trade, even if you do open up the St. Lawrence route. I understand from Mr. Booth and others interested in the trade, that the amount of grain deposited in Montreal is limited to the accommodation. I had hoped from the statement of the minister, made some three or four years ago, when his plan for better accommodation at Montreal was adopted, that the work would be carried out by this time, and I am sorry to say that because of force of circumstances,
or deficiency in the treasury, or through being overpowered by his colleagues in the government, he has been unable to carry out what he promised. The minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte), has given us his obiter dicta without tlie authority of the rest of his colleagues, as to his intentions with regard to deepening the French river from the Georgian Bay to Lake Nipissing, and I congratulate him on entertaining this idea. Not only would it accommodate the trade of the west, but it will open up facilities for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Of course we must not say anything about that because if it favours a railway some people say it is an incubus on the country, but we all know that anything by which the trade of that railway will be developed at the port of Montreal will be for the benefit of the community at large. There is another point to which I wish to refer briefly. I believe that the building of the Georgian Bay canal will be in the interest of Montreal, and in the interest of all Canada, and that canal must be built in the future. The minister speaks about a twenty foot navigation, which is the navigation of Lake Superior and the upper lakes, and there is no necessity for having more than that on the mitre sills of the locks. But, let there be plenty of breadth and plenty of length in the locks, and then steamers of almost any burden can proceed to Montreal, because with twenty feet in depth you can build steamers broad enough and long enough to carry seven or eight thousand tons. These steamers could carry coal from the maritime provinces to the upper lakes and return with cargoes of grain. I predict that some day the Georgian Bay canal will be built. I agree with the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that if not a single boat passed down the St. Lawrence canals, and if we got no direct benefit from them, yet the people of this country would receive a return for the seventy-five million dollars expended on the canals by the very fact of their being there and the influence they have in reducing freight rates generally. I trust the minister will be able to make a harbour at Port Colborne. His present proposition does not contemplate a harbour, but rather the construction of a couple of piers for the purpose of constructing elevators. If you try to make that a harbour I am afraid you will have to make an expenditure largely in excess of the amount that has been stated, for I believe it will cost three or four million dollars. And what benefit is it to the country ? It is to enable vessels of twenty-two feet draft to tranship at Port Colborne for the purpose of their freight being taken down the River St. Lawrence.
If they went fifteen miles further they could go to the port of Buffalo, tranship there, and come down the St. Lawrence as well as from Port Colborne. You will never make a port at Port Colborne that will at all


Hon. Mr. DOBELL.: I did not state that that was on a cargo going from Montreal. I stated that it was on vessels leaving a point on the St. Lawrence further down- a place called Bic. I stated that on four ships going down the river 14 and 15 guineas per cent insurance had been asked, and by taking no risk we got it done for 10 shillings. That was in November.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very gratifying to find that on questions affecting our national security, men of both political parties generally agree. This

question of the St. Lawrence route is above party politics, and I will always be only too glad to receive suggestions from my bon. friends opposite, as well as my friends on this side. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is quite right in urging me to have the port of Montreal properly equipped. I admit that it is not equipped as it should have been long ago. But this country is large, the requirements of Canada have exacted from us the expenditure of vast sums of money, and we have not been able to do everything at once. Now, however, the hour has come when this question must be solved. The harbour commissioners are carrying out very great improvements in the port of Montreal. Large docks and basins are being erected. One of the docks is completed, another will be finished in a few months, and the third in a year or so. These are high level wharfs, upon which permanent structures can be erected.


John Graham Haggart: We want something more.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know that these works are only the beginning. The government is building a wharf in the eastern portion of the city- that unfortunate eastern portion, against which so much has been said, but which should have been equipped long ago. I know that we have not the requisite facilities. Any one who has travelled over the world with his two eyes open knows that we are nowhere in the port of Montreal, but there are so many people who have not travelled as much as they should, and I am very much afraid that some of our Montreal friends belong to that class. I am happy to say, however, that there is a great improvement in this respect in that city. The young generation is asserting itself, and my hon. friends will agree with me that the ships now coming to that port have improved in size, capacity and in carrying power, but we must have something more.
The insurance question has been dealt with by my hon. friend in a way upon which I could not improve. The Lloyds, 1 am sorry to say, have taken us by the throat. When they say that they have incurred terrible losses, they always forget to give us the number of years during which these losses have occurred. Ten or fifteen years ago the St. Lawrence route was much more dangerous than it is to-day, and this remark may be applied to the statement made to the House a day or two ago by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike). I asked him how many years the losses he gave covered, and he answered me that they covered a period of eleven years. I make' bold to say that during the last three or four years there were fewer accidents in the St. Lawrence than ever before. In point of fact, 38
the St. Lawrence is in a better condition than it has ever been. I have had built testing scows and implements, and twice a year the whole length of the St. Lawrence is swept and tested, so that the shipping community may be completely assured that there are no obstacles in the channel. Nearly the whole channel has been scraped, and the curves have been straightened and obstacles removed, and during the last four years we have done most useful and profitable work.
I must take exception to what my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has said about the work at Port Colborne. I hope that he is mistaken in his view. I have given a good deal of attention to that port. I have been there myself several times to try and understand the position better. I have asked for tenders for a breakwater from the Point on a length of 5,700 feet, and have received a tender from Hogan & McDonald, for the sum of $395,000. When that breakwater is built, any vessel drawing 20 feet of water will be able to take shelter behind it.


John Graham Haggart: Are they building the breakwater and deepening the harbour besides ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, they deepen a part of the harbour so that they may use the dredged material to fill the cribwork. The area to be dredged first will be small, but I may say without hesitation, that with a pretty small sum !t would be possible to have sufficient area to give shelter to ships. When that breakwater is built, and when the works going on under the direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals are completed, the largest carriers on the lakes will be able to load and unload in that port. Would it be sufficient, from a national standpoint, to rely on the port of Buffalo ? Is it not clearly better that the ships carrying the trade of the St. Lawrence route should go to a Canadian port and unload there ? My hon. friend is afraid that we will be obliged to incur a large expenditure. But if, with a moderate sum, we can make ourselves independent, that will be a great deal better for us than relying on the port of Buffalo. In all these commercial and national questions, our motto should be ' Canada first.' We must be independent of anybody, we must make ourselves at home in Montreal, on the lakes and in our winter ports. We should give the best possible attention to these matters, and make Canada an independent nation from a commercial standpoint. You do not know what may happen tomorrow. You do not know what Congress may decide to-morrow. Why. a few weeks ago, the Bo^rd of Trade of New York wanted to boycott Montreal and even Portland. and I suspect that the last move of the Grand Trunk Railway in settling itself in Portland was. to a large extent, dictated by American influence. Well, Sir, I say it is



our duty, tlie duty of both sides of the House, to make this country at home in *these large national questions.


Mr. CALVIN.: I had not intended to say anything at all in this matter, but as the hon. minister has invited an expression of opinion by members on both sides, I shall say a few words. While I do not wish to find fault with the spending of money in deepening Port Colborne harbour-for I think it is necessary that the harbour should be iu such a shape as to be lit to receive large vessels with a deep draught-yet, I do think that what money is spent on Port Colborne harbour should be spent with a view to having, later on, a Welland canal large enough to receive the largest class of vessels. The navigation of the great lakes is a different style of navigation from that of the River St. Lawrence. The River St. Lawrence from Kingston, or, if you prefer it, from Prescott, down, is practically a canal, that is, it is a canal with stretches of river which are the same as canals in not calling for such a staunch style of vessels as are necessary on the lakes. Practically the great lakes are small seas, and the style of craft necessary there is one that would be practically safe upon the ocean itself. From Duluth, or from Chicago, to the beginning of the St. Lawrence proper, that is, to the foot of Lake Ontario, is a chain of lake navigation. That is broken at the Welland canal now. The hon. minister should not lay out his work with the intention of having what we may call the small Welland canal-that is, a canal of a size which will accommodate the present modern size of boat. I desire to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that from Port Colborne to Kingston and from Port Dalhousie to Kingston, the navigation calls for the same style of vessel, so far as seaworthiness and style of navigation are concerned, so far as the class of officer and seamen are concerned, as is required on the upper lakes. Therefore, it is not wise for the hon. minister to proceed as though the Welland canal were to be made part of a chain of river navigation, because after the Welland canal is passed and Lake Ontario is entered, there is a stretch of lake navigation before the river navigation begins. As I sny, tbe navigation of the river does not call for so staunch a style of vessel or so expensive a crew. Take, for instance, the present style of craft now navigating the St. Lawrence-with a capacity of 25,000 or 30,000 bushels and costing $8,000 or $9,000 when new, pin flats, as they are called, which carry most cheaply. Of course, if you can carry your grain iu a craft that does not cost more than thirty or forty cents a bushel to build, you have an advantage over a style of vessel that costs twice as much, such vessels as are necessary for the navigation of the lakes. The point I seek to make is that there are Mr. TARTE.
two great chains of navigation, the lake chain to the foot of Lake Ontario, and then the river chain from the foot of Lake Ontario to Montreal. The object of tbe government should he to make each chain complete. As the hon. minister has asked for suggestions, I would suggest also that the tolls might be taken off the Welland canal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are the tolls ?


Hiram Augustus Calvin: They amounted last year to something over $100,00O, which Is a small amount of money compared with the interest on the expenditure represented in the canal. These tolls are a direct hindrance to trade. Take the tolls on coal, for example. The toll-rate on coal on the Welland canal is twenty cents a ton. Why, coal has been carried from Buffalo to Chicago or Buffalo to Duluth, for 25 cents a ton ; so you can see what a barrier this toll of 10 cents a ton must be, and bow it will restrict the carrying of merchandise through our canal system. The result has been that tbe carriage of coal through the Welland canal has been cut down to about half to what it was two or three years ago. So far as canals are concerned, we meet the Americans at two points, once at the Soo, where both our canal and the American canal are free, and again at Port Colborne, where we have a canal with tolls, while the Americans have a canal on which no tolls are charged. Our trade is handicapped to that extent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I only wish to say a very little on this subject. It seems to me that the question resolves itself into two points, and what I regard as the important things in giving us control of the transportation of our own country are something like the following : First, we should make the channel between Montreal and Quebec what it ought to he as regards depth, and we should have it well lighted. The hon. minister is directing his attention towards that end at the present time, and I feel satisfied that both sides of the House will support him in that policy. Any reasonable expenditure looking towards that end will be in the right direction, and will he in the interests of Canadian shipping and of Canada. Following that, it seems to me, means should be devised to reduce the cost of insurance. For that is the next large item interfering with the trade by the St. Lawrence. It appears to me, from what has been written of late on tbe subject, that the government might well join some insurance company in sharing the risk or guaranteeing a portion of the risk for some years to come, at least until a business is built up by an insurance company, and we can be independent of outside insurance companies. In the meantime, to ascertain what risks are incurred, we ought to have better data than we have with regard to the losses that have

taken place (luring the last few years on that route. Surely we have the facts somewhere in connection with our returns of shipping or of trade and navigation in this country. We ought to have these facts and so be able to estimate what it would cost to insure trade by this route, and then join some company, or else the government become the insurers themselves. It must seem to most people that the insurance paid *on this route at the present time is out of all proportion to the dangers incurred in carrying on the shipping by the St. Lawrence route. Then, I think, improvement ought to go on in the harbour of Montreal, because, it seems evident, from what the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) tells us, it is very much out of date. The hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is causing expenditure to be made with the object of improving our equipment in this respect. Whether that expenditure is as rapid as it ought to be or not, I am not prepared to say ; but at least, I think, we ought to exercise greater enterprise in trying to bring it to a successful conclusion than we are doing at the present time. We should have improved means of handling freight; the time spent by vessels in coming in and going out, in loading and unloading, should be made as short as possible. These matters might well engage the attention of the minister, because the inconveniences that now exist may be the means of driving vessels that hitherto have sought the St. Lawrence route to go to Boston or other ports for their trade. These improvements seem to be of the greatest need at the present time, and I think co-ordinate with them we might well improve the waterways above Montreal, leading to that port. The minister says he is directing his energies towards that end at the present time. and I think he is entitled to credit so far as he is doing so upon intelligent lines. But I must confess that I have felt for some time past that the proposed expenditure, especially at Port Colborne, is not likely to bring the return which the minister expects or desires, and that perhaps the same amount of money might be spent in other directions that would bring a better return. The ex-Minister of Railways stated that when Buffalo affords facilities for vessels going fifteen miles further and transhipping, it is very doubtful whether the improvements the minister is making at Port Colborne are likely to be a sufficient inducement to make vessels go there and unload instead of going to Buffalo, if they desire to tranship there and go on down to the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Port Colborne and the Canadian system of canals will be competitors of the Buffalo route. If we were to place ourselves in the hands of our opponents, how could we fight against them ?
38}


