1902-03-14

OFFICIAL DEBATES OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) presented the second report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of the House during the present session as follows :
Friday, March 14, 1902.
The select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House during the present session beg leave to present the following as their second report : Your committee recommend that Mr. Wilfrid Gascon, who has been employ )d in a temporary capacity on the staff of translators of the official report of the debates from the beginning of the present session, be appointed to the position or. the said staff rendered vacint by the death of the late Emile Tremblay, and that Ills appointment a.nd remuneration, viz., $1,900 per session date from the 13th ult.
All which is respe y;fully submitted.
(Sgd.) JOHN CHARLTON,
Chairman, pro tem.
He moved :
That the second report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House during the present session be now con :urred in.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I must raise the objection that I did before to the adoption of reports the same day as they are presented.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the objection is quite proper and this will be considered a notice of motion.
Motion allowed to stand.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 46) to incorporate the Strait of Oanso Bridge Company.-Mr. McLennan.
Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No 48) to Incorporate the Montreal and St. Lawrence Bridge Company.-Mr. Madore.
Bill (No. 49) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of John Westren-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. -Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Dyment Banking, Loan and Savings Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. U. WILSON (Lennox).: Before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to inquire from the government when I may expect that return in reference to immigration ?

An order of the House was passed on the 19th of last month and I do not see why the return has not been brought down.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I shall have inquiries made at once, and give the information to my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: In the absence of the Minister of Railways, the acting minister promised us some time ago that Mr. Maclean's report on freight rates would be brought down. Is the report ready ?
The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS ' AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). There are two reports and they are now being printed. I hope to be able to bring them down perhaps some day next week.



REGINA LAW LIBRARY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved second reading of Bill (No. 19) respecting the Regina Law Library.
John Graham Haggart: What is this Bill about ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: The law library at Regina was created by the government for the use of the judges of the North-west Territories. The territories have now sufficiently developed to have a Bar Association of their own. The intention of the Bill is to relieve the government of any further obligation with reference to the maintenance of that library and to hand it over to the Bar Association. This is done at the request of the association itself.


John Graham Haggart: Are you going to get anything for the library ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: No. The library has been maintained up to the present at the expense of the government, and this Bill is passed with a view that it shall hereafter be maintained at the expense of the Law Association.


John Graham Haggart: You take power for the Governor in Council to hand over the library absolutely upon such terms as they may see fit. I thought perhaps the terms include some payment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It would be useless to do that, because, if we did maintain the library the Bar would have it for nothing. It is thought better to let the Bar have it and be done with it.


John Graham Haggart: It would be foolish to try to get anything out of the lawyers at any rate.
Bill considered in committee, reported, read a third time and passed.



TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE moved second reading of Bill (No. 28) respecting Telegraph and Telephone Companies.
Motion agreed to and Bill read a second time.
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: When I introduced this Bill I stated that the intention was to have it referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. I now move that the Bill be referred to that committee.


John Graham Haggart: Very good.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the IJouse go again into Committee of Supply.
["I was seduced by the beauty of the ladies of that town, by their elegance, and by the great kindness They showed to a poor little French Canadian Minister who was travelling into those parts of the country. Well, I did not make a formal promise, but I went pretty far. I spoke of $3,000-yes, I think I mentioned the figure. I said if a vote of $3,000 will build a wharf, I will ask my colleagues to allow me to do so. There were splendid yachts on the lake. Really, it Is one of the most beautiful lakes, one of the most beautiful places, in the country. I expect to fulfil my promise. I try not to go back on the ladies. I have never been accused of that so far.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House, and more particularly the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Customs to the law that we think is working most unfairly against the horse breeders of Manitoba and the North-west particularly, and also against the interest of the horse breeders throughout western Canada. I refer to the very low rate of the customs valuation at which horses are permitted to come into this country. The minimum value at which a horse may be imported is $15 and at the rate of 20 per cent the duty amounts only to the $3 which is practically nothing. In consequence a very inferior breed of horses has been admitted into the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. This practice has a most injurious effect upon the breed of horses. The horse breeders of Manitoba and the North-west Territories have gone to enormous expense in introducing from England, from Scotland, from Ireland and from the United States some of the very best blood to be procured in these countries. The effect has been to produce animals that are a credit to any country. But this has been seriously interfered with during the past few years by permitting cheap, low grade animals to come in at a valuation of ?15, or on payment of a duty of $3 per animal. The House will see the injurious effect that this must have on the breeding of horses in Canada. I understand that the evil has reached Ontario, and that car loads and even train loads of horses of this very inferior quality have been brought into that province during the last year or two.
Now, Sir, if there is anything that Canada is capable of producing within its own borders, it certainly is horses, because they will winter out in Manitoba and the North-west Territories and do exceedingly well. I think

it is only necessary to draw the attention of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to this matter to show him that it is really in the interest of the horse breeders and agriculturists of Canada that a stop should be put to this practice. Indian ponies, some of the most miserable scrubs to be found anywhere, are being imported, and nearly all the disease that has broken out in Manitoba and the North-west, such as glanders and a low kind of fever, has been traceable to these inferior animals. The Horse Breeders' Association of the Territories and the Horse Breeders' Association of Manitoba have passed very strong resolutions on this subject. I believe the general sentiment is that the valuation of imported horses should be increased to at least $75 or $100. A horse that is not worth that much should not be permitted to come into the country. Any man who has had any practical experience of horse breeding knows that he always falls short of producing what he expects and hopes for-that for every animal that comes up to his expectations there will be nine or ten that will fail to do so. So that we are always able to procure within our own bounds sufficient of the inferior grades of animals; and what we need is a larger number of the higher grade. Therefore, I trust that the government, having had an expression from those who are interested in this matter, not alone in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, but in Ontario, will see their way clear to meet their wishes by raising the valuation to a reasonable rate, which I think should be between $75 and $100.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a great many complaints in Western Ontario' from those engaged in the breeding of horses and in farming operations about the evil which my hon. friend complains of. The introduction of this miserable class of cayuses, as they are termed-western ponies-which cost practically nothing, will have the effect of greatly deteriorating the quality of the stock in the country if it is not speedily put an end to. It is really a calamity to the agricultural classes of Canada that this trade is permitted, and I beg to ask the government to take the matter into their serious consideration. I think they will find, upon investigation, that it would be a public benefit to prevent the introduction of this class of horses into the country, either by the imposition of high duties or by some effective regulation. We have a good reputation for the character of the horses raised in Canada ; and, though that business has been to some degree depressed for a number of years past, it is again becoming a prosperous one. Our horses, especially our fast trotting and our carriage horses, are in good demand in the United States, and our farmers should be encouraged in the production of high grade animals. I can only


Nathaniel Boyd: add my protest to that of the hon. member who has spoken as to the impropriety of permitting this trade in cayuses to continue.


Mr. WALTER SCOTT (Western Assiiii-boia).: Mr. Speaker, in support of the case which has been presented by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), I do not know that I can do better than read to the House an extract from the last report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for the Territories, which is as follows
Although the territories, particularly the western portion thereof, are plentifully supplied with native horses of a very low standard of excellence, for which it is practically an impossibility to find a market, the importation of scrub horses is still going on, thus materially aggravating the unfavourable market conditions for the above mentioned class of horses. The United States supplied us with some 6,000 horses during the past year at an average value per head of about $20. Representations have in the past been made to the Dominion government by agricultural societies in the territories, the Western Stock Growers' Association and the Horse Breeders' Association of Manitoba with a view to having the valuation of horses brought in from the United States placed on a reasonable basis. At the present time the minimum valuation is placed at $15. It would appear that no hardship would be inflicted upon dealers and purchasers if this amount were raised to $40 or $50. It may safely be taken for granted that any horse worth less than $50 is not required in this country, either for breeding purposes or for actual use.
I may say that it is not from the point of view of a protectionist in the ordinary tariff sense that I support the plea of my hon. friend. We ask that the change be made for the purpose of protecting the country from the importation of an undesirable class of horses. Nor do the Horse Breeders' Association make the request in the usual protectionist spirit. In a document issued some time ago by that Association, I find the following, written by the secretary. After stating the matter, he goes on to say :
In submitting the above I am directed by my Executive Committee to point out as emphatically as lies in my power, that the object territorial horse breeders have in view in agitating for the imposition of a minimum valuation on importations of horses, somewhat in keeping with the necessities of the case, is not to secure the benefits of a protective tariff, which such a restriction would naturally amount to were the supply of horses now in the west insufficient to fill the local requirements and the value inflated. What the territorial breeders particularly ask protection against is the importation of inferior stock, which must inevitably lower the standard of horses in this country, already much too low, and consequently the reputation of the territories as a horse producing country.
The idea which I think should prevail in this matter is something similar to that which prevails in regard to the importation of pernicious literature. I do not know

that I would wish to go farther than the association; I do not know that I would wish to goi as far as my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), who asks that the valuation be raised to $75 or $100. At the last meeting of the association held in Calgary, a little less than a year ago, a motion was proposed to ask the government to make the valuation $40. An amendment was submitted asking that the valuation be made $35, and an amendment to the amendment was proposed and adopted asking for the fixing of the amount at $50. That is what the association asks, and that is as far as I would ask the government to go.


Mr. TAYLOR.: That is pretty good protection.


Thomas Walter Scott: That would, I think, fairly and satisfactorily protect the country from animals which may be termed ' scrubs.' I might quote further from a letter which I received from the secretary of the association :
Our members, who represent every portion of the west, have no desire for protection, as the word is generally applied.
The general idea of urging upon the authorities to have the change in question made is, that in the opinion of the association, horses worth less than $50 each, are not required in this country either for breeding purposes or for actual use.
I hope the government will find that a clear enough case has been made out to warrant their acceding to the request of tha association.