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit there is a serious obstacle to be overcome, and one which is worthy of consideration. We practically handicap ourselves to a certain extent for that trade. If we could provide facilities for transhipment at Port Colborne by way of docks, elevators and depth of water, no doubt we would be acting largely in the right direction ; but whether that would accomplish the end we have in view must be for the future to determine. But I say that our own waterways might be improved very well at the same time.
Now, there seems to be a serious contention between people in this country as to whether we have or have not fourteen feat of water above Montreal. Many shippers say we have not. I believe some are afraid to risk a trial. Others say we have. I see that the Montreal Witness says that we have not, and I presume they would scarcely write a hap-hazard without some definite knowledge on that subject. They contended last year that we had not. It is claimed by others we have such a depth. But if we have not, the sooner we have the better, and the more urgently we should direct oar endeavours towards securing that end in the interest of shipping.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What would the hon. gentleman suggest ought to be done that has not been done in order to assure owners of vessels of the existence of this fourteen foot channel ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there ought to be soundings along the whole channel where there is supposed to be a less depth.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does not the hon. gentleman know that there is no portion of the channel that has not been sounded, no portion that has not been swept from one entrance to the other with the most improved appliances for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may add that in some respects rivers are under the care of the Public Works Department, and I made up my mind last year to understand the whole question, and for that purpose I ordered a survey to be made. At this moment a survey is going on between Kingston and Prescott. A survey will be completed in the course of next year, not only of the channel but of the whole river ; so we will be perfectly sure of the depth, not only of the channel but of the whole volume of the river. So far as I am concerned, I have consulted with many shippers in Montreal, and they are all convinced that we have a fourteen foot channel. The Minister of Railways and Canals stated that clearly the other evening. What other means we could take, I do not see.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. gentleman has given us information himself of what they are doing, and he is doing just what I was going to suggest, that is, making soundings and then publishing charts of the soundings, so as to settle the question to the satisfaction of those who are interested in navigation. I am not contending that we have not that depth, but so long as there is uncertainty in the public mind it deters shippers from running the risk. Now, when that is done, I trust the Minister of Public Works will direct his attention towards improving the upper lake harbours. I am glad to say that he is doing it. I have no fault to find, nor do I wish to be understood as finding fault with what he has done, because I am only suggesting what should be done in this connection. But after all, it is claimed by some that we cannot get trade through our ports and down our canals. I may mention here that we are sometimes at a loss on this side of the House whether to look to the Minister of Railways and Canals or to the Minister of Public Works, because sometimes it seems that the Minister of Public Works is usurping the functions of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and vice versa. But so long as they are working in the same direction, it is all right.
But after that is all done, it seems to me that we might go further and do something more to induce shipping to come through our own channels and down to our own ports. Looking up the history of shipping in other countries some years ago-1 am speaking with an indistinct recollection, and may not be accurate-I found that some countries have determined to give a bounty on shipping going through their own ports and down their own channels. It seems to me we might do something in that direction. We have our own ports and our own lake vessels. It seems to me we might give a bounty upon all vessels that will carry produce, say from the port of Montreal instead of from the port of Boston, or that will carry produce from the port of Halifax, or the port of St. John, or the port of Quebec, instead of from American ports. We might give all shippers landing goods at those ports some rebate upon their cargoes, so that - vessel-owners might get some consideration for landing in our ports. It is not necessary to make it a large one, but frequently a small bounty would be a sufficient inducement to make vessel-owners land their cargoes in a Canadian port. I think this point is worthy of consideration on the part of the government. Let them look into the question carefully, and see if something could not be done in that direction. We might give a consideration to the vessels of our own country larger than we would give to the vessels belonging to a foreign country ; but give some consideration to foreign vessels as well, if they will land cargoes in our own ports and take Mr. TARTE.
cargoes from our own ports to foreign countries. Let us give a consideration to the trade that is carried through our own channels, and through our own ports in contradistinction to the trade that goes to and from the ports of a foreign country. The government might look up what other countries have been doing in this respect, because what others have done we may do


Samuel Hughes: I was very much interested in seeing the Minister of Public Works take the stand he has taken this afternoon in his purpose of opening up, not only the routes from the west to Montreal, but the routes from Montreal to the sea. I may say that in any scheme which has merits he will have my cordial endorsa-tion, so long as it is opening up Canadian routes to trade. I was a little surprised, however, at the proposition made by the hon. Minister of Public Works in relation to a canal twenty feet deep to North Bay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not a canal; simply improving the river.


Samuel Hughes: I know, but the hon. minister will have to construct locks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister gave no intimation that he purposed continuing that waterway to Montreal down the Ottawa river, but he gave the distance as 304 miles from Montreal to North Bay. It is eighty miles from North Bay to the Georgian Bay, it is ninety miles from that to the Spanish river, it is only 151 miles from the mouth of the Spanish river to North Bay, and at the mouth of the Spanish river on the north shore of the Georgian Bay there is a most excellent port at the present time. The Canadian Pacific Railway is in there to-day, and that being the case, why spend $3,000,000, or $4,000,000, in order to construct a twenty-foot waterway from the Georgian Bay up to North Bay when it would be of no use except for a few months in the year 1 If the hon. minister has a project to continue the canal up to Lake Nipissing, thence to Mattawa, then down the Ottawa to Montreal, if he can find a sufficient water supply, then, being in favour of canals myself, he will have my hearty endorsation. The Canadian Pacific Railway at present runs from Montreal to the mouth of the Spanish river on the route of the Sault Ste. Marie Railway, the distance being 515 miles. It would be an easy matter for these large ships from Chicago, Fort William and the west to bring grain from any of these ports, tranship it to the Canadian Pacific Railway at Spanish river and send it thence to Montreal. There is another matter that I wish to mention to the hon. minister. Navigators on the St. Lawrence claim that not only is the navigation of the

river very imperfect and very difficult, but that it can only be utilized between Quebec and Montreal during the day time, and that even below Quebec very great improvements are necessary in the way of buoying.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I can assure the hon. Minister of Public Works that anything in his scheme that proposes to develop the St. Lawrence route will have my hearty endorsation.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Public Works, under the appropriations in 1900-1, asked for $433,000, and this year he asked for $419,000. By a reference to the Auditor General's Report of last year it would seem that the bulk of the expenditure of $433,000, authorized last year, or so much of it as was made was expended something after this form : At the town, or city, I do not know which, of Sorel, it would seem that the government had established large workshops, and that at these workshops there is in the employ of the government, and at day's labour, a perfect army of men. I do not believe it is in keeping with the principles of government that any one minister should spend such a large sum as $90,000 a year for day's labour in the construction of dredges and tugs and other Parts of the apparatus, because, I understood the hon. minister to say that some dredges were constructed at that place last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it a business deal on the part of any government to come down and ask parliament to vote moneys, and I presume he will appropriate this large amount, equally as much, to the same purpose in the coming year, upwards of $100,000, or more, for the construction of dredges, tugs or whatever he may desire. And. mark you, these are not to be constructed by public tender and contract, but the hon. minister is to go out among his party friends and ask them to send in their party friends and they are to construct these tugs. It is not fair to the city of Toronto, and I hope ray hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will be heard from on that point, where they have shipbuilding yards that they are not to be given an opportunity of tendering for the construction of these dredges. Why should the minister have the right and the privilege and why should his colleagues assent to the proposition that he should have placed at his disposal upwards of $100,000 for the construction of dredges and other craft ? It is a preposterous proposition, and if we are to have dredges build for this country there should be the open principle of public tender, and instead of the minister taking $90,000 as he did last year, and I
presume he will take an equally large sum this year, or perhaps a larger sum to construct dredges, he should put the work up to public competition. It is startling that the hon. minister has such amounts of money as this at his disposal. Contrast this with other departments of the government, with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for instance I know, that, in my riding, when that department wished to place out buoys, they openly called for tenders for the placing of these buoys. The work is ground down to the last cent. The competition is keen and the result is that this work is done at almost starvation prices. Take the Post Office Department; in Ontario, and I believe in the other provinces of the Dominion, there is the wholesome principle of tender, and tlie result is that people are carrying the mails at comparatively trilling prices. But, the hon. Minister of Public Works takes another ground altogether. He said last year :	I
want parliament to give me $400,000 with the right to spend $90,000 in constructing different kinds of craft, and it is fair to assume that he is going to take a larger amount this year for the same purpose. If he is not going to construct craft of the same kind, then, I presume, the amount should be cut lower, but, before the committee passes this item it will ask what the hon. minister proposes to do with this huge amount of $419,000. Is it in line with the policy of this government that they are going to assent to the proposition that the hon. Minister of Public Works is to have upwards of $100,000 to construct tugs, and dredges ? And, how is he going to construct them ? Is he going to ask for tenders and get the work done at the lowest figure ? Not at all; he is going down to Sorel, he is going to the representative of that riding, a party friend, and then all the friends of the government will be turned into this government shipyard to the exclusion of others, and the wholesale patronage is vested in the minister and the representative of that district. It is bad enough that upwards of $100,000 should be spent in this manner, but, we come to something worse than that, and it is the purchase of supplies. The committee will be startled when I tell them that the minister last year purchased, at Sorel, for the construction of these dredges, and other craft, no less than $235,000 worth of supplies without public tender. I would ask the hon. minister if that statement is correct ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) should not forget


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister pardon me ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will answer the question. If my hon. friend will go on I will answer him altogether.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask tlie lion, minister if lie will answer ' yes ' or ' no' ?


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will explain the whole thing when I speak.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister says that these supplies were purchased by tender, no comment will be necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman will make his speech and I will answer him.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were these $235,000 worth of supplies purchased by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will simply finish his speech I will pledge myself to answer every point he makes now.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, if the hon. minister wants to keep his supplies back he is going about it now in the proper way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will not take long; I will answer the hon. gentleman in a few minutes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I simply ask the hon. minister whether these supplies were purchased by -tender or not. The hon. minister can answer that by saying ' yes,' or ' no.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot now. I am just looking up the memorandum.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, I will sit down and let the hon. minister answer that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend should not forget what he has apparently forgotten, that he has only to go back to past history to remember that the shipyard in Sorel was established before we took office. I found it there, and I also found the same system of days labour in vogue. Indeed, that system is the only one that can be followed at Sorel. We have a shipyard in Sorel because we have a fleet of dredges, a fleet of barges, and a fleet of tugs, and so on. In case of an accident occurring, where could we go if we had not the shipyard ? The working of the whole system would be quite impossible without it. That shipyard has been in existence for many years, even when the harbour commissioners had charge of the ship channel, and in fact it is just as necessary for the government to have such a concern as it is for the Grand Trunk Railway or thei Canadian Pacific Railway to have shops. My hon. friend reproaches me severely for having built dredges by days' labour. Well, I take great pride for having done so, but I must pay the same compliment to the gentlemen who preceded me. I am sorry to say that I have just been informed that I cannot pay the same compliment to my predecessors, because they did not built dredges by days' labour although they built tugs and barges and so on. The1 best dredge they did build is the Laval, Mr. TARTE.
which was built at Hull, and without any attempt to discredit that dredge it is not the best of the. fleet. I claim that the dredges that have been built at Sorel by Canadian skilled labour are the best dredges that are in America. I do not see why the government should be reproached for building the dredges with Canadian labour in Canada. 1 would go further. I have often and often pressed my colleague the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) to have workshops of his own in this country. I claim there is no reason under the sun why the Canadian people should not do their own work in their own country. All the dredges which are working to-day in the maritime provinces are imported from England, but they are not quite as good as the dredges we build ourselves, and I want to know in God's name why should we import anything that we can build here. I may have faults


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may have faults, but on that point I am a strong Canadian.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about the furniture at the Paris exposition ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The furniture at the Paris exposition was bought before I went there, and when my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) goes to Paris and sees it he will agree with me that Canadian labour could have done just as well.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then why did not the government do it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) is quite capable of understanding the difference there is between building a dredge in Sorel and buying furniture in Paris.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I quite understand that the Minister of Public Works will preach protection in one place and practice the very opposite in another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I feel there is a great difference between buying a hat in New York and building a dredge in Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How does the cost of constructing dredges at Sorel compare with the price paid for dredges constructed in England ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dredge that was brought from England cost a good deal more than the dredge we are building in Sorel.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The same capacity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. On that point I court the fullest investigation. and I would be very glad if some of the gentlemen on the other side

*would be good enough to come to Sorel and see the work that is being done there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we to understand that the dredges built at Sorel have cost less than dredges of the same capacity purchased in England ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dredge St. Lawrence, which was imported from England, cost $115,000, I am informed. Her capacity is not half the capacity of our Sorel dredges, and the average cost of our Sorel dredges is $110,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is a saving of $40,000 in favour of building them at home ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think they ought to be built at home then.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I	think so too, and I may say that the dredge we are building in Toronto to-day will be built cheap compared with other dredges built elsewhere.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the price of the dredge which is being constructed by the Poisons in Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For British Columbia ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: This suction dredge for the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cost will be $163,000, but of course there are additions that will have to be built later on ; there are discharge pipes and the like. This is an entirely new model and nothing of the kind has been built here before, and it will cost $163,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the minister ask for tenders for that dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I did not, and for the excellent reason that 1 thought it would be a waste of time. I was very anxious that the St. Lawrence channel should be dredged as quickly as it could be. I have seen at the Paris exposition models of suction dredges, but I was very anxious to build a dredge on American lines on this side of the ocean. I went to New York and to Bridgeport, where there was a large dredge that had worked in the port of New York for Messrs. Hughes & Co. I was received by the engineer in charge at Bridgeport, and I asked him if he ever came to Montreal, and he said : Yes, I studied at the Royal Military College at Kingston. It was a great pleasure indeed to meet a Canadian engineer in charge of such a large work in the United States. That gentleman's name was Morrison. There was another engineer by the name of Robertson, who is the consulting engineer for Hughes & Co. He is a Canadian who had worked for several years for the harbour commissioners at
Montreal, and since he crossed the line he has designed 116 American dredges. That man has made a plan for us. I learned since that he has also designed for the Poison Iron Works a small dredge that my department is building for British Columbia. We united Mr. Robertson and Mr. Morrison and the Poisons with the officers of my department, and we gave to the Poison Iron Works the hull and machinery of the dredge, keeping for our works in Sorel about $60,000 of the work. With regard to the supplies, we follow the same method as is followed by all the other departments. When we ask for nails or iron, we ask for quotations, as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk, the Richelieu Co., and every other big firm in this country does, and we always get the goods at the lowest possible price. If my hon. friend would permit me, I would ask Mm to rise above party in matters of this kind. It would be simply impossible to ask for public tenders in such cases. We would be simply wasting three-quarters of our time without getting any better prices.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister has stated exactly his position, and it is this, that on coming into power he found that there were some workshops at Sorel where repairs were made on government dredges. 1 quite agree with him that there was a necessity for such workshops. It would be absurd to argue that a government which had dredges and tugs should uot have a place to which recourse could be had for repairs. But the minister has gone outside of the question altogether. It is not of repairs that the complaint is made. It is because, on construction work, the minister, ipstead of calling for public tenders, gets the work done at Sorel, where there is an army of 450 men employed all the year round. Surely he does not say that all these men are kept employed to make repairs on dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not always keep that many there.