Mr. JAMBS GILMOTJR (East Middlesex).: I am glad this matter has been brought up as I myself had intended to. call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to it. I am personally convinced that there is a great deal of need for raising the valuation of horses brought into this country. There is no doubt that there is considerable disease among the poorer class of horses now brought in from the other side of the line, and some steps should be taken to put a stop to the evil. Dealers bring those small horses in droves north through Alberta up towards Edmonton, selling as they go, and spreading them over the country. I have here the report of Mr. Perry, Commissioner of the North-west Mounted Police, from which I take the following :
There is one subject that demands attention, and that is the importation of a worthless class of horses, half-breeds and Indians. They go south of the line and acquire a certain number of ponies which they smuggle into the territories. Apart from these being an undesirable class of animal, they are not inspected by sny veterinary surgeon, and as a consequence the glanders or other infectious or contagious diseases can be introduced.
It would appear further that even when the smugglers referred to in this report
are caught, they are not punished and thus .are encouraged to carry on their nefarious traffic. Here is what Mr. Perry says on this point:
During the past years several seizures of such stock have been made, and in every case the owners have be m allowed to regain possession of their horses on paying duty and expenses. In one case where the horses had been brought in by half-breeds some had actually teen sold, still they were allowed to pay the duty and go scot free. Until more severe measures are taken Indians and half-breeds will continue to smuggle in horses and take their chances of being canght. If they are caught, it means just paying duty and if not caught they are that much ahead.
These worthless horses range the southern country in large numbers, and but little attention is paid to disease among them. They are extensively smuggled across, and disease is thus spread broadcast throughout our country. I hope that the Ministers of Agriculture and Customs will do something to put a stop to this evil.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: 1 wish we could invent some word that would mean protection, ns we all want it, and yet would not spell it, because every man in this country wants protection, but a great many want it under some other name. Some want it so that they may be on equal terms with their opponents, but disclaim the word 'protection.' I heard a ship builder say : We want to be put on as favourable terms as our opponents so that they will not be able to sell ships cheaper to Canada than we can build them for. Our hon. friends in the west disclaim wanting protection, but they want a horse which is worth $5 in the states valued at $50 here, and have the duty charged on that extra value. But, of course, they don't want protection. Well, it is a protection that will suit us.


Mr. POPE.: Make it $100.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That would be better and carry out protection to its full extent. 1 speak as a western man, interested for many years in horse breeding in the Northwest, in which business unfortunately I have lost a good many hundreds and thousands of dollars. We imported high class animals from Scotland, and for fifteen or more years have been breeding stock, and our experience is that the low grade stock which comes into the North-west competes with our high grade stock. In connection with my own ease, we suffered to such an extent from that competition that we went out of business last year. As an instance of the extent of that competition I may mention that near Edmonton, three years ago, I saw a band of least 500 horses which had been driven across from Wyoming, about a thousand miles distant. Those horses were being sold, from the boundary up to Edmonton, as low, some of them, as $5 a head. It would have been

better for Canada to have paid the value of these horses and shot them as they crossed the border. It is a great temptation to the farmers, who have great difficulty in getting ready money, to buy horses at $10 or $20 a piece, although in a few years time they realize that they have done themselves great injury. If a farmer can get a horse for $10 or $20, he is strongly tempted to buy it, trusting that no matter how poor and miserable it is, it will be able to do the work for a year or two. It is a great pity that the government should allow that class of horses to come into the country. I do not know whether they are inspected as they come over the border or not, but there is no doubt that the evil effects of allowing such poor stock to come in will be felt twenty years hence, and the thanks of the House are due to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. (Boyd) 'for having brought this matter to our attention.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: The amusing candor of the hon. members representing the North-west Territories is shown in the fact that they are so exceedingly anxious to have the lowest possible duty on agricultural implements and things pertaining thereto, but the highest possible duty on horses and other animals that are raised there. It shows the insincerity of the protectionist, who changes his attitude according to the interest he considers.
Mr. LaRIVIBRE. We raise horses, but we do not make agricultural implements.


Robert Holmes: I happen to represent a county in the province of Ontario that claims to raise the best horses in the Dominion, and I have not heard from the consumers of horses, if I may use the term, any special protest against these American horses coming in, the number which is comparatively small. I think that if a party wants to buy a cheap horse, he ought to be allowed to do so. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) gives away the whole case in the admission he makes that the introduction of these horses to the Northwest is a serious temptation to the farmer there. The farmer is struggling against the difficulties that he encounters in the Northwest, and it may be that he feels like buying a low-price horse. Of course, you do not put on a duty to increase the price, but you put some sort of hindrance in his way, so that this farmer struggling in adversity may not buy the cheap horse, but will be compelled to buy the higher-priced animal. The moment you admit the spirit of paternalism you cannot deal with one interest alone, but must consider the effect upon industry generally. It seems to me that the '' ise course is, while we have regard to Canadian interests as far as possible-and I am glad to see the development of all Canadian interests-to leave this industry as free from embarrassing conditions as possible.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: There is a great tendency in the House to run from special cases to generalities. It is impossible to bring up any question, let it be great or small, but forthwith the general politics of the country must be tagged on to it on one side or the other. This question of a proposed minimum valuation of horses certainly has two sides. It is brought up by those who are interested in breeding horses, as distinguished from those who are using horses. It is a question for the House to consider whether the interests of the country at large are to be best served by conforming to the idea of the rearer of horses or of the user of horses. We cannot be on both sides-at least all of us cannot be on both sides of every question all the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, yes.


Frank Oliver: Speak for yourselves, please. We cannot be on both sides of this question at once, but must take sides either with the rearers of horses or the users of horses. Now, as representing probably the largest and most populous agricultural constituency in this Dominion, I have no hesitation on this occasion, in taking sides with the rearers of horses as against the users of inferior horses. Hon. gentlemen who have seen fit to tag on an argument of free trade or protection to this question, who think they have rather struck oil in making an attack on those who are attempting to forward a particular interest of this great country, let me suggest that, while we ask that a minimum valuation be placed upon horses, we are not only willing but we are anxious that horses above a certain valuation shall be admitted free. I think every horse rearer in the country will agree to that proposition. Those who framed the tariff which is in force at the present time saw fit to admit certain valuable horses free, and everybody who is interested in the horse business in this country, agrees that that is a sound business proposition. Then, just as it is reasonable and desirable to admit certain superior classes of horses free of duty into this country, it is reasonable and desirable to exclude, as far as possible, certain inferior classes of horses from this country. Every practical agriculturist thoroughly understands that a good horse is good for the country and a poor horse is bad for the country. The less we have of the poorer class of horses the better. If we are going to great expense, as we are in all parts of the country, individually, municipally, provincially and nationally, to improve our stock of horses; and if we recognize, as we do, the great necessity of that improvement to the highest degree all over the country, then I ask hon. gentlemen, is it common sense to leave the bars down, to allow these efforts that we are making to improve our horses to be destroyed by the influx of an undesirable class of horses ? It

lias been pointed out that it is this class of horses of low valuation, which, because they are of low valuation do not receive the attention that is given to horses of greater value, that are really the cause of the introduction of diseases of various kinds into our country. These are the horses which frustrate the efforts which we are making to improve our stock both directly and indirectly. I repeat, it is not a question of improving the horse stock of this country by a simple manipulation of the tariff; it is a question of taking such means as may be reasonable and as are necessary to prevent the deterioration of our horse stock by certain means within our knowledge under our control. The suggestion is made that one way of doing this would be to place a minimum valuation on horses brought in from the United States. Any other means that will gain the same end will be entirely acceptable. If any better means can be suggested by any hon, member, I am safe in saying that those who are interested will be glad to accept them. We are not particularly anxious that the improvement shall be brought about by a minimum valuation. That seems a ready and easy means of arriving at this necessary result, to save the pasture of our prairie for valuable stock, to conserve the efforts we are making to improve our horses, to place the horse-raising industry of this country upon the highest level of the whole world, which is what we ought to endeavour to achieve, and what we can achieve, I believe, if reasonable measures are taken. It is quite possible that the country may prosper, and that the horse industry may prosper, whether the present minimum valuation increased or .not. But we take the liberty of placing before this House of Commons the facts of the case as practical men, representing a practical question, and we ask for practical action by the House with regard to mere theories.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: I l-ise to express my sympathy with the efforts that our western friends are putting forth to increase the quality of the Canadian horse. I do not object at all to the attitude they have taken. I believe the precautions that they desire are in the interests of the country. I rise for the purpose of drawing to the attention of the House an exactly similar state of affairs that happens to exist in Ontario. Last week the carriage makers of the Dominion of Canada came down here in a very strong deputation representing nearly $5,000,000 in capital, and they told the government that they were being subjected to unfair competition from the United States. They said, with the excellency of our work we have completely captured the Canadian carriage, cutter and buggy trade. The importations from the outside world are only $39,000 worth, only enough carriages to employ 25 men in their production. We can compete against the United States
in their own market, we are willing to put down the bars and let American carriages come in if they will take down the bars and let Canadian carriages go in. We can beat them in neutral markets, we can beat them in their own markets, we can beat them in Canadian markets, because we make a first-class carriage, out of the best material, of the best workmanship, and durable to a high degree. But what troubles us now is, not the importation of a high grade of American carriages, or horses, as our friends from the west might say, but an inferior class of slop work that is being made in the United States, where a factory in Michigan is turning out about 70,000 carriages per annum, made from the refuse of other factories, against which the Canadian manufacturer cannot compete. We say therefore, as our friends say, that we don't want you to raise the duty. The duty is high enough. We can fight against fair competition, but we cannot compete against the scrub horses or shoddy carriages. What we want you to do is to raise the minimum price of a carriage to $50, just as these gentlemen want the minimum price of a horse raised to $50 to keep out the scrub horses. Keep out this American slop work, and allow Canadians to have first-class carriages. Now, we are anxious to keep up the high quality of our horses in Canada. So are we also anxious to keep up the quality of our carriages, so that when a gentleman takes his lady out, or when a more reverend senior goes to church, he can travel in safety without fear of breaking down through being the owner of a slop made buggy. I approve the efforts our friends are making, I hope the government will listen to their request, and that when they raise the scale of horses to $50, they will also raise the scale of scrub carriages to $50.


Mr. T. O. DAYIS (Saskatchewan).: I hope the House will not think we are all protectionists in the North-west Territories because several hon. gentlemen from that country have advocated the raising of the valuation of a horse coming in from the other side of the line. One of the arguments used has been that we want to improve the stock. I do not understand how raising the valuation of a horse from $15 to $50 is going to have any effect in improving the stock in the North-west Territories, more particularly as we have thousands of the very same class of horses running all over the plains, belonging to the Blood Indians and other tribes. So I do not think that is any argument. Now, with reference to the horses that are coming in. I understand the Territorial Horse Breeders' Association have passed resolutions, which they have sent to every member from the North-west Territories, asking to have the valuation raised. My hon. friend from Toronto, who a moment ago said that he was interested in the horse raising business up there, admitted that there was a certain amount of benefit to the poorer clas-

ses of the community in the North-west by letting these same horses come in at the price they were coming in to-day. He said that farmers going in without much money would be able to buy a cheap team of horses. We know that we are getting into that country at the present time a good class of settlers, and I am pleased to say a great many of them are a better class of people, and are bringing in a better class of horses with them. Still there are parties coming in that cannot afford to buy expensive horses ; and if they need to be able to buy a cheap team of horses to do their work, I think they should be considered just as much as the Territorial Horse Breeders' Association, or the ranchers. [DOT]


Rufus Henry Pope: Can you break sod with one of these ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes. If you cannot break sod with one of them, you can break sod with three of them, if not with three, with four. Then again, as has been pointed out, you want horses for other purposes besides breaking sod. We have creameries in the North-west Territories, and people who live at a distance from them and who want to take their cream to a factory, cannot take a team of heavy Clydesdales for that purpose ; they have to have driving horses, and they get these horses very cheap. I think the government should make haste slowly in raising the valuation, of horses, more particularly as I do not see that it is going to have the effect of improving the stock in the Territories, inasmuch as we have the same class of horses up there ourselves. It is a well known fact that in Alberta to-day you can buy horses for $3 a piece, and they are not imported from the United States, they are raised by Indians up there. I may say it would not be a bad thing if the Indian Department were to take some action with reference to horses running round through the west, belonging to the Indians. It would have a better effect than raising the valuation of the few horses that are brought in from the United States.
Now, with reference to the remarks of my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd). I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to go into a budget debate, or to deal with questions outside the one that is before the Chair. But I must say that when my hon. friend talks about a duty on buggies and that sort of thing, I want him to understand that so far as I am concerned, I have not gone back on the faith at ail. We do not manufacture anything at all in the North-west Territories, we have to buy our produce from the outside, and we get no benefit from protection at all ; though we are quite willing to bear our share of the heat and burden of the day and to pay a reasonable amount so long as it is a duty for revenue. But when any person commences to talk about imposing taxes, or doing anything else for the purpose of protecting any industry, Mr. DAVIS.
whether a horse industry, or a cow industry, or any other industry, then I shall certainly oppose it at every opportunity.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) There is one view of this subject that I think is entirely wrong, and that is to place a fictitious value upon anything coming into this country, greater than the article has in the country from which it is exported. I think that principle is wrong from the very outset. I would suggest that those who want to keep these scrub horses out of the Dominion should adopt the American tariff, because no horses are admitted into the United States, so far as I can ascertain, at less than 30 per cent. If you put a specific duty on these horses you would get clear of the trouble.


Mr. R. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Mr. Speaker, as a producer of horses in the province of Ontario, I may say that the farmers in my part of the country feel very keenly the injury that is being inflicted upon them by the importation of scrub horses from the United States. These horses are taking the place of our own horses and greatly lessening the demand for good horses. You can get these imported horses in droves, yet, the hon. gentleman who spoke last tried to make out that the people of Canada wanted to import horses from the United States although there are thousands of Canadian horses running on the prairies of the west. These inferior horses, which are brought into the country and which are useless for all ordinary purposes, displace a great many of our own animals. On the same principle as those who are asking for protection in horses and carriages, we, as farmers, want a tax put on corn, because the free corn imported from the United States displaces a great deal of our Ontario coarse grains. When they want protection for their horses, we want protection for our grain, and I do not care whether they call it tariff, or whether they put a fraudulent valuation on their horses ; as long as they put a high duty on these scrub horses it will satisfy the farmers in Ontario. If the western people are not satisfied with the tariff let them put a fraudulent value on then- horses and let the duty be collected accordingly. I am very much pleased that this important question has been brought to the attention of the hon. members of this House. I think, without taking politics into consideration at all, that it will be only fair on the part of the government to impose a higher tariff on the horses which are shipped across the line and which are selling in towns all over the country all the way from $11 up to $30, and which are taking the places of home bred horses that we have gone to such expense to produce. I am glad to hear hon. members of this House calling for protection. or fraudulent valuation, I care not which it may be.


Nathaniel Boyd: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to say a word


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) has already spoken.


Rufus Henry Pope: I think it is in order that some harness maker should speak. We have the horse and buggy but we have no harness.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Barrie .wharfs*-reconstruction and* repairs, $3,CC0.
['I think it is in order that some harness maker should speak. We have the horse and buggy but we have no harness.']
Mr. BENNETT.: May I ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) if he has received a recommendation yet as to where this dock is to be placed in Barrie, and if so, whose recommendation and on what site does he intend to build it ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC' WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte). The chief engineer tells me that it will be at the foot of Bay-Held street, although I am not quite sure. We have not carried out the work so far because we have no deed of the wharf property. This is a new one.


George Taylor: This item is for reconstruction and repairs.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I move that the word be ' construction ' instead of ' reconstruction and repairs.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
["I move that the word be ' construction ' instead of ' reconstruction and repairs.'"]
John Graham Haggart: You have fixed the place where the wharf is to be built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: It is to be in the
place the hon. minister says ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Bayfield-extension of south pier, $3,600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract and this sum is to complete the work.


Mr. INGRAM.: Who recommended this expenditure in the first place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was, I think, the late lamented Mr. McMillan. The work is under contract, the contractor being Mr. Clark, of Goderich.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is that the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this work approved by the present representative of South Huron (Mr. McEwen) ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not ask his approval. I had no need to do it because the work was under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know whether the hon. member for South Huron approves of this work. It seems to me that it is an unnecessary work and a useless waste of money. I can see no object in spending this sum of money at Bayfield at all. Perhaps the hon. member for South Huron could give us some information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is now under contract. It is a work that has been in existence for years and one on which the late administration have spent over $70,000. There is nothing new in it. We are simply extending and repairing an old work.


Andrew B. Ingram: Years ago, when money was expended on Bayfield harbour, it was really necessary to have a harbour there, but the hon. gentleman has not discovered that the circumstances have changed since then, and I would like to know what use will be made of this harbour. Would boats come in there, or is there a railway that runs to that place ? Is it for the accommodation of a few fishing boats ? I doubt very much whether there are any fishing boats at that port.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never knew that it was necessary to have a railway running to a wharf to make a work of this kind necessary. Very far from it. When there is no railway people are more in need of harbour accommodation.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about the boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not own any boat there.


Robert Holmes: Bayfield has been a port for a considerable length of time," and the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) knows it as well as I do. There is not a great deal of shipping done there now but there is a great deal of fishing, and boats call there just the same.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to hear from the hon. gentleman for South Huron who is well posted as to this work, and he knows that what I say is perfectly true.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) want ? This work was constructed years ago and it cost the late government $70,000. I am not going to remove that work, am I ? This vote is simply to keep it in repair and to extend it a little.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will tell the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) what I want. We have a large number of public works in this country on which it is necessary to expend public money, and there are other works on which public money was expended in the past because it was necessary to do so, but on which it is not necessary to expend any more money. In the case of this harbour circumstances have changed, and it is not



necessary now to spend public money on it. What good is there to be gained if there are no boats going to the harbour. It is simply a useless waste of money. Does it follow because a useless expenditure of money has been made one year, that the government is going to continue that useless expenditure for ever. I say we should call a halt in cases like this. I am in favour of spending public money on public works which are necessary, but when it is shown that public works are not necessary I am [DOT]opposed to spending money on them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot believe that the late government would have spent $70,000 on this work if there was no use for it. Last year I was authorized by this parliament to let the contract and the money was voted. I think objection should have been taken then.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year this item escaped without any discussion, but inquiries have since shown that this is a useless waste of money and I would be negligent in my duty if I did not draw attention to it.
I agree with the minister that the expenditure of $70,000 in days gone by was justifiable, but the time has now arrived when a further expenditure on that harbour is mot justifiable.


Mr. McEWEN.: If lion, gentlemen on the "other side object to this work they should Kave done so last year when the vote was taken. This is not the time to raise a row about this small item. The money was voted last year and the contract let, and this is simply a revote. It is true that money was expended on this harbour years ago, but it must be' remembered that large boats called there and that not so long ago either. I remember that the 1 Asia ' and ' Sovereign ' used to call there some years ago, and there is no good reason why when that harbour is finished large steamers will not call there again. Bayfield has no railway and there is consequently all the more necessity for boats calling there. Besides that fact, there is a large number of fishermen at Bayfield, We see that in the lower provinces they build harbours for their fishing fleets, and there is no good reason why Bayfield should not have the same treatment. During the Conservative regime the harbour was allowed to get out of repair ; the sand drifted across a break, and the fishermen could not get in or out. This was not fair. The late government spent money on that harbour on two occasions and the work was swept away. The work done by the present government remains there and is in good shape and what money is being expended now will make the harbour useful.


Mr. CLANCY.: It is curious to know the guiding principle of the Minister of Public Works in these expenditures. The hon. gentleman has told us frankly that the late government spent $70,000 on the harbour


Andrew B. Ingram: and that they would not do so if it was not a useful expenditure. It is pertinent to ask the Minister of Public Works now if he ever uses his own judgment. Has he any knowledge of the present utility of the work. He is not asking money for repairs but to make an extension of an old work and he should produce some report from his engineers as to the necessity for this new work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was represented to me by the late Mr. McMillan, the respected member for that riding, whom we are all sorry is not sitting in his seat in this House-that this was a work of some importance. I find from the records that the late government were so impressed with this, that they bought that work from private owners and spent $70,000 on it. Before reaching a conclusion on this matter I naturally asked for a report from Major Gray, the resident engineer, and in his repoi't dated 27th of April, 1900, he states that he consulted several vessel men of the port with regard to the extension of the pier and they were all of opinion, that the north pier running so much in a southerly direction nearly closes the mouth of the harbour, and that if vessels by any chance miss the southern pier they are at once on shore. Major Gray states that he has himself seen two vessels ashore on that account. It was reported to me officially by an able engineer that the extension of one of the piers was necessary to protect life and property. I do not understand why my hon. friends on the other side from Ontario, object so much to a work for which their own government paid $70,000, and which I am only improving. I cannot understand the position they take unless of course they are acting as they have a right to do-well for political motives, which is not after all very wrong. However, the country will judge of the facts. Here was a work on which $70,000 had been spent by our predecessors, having been bought from private owners, and I cannot understand why there is so much opposition to this vote, especially when a sum of money was voted last year.