William Humphrey Bennett: The amount expended there, according to the Auditor General's Report, was $90,000. It is all clap-trap for the hon. gentleman to talk aborrt employing Canadians. Any person knows that wherever these dredges might be built in Canada, they would be built by Canadians. The hon. minister has stated his position, and I congratulate him, because he is getting stronger every year and does what he likes. He undertakes the construction work on this large craft, and the result is that he has in his hands this immense patronage, consisting in the employment of 450 men. All I can say is this, that it is well for the people of this country to understand the difference in the position of these ministers. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries may have a little contract ; that has to go to tender. The Postmaster General has a little

contract; that has to go to tender too. But, when the Minister of Public Works wants to spend $90,000 in labour, he snaps his fingers at contracts and tenders, and all such wholesome restrictions, and declares that he will do as he pleases, and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars among his party friends. Hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition at one time, and if there was anything they ever did condemn, anil condemn wrongly-that is, the old guard from Ontario, who were here at one time, but none of whom are here to-day-it was this expenditure at Sorel. They condemned it day in and day out; but to-day nothing is heard from them, and the minister has carte blanche to spend what he likes. Coming to the expenditure for supplies, that is even more startling than the expenditure of $100,000 for labour. Would the House believe it ?-the minister last year went among his party friends at Sorel and distributed among them no less than $235,000 of public money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On machinery, engines, and all sorts of things.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let us have a look at some of these items. The minister says it was utterly impossible to have tenders called for these matters. All the other departments have to ask for tenders ; but the Minister of Public Works stands up and says that when he wants $25,000 worth of hardware, he cannot call for tenders for that. I find in the Auditor General's Report that a Mr. Cavanagh, of the city of Montreal, was given no less than $25,000 on account of hardware supplies. Does the minister mean to tell me that when he wants $25,000 worth of hardware supplies, he does not ask for tenders ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I mean that the goods purchased with that sum of money were purchased, I suppose, during twelve months, and after quotations were asked for every time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the minister if he asked for quotations from the leading hardware men in Toronto or any orner placi iu Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there has been a good deal bought in Ontario, and in Toronto.
ill'. CLARKE. We have in the city of Toronto some of the largest hardware firms in the Dominion. Did the hon. minister ask for tenders from those firms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say that I asked for tenders everywhere, but I have often asked for tenders in Toronto.


William Humphrey Bennett: Before I go into this matter of supplies, I -find that when hon. gentlemen opposite were condemning the Mr. BENNETT.
workshops at Sorel, there were only fifty men employed there, whereas the minister has now 450.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is a growing time.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is, no doubt, and a growing time for the influence of the Minister of Public Works in the cabinet, on which I congratulate him. Now, let us take some of these items. First, Ahearn & Soper, for electric light business in connection with a tug, got nearly $3,000. Beauchemin & Co., of Sorel, got supplies to the tune of $2,253. Cameron & Co., of Ottawa, supply lumber to the tune of $8,292. The Canada Switch and Spring Company, of Montreal, received $4,407. Carrier, Laine & Co., of LSvis, received $4,955. Edward Cavanagh, of Montreal, received $25,000 ; B. J. Coghlin, of Montreal, $2,300 ; Dods Co., of Montreal, $859 ; the Dominion Foundry at Sorel, $2,239 ; the Dominion Wire Rope Company, of Montreal. $2,810 ; T. K. Foster & Co., of Ottawa, $974 ; the Gutta Percha and Rubber Company, $1,900 ; Kingman & Co., of Montreal, $20,000 ; the Laurie Engine Company, of Montreal, $5,584 ; E. II. Lemay, of Montreal, $10,333. I would like to ask the minister if Mr. Lemay, who* furnished $10,000 worth of timber, is not one of the harbour commissioners of Montreal, and one of the appointees of this government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is one of the harbour commissioners, and a very able man. All those goods were got after quotations were submitted.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find the following firms down for supplies : Louis Bros., Montreal. $16,456 ; T. C. Moore & Co., $10,000 ; D. r! Macleod, Quebec, $15,600 ; McAvity & Sons, St. John, $2,000. It seems startling that the hon. gentleman had to go to St. John to purchase supplies for works at Sorel. Pate-naude & Co., Sorel, $4,422 ; Robertson & Co., Montreal, $5,297; Robillard & Co., $1,405 ; James Shepard, Sorel, $4,010 ; Wier & Co., Montreal, $9,510.
And so on. Here are thousands and tens of thousands of dollars expended, and the hon. minister gives us fair notice that after spending last year over $400,000 in the construction of dredges, tugs and so on, at Sorel, he is asking a similar grant this year, and it is only fair to assume that he will do as he did last year, namely, construct the tugs and what else he pleases without public competition. He and his friends who were opposed to our having fifty men there some years ago, are going to employ 450 men, and in addition to spend a quarter of a million dollars among their party friends. When we taunt him with not having invited competition, his only answer is that he bought at fair prices. Surely the wholesome principles ought to prevail in the construction of dredges and tugs of inviting

public tenders. Let me give one instance, in my personal knowledge, which will show the hon. gentleman's manner of conducting business in this matter of expenditure on tugs. His department had a very old tug at the town of Midland, which had been used there in connection with dredging work. It was necessary to construct a new hull because the old one was used up. The machinery of the old hull was taken out at the town of Midand and shipped to Sorel, where a new one was built, and the new tug was brought back to Midland. The hon. gentleman could have built a tug at Midland for the amount of freight he had to pay on the machinery, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will look up the accounts, he will find that the cost of transporting the machinery down to Sorel, and then bringing the tug back to Midland, would have built a tug at Midland, because it was not a tug of any considerable size. If that is the kind of .business method that characterizes his department in Sorel. the House should hesitate before giving him the opportunity of spending such a large sum as $400,000 in those workshops.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) .: Our complaint in the province of Nova Seofia is that we have not sufficient dredges for the public works necessary to be done. We are quite prepared to build those dredges in that province, because, with the exception of the harbours of Yarmouth and St. John, in the province of New Brunswick, bucket dredges would not be suitable for our work. The kind we want in Nova Scotia, in the rough parts of our harbours and coasts, where there are a good many boulders on the bottom, is spoon dredges, and they can be built for $30,000 to $40,000 each. We would always have plenty of work for them. Some of those dredges have been built before in the province of Nova Scotia, and have done successful work, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Public Works will see that we have one or two dredges built in that province suitable for the wants. I congratulate the hon. gentleman on the influence he can exercise in this House, not only on the supporters of the government, but on hon. members opposite, and on the manner in which he looks after the requirements of the country, for whenever he finds anything important requires to be done for the improvement of trade, he is ready and willing to do it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend from East Simcoe is somewhat unfair.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not attacking the hon. gentleman, but the principle on which he acts.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He has given as an instance an old tug in Midland. Well, that was out of shape, but the machinery in it was good, and we simply took down that machinery to Sorel and put it into a new hull. Where is the crime in that ? It was a business-like operation, which any ordinary firm would do. What I endeavour to do in the conduct of my department is what I would do in my own affairs, and what any ordinary business firm would do. I do not think that the business men of the country will share the views my hon. friend has expressed. The government is doing the right thing in building its dredges and tugs. My hon. friend says that that gives me patronage..


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I reply that I wish I was delivered from patronage.


Mr. HEYD.: Is it not a fundamental plank in the platform of the trades unions and labour organizations that the contract system on public work should be abolished, and the government do the work themselves ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between that contention, which I know very well, and the other which my learned hon, friend advocates, I chose what I consider is the right policy. When I believe that a work can be better done by days' labour, I do not hesitate. And when I believe that it cannot be done as well by days' labour, I call for tenders. In this case. I believe, I am doing the right thing. In Sorel there are skilled labouring men who have been for fifty years building ships, and I am using the skill and ability of those men in building these dredges and tugs. If my hon. friend knew the people of Montreal better, he would find out that among those who have received patronage, there are some good friends of his. But I shall be very frank. I am a minister in this Liberal administration, and my duty is to give the patronage to my political friends, and my hon. friend, if he were in my place, would do the same thing. But what I do say is that when there is a manufacturer who does not share my political views, but who is the only or the best man who can supply me with what I want, then I buy from him. And when I find my own political friends who have the same article at as good a price, I deal with them.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the hon. minister does not ask other people for prices.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I learned my trade with my hon. friends
/
1203	COMMONS	1204
on the other side, and I learned it fairly well. When I was oil the other side of the House, we used to protect our friends to the best of our ability. I am on this side of the House now, and I proceed upon the very same principle.


Mr. INGRAM.: Do I understand the minister to say that he considers it his duty to give this patronage to his political friends V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All things equal-yes. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to find that I have given one cent more to a political friend than the ordinary market price.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I see by page Y-34, of the Auditor General's Report, that the hon. minister purchased $25,029.17 worth of goods from the firm of Edward Cavanagh & Co., Montreal. Among the items is 514-9 gallons of boiled oil, at 87 cents per gallon. I ask the hon. minister if he will say that he has not paid one cent.too much there V I- am buying boiled oil for our company, and while it is higher now than it was between June 1. 1899, and June 1, 1900, it has not reached that price even yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What price is it ?


George Taylor: The price charged here is 87 cents. I leave it to any man who knows anything about the trade if that would not be an outrageous price, even at retail.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has found fault with us often about such matters-and as he is on the other side of the House it is right for him to do so, it is his duty. The other day he told us we paid too much for onions, and now he says we pay too much for oil. I have at the head of that department at Sorel an old officer, Mr. Howdon, who was fifteen years under the late administration. I have kept him there because he is one of the most honest men I have ever known, and he knows his work well. His instructions are to buy at the best market price. There are times, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has suggested, when oil is higher than at others. But I should be surprised if Mr. Howdon, in whom I have implicit confidence, had paid too much iu this case. I thank the hon. gentleman for calling my attention to the matter, and I will look into it.


George Taylor: The hon. minister has stated that he bought goods by tender afterquotation. He must have those quotations, and I would ask him to give the quotations for boiled oil between June 1, 1899, and June 1, 1900.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I can I will. I have nothing to hide. Of course, I do not buy myself ; I could not do it.


George Taylor: Does the hon. minister say that Mr. Howdon has bought all these goods ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not mean to say that he has not instructed some of his subordinates to do the actual buying, but he is the responsible man in such matters.
Mr. MeGOWAN. I think it is only just to the Minister of Public Works to say that I bought linseed oil by the car-load at 81 cents. It was very high last spring.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And, of course, we do not buy by the carload.


George Taylor: I would like my hon. friend (Mr. McGowan) to give the prices of the year before. I am not speaking of last year, but of the year before. It is higher now. This government ought to buy as cheaply as anybody can.


Adam Carr Bell: I observe some purchases here which, I think, might be made better than by the method of inviting offers only from friends of the administration. There is one item under the head of Weir & Co., Montreal, from whom a boiler was bought for $4,125. There is no description given of the boiler except that it is to bear a pressure of 200 pounds. In a case like that it should be quite easy for the hon. minister, as, evidently, he does not construct boilers in the Sorel works, to ask all the manufacturers of boilers within a reasonable distance to tender. We have in different parts of the provinces large concerns whose business it is to make boilers, and I should suppose there is no doubt that the cost of these expensive boilers to the government would be reduced if tenders were asked for. That is one instance where there is a large outlay without sufficient information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know, in the case of W7eir & Co., quotations were asked for. I may add that this firm ranks among the best manufacturers of boilers that we have-although, I may say, they are not, politically, friends of ours. But Mr. Howdon represented to me that, iu his opinion, these men were safe, that they had done work for the government for years and years. They were the lowest in this case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were tenders called for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quotations were asked for from manufacturers-we always do that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And elsewhere, I think. I cannot say in this case, but we generally have quotations from many places.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Adam Carr Bell: How large a boiler was that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the dimensions here, and, of course, I cannot carry these details in my memory-that would be out of the question.
Public Works-Chargeable to Capital-
Harbours and Rivers, Ontario-River
Kaministiquia	 $10,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the ordinary appropriation every year. There is nothing special.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask if this is the only appropriation to he charged to capital for expenditure in the province of Ontario V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is the expenditure on Port Colborne harbour.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 34) an Act to incorporate the Canadian Patriotic Fund Association.-Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 41) an Act respecting the Saskatchewan and Western. Railway Company.- Mr. LaRiviere.
Bill (No. 42) an Act respecting the Klondike Mines Railway 'Company.-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 43) an Act to incorporate ' The St. Lawrence Lloyds.'-Mr. Geoffrion.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Manitoba-St. Andrews Rapids improvements, Red River	 $100,000
Robert Laird Borden: Explain please.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Is this item to apply to the St. Andrews locks contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: Yes. Last year there was a sum of $125,000 placed in the estimates. This year we ask for $100,000. That work has been urged for a number of years, and as I said, last year, parliament decided that the work should be constructed and a sum of money was placed in the estimates. The object of the work is to improve the Red river in such a way as to make it navigable from Lake Winnipeg to the city of Winnipeg. West Selkirk is the point where navigation now stops. From West Selkirk to AVinnipeg the distance is about twenty-three miles. Ten miles from AVinnipeg there is a succession of rapids. The object of the work is to erect a dam and a lock which will flood
these rapids so as to make that part of the river between AVest Selkirk and Winnipeg navigable for boats drawing seven feet. The work has been advertised and the lowest tender has been accepted, the contract going into the hands of Messrs. Kelly & Company for the sum of $469,000. This will not cover the whole cost of the work as the contract has been awarded only for the masonry. There will be a considerable sum of money required later on to build the upper part of the work. The work is composed of two parts-permanent masonry work 800 feet long, on which work there will be placed gates, movable walls, if I may call them that, which will be opened during the flood and which will be closed when the high waters of the flood are passed. When these gates are closed there will be seven feet of water at Winnipeg, the fall being about fifteen feet. Parliament pronounced last year on the principle of the work, and I am only carrying out the order of parliament in going on with it.