Mr. BLAIN.: When was the last public money spent on this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not all the dates here.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Perhaps I can give the House the explanation of the matter. This work is in a constituency which I once had the honour to represent, and I recollect tolerably well the circumstances under which, even when I was in opposition, and when I was not much of a favourite of the government, the late government did spend some money there. The coast of Lake Huron, as most hon. gentlemen who have ever crossed that lake know, is an exceedingly dangerous coast, and very scantily provided with harbours. I think that from Goderich to

Sarnia there are hardly any natural harbours. The consequence is that any vessels, small or large, that miss. Goderich in a gale, find it very difficult to get any shelter. The late government thought that it was desirable to establish a small harbour of refuge at Bayfield. That was the reason they gave for the expenditure they entered into. That harbour had, I think, very little trade proper, but it was supposed by the late government, and also by the vessel owners of Goderich, to be of use as a harbour of refuge under certain conditions. The sum demanded by my hon. friend, $3,600, for the extension of the south pier is, I understand, to ensure the harbour being useful for the purpose for which the original expenditure was incurred. These are the circumstances, and they appear to perfectly justify my hon. friend in asking for this vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the water were deep enough and it were possible for vessels in distress to go into the harbour, there would be some justification for the argument of the hon. gentleman; but there is not a sufficient depth of water, even with the extension of the pier, and that is why I say that this is a useless expenditure. The hon. gentleman knows very well the vessel trade to-day at this point is very different to what it was years ago, when the pier was first built. At that time there were a large number of small vessels, but there are very few to-day.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Perhaps I might read a word or two from the debate which took place when this matter was up in 1891. Here is what was said by Mr. Cameron, who then represented that county :
The hon. gentleman knows that $50,000 has been expended by the government at Bayfield, and I tell him that money has been practically thrown away.
If the expenditure was wrong under the late government, surely at this advanced time it cannot be proper not only to repair the wharf, but to extend it. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to say what is the population of that place to-day, as compared with ten years ago ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I really cannot say what the population is.


Robert Holmes: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is wrong in saying that Mr. Cameron represented that constituency at that time. He did not represent it in 1891.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, he did.


Robert Holmes: Well, I will accept that. Bayfield is a small incorporated village. It is true, the trade of the place is not very large, but I think it is necessary that a certain amount of money should be spent there in order to retain the work already done. To dredge out the harbour and make 39i
it an absolutely safe harbour of refuge would require the expenditure of several thousand dollars. The money now being spent will, I understand, make it a harbour of refuge for smaller vessels. During the last few years the place has come into prominence as a summer resort, and even many Americans come there.


George McEwen: The reason this harbour went out of use was because it was out of repair for a number of years, the lake having washed away a part of the pier and covered it with sand. For this reason the vessels could not get in, and the trade fell off. The present government has repaired the pier, and it is now fit for vessels to come in, and consequently the trade will come back.


Richard Blain: Did I understand the hon. member for West Huron to say that the population was now about 1,000 ?


Robert Holmes: No, I said the place was an incorporated village, which I understood required 1,000 to be incorporated. I do not know what the population is now.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman lives within a few miles of the place. What is its population V


Robert Holmes: I suppose the population is 800 or 900.


Richard Blain: The fact is that its population is less than it was ten years ago It stands now at 559.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not the fault of the wharf.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the minister intend to dredge this harbour this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think we have yet made up our minds to dredge it. I will look into the question carefully, to see whether it is necessary to have dredging done; but to-day I am only applying for money to extend the pier.


Andrew B. Ingram: But the hon. gentleman must see that it is a useless expenditure of money, because even with the extension of the pier the water is not deep enough. If the hon. gentleman is expending the money for the purpose of benefiting the fishermen, half this sum is sufficient, because it would not be necessary to extend the pier, but only to repair it. But, outside of that, this expenditure is a pure waste of money.


Mr. SHERRITT.: Who has charge of this work, superintending it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Jonas Marks, who has been recommended by my hon. friend, will have charge of the work.
Blind river-wharf, $6,o00.


John Graham Haggart: Where is this Blind river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the north channel of the lake leading to Georgian Bay. It is in the district of Algoma, on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is a lumbering village, situated eight miles west of Algoma, and about eighty miles east of Sault Ste. Marie. The business consists principaly of lumbering. There are two large mills. This is a very thriving farming community. The population at the last census was 600. We have chosen a site, but the deeds are not yet in our possession. The plans are ready and tenders will be called for.


John Graham Haggart: What will be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eleven thousand dollars.


Richard Blain: How much for the site ?
The MINISTER OF PuBLIC WORKS. We have not purchased a site yet, and that is why we have not asked for tenders.


John Graham Haggart: I may be misinformed, but I understand that this is purely a wharf for some American lumbering company who have mills there-that it is solely for their convenience.


Mr. DYMENT.: My hon. friend the exMinister of Railways has been altogether misinformed. Some years ago there was an old wharf in use there by the Blind River Lumber Company, but that company went out of existence and a new American concern bought out the property, and fitted up this old wharf for their own use. They will not allow other people's boats to tie up at it. Their refusal to allow steamboats* from Owen Sound and Collingwood to tie up there obliges the merchants to have their goods landed at Algoma Mills, some seven or eight miles east of Blind river, and thence tranship them at considerable expense by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is a very good agricultural and farming country back of Blind river-one of the many places in my county which have a very bright future indeed. I can assure the House that this work iS absolutely necessary.


John Graham Haggart: Why did not private individuals build the wharf ?


Albert Edward Dyment: I do not know that there is anybody there really able to build it.


Richard Blain: On whose property is the money to be expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A site is being selected but not bought. There are two sites, and we have chosen one.


George Taylor: From whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not bought it yet. We have made our choice, as far as the engineer is con-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
cerned. We approve that site because it is one on which the work will cost the least.


James Clancy: It might be fitting for me to call attention to an expenditure that appears on page Y-218 of the Auditor General's Report relating to the Sarnia dredging. I asked the hon. gentleman to lay the progress estimates, the advertisements for tenders, and the tenders themselves, on the Table. Can the hon. gentleman now give me the information ? In the meantime, I would like to ask him what the nature of that work is, who owns the dredging plant, if the property on which the work is being done is private property or belongs to the government, the extent of the work, and if the sum expended exceeds the amount first contemplated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When my hon. friend spoke jmvately to me, I thought he was referring to the dredging done at Point Edward, but I see now that I did not understand him. My engineer informs me that the work to which he alludes was let by public tender to Mr. O'Leary, and is completed. It was a piece of dredging which was given two years ago. I was away when that piece of work was given out. When my hon. friend spoke to me a day or two ago, I thought he was alluding to the new work carried out at Point Edward. If he wants more information, as to the particular work he now asks about, I will bring it down with pleasure. I will bring down the whole cost.


James Clancy: Did the hon. gentleman make any inquiry as to whether the work was done on private property or on property which belongs to the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My chief engineer says that the dredging was done in the channel of the river, as far as he can remember. He will take note of what my hon. friend wants and furnish the information required.


James Clancy: Another thing I would like him to take note of is this : My information is that this work was done entirely on the property of some American mill owners. I am not finding fault because they are Americans, for we all welcome American capital as we do any other capital, but the minister would be entirely without justification in spending public money on private property. My information is that it has been spent entirely on private property, and that the owners of the property were doing the work with their own dredges-American dredges and American workmen-when Mr. O'Leary stepped in to be rewarded for party services and got the contract and used the dredge belonging to an American company. The dredge is owned by the mill owners who were doing the work themselves before the hon. gentleman stepped in to give Mr. O'Leary some little solace for his disappointment in not getting a certain office. Perhaps

the hon. gentleman can explain whether the plant belongs to Mr. O'Leary, and if not, to whom ? Also, whether the dredging was not being done before by the mill owners, in whose interests this work is being done now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only repeat what I said a minute ago. The work was given by public tender to Mr. O'Leary, who was the successful tenderer. As to whether the dredge was an American dredge or not, I cannot say now.
I was not in the country when that work was awarded. I shall inquire and give the hon. gentleman the information he desires. Perhaps I may be allowed to state that on two or three occasions, if not more, during last year, I was obliged to have recourse to American dredges, because I could not secure Canadian ones. The question was whether an elevator was to be built on Canadian soil or American soil at Port Huron, and we had to make up our minds pretty quick. The Grand Trunk people came to see me, and also the interested parties. The member for the riding represented that the elevator was to be located on the American side unless we did the dredging. WTe could not secure a Canadian dredge for love or money, so I engaged an American dredge.


James Clancy: I suppose the hon. minister is not giving this as a justification in the case I referred to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In that case, I was not here, and knew nothing about it personally.


James Clancy: I hope the hon. gentleman will inform himself and give us the facts later on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With pleasure.


James Clancy: Is the work in the River Sydenham completed ? There is no item in the estimate this year. How much of the vote of last year was expended 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will repeat his question when the items for dredging are before us I shall be glad to give him information.


Richard Blain: I understood the minister to say that a site had been selected at Blind river, but not purchased. On whose recommendation was it selected, and who owns the property ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was selected on the recommendation of the chief engineer.


Richard Blain: What was the price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate placed upon the site by the engineer is $250.


Richard Blain: Does the minister select the site and afterwards fix a price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We make a survey with a view to choosing a site, and when we have ascertained the best site, we try to buy it. What else can we do ? We have confidential reports from the engineer, and we do not make public where we wish to buy.


Richard Blain: Who owns the property selected ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I really do not remember.
Bronte-harbour improvements, $3,000.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Last year $7,000 was voted for this work. Would the minister please state how much of that has been expended, also whether this $3,000 now asked for is likely to complete the work. I might say that it is very desirable that this work should be completed-not only the docks but the dredging. The people are hoping for this, and they expect it. I trust the work will be fully completed during the coming summer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Out of tlie $7,000 voted last session, $6,209 was spent. The balance will be spent as soon as the season opens. I am glad to say that the $3,000 that I am now asking for will complete the work, and the work will be finished during the present year.
Burlington channel-repairs to pier, $50,000.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: There was a large vote for this purpose last year. How much of it was expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We did not spend very much, because the contractor has only been gathering materials, so far, and has not done much work. We have not given the estimates. The amount spent up to the 15th of December was $1,122.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That would be for material, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: On which side of the channel is the work to be done ? Is the entire pier to be rebuilt ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are rebuilding the pier on the south side. At first we were not very successful, and had to take the work from the contractor. We are renovating the pier, making it 991 feet long.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What is the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is $96,000.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are there to be any repairs on the north side of the channel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What time has the contractor for the completion of the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract is to be completed on the 10th of April, 1903. Practically, this means that it will have to be completed next fall.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Who has the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: James Clarke, of Goderich, the lowest tenderer.
Collingwood-harbour improvements, $40,000.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will please give us a full statement of the expenditure there, the depth of water in the harbour, the time when he expects to complete the work and the estimated total cost. I suppose he has had some marine surveyors to survey the channel and will be able to give us all necessary information. I do not object to an expenditure on Collingwood. I think that, perhaps, it is one of the harbours on the lakes that ought to be made a good harbour. When I was in office there was a report in the marine department from Commander Bolton, who had made a survey of the Georgian Bay, and who reported that it would be almost impossible to make a harbour out of Collingwood. He gave a detail of the harbour and his reasons for the conclusions he had reached. What is the width of the channel that the hon. minister is making leading into the harbour


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have dredged a channel 110 feet wide, giving a depth of 20 feet for the whole length from open water to the inside harbour.


John Graham Haggart: What is the length of the trench, or whatever you call it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The length of channel that we have dredged so far is 2,350 feet.


John Graham Haggart: To complete it, how much will it require ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We want to give it a width of 110 feet and a length of 200 feet. The mouth of that channel is not wide enough. My hon. friend knows that Collingwood, since we have given it that accommodation, has grown a good deal. There is a large ship Hon. Mr. TARTE.
yard in which two large ships have already been built; a large saw-mill has been erected during the last year or two, there is a large packing factory, in fact, Collingwood is one of the most thriving towns on the Georgian Bay. Collingwood, Midland, Owen Sound, Meaford, all these towns are getting along very nicely indeed. The width of the channel is not sufficient, because boats navigating those waters are being built of a larger size constantly. A large trade is being done there, and it will be necessary to enlarge that channel. But we do not intend to do a large amount of additional work all at once. This money is especially to enlarge the entrance to the harbour. I have heard about the same statement that my hon. friend has heard, namely, that Collingwood is a difficult port to make. But the fact that there is already a large fleet of steamers visiting that port proves that after all it is not so bad as other ports. I am sorry to add that perhaps there is a little jealousy among certain harbours. But there is no reason for jealousy, because there is trade for them all.


Richard Blain: If that be correct, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that some few years ago an application was made from Port Credit for an expenditure of money to repair and keep up the present pier and dock. At that time it was not definitely promised, but the minister promised the deputation, or the hon. gentleman representing the county at the time, that he would give it his favourable consideration. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could now tell the House, as he has already stated there is plenty for all, that we will come in under that general term.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must say that the word ' all ' does not cover what my hon. friend has just suggested. I do not remember at all the fact he has referred to about Port Credit.


David Henderson: No doubt the hon. gentleman remembered it pretty well a few years ago, when that county chanced to be represented by an hon. member who supported the present government. He tells us that this harbour does not come under the designation of ' all.' I assume it is because circumstances have changed, and that the county, instead of being represented by a supporter of the government, as it was at the time the deputation waited upon the Minister of Public Works, is now represented by an hon. member sitting on the side of the opposition. I listened to the remarks of the Minister of Public Works, and it certainly struck me in his definite statement that this harbour did not come under the designation that he referred to, and that he intends to perpetuate the policy of assisting only those counties that give the government support. That seems to be the fixed policy of the government; otherwise I think the hon. gentleman would

meet the wishes of mj hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) as faiily as he promised he would meet the wishes of the former representative of that riding. .


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not intend in my remarks to convey any such meaning as my hon. friend gathered from them. What I meant to say by the word ' all ' was that I did not remember the harbour to which my hon. friend referred. The best evidence that I am not as wicked as my hon. friend thinks, is* that I am at this moment carrying on a public work in his own riding.


David Henderson: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is the council, I have no right to go ahead of my colleagues.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not said that I would never pay any attention to Port Credit. During the last two days I hffve received I suppose 25 or 30 petitions for work that I have not been able to accede to, and my hon. friend must not be surprised if, on the spur of the moment, I am not prepared to say that I will do any work at Port Credit.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the hon. minister will promise the House to put something in the supplementary estimates.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: 


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend has as good as a promise from the Minister of Public Works that the matter is under his consideration, and probably there will be an item in the supplementary estimates for him. However, in reference to Collingwood harbour, if I understand the minister aright, he intends to expend this $40,000 which he is asking us for now, to widen the prism from 110 to 200 feet. A great part of it is for that purpose. I quite concede the necessity of the work. Fancy a vessel coming into the port of Collingwood with a side wind, passing down 2,300 feet, as the hon. gentleman says this canal is in length, and keeping in a channel 110 feet wide ! It would be a pretty difficult thing to do in day time, especially when a vessel was passing out, but at night I do not see how it is possible even with a breadth of channel of 200 feet. I suppose the hon. gentleman has the whole channel lighted with electricity from the commencement to the end, so that ships would be able to use I he channel at night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That does not come under my charge. There is already at Collingwood a large fleet of steamers. The Great Northern Navigation Company have a large fleet, and all their boats call at Collingwood. Collingwood is one of the most important points on the Georgian bay now.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Collingwood is a very prosperous town. A very large fleet of boats is now laid up there for the winter, and Collingwood is probably one of the largest grain shipping points on the lake. Nature never intended it for such a port, because, I suppose it is about as difficult and bad a harbour as we could find on the lakes; yet, the business has grown up there and shipping has made that a port to an extent not equalled by any other port on the lakes. I suppose, that being the case, the government must go on spending money, but it is going to cost a million dollars before they can make it a port such as it ought to be to accommodate the trade. Increased shipping must come there if the shipping continues to increase on the great lakes as it has done during the last three years. An enormous amount of money must be expended, because this is probably the most important shipping point on the great lakes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the engineer, after a very careful examination into the matter, is to the effect that with $120,000 of an expenditure we will be able to give a width to the whole channel of 200 feet.
. Mr. INGRAM. Last year there was $202,000 expended on the Collingwood harbour,
| there was $25,000 in the ordinary estimates

and |8,000 in tlie supplementary estimates besides $40,000 this year which would make a total of $275,000 expended on the Colling-wood harbour. Would the hon. gentleman tell us if these figures are correct, how much more he will require to complete Col-lingwood harbour and also what success the shipyard is meeting with there ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. I have just stated in discussing the position with my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) that the estimate of the engineer of the department, after a careful examination, is that with $120,000 we would be able to provide a channel 200 feet wide and 20 feet deep in Collingwood harbour. Besides this $40,000, if we want to go on with the widening of the channel, we will have to ask parliament to vote an additional sum of $80,000 to complete the channel to a width of 200 feet
Depot Hartcur-breakwater, $05,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: There was an item last year for Depot harbour which the hon. minister will see, if he will look at page V-209, of the Auditor General's Report. I notice that for advertising, $029.61 was expended, and on King's Printer's account, $49.72. The money we are asked for here is for work to be done at Depot harbour. How was this money expended for advertising ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tenders were asked for the work, and the reason why the money was paid is that when tenders are asked for works of that importance, we, of course, advertise in more papers than we do when calling for tenders for smaller works. Tenders were asked and received, the lowest being that of Mr. J. T. Davis for $157,500. After the tenders were received, we discovered that soundings and borings had not been taken in a sufficient manner. Perhaps the committee will understand me better if I am able to show a plan of the harbour. If some of the hon. gentlemen who take an interest in this work will come to the Table, they may have a look at the plan. Here is the harbour and here is Mr. Booth's elevator. Here is an island. Mr. Booth has built all of that harbour with his own money. He is about the only man in the country who has built a harbour with his own cash, his own money and credit.


John Graham Haggart: Where do you intend to spend the money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Here is the island. The entrance to the harbour is not sufficiently protected and it is intended to build this breakwater here.


John Graham Haggart: What will it cost?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The lowest tender put in was for $157,500, but my engineers, taking for granted that


Andrew B. Ingram: .
the examination and survey made by Mr. Booth's engineer were right, did not make the borings here, which they should have made. My hon. friend has been in the department and he knows what takes place often. When the tenders were received, I was warned by somebody that borings should be made. I went up myself with a boat, I had borings made and I find that instead of there being hard material in the bottom of the harbour such as we had supposed, there was silt carried in by the water We had provided for only four feet of settling in the crib-work, but instead of four feet, we discovered that the settling would be about fifteen feet. But, before discovering that, thinking that there would be only a few feet of settling, I had agreed with the contractor to give him so much per cubic yard to throw stone into the eribwork there, but I found out afterwards that it would settle fifteen feet and then I stopped the whole thing because the additional work necessary to make it safe would cost about $30,000. The whole matter is now before my colleagues.
Did Mr. Booth build a dock
Mr. KEMP, there at all ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: G-eS' -ti16 J?as	the whole thing himself
Mr. Booth spent $750,000 of his own money and we thought it was about time that the government should do its share of the work.
Goderich harbour-dredging, $10,000.
^r' tIAGGART. Let us hear about Goderich harbour. We have not heard of it before.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Goderich harbour is one of the most important harbours on Lake Huron. There is a large trade at that point. There are two elevators, and a new one has been built during the last two years. Unfortunately that harbour is one of those on the lakes that fills. The piers were in a very bad condition, we had to repair them, and we had to dredge a good deal. If we were going to listen to all the demands made upon us, we would have built a large
^rea,^w,fftei\ It: "ay, have to come later on if the trade develops. For the time we, aje bound to give a little more accommodation by dredging.