Robert Laird Borden: Could the hon. minister say how much he expects the entire work will cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate that has been placed in my hands puts the balance of the work at $200,000 in round numbers. It will be composed of a service bridge, movable frames, lock gates and working apparatus, lockmaster's house, shed, two steam travellers for loading freight, &c. Then, there is the ordinary cost of supervision, and, in round numbers, the work will cost $200,000 additional.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax.!. That will make altogether how much ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $660,000. If my hon. friend would like to have this little plan I shall send it over to him. It is simply proposed to flood the rapids that cannot be navigated now for a distance of twenty-three miles.


Robert Laird Borden: Between what points will this constitute a route, and what kind of traffic will go over it ? I am merely asking for information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course my hon. friend knows that there is a large traffic in AVinnipeg. Fuel is very scarce in Winnipeg itself, and the object of this work is to create .navigation over the whole length of Lake Winnipeg and thence to the American frontier. The United States government have improved the Red river and made it navigable for over sixty miles. This will give access from the city of Winnipeg to Lake Winnipeg; in other words, all the district around , Lake Winnipeg will have water communication with Winnipeg, while, to-day, that water communication stops twenty-three miles from Winnipeg, which is a great inconvenience indeed.


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. minister will remember that tenders were called for this work a second time. The object of calling' for tenders a second time was to provide for a contract under the minimum wage resolution which was passed by this House last year. I would like to know if the minimum wage clause was included in the contract and whether that clause has been observed, whether any progress estimates have been paid, and if so, has the contractor hied affidavits to the effect that the minimum wage clause has been observed and such wages been paid.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know very well that the work has to be carried on under the regulation respecting wages. No estimate has been paid yet. I have received from the Department of Labour a complaint that the contractors, Messrs, Kelly & Co., have not obeyed what is called the fair-wages clause. That complaint is before me. I am sorry to say that I received it only two or three days ago and have not yet had time to look into it. I intend to compel Mr. Kelly to follow those regulations, as he has bound himself to do. Every time that a complaint is brought to me I will certainly look into it carefully, and if I need the services of the Department of Labour, 1 shall be glad to avail myself of their services.


Arthur W. Puttee: Could the minister tell us whether the figures in the second contract are the same as those in the first tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was not here when the tenders were called for, and I do not remember the figures. But I will be glad to give the information to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the occasion of calling for tenders twice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the fair-wages clause had not been inserted in the first contract. There is a schedule attached to the contract which binds Kelly & Co. to pay wages up to a certain figure in virtue of that clause.
Transportation facilities-Port Colborne
harbour improvements	 $150,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I explained this afternoon the nature of these works. I may say that a contract has been awarded for only 1,300 feet of the breakwater that we 'intend to erect. The whole length will be 5,700 feet. The Minister of Finance, in my absence two years ago, stated to the House that he thought the expenditure would not exceed $150,000. As the item passed through the House last year without any explanation being asked or given, we thought it only fair not to bind parliament to any expenditure of money larger than the amount already voted. But the contractors, Messrs. Hogan & McDonald, have undertaken to build the whole work for the sum of $395,000. As I have said, Mr. TARTE.
this breakwater is an essential and necessary work, without such we cannot do any trade at Port Colborne. At Buffalo, 20 miles from Port Colborne, which, as my bon. friend knows, is the entrance of the Canadian canal system, there are magnificent harbour works. The American government have spent large sums of money in building these works, which are not yet completed. The sweep of the wind on Lake Erie at certain times is as violent as on the Atlantic ocean. It is therefore out of the question to expect any large trade for the Welland canal unless we have harbour facilities at that point. The breakwater is the first work to be done. And I state here that I am going to ask from parliament the balance of the money-I do not require it this year, but I will ask for authority to build the whole breakwater. I would not stand in this parliament and say that 1,300 feet would be sufficient; there would remain a large gap of about 4,300 feet which, unless it was filled up, would make the harbour useless. Now, I wish to insist on this point, that Port Colborne is the first link in our system of canals between England and the west. That work is just as essential as the works in the port of Montreal, and without this improvement at Port Colborne we cannot expect any large freight carriers to come to our Canadian waters, it is out of the question. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals is performing the work that belongs to him, and I am performing the work that belongs to me. I hope that on this question we will have the support of both sides of the House.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it was two years ago, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, a plan was laid on the Table of the House which projected an expenditure at Port Colborne of some $5,000,000. That plan embraced the building of piers and jetties, and an extensive amount of dredging. I do not think it included the construction of an elevator on any of the piers. Now, the minister has discussed at considerable length this afternoon, and more briefly this evening, the present position of Port Colborne ; and if any one bad heard him who was not aware of the circumstances, he would have been led to believe that never a bushel of grain or a vessel had passed Port Colborne. Now, what are the facts ? Port Colborne is on the Lake Erie entrance of the Welland canal. I think I am within the mark-and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) can correct me if I am not-in saying that two or three years ago some 10 million bushels of grain passed through the Welland canal and passed Port Colborne on to Kingston and Prescott. Now, If 10 million bushels of grain went past Port Colborne through the Welland canal to Prescott and Kingston, it proves that this much-condemned place, Port Colborne, is not so bad as it has been described. Let me tell the Minister of Public Works that

for several years past vessels have gone through this entrance of Port Colborne carrying cargoes of 75,000 bushels of grain. Such vessels as the Rosemount, the Algonquin, the Rosedale, and others, have been seen from time to time in the harbour of Kingston, as the hon. member for Kingston will tell the House. Now, the minister has a proposition before the House to-night to expend $400,000. When this $400,000 is expended, he has partially completed a work which, according to the plans presented from his own department, will cost the sum of $5,000,000.
I want to ask the minister what will be the upshot of all this ? You can now carry from Fort William to Kingston a cargo of
75,000	bushels in vessels like the Rosedale and Algonquin as the hon. member (Mr. Britton) will tell you, and at Kingston that grain is placed in barges to go down the canal. As a result of this expenditure you will bring a vessel carrying one-quarter of a million bushels to Port Colborne, and you will transfer that to smaller carriers for Montreal. You will have to transfer that cargo to an elevator both at Kingston and Port Colborne if ever an elevator is built at the latter place. If you carry by large freighters to Port Colborne, you will practically close up Prescott and Kingston ; and I am informed that no grain went through Prescott this year, and a less quantity through Kingston. Can the minister tell the House what will he the saving in carrying wheat in large 200,000 bushel freighters to Port Colborne, as compared with carrying from Fort William to Kingston in 75,000 bushel boats. This difference in the cost of freight, If there be any, is the only benefit that will be derived from this expenditure. Surely the government had some data of this kind before entering on this large expenditure. I would also ask the minister what basin or area will be dredged to a depth of 23 feet at Port Colborne in consequence of this expenditure?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The point I make is this : Buffalo is 20 miles from Port Colborne, and last year over 200,000,000 bushels of grain and flour went through Buffalo, and it went there because the grain can be carried quickly and cheaply from Buffalo to New York. Between these two cities it is 450 miles by rail, and 500 miles by the Erie canal, which, however, carries a very small quantity of grain now.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman does, but this is one of the questions which the country needs to be educated upon, and the hon. gentleman may have something to learn as I had. If I am not mistaken it costs about three cents to carry a bushel of grain from
Buffalo to New York, and perhaps a little more at times.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Including the terminal charges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, Now, the cost of carrying a bushel of grain from the western points to Buffalo and to Port Colborne will be about the same. The point is how much will it cost from Port Colborne to Montreal ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) thinks that Kingston and Prescott will suffer. I hope they will not. I am confident tllat there will be trade for all the ports on the lakes, but the broad question is : whether the Welland canal will continue to carry only
10,000,000 bushels, as against 200,000,000 bushels received at Buffalo. It is not a patriotic policy for us to try and raise little differences between town and town. The main point is whether Canada will retain her own trade, and whether we can capture the American trade. Our route is the shortest, and the problem for us is to make it the best and cheapest. I feel confident that we will be able to carry grain from Port Colborne to Montreal inside of two cents a bushel, and if we can accomplish that, then when we have completed the port of Montreal and the deepening and the widening of the St. Lawrence, we are going to take the life out of Buffalo. We have only to put our hands and our heads together to do that. My' friend (Mr. Bennett) asks what accommodation we are going to have when these works are completed at Port Colborne. I believe the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) is providing for a harbour 1,200 by 000 feet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What depth ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twenty-two feet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At what cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It will cost between $900,000 and $1,000,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To make a harbour 1,200 feet by 600 feet, and 22 feet deep.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is the entrance to the Welland. The entrance is to give a depth of channel of between 500 feet and 600 feet in width, and the excavation we will have to make will extend over a distance of about 1,200 feet. Our side wings will extend out, and we will have to dredge to a depth of 21 or 22 feet for the length and width specified. The work at the entrance is our work. In connection with one of the side wings, and as part of them we are making our structures substantial and sufficiently wide to admit (with one or

two projecting piers) of ships coming right straight from the lake and lying alongside the pier. There will be no turning and twisting to get into the pier, and there will be no difficulty in getting out. My hon. colleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is now asking for an appropriation for a breakwater which will inclose-for the purpose of extension and enlargement, if need be-a very considerable harbour, and it will he just as the needs arise, whether or not we will make a harbour of any larger area, and whether we will do in the future any rock dredging, of which -there will be a good deal. There is a large quantity of rock in that inclosure ; and whether we will dredge any of it in the future or not, we do not want to do any more than is absolutely necessary. My hon. friend (Mr. Tarte) was not present at the time the plan spoken of by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) was mentioned, and I think, produced ; and I would like to remind the House, as I think the hon. member himself recollects, that it was stated very distinctly at that time that it was a plan, covering the whole of the work which the engineer would advise us to do, and had not been passed upon by either the present minister or the acting minister, nor had it been considered by the government. It was the suggestion of the engineer of the department. It was a very expensive plan. He proposed dredging out the whole of this basin all the way from the breakwater to the canal piers, and providing for piers being thrown out inclosing the whole basin between the breakwater and the canal entrance. It would not be fair to treat that plan as a concluded policy on the part of the government, because it* had never been considered.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In other words, the engineer who made the surveys simply showed on -the plan what could be done if it should become necessary latei on. The plans which we are carrying out have nothing to do with that big plan, which I hope it may become necessary later on to carry out. If we were in a position to receive 100,000,000 Trashels of grain in a couple of years, or were capable of supplanting Buffalo, I am sure this parliament would not hesitate to spend a couple of millions to do so.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask if the contract has been let for the work which the j minister alludes to, and, if so, who the contractors are ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The contract has been let to 1 Messrs. Hogan & Macdonell.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Minister of Public Works has not answered the question I asked him. Whip1 to-day you are carrving cargoes in vessels of 75,000 'bushels capacity Mr. BLAIR.
to Kingston, which cargoes you discharge into barges going down the canal, what would be the lessened cost when you fire to carry in larger vessels to Port Colborne, and transfer there to barges which will go to Montreal ? Has the department any data to show that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nobody can have any exact data as to that; but experience has shown that waterways are the cheapest means of transportation. We have now a fourteen-foot channel between Port Colborne and Montreal, and by transhipping at Port Colborne into boats of fourteen feet draught, we shall necessarily decrease the cost of transportation from the west to the east. That seems to me just as clear as daylight. We shall certainly have enterprising people who will build fleets of large boats. I quite grant that we are short of Canadian bottoms. This is one of the difficulties, but all these matters will be settled in time. When the trade is there and the improvements are completed, the fleets will come. For the moment, what I consider important is to prepare the accommodation for the freight. The deep water channel would be nothing without harbour facilities. Port Colborne is in the same position as Buffalo, and there is no reason why, with a fourteen-foot channel, we could not carry trade more successfully through Canadian waters than the New York Central does to New York.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister has made the exact statement which I wished him to make. His statement is that despite the fact that millions of bushels of grain have gone through the Welland canal system to Kingston in barges of 75,000 bushels capacity, and that grain has been going to Montreal, he is now asking the country to pledge itself, and the country is going to do so, to an expense of nearly $1,500,000-to do what ? To try the experiment of transferring the grain at Port Colborne instead of at Kingston. If you had to take 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 bushels of grain to Montreal, you could do exactly as has been done in years past-take it to Kingston in 75,000 bushel barges, and transfer it there to barges of 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 bushels capacity. The hon. gentleman says that has not been successful. He says, I am convinced that we should make a new experiment at Port Colborne at an expenditure of $1,500,000, of having larger boats to carry the grain to Port Colborne, and having it there put into identically the same barges as in past years have carried it from Kingston to Montreal. And the minister makes the astounding statement that his government are going to spend this $1,500,000 when they do not know what difference there will be in the freight. Would any business man plunge into an expenditure of that kind without having any idea of the saving that

would be effected ? The only advantage in favour of Port Colborue will be tlie lessened freight that there may be in carrying grain from Fort William to Port Col-borne in 250,000 bushel bottoms against
75,000	bushel bottoms to Kingston. For this expenditure of $1,500,000, what are we to have ? We are to have a basin 400 yards in length and 200 yards in width.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, that is not the basin ; that is the entrance.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will the basin be on the inside ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. member knows the situation there pretty well. We throw out from the mouth of our canal two projecting piers starting in the form of a funnel. From the side of one of these piers we throw out a couple of cross piers as it were out into the entrance, of sufficient length to enable us to safely receive and tie up the largest crafts that is likely to come down the lakes. They unload there. That is where the elevators will be. From these the grain will be loaded again into the barges which it is anticipated with every confidence will be the mode of carriage from Port Colborne down to Montreal. We have no basin in the sense the hon. gentleman would convey. We have an entrance and ships can get right in, and this breakwater is designed for the purpose of protecting that entrance from the extremely heavy storms which very often occur at that point.