John Graham Haggart: Was there not a plan adopted by your department some time ago, by which this silting of the sand would be prevented. There will be an eternal expenditure if you are goidg to dredge everv time after a storm.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have received a petition which states that if there was a breakwater it would prevent the silting, but I doubt that very much. It would cost a large amount of money and I have not yet made up my mind to grant the petition.


John Graham Haggart: I understand there was a plan recommended in regard to Port Dover and Goderich and a harbour in Prince Edward Island, in which the sand silts in a similar manner.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Toronto harbour is in the very same position. This silting of the sand is one of the most difficult problems we have to solve.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are Martin & Co. doing the dredging there ? How are they getting on ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. They are getting on very well.


Andrew B. Ingram: Were they the only contractors ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did Mr. McGillicudy have anything to do with that work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. McGillicudy had nothing to do with the dredging to my knowledge. He was the lowest tenderer on another contract and my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) might get work to-morrow if he does me the pleasure of tendering, and if he is the lowest tenderer.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the minister's statement is correct, he cannot refer to the original contract.


Robert Holmes: That was a newspaper mistake. Mr. McGillicudy never got a contract for dredging although the papers said he did. He had a contract for the breakwater.


Andrew B. Ingram: I never heard the report contradicted that he got a dredging contract.


Robert Holmes: It was contradicted in this House.


Andrew B. Ingram: This work is done at the rate of $8 an hour. Have they taken out the number of yards required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer explains that in certain parts of the work there was rock and hard pan, and of course they could not take out the 600 yards a day in that kind of work.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is this the usual way of letting dredging contracts ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope the time is not distant when the department will have enough dredges to do its own work. Dredging is now paid for at the rate of $8 an hour, 600 yards a day, making 13J cents a yard, and we have found no means of doing it cheaper unless we do it ourselves with modern dredges. That is the reason why I ask parliament for money to build dredges because they will do cheaper and quicker work.


James Clancy: Will the minister explain why he is paying 13J cents a yard here, when he is getting it done in Sarnia at 9} cents a yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tlie chief engineer explains that the work to which my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) objects-


James Clancy: The minister had better not put words in my mouth. I am simply asking for information and he has no right to say that I am objecting.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad my hon. friend does not object to the work. I was not here when that contract was given. There is dredging which costs less, but it all depends on the material which is dredged.


James Clancy: The minister has not yet explained why he paid 9J cents a yard in Sarnia and a larger sum at other places.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer explains that that was a lump sum contract and it worked out in that way.


James Clancy: I hope the minister will lay on the Table after dinner the papers I asked for, namely, the contract, the tenders, the progress estimates, and so on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That cannot be done to-day.


James Clancy: Then you had better let the item stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asking $75,000 for general dredging and we will discuss it on that vote. I pledge myself to bring down the papers. It is nearly six o'clock now and the employees have left their offices. I cannot get the papers to-night. I will bring them down with pleasure on Monday.


James Clancy: This item does not come under the vote for general dredging. There was a specific sum voted for it last year, and it has appeared in the estimates many years. The hon. gentleman had not the courage of his convictions, to spend the money until after the elections ; but as he repented and spent it some time, I am not disposed to raise objections to the work. I simply inquired whether it was to be continued.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not understand what my hon. friend wanted. I pledge myself to bring down the papers on Monday, and lay them on the Table of the House.


Albert Edward Kemp: I notice that the principle of paying $8 an hour for dredging is in vogue in different parts of the country. I would like to ask the minister if the dredges which are paid at that rate are of the same capacity, and is there an officer of the government on the dredges to check the time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the dredges are not of the same capacity, but we exact from them 600 yards a day. There is an officer on board each dredge, and at the end of the month we make up the figures, and we only pay according to that rate.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It seems to me the work would be done much more cheaply if the contract were at so much a yard. I can understand that a dredge working by the hour, even if there were a government officer around, would do less work than if working by the yard. What is the objection to doing it by the yard ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Because we have tried it, and it has always cost more. I hope the House will agree with me that it is time for us to do our own dredging at a cheap rate. With a modern dredge you can always be sure to do the work for three or four cents a yard. We are now paying thirteen cents a yard. I am proud to say that we are doing it at much less than other departments, although I do not find any fault with them.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman ever expect to have dredges enough at his disposal to go from one end of Canada to the other and do these small parcels of work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I expect, within two years, at the beginning of the season following the coming season, to be able to carry on our work in Ontario, or most of it. We are building at Sorel one large dredge, and we are beginning to build another one. We have in British Columbia a small suction dredge, which dredges about 12,000 yards a day, and I am building one for Ontario on the same lines. There is a vast difference between that and the small dredges which do only GOO yards a day.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Will the hon. minister inform me how many dredges the government claims to own ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers tell me that we own nineteen.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: How many more does he -think the government will require in order to meet the calls on his department for dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The number would be sufficient, in my opinion, if all the dredges were up to date. For instance, the large dredge which we are building at Sorel for the maritime provinces will alone do more work than all the dredges we have in those provinces at present.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The hon. gentleman has frequently told me that he has been unable for the want of dredges to complete some work I have applied for time and again in my county. Will the hon. minister Mr. KEMP.
come under a contract with me to employ dredges which I will build, and pay me the same amount of money that he is now paying to other parties for doing that service ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. member were unwise enough to enter into such a contract, he would lose his seat, and I would not like to see him leave the House.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I would run that risk.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman might adopt the plan followed by a member of parliament who owns a dredge on the Georgian bay, but keeps it in the name of some friends.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not do anything of the kind.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman misunderstands me. I did not say he did it. He knows the case I refer to, because it is notorious.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a bad case if it is true.
Kingsville-repairs to wharf and breakwater piers and extension of western piers, $15,000.


John Graham Haggart: Explain this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is composed of a revote of $5,000 and a new vote of $10,000 to complete the work. Kingsville is in Essex county. Governments past and present have spent a pretty large sum of money on this harbour. The total expenditure up to the 31st December last was $85,951. I spent up to the 31st December, $7,836, and I expect to spend up to the 30th June, $7,000 additional, to complete the work, that is, to extend one pier, to make repairs to the piers, and to dredge a little.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman give us an idea of the number of boats that run in and out there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have in my hand a note to this effect, that this harbour is much resorted to for shelter by vessels of small tonnage and light draught. There is a regular line of steamers running between Windsor and Pelee Island, which calls at that place.
Meaford Harbour, Out.-dredging and pile works, $30,000.


Mr. SPROULE.: In what condition is the dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contractor, Mr. Piggott, is going on fairly well now-better than in the past- and we expect the work to be completed shortly. There is not only dredging but an extension of the pier and some sheet piling work. The work will be completed, I hope, in the month of September.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: About how much dredging remains to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About half the dredging has been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has there been any application made for piling on the west side of the harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 do not remember, but no doubt some applications will be made. I remember now that there has been a verbal application.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How far was the breakwater extended out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Three hundred feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the dredging along the wharf and the elevator finished.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dredging has been carried out the whole way in deep water. Meaford is one of the harbours in which I have great confidence indeed. There is a large trade there, and the Grand Trunk Railway is encouraging them to build a large elevator.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad to know that the hon. minister hopes to finish this work at an early date. Some more important work will still be needed on the west side, but the work so far as it has gone, has given great satisfaction. The dredging done so far enables the largest vessels to reach the elevator. -And although the dredging was only completed late in the fall, over a million and a half bushels of grain were handled in that elevator last fall. And as the road from there to Collingwood is very level, it is one of the points where the Grand Trunk railway can handle grain very easily. There is deep enough water close to the end of the dock to float the largest vessels that sail on the lake. What is most urgently needed now is dredging, and the people are grateful for what the hon. minister has done so far.
Midland Harbour-dredging, $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much was expended last year and what was paid for the dredging per hour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got that information under my hand, but will bring it down Monday.


William Humphrey Bennett: In what part of the bay . was the money expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have deepened the channel just at the entrance, as my hon. friend knows, leading to the large smelting milL I have spent the money where the Grand Trunk Railway and the smelting people asked me to spend it, and tried to guide my action by the requirements of the large interests concerned in Midland. Midland, like Collingwood, is one of the most thriving ports on the Georgian Bay, and if the Grand Trunk Railway do what I understand some of their people intend doing, we may have pretty large results there. If the Grand Trunk Railway make up their minds to double their track from Midland to the city of Montreal, we will have a large amount of traffic at that port.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no objection to the expenditure on dredging last year, but the dredging has not been done in what is known as the harbour proper. The harbour is one and a half mile wide, and some years ago docks were built there by the Grand Trunk Railway, but the receding waters necessitated dredging in front of these docks. I think that considerable of the money has been expended in that way.
We have from time to time vessels carrying a quarter of a million bushels of grain and even of greater capacity, so that a very considerable depth of water is required. As to the money expended at the smelter, that expenditure is a commendable one. That concern is one of very considerable proportions, with a pay roll of $13,000 a month. These docks were not built in sufficiently deep water, and the money was spent last year in dredging opposite the smelter, so as to give two or three feet more water and accommodate larger vessels.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Grand Trunk is asking us to give a depth of 20 feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Up to the 30th November last we spent during the last two years $15,000 in dredging. I am just now giving more attention to this port in view of the statements made to me by the railway companies, and I cannot say what will be the result of the information that is conveyed to me. I cannot say what we may do in the supplementary estimates, but I must state once more my firm hope that we will not lose sight of the necessity of doing everything to improve our St. Lawrence route. If the railway companies want to work with us from a Canadian standpoint. I have no doubt that the government and the House of Commons will understand the position and do the right thing at the right time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think that the proposed expenditure during the coming season will commend itself to the citizens of the town. These two large elevators had originally twenty feet of water. But within the last ten years, the waters of the Georgian Bay have receded three or four feet. I think it is quite right to restore the depth of twenty feet, as proposed.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: Is it possible that Midland requires $8,000 for dredging ? I always understood that there was plenty of water there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To do the dredging that ought to be done there would require about $50,000.


Jabel Robinson: Perhaps it would be as well for the minister to tell us where Midland Is. I have heard a great deal about it but never saw it. It is proposed to expend $8,000, but the minister says it will require $50,000. If this harbour is necessary and the expenditure Is necessary to the harbour, by all means do the work well while you are at it.