William Humphrey Bennett: When you get inside of these basins after you have done this dredging, what will be the depth of water on the inside ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Twenty-two feet. The hon. gentleman has affirmed, over and over again, that every year the steamers employed as freighters on the lakes are increasing in size, and that these large steamers are absorbing the traffic of the lakes. Why do they ? Because it is cheaper to carry tonnage in these large steamers. Every year the number of small steamers is becoming less, and the number of large steamers greater. When large steamers come down in the neighbourhood of Port Colborne, they are compelled of necessity to pass the entrance of that canal and go to Buffalo. And they must continue to go to Buffalo until we make suitable provision for them at Port Colborne. That is as plain as any proposition that can be advanced. The ultimate result, when we will have equipped Port Colborne, will be that these vessels can ride into the entrance of that canal, lie there safely against the winds and the storms, unload their cargoes into the elevators, and we will have secured all this
freight for our canals, which we are now losing.
We did not act upon any mere conjecture, but took the opinions of every shipper that could be reached. We took the opinion of every one who is doing business on the Canadian route, and also the opinions of some of those who are doing business by the Buffalo route. I read in this House two years ago a number of these opinions, and all agreed that there is no hope for the future of the St. Lawrence canals unless we put ourselves in a position to handle the cargoes that come down by large steamers. Relying upon the best expert opinion we could obtain, we deliberately came to the conclusion that the only remedy was to put Port Colborne in such a shape that large steamers could be induced to go there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was there not a difference of opinion between the government engineers as to whether Port Colborne or Port Maitland was the best ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We took the opinions of various engineers as to which port was to be preferred. Our engineer was decidedly in favour of Port Colborne. Mr. Thompson had no doubt whatever upon the question. Mr. Keefer said that something had to be done either at Port Colborne or Port Maitland. He was in favour of Port Maitland, and I did the best I could, in view of these conflicting opinions. I had these two gentlemen together, I let them cross-examine one another and cross-examined them myself as well as I could, and applying the best judgment I could to the differences which existed between them, I came to the conclusion, In which I was supported by the concurrent judgment of the chief engineer, that Port Maitland was entirely out of the question. It was a number of miles away, and there were other disadvantages into which I need not now enter.
When the steamers get into Port Colborne, their cargoes will be transferred into . elevators, just as they are at Buffalo. At Buffalo they are transferred into elevators, and thence into cars, and this is done at very small charges. Why ? Because they have established an elevator system up to the highest degree of perfection, and there are fifty or sixty elevators at Buffalo. When these same steamers come to Port Colborne, they will have also to transfer their cargoes into elevators and thence into these large barges instead of into railway cars, and we propose to go right through -with these barges from Port Colborne to Montreal, just as the trains go right through from Buffalo to New York. Sly hon. friend says why do you not elevate at Port Colborne, and load into small barges and then elevate again at Kingston ? Or if you take the large barges at Port Colborne, why not load into them and then go to Kingston, and elevate again at Kingston,

and transfer into small barges and take these down to Montreal ? But, there would then he two elevating in the one route when you need only have one.


William Humphrey Bennett: My contention is, that at present you take a 75,000 bushel barge to Kingston, and you transfer then to any barge that will go through to Montreal. You take your vessel to Kingston and transfer into an elevator, and then into a barge, and on to Montreal. We agree on that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do not agree as to the necessity of transferring at Kingston.


William Humphrey Bennett: If you take a 75,000 bushel barge


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If you do not propose to have your big steamers at Port Colborne, you do not propose to have any business.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) simply excludes from our Canadian waters all those large carriers which are the favoured carriers, and wants only small carriers. It is well known that the size of the ships on the lakes is increasing every year. But, he does not want them at Port Colborne, but wants them at Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: They are going there anyway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am just dredging to 22 feet at Midland. Why ? Because it is necessary to have deep water there for these large carriers. My hon. friend wants them at Midland, but not at Port Colborne. That is not very logical in my opinion. My hon. friend is all mixed up.


William Humphrey Bennett: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe he is. There are two kinds of ships navigating the lakes to-day, ships of small size and ships of larger size-and growing larger every year. We want both kinds. The small ships will continue navigating our canals, but the larger ships will come to Port Colborne. Last year only ten miillion bushels of grain came by our route. I make this prophecy to the House-that when we have completed our equipment at Port Colborne and Montreal, the Welland canal will carry five times more grain than it does-I believe at least five times more. Large ships cannot go to Port Colborne today. Do we want those large ships ? My hon. friend says, no.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Nonsense.


William Humphrey Bennett: I said nothing of the kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He says that practically. If there is no accommodation at Port Colborne the large vessels cannot go there. Is that a fact or is it not ? We know that there is no accommodation and that the large ships cannot go there. And, if the hon. gentleman says we are not to provide the accommodation, that is another way of saying that he does not want the ships to go there. Let us talk plainly. Without necessary accommodation at Port Colborne those vessels will continue to go to Buffalo.


Mr. GERMAN.: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You would need to rebuild the canal.


William Manley German: Yes, you would need to rebuild the canal at an expenditure of $5,000,000 or $10,000,000. It is simply an impossible proposition.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Nobody suggested it.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman from East Simcoe says, if his language means anything at all, that the transhipping should be done at Kingston


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for East Simcoe will never be responsible for trying to make the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) understand plain English, I can assure him of that.


William Manley German: If I have not stated the proposition correctly, then I should much like to know what the proposition is. The hon. gentleman has been talking of transhipping at Kingston. He told us of vessels going through the Welland canal carrying 75.000 bushels of grain and said that these boats ! should go to Kingston, and the transhipping


Mr. BLAIR.: should be done there Into smaller barges for Montreal. I think I am quoting him properly in that, and if I am not I should be glad to have him correct me. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that there are not half a dozen boats going through the Welland canal carrying 75,000 bushels of grain. There is a line in connection with the Vermont Central between Chicago and Ogdens-burg carrying 70,000 bushels, but there are not half a dozen carrying 75,000 bushels nor anything like it. The fact is that all the boats navigating the upper lakes with profit are boats drawing from 20 to 22 feet of water. These boats go to Buffalo. The proposition of the government is that the Buffalo harbour is exceedingly congested, and vesselinen are continually saying that they want a harbour at Port Colborne so that they can send their cargoes by that way, and so relieve the congestion at Buffalo. Building a breakwater at Port Colborne will make as good a harbour as there is on Lake Brie. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says he does not believe that a good harbour can be constructed at Port Colborne. Well, he has been there and ought to know the situation ; buit I will venture to say that there is no practical engineer in the country who will not admit that, when a breakwater is built at Port Colborne as is proposed by the Minister of Public Works, there will be one of the safest harbours of refuge there that is to be found on Lake Brie.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be a closed harbour.


William Manley German: And it will be a harbour with 22 feet of water; a harbour into which even the heaviest vessels on the upper lakes can come. They can then go right up to the piers at Port Colborne, transfer their cargoes into vessels drawing 14 feet which will pass through to Montreal. There is no question of doubt in my mind that that will be the route which will carry the grain of the North-west in a very few years hence. There is only one other point I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and that is that he must put more money into his estimates to put the Welland canal into the condition it ought to be in. It is in no proper condition now, by reason of the curves in it and by reason of the bridges which were built under an antiquated plan. It will be necessary to spend in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to put the Welland canal into a proper condition by the time the breakwater and harbour improvements are made at Port Colborne.


Mr. BRITTON.: While the plan of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works, if carried out, would seem to do away with the large business that is now done at Kingston-and, in so far as it will do that, certainly I, as representative 39
of Kingston, should oppose any such plan- yet, if I understand it aright from the argument that has been brought forward, all this business that iis to be done, by the transhipment from the very large vessels that will come to Port Colborne in the future is practically new business. It is said that we do not get that business now, and if we had the facilities we could get that business in the future. Now, so far as that may be done, if it does not cost too much, I certainly shall not oppose it. In this estimate is an amount for improving the harbour at Port Colborne. As I said last year, so I say again that irrespective of these very large vessels, a large share of the improvement in the harbour is necessary, both as to dredging and building a jetty or break-water. Let me tell you how the business is done at the present time. As the member for Simcoe says, a large amount of business has been profitably done for some yars. There are four vessels, at all events, carrying-grain from Duluth and Port Arthur direct to Kingston, the Rosedale, the Rosemount, the Algonquin and the Bannockburn. They carry cargoes, in round figures, of 80.000 bushels, if they are loaded up to their full capacity they carry 90,000.


William Manley German: They cannot go through the canal with that.


Byron Moffatt Britton: But they go to Port Colborne, drawing from 15 to 17 feet of water. They have to lighten at Port Colborne, and from there the grain is carried to Port Dalhousie by the Niagara Railway, where it is taken on these boats again and carried on to Kingston. I am sorry to say that it is carried at a very high rate over this railway, and I think one thing the government ought to do soon is to take over that railway. To that extent, I am in favour of the proposition that has been so often mentioned in the House, of government ownership of railways. This railway stands at Port Colborne as toll taker on the grain carried from the west to the east, they charge a toll of two cents a bushel. That means that it would pay these boats just about as well to come from Duluth with a cargo of 60,000 bushels as with a cargo of
80,000,	because they have to lighten to the extent of 20,000 bushels at Port Colborne, and they have to pay two cents a bushel for carrying that 20,000 bushels the distance from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie. Therefore, they have to pay $400 for that
20,000	bushels. Now, they could go through on the 4-eent rate from Duluth and Port Arthur to Kingston, and be glad to get it, and probably will have to do so for a good deal less. They have got to pay two cents a bushel for this 20,000 bushels that they lighten. That means that for the 40,000 bushels of grain carried by the canal to Port Dalhousie, they only get as their share two cents a bushel on the whole route from Duluth or Port Arthur to Kingston. That

] 219

won't pay, as tilings are at present. So they might as well come down with a 60,000 bushel cargo, and for this reason. They cannot get a 60,000 bushel cargo as easy as they can get an 80,000 bushel cargo. Persons who have grain to carry want as much carried as possible, and therefore it is easier to get an 80,000 bushel cargo from these upper lake ports. Now, these vessels that I have mentioned, each take with them two consorts or lake barges. Each of these lake barges will carry in round figures 50,000 bushels, therefore, each of these boats with its consorts brings down a cargo of
180,000	bushels. The barges do not have to lighten, they can go through the canal drawing no more than 14 feet of water. It is only the steamship that has to lighten, after which she goes through the canal with her 60,000 bushels, takes her barges again at Port Dalhousie, and goes on down the lake. That has been a very profitable business to the railway for some years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do these barges that are towed by the steamer from Fort William to Kingston discharge at Kingston ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They do not draw more than 14 feet of water, do they ? Why are they not sent on down to Montreal ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Because we want them to go back as soon as they can. The steamship is too big to go down the St. Lawrence, and through the canals profitably. The barges could go through the St. Lawrence canals, but as soon as they are empty, after the discharge of the cargo at Kingston, they go back with the steamer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that because they are a part of the steamer's outfit ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is the tonnage of these steamers ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I cannot tell the tonnage, but they have a carrying capacity of 80,000 bushels! At all events, while they may go down with safety, it is not economical to navigate the St. Lawrence with that class of steamers. They are expensive steamers, and they cannot go down with a full cargo. Of course they have got to be lightened so that they will draw less than 14 feet. If you have only 14 feet in the canal, you cannot load them for 14 feet, they cannot draw that. In order to have safe navigation, you have to have at least one foot of water under the keel of the boat.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have got more than that in the canal, except in the locks.


William Manley German: A boat will go through .a lock with three inches under her keel.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They have gone through with six inches.