Albert Edward Dyment: Where is Midland ?


Jabel Robinson: That is what I want to know. I will get there if I live.
Oakville-repairs to east pier, &c., $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work.
Owen Sound Harbour-dredging and pile protection to works, $24,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is under contract.
Port Hope'-repairs to piers, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work.
I'resqu'Isle-purchase of wharf and repairs, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move that that item be struck out.


Mr. HALLLDAY.: There was a grant last year of $5,000 for Presqu'Isle harbour. Was any of that spent 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. And I am moving to strike out this item.


George Taylor: Why was the item put in 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because I thought it could be used. I went to negotiate for the purchase, but the price was too high, so I made up my mind not to do it at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
River Ottawa-improvement of narrows at Petewawa, above Pembroke, $4,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is an old contract which was in existence when we took office. It is a work of dredging in the Ottawa, by Mr. Poupore.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Poupore is the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, Mr. George Poupore.


John Graham Haggart: How much has been expended, and for what object ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have paid no money. It is a bulk contract for $7,000. It is not completed, and we have not paid a cent. The work is going on now. I saw it when I was up there last year.


John Graham Haggart: What navigation can there be on the Petawawa ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is certainly navigation there. I passed there in a steamer last season.


John Graham Haggart: We should concentrate our efforts upon the Ottawa river and the Georgian Bay canal and not upon these smaller streams.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is mistaken. This is for the removal of shoal in the Ottawa river. The contract was given in 1895. But, on account of a mistake which Mr. Poupore said he made, he found that, instead of sand, he had to take out stone and hard-pan. So you can see he is not going very fast.


John Graham Haggart: This, then, is for the improvement of the navigation of the Ottawa opposite the entrance of the Petawawa ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: 
Andrew B. Ingram: If I may be permitted, I would like to ask a question concerning the item about Presqu'Isle. Would the hon. minister tell us why no money has been spent and the item is now dropped 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far, not a cent has been spent, I believe.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year, when the hon. minister asked for this sum of money he said that hundreds of Liberals and Conservatives had sought to have this work done. He said this was a very fine country and the work was really necessary. Why did he drop it 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I tried to purchase the work but they asked too much. Is the hon. gentleman displeased that I did not buy it 7 He was displeased last year when I proposed to buy it, and now I understand he is displeased that I have decided not to buy it. I do not know exactly what I am to do to satisfy the hon. gentleman.


Andrew B. Ingram: Instead of being displeased I am very much pleased, and I commend the course the hon. minister has taken. This is in accordance with what I told him, that when he is right I am ready to stand up and declare my approval, just as I am ready to condemn him when he deserves it. I do not seek to make party capital out of this matter-there are plenty of chances beside; this.


William Humphrey Bennett: I wish to call the attention of the hon. minister to a promise he made last summer in the riding of East

Simcoe. I would like to read an item from a newspaper, and after he has heard It read, I hope he will devote the money he at first intended for Presqu'Isle to this dock which he promised at Orillia. The Orillia ' News Letter ' says :
You will remember the beautiful summer evening last July when the Hon. J. Israel Tarte stopped oft here for an hour or so, and incidentally took a jaunt down to Couchiching Beach along with the mayor and some of the councillors. The band was at the park on this particular evening, as were also about 1,500 townspeople composed mostly of Orillia's gayly dressed fair sex. It was just the usual Friday night at the park, but to the minister the scene was a revelation. In fact, so enchanting was it he immediately promised us, as he stood on the shore and waved his hand along the beach, a new $3,000 wharf right away. 'I make this bequest on account of the many beautiful ladies,' said the Honourable Israel. This was very gallant, indeed, and the ladies all appreciated it, as did also the rest of the townspeople as we thought the long-felt want would he at last fulfilled. We failed to write it on a card and attach the same to his person so he has forgotten. And to think he would go back on the ladies ! Barrie is to get $3,000 for its new wharf. Oh! Israel.
In view of the solemn and gallant promise made to the ladies, I hope the hon. minister will put in the supplementary estimates the money he intended for Presqu'Isle, and devote it to the wharf at Orillia.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: On a beautiful evening in the month of August last I had the pleasure of calling at Orillia. It is a fine town, with a beautiful park, and I must confess


An hon. MEMBER.: You were seduced.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I was seduced by the beauty of the ladies of that town, by their elegance, and by the great kindness They showed to a poor little French Canadian Minister who was travelling into those parts of the country. Well, I did not make a formal promise, but I went pretty far. I spoke of $3,000-yes, I think I mentioned the figure. I said if a vote of $3,000 will build a wharf, I will ask my colleagues to allow me to do so. There were splendid yachts on the lake. Really, it Is one of the most beautiful lakes, one of the most beautiful places, in the country. I expect to fulfil my promise. I try not to go back on the ladies. I have never been accused of that so far.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Nipissing and Ottawa Railway Company-Mr. Campbell.
Bill ( No. 36) to incorporate the British Columbia and Yukon Railway Company.- Mr. Riley.
Bill (No. 37) to incorporate the Sprague's Falls Manufacturing Company, Limited.- Mr. Emmerson.
Bill (No. 3S) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 39) to incorporate the St. Lawrence and Northern Railway Company.- Mr. Bureau.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
River St. Lawrence-dredging steamboat channel through shoal at foot of Wolf Island, $10,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The object of this work is to dredge a channel at the foot of Wolf Island to allow steamers to call at Kingston, and then go over to the American waters. X have made a complete survey of the whole work. It is to allow American boats to take supplies at Canadian ports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this cover the whole of the dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At the foot of the island, yes.
Sault. St3. Ma;L-harbour improvements, including dredging of approaches, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Every one knows that we have not enough water to allow Canadian boats to go to our wharfs. Canadian boats passing through the Canadian, Sault Ste. Marie canal, are obliged to go to the American side to load and unload. I am going to give an additional depth of water so as. to allow them to go to the wharfs on the Canadian side.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount which will be required to finish the work 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: Has this been let by contract, and if so, who has the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not given any contract as yet.


John Graham Haggart: You have not expended any money as yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: Well then, I want a promise from the hon. minister that he will let it by contract unless he has a dredge of his own.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Very well, I have no objection to do that.

I am perfectly ready to ask for tenders. If my hon. friend will allow me, perhaps, I will make a promise that is not in the right direction. I have had a long experience in the House. I will ask for tenders and make a test. It is quite possible that the man who will be the lowest tenderer will not have the plant necessary to perform the work. I will make a test of it. It has happened before, often and often since I have been in office, that a man who has put in the lowest tender has not the equipment necessary to do the work.


John Graham Haggart: We must insist that the Order in Council shall be carried out which provides that where there is an expenditure over a certain amount, tenders shall be asked for and the contract given to the lowest tenderer. If the hon. minister has a dredge of his own which he can use for the purpose it is all right, but if not, we must insist upon tenders being asked for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a perfect right to do otherwise, but I will ask for tenders in this case just to make a test of it. Let us not discuss the Order in Council now; I will make a test of it.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose it costs a higher amount, it is better in the public interest and it is better in the interests of public morality that a contract should be given although it costs a higher amount unless the department has a dredge available for the purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will do it this time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There seem to be conflicting rumors as to the depth of water in the Sault Ste. Marie canal. I would like to ask the hon. minister what is the depth of water in the Soo canal on the mitre sill, and how much money would be required to complete the dredging sufficient to give a uniform depth of water. It was put at 19 or 20 feet before.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot speak as to the depth of water in the canal myself. That is not in my charge, and I do not like to speak of a matter in another department. I speak only of the dredging in the harbour itself. When my hon. colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is in his seat, if the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) renews his question, I am sure he will get the information he desires.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. Minister of Public Works is asking for authority to spend money in the harbour, and the approaches to the Soo canal so as tdP improve them for the purposes of navigation. He should have some plans before him showing the depth of water there, and how much dredging is required to give the uni-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
form depth of water that he requires for navigation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a plan and a survey of the work I am going to carry out, but I must ask the hon. gentleman not to say that I should give information in regard to a matter that does not belong to me. My hon. friend is asking me to give him the depth of water on the mitre sill of the canal. The canal is not under my control; it is under the control of my colleague the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. As to the harbour it is of an unequal depth. There are spots where there are 15 feet of water and there are other places where there are IS feet. We are going to give a uniform depth of 20 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the approaches as well as in the canal?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The canal I do not want to speak of. My colleague the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals knows more about it than I do.


John Graham Haggart: The depth of water on the mitre sill of the lock of the Sault Ste. Marie canal is the same as that of the canal on the American side, namely, 20 feet. In order to have a 20 foot navigation you want to dredge the approaches to the wharfs and to the locks and to provide more than 20 feet of water. You require to provide for a 21 foot navigation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the canal, I take it, there is 20 feet of water, and the hon. Minister of Public Works will endeavour to have a uniform depth of 20 feet in the harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: You want to go one foot deeper.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer reminds me that when I say 20 feet, I mean 20 feet clear. If I am not mistaken we have only 19$ feet on the mitre sill of the Canadian canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there only 19$ feet on the mitre sill ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is only my information; it is not in my department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We want to settle this question. The member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says the depth is 20 feet, but I have heard it emphatically denied that it is 20 feet. We ought to have a statement from somebody who is able to state authoritatively what the depth Is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My colleague, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, has in his estimates an item for dredging the approaches to the canal,

and when that Item ds tinder consideration the hon. member for East Grey can get an answer to that question. X do not want him to insist upon me giving an answer in regard to a matter which belongs to another department.


Mr. SPROULE  .@: Where is this, dredging to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is in the harbour; it is not in the canal at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The item is only here for one year, and that is not so long. We are preparing the contract now. Southampton is an important port especially in view of the fact that Mr. Clergue is going to build the Algoma Central Railway, and Southampton is expected to be one of its terminals. The contract is under way. It is an extension of the landing pier so as to stop the filling up of the harbour. When that extension is made, a little dredging will make it a very good harbour indeed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says 'dredging of approaches.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It does not mean the approaches to the canal. The harbours are under my care and the canals and their approaches are under the control of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals.