Byron Moffatt Britton: That is the way, at all events, that grain has been carried. Now you propose to improve Port Colborne to accommodate larger vessels ; vessels that will carry a larger quantity of grain, than
80.000	bushels, as high as 250,000, then they will not have to stop at Kingston or Prescott to transfer, but go on straight down to Montreal. Now, two questions arise. One is what kind of vessels are you going to use ? You have either got to have barges, such as we have already, towed with steamships, else you will not have safe navigation of Lake Ontario, because, as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Calvin) said this afternoon, Lake Ontario is a large lake and requires a very staunch and seaworthy vessel to carry grain safely. The scheme that is before us for improving the harbour at Port Colborne by deepening it, and by building this pier, is something that is needed, even for the present for bringing grain down. Of course it is very rough sometimes at Port Colborne. Even if there is 18 feet of water in the harbour, a vessel drawing 17 feet of water cannot go safely through in rough weather, everybody knows that. Therefore, it requires deepening, and it requires breakwater protection in order to give facilities for the present mode of carrying grain.
I do not want to commit myself, and I do not commit myself to any large scheme of building elevators at Port Colborne, but, generally, the transhipment of grain there for the purpose of the St. Lawrence route, the improvements that are necessary in the harbour and the consequent expenditure of money, are things that are urgently needed. I remember last year that the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) spoke about this Niagara Railway. I do not know whether he submitted it as a scheme or not, but what he did say seemed to me to be most reasonable and ought to have the consideration of the government. Just as much as the want of harbour facilities at Montreal stands in the way of the use of the St. Lawrence route, the Niagara Railway stands in the way of the shipping trade availing itself of the greatest advantages afforded by the Welland canal route. There ought to be something done to reduce the cost there. They are coining money with the quantity of grain that goes down at a two cent rate for such a short distance, elevating it at one end and spouting it out at the other. For this haul of twenty-one miles they get actually half of what the carriers get for bringing the grain down. This is something that ought not to be tolerated, and if nothing better can be done it would not be out of place, considering the large expenditure this country is making in providing transportation facilities, if the gov-


Byron Moffatt Britton: eminent bought out tlie Niagara road and used it as a link in the transportation system. Our boats have to pay, in addition to this two cents a bushel for lighterage, *canal dues of twenty cents a ton, and these are charges imposed on the carrier which reduce his profits to a minimum. This is something worth considering. I do not give it as originating with myself. 1 think the hon. member for Grenville is entitled to any credit for the suggestion which he made in regard to that railway. Now, I wish to say a word or two in reference to the fourteen foot channel. I read what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said in reference to that fourteen foot channel, and he blamed the transportation companies for rather throwing discredit upon the claim that there is a fourteen foot channel between Kingston and Montreal.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say they all did that.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I do not think it is in the interests of the transportation companies, nor have they any desire, to withhold credit from the government for doing what they have done, but I think they would not say anything in reference to the channel that is not borne out by the facts. There is a fourteen foot channel, but there are places where some money has to be expended to make the fourteen foot channel as it ought to be. It is not enough that there should be a fourteen foot channel just wide enough, or a little bit wider than is sufficient, to allow a vessel to go through. There must be a fourteen foot channel, and it must be so well defined that vessels can navigate it with safety and without the necessity of creeping along that part of the river. I did call attention when the estimates of the Department of Public Works were under consideration before to one point in the river and I will just mention it now. It is no part of the Canadian channel from west to east, but it is a place where you cross over from the Canadian channel to the American channel at the foot of what is known as Long island, the longest island in the St. Lawrence. The channel stretches above and below it, and it requires to be deepened in order to make it a fourteen foot channel. But, hon. gentlemen may say: why do you ask to have that place deepened so as to allow vessels to cross from the Canadian to the American channel. There are two reasons. American boats carrying grain from any American port bound down come up the Canadian channel until they get to that point, and if they want to lighter at Kingston they can do so, if they want to purchase supplies at a Canadian port they can do so, and then they can go over to their own channel and go on down, or, Canadian boats can use the American channel which is a straigliter channel between Kingston and half way to Brockville than 39*
the Canadian channel is. They are both good channels, but the American is the straighter and the deeper channel and Canadian boats use it. Now, I shall say a word in reference to Montreal. Enough has been said about that port so that I need not take up the time of the committee in stating what the port needs. What it needs now is that something should be done to relieve the carrier from the enormous charges made by the elevator men there. The elevator company are using floating elevators and charging half a cent a bushel for transferring grain at Montreal. They are coining money. I speak in the hearing of some shareholders of that elevator company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Forty per cent.


Byron Moffatt Britton: They have made from forty to ninety per cent year after year. Something ought to be done to relieve the carrying trade from such enormous charges. Half a cent a bushel may not seem very much, but it is a good deal when rates are cut as fine as they are now in the carrying trade. If relief is given in that direction immediately before the harbour is equipped, it will be of great assistance to the carrying trade and we can at once begin to increase the traffic by way of the St. Lawrence route. These points suggest themselves to me, and I give them to the committee at this stage.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the discussion here for the last two or three days of the transportation question and the best way of carrying grain to market, I observe that every hon. gentleman who speaks upon it has an object in speaking. He is speaking for his constituency and not keeping in mind the best way of carrying our grain to market. Now, if the government have devised a scheme, if after mature consideration they have concluded that Port Col-borne is the best point at which to tranship the grain en route to Montreal, if they have had the advice of the best engineers, I do not think it is right for us to stand and quibble about that amount in the estimates. I notice that the hon. member for East Siimcoe (Mr. Bennett) wants all the trade drawn to the port of Midland. He wants all the vessels to go to Midland, while the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) has a word to say for Kingston. We heard the other evening of the port of Halifax as being the place where the trade should go. and the hon. member for Welland Mr. German), of course, has been standing up for the system adopted by the government. We also heard from Toronto the other day. If the government have a well-devised scheme, and if it is shown that we can carry grain cheaper by adopting that scheme in preference to any other, for pity sake do

not let us quarrel about it. Let us pass the estimates and have done with it. I do not want to give the committee any plan because I think the plan which the government have presented is better than any plan which I could put forth, and therefore 1 cheerfully submit that the estimates should be passed and that we should get value for the money expended.


Mr. MORIN.: The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) said a short time ago that the distance from Buffalo to New York was 445 miles. I contend that our railroads from Port Colborne to Montreal are as good as the railroads from Buffalo to New York, and our waterway from Port Colborne to Montreal is better than the waterway from Buffalo to New York. Now, why is it that it costs more to handle the grain from Port Colborne to Montreal than it does from Buffalo to New York ?


Jabel Robinson: One word more. If the people of Montreal are charging the farmers and the shippers of this country 90 per cent for the use of their elevators, I would not be a bit surprised if Portland were made the outport. The people of Montreal are inducing shippers to leave Montreal by that kind of exaction. I think the Montreal people ought to consider this matter well. I do not make the charge; I want to know if it is true.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must admit that unfortunately it is true that there is a floating elevator company which has exacted very high rates.


Jabel Robinson: I want you to see to it that they do not do it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I denounced them from my place in this House two years ago. But that state of affairs will not last very long. When we have improved the port of Montreal, we shall have elevators. We have no accommodation in the port of Montreal ; but we are getting it now.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained that over and over again ; we are building large piers.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You talk so much you do not explain.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to obtain a little information from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. I do not understand the works at Port Colborne very well. I gather from what the hon. gentleman said that the work which is projected there is a funnel-shaped enlargement of the mouth of the canal, and the side of it is about 1,200 feet long. Is that right ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have a sketch of it which I will show the hon. gentleman.


Jabel Robinson: 


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask one question of the hon. Minister of Public Works. I think he said that the present cost of carrying a bushel of grain from Buffalo to New York was about 3 cents, and he also said that after these improvements were completed the cost of carrying a bushel from Port Colborne to Montreal would be about 2 cents.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope less.


Robert Laird Borden: That would, of course, give that route a very decided advantage. What is the hon. minister's data for making that statement ? And perhaps he would tell us what is the present cost of carrying a bushel of grain from Port Colborne to Montreal, so that we may compare the two.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My data is that the' Parry Sound Railway is able to carry grain from Parry Sound to Montreal for 3 cents a bushel, and it is making money at that rate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that mean carrying grain from Parry Harbour to Coteau Landing, putting it into barges there, and conveying it thence to Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I have reason to know that. If the Parry Sound Railway could reach Montreal direct, without the necessity of transhipping at Coteau, I think we should be surprised at the low rate at which it could carry grain to Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly there may be some more immediate connection between the charge of the Parry Sound Railway and the cost by this waterway, than I can at present see. The reason I ask this question is that it seems to be most important to know to what extent we can depend upon the opinion which the hon. gentleman gives to the House. I would also like to ask : does that include, as I understand, the 3-cent rate from Buffalo to New York includes, the terminal charges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it does.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not know that this discussion was coming on to-night, as I have some statements which I have gathered from reliable sources on the whole subject, and which I intend to have when my estimates come up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I am well informed that Mr. Booth carries grain from Duluth and other western points to Montreal for inside of 5 cents a bushel, and I believe it does not cost him more than 1 cent a bushel, or perhaps a trifle more, to carry it to Parry Sound. From Parry Sound to Montreal he

can carry for inside of 3 cents a bushel, and make a profit. He lias his own terminals at Parry Sound. He should have his own terminals at Montreal. When the government have equipped our canals, and when we have terminals, either our own or terminals which would be under our control, we would be very unfortunate indeed if we were not able to do what the private corporations can do.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister did not answer my question, as to the present cost per bushel of carrying from Port Colborne to Montreal.


Byron Moffatt Britton: It is rather difficult to answer that question, because there is no rate quoted that I know of from Port *Colborne to Montreal. The rate from Kingston to Montreal is cents per bushel. Then you would have to apportion the rate from western points to Kingston, which is 4 cents.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. member for Kingston could give me the information I desire. I see the difficulty he suggests : the rate to Kingston and the rate from there to Montreal are through rates. Therefore, it is impossible to say, except on a mere estimate, what the rate is from Port Colborne to Montreal. Will the hon. member for Kingston be good enough to explain to me how the rate by the Parry Sound Railway, referred to by the hon. Minister of Public Works, compares with the rate by water through the Welland canal to Montreal ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Of course we cannot tell, but we have understood that the rate by rail has been so cut that it is a little under what has been the ordinary rate by water, and that the railways have got business by cutting in that way. While I do not know the exact rate, it is a little under what it has been carried for from Port Arthur to Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is correct in saying that grain would be carried for two cents from Port Colborne to Montreal, it does seem that we might have a possible solution of the difficulty surrounding this grain-carrying trade. If this rate of two cents includes the same charges as the three cent rate from Buffalo to New York, it must give a decided advantage to the Canadian route. Is that what the minister intends to suggest ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has referred to the Parry Sound Railway, but I do not see the sufficiency of his grounds for stating that the rate from Port Colborne to Montreal would be no more than two cents.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman from Kingston (Mr. Britton) has told us that the rate between Kingston and Montreal would be one cent and a half, and the rate from Port Colborne to Kingston would remain at one-half cent. I may add to that statement, that I have met a great number of American grain shippers as well as Montreal shippers, and their information tends to confirm that statement. The American capitalists who, two years ago, applied for a site in the port of Montreal, gave me valuable information as to the rates at which they could carry grain. Perhaps I may be told that they have not succeeded so far. Mr. Conners, I am sorry to say, has not got along as speedily as he expected, but the House must not forget that if he has not succeeded so far it is because the big monopolies in the United States could kill any individual who would try to fight against them. I know that several times he has succeeded in getting his money, and that every time they got at his men and simply took the life out of him. The information conveyed to me by the most important shippers in the United States was, that they expected to carry grain from Port Colborne to Montreal for two cents, or even less. I, of course, cannot give definite assurances. These rates vary, and when I speak of three cents between New York and Buffalo, that is the average rate, because in some months of the year the rate is higher and in some months lower. But, if by rail they can carry a bushel of grain between Buffalo and New York for three cents, then water transportation being admittedly cheaper, and Canada having a 14 foot canal system, it seems to me that when I estimate a rate of two cents I am making a pretty conservative estimate.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are a few words I should like to say before this discussion ends. I agree with the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that we have the best all-water route ; in fact, the only all-water route ; but, there is a disadvantage which is to be found in the length of that route. Now, having spent such a vast sum upon our canal system in making it perfect, if there is a defect at any particular part of our water route, that defect ought to be remedied. There is a defect in the Lake Erie entrance to the Welland canal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) have declared that expert testimony has caused them to come to the conclusion that Port Colborne, rather than Port Maitland, is the best place to make good the defect in this water route. When the matter was under consideration on a previous occasion, I drew the

attention of tlie Minister of Railways to the fact that at least one of the experts appointed by his department favoured Port Maitland. 1 presume there is no use discussing that matter any further, because the minister, after the fullest consideration, no doubt, has come to the conclusion that Port Colborne is the proper place, and the government are carrying on tlie necessary works there to enable vessels of 20 or 22 feet draught to enter Port Colborne and discharge their cargoes there. The hon. member for Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has pointed out a fact that cannot be controverted when he stated, that the only advantage that will result to our all-water route by the expenditure of this money is the advantage that will be gained by enabling vessels of a capacity of 250,000 bushels to bring cargoes from the head of Lake Superior to Port Colborne and discharge them there. That is the only advantage, after all, that will be gained, and whether that advantage will be sufficient to offset the disadvantages under which this allwater route labours, I am not prepared to say. The minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) tells us, however, that he hopes-I am sure we all hope that his expectations will be more than realized-that when the works at Port Colborne have been completed, and when large vessels are able to enter the new Port Colborne harbour, he will be able to reduce the rate per bushel for carrying grain from Port Colborne to Montreal to two cents, or a little less. Let me draw the attention of the committee to this fact: that according to the statement which the hon. minister has made, the Canada Atlantic Railway have been bringing grain from Parry Sound to Coteau Landing, a distance of 384 miles by rail, have been discharging it there into elevators, and again transferring it into barges, and bringing it 30 miles thence by water to Montreal, at three cents per bushel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Less.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Less than three cents per bushel. The minister says that the distance by water from Port Colborne to Montreal is 375 miles, and if I took his figures down correctly, he said there was a distance of 384 miles between Parry Harbour and Coteau Landing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And Montreal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is thirty miles to Montreal from Coteau, and, therefore, the distance from Parry Harbour to Coteau would be 354 miles.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Thirty-eight miles from Coteau.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At all events, there is a land haul of about 350 miles, and there are two transhipments of grain between Mr. CLARKE
Parry Harbour and Montreal, and Mr. Booth has demonstrated the practicability of making a land haul about as long as the distance between Port Colborne and Montreal, transhipping his grain at Parry Harbour, and transhipping it again at Coteau Landing for Montreal, and doing all that at a cost of less than three cents a bushel. Now, in view of this, unless the minister can by these proposed improvements at Port Colborne materially reduce the cost of the carriage of grain to Montreal below two cents per bushel, it seems to me that his expectations cannot be realized from this large expenditure at Port Colborne. The minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) referred this afternoon to the proposition to expend a large sum of money to make North Bay one of the termini on the upper lakes for large steamers coming from the head of Lake Superior. He also spoke of the expenditure which is being made at Port Colborne. I feel very much disappointed that the hon. minister has apparently overlooked the manifold advantages that would accrue to the Canadian government if it had a second bow to its string by the construction, or part ownership, if you will, of a railway specially constructed for the carriage of grain between Collingwood and Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did allude to it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Unfortunately, I must have been absent. I think the hon. gentleman just alluded to it in passing, but it was a mere allusion. I do not think he held out any hope to us that a matter, with respect to which we thought he was so favourably impressed a year or two ago, would receive very much consideration from him at present.
1 want to draw attention to the fact that there is practically no difference in point of distance between Port Arthur and North Bay, Midland, Parry Harbour, Collingwood or Owen Sound. They are practically equidistant from Port Arthur. The distance from Port Arthur to Montreal by any of these routes is nearly 300 miles shorter than going round by Port Colborne and the Welland canal, and the most feasible route, it seems to me, that can be developed by the government is the route which will have Collingwood for its lower terminus on the upper lakes. The government are spending a large sum of money in deepening and improving the harbour of Collingwood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They have promised, I think, to make a considerable expenditure for the purpose of deepening and improving the harbour at Toronto. I expected to have an affirmative nod from the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will speak by-and-by.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I had hoped to have some sign of assent from the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: You will have a friendly speech.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Both these works being accomplished, the distance from the head of Lake Superior to Montreal is reduced to 995 miles as against 1,296 by the all-water route via Port Colborne, thus shortening the distance by 300 miles, and of that distance of 995 miles less than 75 are by land. The entire distance, less about 70 miles, is by water.
I need not appeal to the committee that it would be a very great advantage indeed, as supplementing the water route, if the government would give favourable consideration to the proposition to acquire a controlling interest in the road specially to be constructed for the carriage of grain between Toronto and Collingwood. I do not know whether these large freighters that carry grain to Buffalo receive return cargoes or not.


William Manley German: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They take back coal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But there would be a great deal more likelihood of vessels running to Collingwood from the head of Lake Superior obtaining return cargoes, if there was a route established from Collingwood to Toronto and from Toronto to Montreal or Quebec. The advantages are so obvious that I do not think I need take up the time of the committee in enumerating them. The hon. the Minister of Public Works has been to Toronto and has given some attention to the matter. He has discussed it with the members of the board of trade and he had the pleasure of listening yesterday to the hon. member for East .Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who pointed out some of the advantages that would obtain if more consideration were given to the establishment of Canadian marine on the upper lakes and the lower lakes as well. I am perfectly satisfied that if the hon. Minister of Public Works will spend one-half as much time in considering the advantages to be obtained by the people generally from the establishment of this almost direct route for the transport of grain to the seaboard, he will come down-if not in the next supplementary estimates, at the next session-and ask for a grant, not only to deepen the harbour at Toronto, but also for the construction of an air line between Collingwood and the Queen City. It is not unreasonable to ask him, in view of the representations made by both sides of the House and those of the board of trade of Toronto, not to overlook this matter longer, and not to forget the claims of Toronto harbour and the Collingwood and Toronto route. That route will be 300 miles shorter than the all-water route. If the government can afford to spend a million and a half or two millions on what has not passed beyond
the experimental stage, it is not unreasonable to ask them to make a moderate expenditure in the harbour of Toronto and on the construction of an air line. These works being completed, we will have the shortest, the most direct and best route from the head of Lake Superior to Montreal.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: be much better spent on the Toronto and Collingwood route. There Is doubtless a certain justification for this government in spending money on the former route. They have this justification, at all events, that their predecessors spent such large sums upon that route that they must keep it in proper condition, and to that extent I am with the government, but they have advanced the further argument that they must put the harbour of Port Colborne in such a condition that it will compete with the harbour of Buffalo. Well, Sir, I have submitted to this parliament and I submit again, that the transhipment at Collingwood would be no more expensive than the transhipment at Port Colborne.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the mileage of that railway ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is eighty miles as it goes now, but sixty miles as the crow flies, and through a country easy for railway construction.


Mr. MAXWELL.: Watch the crow fly.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: My hon. friend (Mr. Maxwell) says ' watch the crow.' Certainly there are a number of vultures, at any rate, when it comes to distributing public money through different parts of the country. I do not care for the jeers, if we get fair-play. The money should be spent on the best route, and the best route, if you take mileage into consideration, is via Collingwood and Toronto. There is every justification I believe for maintaining the Port Colborne route in its present efficiency; but to squander more money on Port Colborne I hold, is not justified by the information we have. I was going to say that transhipment at Port Colborne will cost no less than at Collingwood and at Port Dalhousie no less than at Toronto. The question Is : Is it cheaper to take a vessel through the Welland canal having regard to the delay necessarily involved in canal navigation, or is it cheaper to take a vessel load of grain down by rail I submit that it is cheaper to take the load by rail from Collingwood to Toronto than it is to take it through the Welland canal. In Collingwood, I am very glad to say, we have received fair consideration at the hands of the government. We have advanced in our work in a way satisfactory to the citizens of Collingwood, if we are to judge by the votes they have given in the last two elections. The question we are now discussing is not so much the vote at Collingwood as the general question which route should receive the consideration of this government. If you take the mileage there is no doubt about it, it is the shortest. And I submit that with an expenditure of a far less sum than would be necessary to improve Port Colborne harbour, the harbour of Collingwood would be made far better than Port Colborne, and you would then have a complete route, Mr. McCarthy.
not a waterway I admit, but the transhipment would be the same, and you would have a shorter route which would* be in the best interests of the country.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I think I cannot be accused of having overlooked the importance of the air line between Collingwood and Toronto. We are improving Collingwood harbour. The road is not yet built between Toronto and Collingwood. My hon. friend says he has expected a friendly nod from me in reference to Toronto harbour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have been expecting it for some days.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not treated Toronto too badly. We are carrying out large works of improvement there, but we are in the difficult position that at Toronto the two jetties that lead into the inside harbour have been built on a quicksand, and it will be difficult to give much additional depth without incurring a large expenditure. I do not accuse any engineer, especially those who are no more, of having been unwise, but all the same, it is a well known fact that all the harbours in Ontario have been built on a twelve-foot basis. We have to rebuild the whole thing, practically, because the conditions have changed. I fully recognize that the route indicated by my hon. friends would be the shortest route, but I beg of them not to deprecate any other route. There are forty millions of tons of freight originating in the great lakes. There is trade for all the ports. I claim that Georgian Bay is, perhaps, the greatest trade reservior in the world. Collingwood, Owen Sound, Midland, Parry Harbour-all the harbours of Georgian Bay should be equipped so as to receive the trade from the west. I think that if we give our best consideration to the different routes and the ways and means of getting freight for Canada, we might, in a few years, be surprised at the results we were able to achieve. I am always sorry when I hear a member of parliament deprecating any of the Canadian routes. All the roads that lead to the great St. Lawrence route are good. I was accused once of having made a speech in which I was for everybody. Well, I honestly believe that all the ports on Georgian Bay may be great recipients of trade; but I would like that every bushel of grain, every ton of freight carried to these ports should be carried further down to Canadian waters. That is a point we should never lose sight of, and that is the reason why, at times,
I feel a little sore about Midland. We are carrying on great works there, but a good deal of the trade which comes from Midland is taken to American ports. If some morning, I can find a way of stoppiug that and directing the trade to our own ports.
I will do it. I do not blame the Grand

Trunk Kailway, because we have not in Montreal harbour facilities that would justify us iu taking strong measures even if we were able to do so. But, when the St. Lawrence is equipped and the port of Montreal is equipped, I do not think that there will be any railway strong enough to take its stand against Canada.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I would like to ask the hon. minister when he expects to have the port of Montreal equipped. I have been listening to a good deal of discussion; and the minister perhaps, thought I was a little rough when 1 complained that there was more talk than explanation. I did not want to be offensive. But I think the hon. minister will allow me to say that I do not think it helps him to get his estimates through to be talking all the while, instead of giving explanations in a few words. I have no interest in one of these harbours more than in another. My only interest is to see that the money we vote in parliament is expended where it will be best in the interest of the whole country. I do not care whether it is Midland, Collingwood, Port Colborne, Parry Sound or any other port. When the whole case comes to be summed up, it seems to me that the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Public Works are competing with Mr. Booth and that it is Mr. Booth who is lowering the rates and not our canal system. Our canals are not carrying the grain to-day, as I understand it, as cheaply as Mr. Booth is carrying it by his railway to Montreal. What does that prove ? It proves that, after you get your great improvements at Port Colborne completed, after you complete your Welland canal, after you get your great equipment at Montreal, Mr. Booth is going to carry the grain.
Now, the Minister of Public Works says that it is because Port Colborne is not properly equipped that there is a falling off in the amount of grain carried through the Welland canal. I do not see it that way. It is because Mr. Booth is carrying grain cheaper than you can carry it by waterway, and he is carrying grain that formerly went through the Welland canal. The hon. gentleman shakes his head ; but will he tell me there is not as much grain carried to the seaboard now as there used to be ? Will the Minister of Public Works take the ground to-night that there are as many bushels of grain carried to the seaboard as formerly ? Either he must take that ground, or admit the fact that the Booth railway is carrying grain that used to go through the Welland canal.
Now. I do not understand the contention between the member for Simcoe on the one hand and the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways and Canals on the other. The Minister of Public Works is fighting for this principle, that if he can get
the amount of money spent at Port Colborne that he wishes, he is going to have a larger class of vessels, carrying 250,000 bushels, coming to Port Colborne that are now going to Buffalo. By doing so he thinks that he is going to reduce the rate of carrying that grain down to Montreal. Now, the member for Simcoe and the member for Kingston recall a fact to my mind that has uot been controverted. Men are bringing grain to-day from Lake Superior down with vessels carrying 80,000 bushels, and each vessel has two consorts carrying 50,000 each, or 180,000 bushels altogether. They are now bringing this grain to Port Colborne. But the difficulty is that an 80,000-busliel vessel cannot get through the locks, therefore, she has to be lightened at Port Colborne, and the grain taken off is carried by railway down to Port Dalhousie, and then taken on again. Now, is it not a fact that this class of vessels do not pay under these circumstances ? That fact has not been controverted by the member for Kingston. Grain has to be transhipped at Port Colborne and Port Dalhousie before it can be sent down to Montreal, that is a portion of it. How are you going to overcome that fact ? You have to have a better class of vessels to carry freight from Port Colborne to Kingston than a class that will pay to take it from Kingston to Montreal. There is the difficulty. If the hon. gentleman succeeds I shall be very glad of it, but I do not think, with the data we have at hand, he is going to effect the saving he expects. I do not think it is prudent to go on and spend the enormous sums of money that he has in view, because I do not think that prospects will justify the expenditure. I may say this to the Minister of Public Works. He is a younger man than I am, and if he takes care of his health and does not get too excited, he will live to see the grain of the great Northwest carried out by railway, and the canal system will only serve to keep the rates down to a proper level. That is what Mr. Booth is doing now. I am here to add my testimony of respect to Mr. Booth, for I believe his line is going to be one of the most important lines of railway in Canada for the transportation of grain from the North-west to the port of Montreal. Instead of spending so much money at Port Colborne, to my mind, it would be better to equip the harbour of Montreal so that you can handle the grain there, and not rob the people that are trying to get grain to the seaboard.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to point out to the minister that the works that are being done at Toronto are works for the preservation of Toronto island. Those works are being carried on as the result of an agreement entered into years ago between the government and the city of Toronto. The government took the extraordinary position that before they would construct the

necessary works for (lie preservation of the island, which, of course, makes the harbour of Toronto, the municipality should be called upon to contribute a portion of the cost, and the municipality did contribute $100,000 towards the construction of the works that were necessary to maintain Toronto island. Now, the other work that we are asking the minister to provide for is a work that has been rendered necessary because of the action of the government. They acted, I presume, upon the advice of their responsible engineer. They thought the deviation of the course of the Don, which enters Toronto harbour, would help to cleanse the harbour of Toronto, and that it would remain as deep as it was before the deviation took place ; but instead of having that effect, the mud that is carried down in the spring and fall freshets has been deposited in the harbour, with the result that it is being continually made shallower.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Is not that largely caused by the straightening done by the municipality of what was formerly a circuitous river going slowly down to the bay, and not depositing its silt in the bay at all ? The municipality, I understand, straightened it and enabled it to flow straight down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Evidently the hon. gentleman cannot stand very high in the engineering profession, otherwise he would know that the widening and straightening of the channel rendered freshets an impossibility. There is no such a thing as a freshet in the Don since this great channel has been constructed ; but we have made a reservoir for the deposit of mud and silt that come down in the spring and fall, at a cost of half a million dollars. The municipality has provided a dumping ground for this silt in the new channel of the river. The point I want to make is this, that the city of Toronto is so reasonable in its request to the government that the government ought not to withstand the request any longer. The request of the city of Toronto is, that the damage to the harbour, which has been' partially filled up-the eastern part of it, practically, wholly filled up-as a result of the government works undertaken on the advice of the government engineers, should be undone by the government.
The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) drew the attention of the House to the fact that Toronto is a greater distributing point actually than the city of Montreal ; and I am sure that the representatives of Toronto heartily sympathize with the Minister of Public Works in his desire to build up an all-Canadian route, and to secure as much trade as possible for our Canadian channels. I want to point out to the minister that if the harbour of Toronto is deepened to enable vessels of the full capacity of the St. Lawrence canals to come Mr. CLARKE.
in, there will be a stronger competitor secured for the producers and consumers of this country against the railways than by any other policy that can be adopted. If the Collingwood and Toronto route is established, as I am sure it must be, for it will continue to press itself upon the attention of the government, vessels drawing 14 feet of water can proceed from Toronto to Montreal and Quebec during the season of navigation, and they are more likely to get full return cargoes back again to Toronto than to any other possible point. Mr. Booth, in bringing grain from Duluth and Port Arthur down to Montreal, had to find return freights for his cars. Vessels coming to Port Col-borne, large freighters, that discharge their cargoes there, will have great difficulty in finding return cargoes to bring back to Port Arthur and Port William. But, with a line of vessels running from Toronto to Montreal or Quebec there is a greater probability of return cargoes being obtained through the entire season of navigation than by any other proposition which has been submitted. Now, I can point to the fact that the work being done in Toronto is done because of a contract made in good faith between the government and the city years ago. The work that we are asking to be done is to repair the damage which has been caused to the harbour of the city of Toronto, because of the action of the government and the government engineers in diverting the channel of the Don years ago. Surely this proposition is so reasonable that we may look for a substantial appropriation in the supplementary estimates of the hon. Minister of Public Works to have this work commenced and carried out to completion as speedily as possible. Estimates have been voted by the House before, but so far practically nothing has been done. May I appeal to the hon. minister that there shall be no further unnecessary delay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say, first, that I do not feel inclined to admit all the wrongs that the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says have been committed by the government. I will not place the question on that ground at all, because I think we might not agree. But, I will say of Toronto, what I have said of all the other points. If the air line between Collingwood and Toronto, after full investigation, is proved to be a practical line, if transhipping grain twice, once at Collingwood and again at Toronto, is not a barrier against that route, in spite of Toronto's failings, I would be very much inclined to do anything I could to help it, because, in questions like this with me here, there are no party politics. I hope that the House will share my views upon that. Montreal, Toronto-all points that can be made reservoirs of Canadian trade should be placed above party politics. But, I do not know that the hon. member for Toronto will rise in his

place and say that the question has been investigated fully as to whether the problem of the construction of 80 miles of railway. the transhipping at Collingwood and transhipping at Toronto, has been solved.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will draw the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that it has been solved by Mr. Booth. He tranships from large freighters at Parry Harbour to cars, he carries the grain in cars down to Coteau Landing, he there transfers it from the cars into barges and sends it down to Montreal, and he does it for three cents a bushel. The difference in favour of the route which we advocate, as against Mr. Booth's route is, that, whereas there are 350 miles of haul by land that Mr. Booth has to perform and 30 by water, there is a haul of only 70 miles by land and of 300 miles by water by the Toronto-Collingwood route, and there are no more transhipments to be made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But, the hon. gentleman must not lose sight of the fact that Mr. Booth's transhipment at Coteau Landing is only a temporary one. I may say that if Mr. Booth did not contemplate having a direct communication with Montreal perhaps he would not have tried to accumulate as much trade as he has done, but the Grand Trunk Railway were simply asking him to pay $150,000 a year to carry his grain to Montreal. He had to do something else and he has built an elevator at Coteau and is transhipping there. It is only a temporary arrangement, while transhipment twice will be a permanent feature of the air line. Speaking for myself, I would like, before we are too old, to have expert testimony as to the feasibility of that plan. The government are open to argument. If I were not a minister perhaps I would speak a little more freely, but, of course, if I were to say too much, I "would be accused of wanting to spend a large amount of money, I have notions of my own. I would like to see the trade of this country developed to the greatest possible extent before I die, and before I go to heaven with all the hon. members here. In other words, I would like if the country would do now what is to be done even if we have to spend some money. Some millions, more or less, do not amount to much provided they are spent with prudence, with care and with intelligence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. minister passes to a better world before he has completed the reasonable works that we require at Toronto, and assisted in the construction of the Collingwood-Toronto route, I think he would regret it for all ages.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are a few things that I cannot understand and one is this : The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says that it is not the government's intention to either widen or deepen the canal between the entrance of Port Colborne and the other end of the canal because the cost of such work would amount to several millions. On the other hand, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) says that boats arrive at Port Colborne with cargoes of 80,000 bushels that they have to lighten to 60,000 bushels in order to pass through the canal. The government say that their object is to bring in vessels bearing 250,000 bushels of grain to Port Colborne harbour, and in order to do that they have to build a breakwater at a cost of $(^950,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is for the whole work, not the breakwater.


Andrew B. Ingram: The total cost of the whole work is to be $5,000,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood two years ago that the object of enlarging the canal was for the purpose of building elevators, enlarging the entrance of the canal, &c., and that this work would cost in the neighbourhood of $5,000,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no.


Andrew B. Ingram: Very well; we will let that pass. The entrance of the canal is to be between 500 and 1,000 feet wide, 22 feet deep and 1,200 feet long. What is the object of expending this large sum of money at the entrance of Port Colborne harbour to bring in vessels carrying 250,000 bushels of grain, when it is now necessary to reduce cargoes from 80,000 to 60,000 bushels to enable vessels to pass through the canal ? If it is the case that we have to pay high rates for grain passing over the Port Colborne and Niagara Railway, if the company controls the rates, if the government cannot bring that company under control sufficiently to reduce the rates and increase the amount of grain coming into that harbour, what benefit will Canada gain by expending this large sum of money in order to bring larger cargoes into Port Colborne harbour without being able to put larger cargoes through the canal than are now able to pass through it ? Will the hon. minister explain that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained that matter over and over again.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will put it plainer.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better for the hon. minister to get his estimates passed and go to bed instead of going to heaven.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand the case, but I have answered at least a dozen times. The object of building the breakwater at Port Colborne is to-

allow the big ships that are carrying the, grain to Buffalo to come to our Canadian harbours and unload there as they do at Buffalo. There will be a fleet of steamers and barges of less capacity which will take that grain at Port Colborne down to Montreal. That is the object in two words.


Andrew B. Ingram: That implies that these boats that come to Port Colborne are not to pass through the canals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some will and some will not.


Andrew B. Ingram: But none will that exceed <30,000 bushels capacity. I have not heard any description as to what distance the breakwater is to be from these piers, and what distance these piers are to be extended into the lake. I know something of the harbours on Lake Erie, and I know the difficulties experienced in Lake Erie harbours at the present time. I know that at Port Stanley and Port Burwell, that there is a great difference in how you build the piers. If the arms extend in a funnel-shape as it is proposed here, and if the breakwater does not prevent the sand from washing in between these piers, you will be no better off than in the other harbours on Lake Erie. The western piers have to be extended a certain distance beyond the eastern piers in order to prevent the sand coming in.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Andrew B. Ingram: I am not saying that there is, and I am not saying that there is not, but I do know that this is the difficulty in other harbours on Lake Erie, and that the government of Canada have expended thousands of dollars in dredging out the harbours because the breakwaters do not keep out the sand, and in view of that, very great care should be exercised at Port Colborne where there is so much money to be expended. I am not finding any fault with Port Colborne. Like my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), I am willing that any harbour in Canada shall be improved if it is in the best interests of the country to do so. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) said that this would make a great harbour of refuge. Well, in view of the large amount of money expended on it, it ought to make a fine harbour of refuge. Before sitting down I wish to compliment the Minister of Public Works for the interest he has taken in the harbours at Port Stanley and Port Burwell. We know that Lake Erie is a shallow lake, and that there is danger on it from storms, and I believe that a judicious expenditure of money now will place these harbours in such shape that vessels in distress within reasonable distance of them will be able to find refuge.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Byron Moffatt Britton: I wish to refer to a question which was asked me earlier in the discussion by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden). I spoke from memory, and after he asked me the question I telephoned to the general manager of the transportation company, and his reply to me is that they carried grain from Kingston to Montreal last year for If cents, which, of course, includes the elevator charges at Kingston. He said that if he was asked to make a rate from Port Colborne to Montreal, although there is no such rate made at present, it would probably be 2f cents ; perhaps 2i cents.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps less.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) say that that includes the transferring charges at Kingston.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: Does it include any of the elevating charges at Montreal ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I think not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These charges will disappear in Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: I thank the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton) for the information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will take up the votes for public buildings, as there are no controversial items, they being all old votes.


Mr. WILSON.: There are some controversial items ; there are votes for immigration buildings at St. John and Halifax and Quebec, which will require some explanation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All these items will come up in the supplementa'ries.


Uriah Wilson: I know that, but we must have the information when they are being passed by the House.


Robert Laird Borden: We have been going on with about thirty members in the House for the last three hours, and perhaps it would not be expedient to go further.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is only to make progress.
Halifax, new public building	 $25,000


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask for some information in regard to this vote. The site for this building was purchased some time ago, and there is urgent need for immediately extending the accommodation required by the Dominion offices at Halifax. The item of $25,000 would not be nearly enough for the purpose of erecting such a building. I would like to learn

from the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) what is the cause of the delay in connection with the erection of the building, and if it is the policy of the government to erect it, why is it that we have not a vote which would be sufficient to make substantial progress, and if possible, complete it during the ensuing year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am just asking parliament to place at my disposal the sum of $50,000 ; this sum of $25,000 was voted at last session of parliament. We had a great many buildings to erect all over the country. We were just completing in Halifax a large drill hall. Perhaps we have not gone as fast as some of our friends expected us to go, but my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) may rest assured that no time will be lost now. I think I speak the views- of my colleagues when I say that the government intends to erect in Halifax a building worthy of that capital. We consider that Halifax is one of the most important cities in Canada. It is a kind of Imperial city. Without spending too much money, I hope that the new building will be a credit to Canada and to the city of Halifax. I understand that the plans are now completed.


Robert Laird Borden: There has been a great deal of delay already. I remember last spring arguing an appeal to the Exchequer Court from a decision with respect to the expropriation for the site which had taken place a great many months before.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was not expropriated ; It was purchased. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is referring to some other property. The city market building was not expropriated. I know it was purchased, because I negotiated the purchase for my hon. friend (Mr. Tarte.)


Robert Laird Borden: The term ' expropriation ' is, perhaps, not technically correct, but there was a question of the interest of one of the parties. The money was paid into the Exchequer Court, and it was practically dealt with by the Exchequer Court in the same way as if it had been expropriated. However, that is immaterial. The question is : what is the date when the site was acquired, what is the cause of the delay which has since taken place, and what delay will there be before the building is constructed ? It is very nice to know that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) regards the city in so favourable a light as an Imperial city, and so forth, but still that does not help us so much with respect to the advancement of this building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only say that no time will be lost. I do not want to plead illness, but my hon. friend knows that I have been away from this country through illness. No time will be lost now.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not press my hon. friend in that aspect of the matter of that kind, but I would suppose that this would be dealt with by the engineers and the permanent officers of his department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, no time will be lost now.


Uriah Wilson: What is this building intended for ? Those of us who are not acquainted with the city of Halifax do not know much about it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The building is intended chiefly for a customhouse, and also for other offices. There has been no public building for that purpose erected in Halifax since confederation. The public offices, so far as it is possible to accommodate them, are in a building erected before confederation, and with the growth of business it has been necessary to hire offices in different parts of the city. For example, the Assistant Receiver General's office is a hired appartment in one part of the city, and there are various offices connected with the customs and inland revenue scattered over the city. The object of this vote is to provide for these in one building. The present building is chiefly used for customs and post office, and both these departments need better accommodation.


Uriah Wilson: What will be the probable cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I stated, on a previous occasion, that if the building cost over $150,000 we would again communicate to the House. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has told me since, that he feels that a building of a proper character for the city could not be erected for less than $200,000, and that is one of the reasons why I have not felt like pressing my hon. friend to award the contract, because I had given assurances that in case It cost more than $150,000, the matter would be mentioned again in parliament. Up to the present time no contract has been awarded.


Uriah Wilson: This is a small vote for a building of that kind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The building will occupy some time in erecting.


Adam Carr Bell: Does the $200,000 include the site ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The site was paid for by a special vote of $25,000. I fancy this will not include the site.
St. John Immigration building	 $11,000


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the building.


Uriah Wilson: I wish the minister to explain what kind of building is in St. John now, what great necessity there is for this new building, and what it is to cost. I do not

want to enter into a general discussion of our immigration policy, but I feel that we are spending a great deal more money in that direction, and this vote will be charged to another account than Immigration.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that we have no accommodation whatever at that port now. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) knows, St. John is one of the winter ports of Canada, and it is out of the question to try and bring immigrants there unless we have accommodation. The cost of the building will range between $25,000 and $30,000, and it will have to be equipped as a good immigration building should be equipped.


Uriah Wilson: Was there anything spent out of the vote last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Uriah Wilson: It is wonderful how you got along so many years without an immigration building there. I find from the returns that the number of immigrants landing at St. John is not very large. The people who travel to St. John are usually tourists and such.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the same, if we are going to have a fast line, as I hope we will have, we must have an immigration building there surely.


Uriah Wilson: Is it the intention of the government to have large immigration buildings at all the ports ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not all the ports.


Uriah Wilson: Is there not one in Halifax V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have one in Halifax and one in Quebec.


Uriah Wilson: You are building one in St. John, and have you not one in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have none in Montreal.


Uriah Wilson: It is strange you should want one in St. John and none in Montreal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The people of Montreal are very moderate in their demands, and they have taken care of their immigrants up to the present.
Buckingham building	 $7,000
Drummondville public building	 9,000


Uriah Wilson: What did these public public buildings cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The one at Drummondville will cost just $14,000, with furniture and everything complete ; and the Buckingham building will cost $15,000, with furinture. They will just cost what is in the estimates for them.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.


Uriah Wilson: Monday, March 11, 1901.