John Graham Haggart: Except from Nipissing to the Georgian Bay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not a canal. The improvement of rivers is not under the care of the Department of Railways and Canals although they have done a good deal in the past which they had no right to do. The lakes are not under the charge of the Railway Department. There is no doubt as to that.
I have secured legal opinion upon that point, but in this case the question does not arise because it is purely and simply a harbour work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I misunderstood that.
I thought it meant the approaches to the canal.


John Graham Haggart: The control of the rivers, or the deepening of them, depends entirely on whether the hon. minister is able to impress his individuality on the rest of the government or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it depends on that at all, because the law is perfectly clear. The rivers and lakes are under the Public Works Department, but I may say that in the past the individuality of the Minister of Railways and Canals impressed itself a little too much. I certainly would not allow that now for this excellent reason that the Railways and Canals constitute one department and the Public Works another department. I feel quite able to carry out the work that is under my care, as my colleague, I have no doubt, feels quite able to carry out the work under his care.
Southampton-improvement of harbour, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is going to be done here ? For how many years will we find this item appearing in the estimates before it is used ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What dredging has been done this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not dredged this year in that part of the harbour. We have dredged in the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of an improvement is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an extension of the pier so as to form a kind of closed harbour with an entrance. We will dredge inside the harbour when that extension is completed, and it will not fill up again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will this work cost when finished ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The whole thing, extension and dredging, will cost in the neighbourhood of $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And you are commencing an undertaking here which means $50,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Which may mean $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the minister must have some definite data to justify him in asking this vote.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When completed the work will cost in the neighbourhood of $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It will be let by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Halliday: Before this vote is adopted, I would like to ask the minister a question oi' two. This is the harbour to which Mr. Clergue is building his railroad, but there is before the government a petition asking that certain improvements should be made in Tobermory harbour. Tobermory is one of the most important harbours on the lake, and I think myself that it is probably the best harbour on Lake; Huron. At times you will find fifteen or twenty vessels in that harbour. They have no dock to tie up to and the government has never expended any money there. It would be of very great public utility if improvements were made at Tobermory harbour to facilitate the shipping on the lake.

I trust that when the supplementary estimates come down the minister will see lit to include an appropriation for the building of a dock at Tobermory harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have received a request for harbour works at that place. The chief engineer tells me that we have given instructions that a complete survey shall be made. When that survey has been completed I will be in a position to say more than I can now in reference to Tobermory harbour.


William Humphrey Bennett: In addition to what my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Halli-day) has said, I would point out that Tobermory, or 'the Tub,' as it is familiarly called, is one of the most wonderful harbours to be found on the continent. It would seem as though nature herself had planted it there as a refuge for sailors in stress of weather. I have never understood that there was particular necessity for docks there, but there is certainly a great necessity for having proper iron hooks and things of that kind placed in the rocks so that boats may be tied up. I would not say that docks are not necessary, and my hon. friend (Mr. Halliday) can speak with very great authority on that point. Those who are conversant with the shipping on the lakes know that Tobermory harbour is a perfect Godsend to mariners, and the department could not do better than direct its attention to improving that place.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The next time I go up there I will see that harbour.
St. Joseph, Lake Huron-wharf, $5,000.


John Sherritt: Might I ask the Minister of Public Works what will be the total cost of that wharf when it is completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Even if no question had been asked, I would have given some explanation as to that work. St. Joseph is on Lake Huron, between Goderich and Bayfield. Two years ago, two deputations came to see me, one from Montreal and one from the county of Huron. It was represented to me that French Cana, dians had been induced to come from Chicago and settle there in large numbers. Mr. Cantin and the priest headed that deputation. They represented to me that they had organized a plan of immigration, that there was a saw-mill to be established, and that there was a brick yard with a large trade.


John Graham Haggart: Is the saw-mill there at present ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there is a small saw-mill and a brick yard there also, though not a very large one.
I will place myself in the hands of the House and state the case fully. That argument was advanced to me by the people who had Mr. HALLIDAY.
already settled there. A gentleman by the name of Cantin was at the head of the whole thing. Mr. Macmillan, the then member for the riding, was favourable to the project. 1 had a preliminary survey made. Then a deputation came from Montreal. Mr. Val-lee, who I am sorry is dead now, was at the head of that deputation. I knew him very well. He was a large hotel owner, and an enterprising man, and a man of substance. He represented to me that he had formed a company to build a large summer resort hotel. This was two years ago, and the hotel has been undertaken but not completed. I placed an amount in the estimates on these representations that I submitted to my colleagues. On the representations that were made in Chicago and which were, I suppose, the same as made to me, a certain number of families, I believe about twenty-five families, came from Chicago and settled there. The brick yard was started; the hotel was started, and so on. I may say that the village has not made a great deal of progress. I think there are about 150 people who have left Chicago to settle there, and the priest who lives there came to see me again three or four weeks ago. I did not know whether to ask my colleagues and the House to leave this item in the estimates or not. This gentleman with two or three others came to me and represented to me that if we did not discourage them, there would be a considerable immigration from Chicago and other American centres to that place. On the strength of these statements I have allowed the item to remain in the estimates. There is the whole thing in two words.


John Sherritt: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question, what is this harbour going to cost when finished ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not going to spend more than $8,000 there. There was $5,000 given already, and I ask for $3,000 more. My engineers have given special attention to that harbour, especially Mr. Roy, whom I sent there, and they state that $8,000 will be sufficient for the requirements of the work. They say that a small brick yard which is there at present will develop, and will do an export trade in brick to Chicago. Those people are settled there rightly or wrongly. I state the case as it has been represented to me, and I leave it in the hands of the House.


John Sherritt: What depth of water will this wharf give 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between eight and ten feet.


John Sherritt: Have you purchased the land 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I have not. I have not done anything yet, except survey the place carefully.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wlio owns the land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know. In point of fact, I have done nothing. There has been a stoppage of the whole thing. I think it is an interesting place. I believe there will be a large immigration there. We are paying large sums of money to bring people from Russia, Poland, and all parts of the world, and I thought it would be a good thing to bring a few dozen French Canadians to invade Ontario.


John Sherritt: How much will this work cost when completed ? What is the enterprise that will bring them there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just stated that there is a saw mill and a small brick yard.


John Sherritt: It seems to me that this is a very extraordinary state of affairs. While I have the honour to represent North Middlesex, I live in the county of Huron.
I have lived from a boy in the township in which this work is going on, and know this place very well, and I can assure the House that this hotel, which the hon. gentleman says was not finished four years ago, is not finished to-day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I admit that.


John Sherritt: I cannot come to any other conclusion than that the hon. minister has been misled. I am not aware that there is any such immigration there as he speaks of. I live within a few miles of the place, and have been through it, and I would not like to say that there are twenty-five families there altogether. It is true, it has a post office and a saw-mill, and a dock would be necessary to enable the mill to get logs, because there is no timber in that part of the country to supply a saw-mill. It is an old and settled part of the country. There are a few French families there who came from Lower Canada.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From Chicago.


John Sherritt: I beg pardon. You can hardly find a family there that came from Chicago. There are French Canadians who came from Lower Canada forty or fifty years ago and settled in that part of the country. The gentleman whom the hon. minister has referred to came there a few years ago and started a hotel and built the saw-mill. There are a few respectable dwellings there, but most are not completed. I believe Mr. Cantin owns them. I can assure the hon. minister that the people of that section of the country do not look on an expenditure at this place as being a proper expenditure of public money. I have here a paper from which I might read a short 40
extract. This paper is edited by a leading Reformer, who holds the position of county councillor, and who has always taken an active part in the affairs of the Liberal party. This is the ' Brussels Post.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is Brussels far from that place ?


John Sherritt: It is in the county of Huron. I do not know exactly how far it is.


John Graham Haggart: About thirty miles.


John Sherritt: Perhaps it is. This paper says :
Wo notice that a delegation ot big and little politicians recently visited St. Joseph, on the shores of Lake Huron, with the intent of the expenditure of money for harbour or dock purposes. St. Joseph's needs a harbour as badly as a goose requires side pockets, and any such expenditure is just that much money thrown away as fr.r as serving the public. A harbour ' is not required there, nor is there any probability of it ever being used if it were there. Surely there has been .money enough squandered by both political parties in the past in breakwaters, docks, harbours, &c., without continuing this nonsensical work any longer. No person can object to legitimate expenditure in necessary public works, hut why members do not protest against the misuse of moneys that should be applied to other purposes, we fail to make out. Tf 'wilful waste makes woeful want' then it is about time that somebody called a halt, and the 'Post' for one says somebody should be brought sharply to time if this kind of work is continued. We could mention so-called harbours on which thousands of dollars were spent and they are in worse shape to-day than 10 years ago, and do not nor never did even begin to pay a tithe of the interest on the money foolishly spent, nor serve any practical purpose.
Now, this is what a friend of the government has said. I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) is not in his place tonight ; for he had the honour at one time ns he stated this afternoon, of representing the riding in which this place is situated, and he knows the extent of the public sentiment which the minister speaks of. He knows that it was from the province of Quebec that these gentlemen came. One thing I am pleased with is that the Chairman of this Committee (Mr. Macdonald, East Huron) is a member for the county where this work is going on. I am satisfied that the hon. members of this House are too conscientious to advocate expenditure of this kind, and I think the government should have some fixed principle on which to proceed in their expenditure of the public money, instead of doing, as they are in this item, voting an expenditure of $7,000 or $8,000, to favour some political friends.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see what there is in the plea that in this case we are giving money to friends. Why, there is scarcely an elector in the



*place, so that there cannot be any political *object in this vote. I have stated the facts, [DOT]as I think very frankly. It was represented to me, when the item was placed in the [DOT]estimates, that this was a good beginning of a settlement. And $5,000 is not a large amount of money. It makes one smile rather to see people like my hon. friend making a big mountain out of this expenditure of $5,000, when much larger expenditures in Ontario and the other provinces are voted by them without a word or the slightest hint of scandal. That is not the kind of conduct that is likely to impress me very much. The question is whether, in this case we should go on with the expenditure or not. The government were right, and the House was right in placing this item in the estimates, but I must admit that our expectations have not yet materialized. And what I ask the House now is to vote the item, and I pledge myself to visit the place personally, and if I am not satisfied that there is justification for this expenditure, I will not make it. I pledge myself that if there is no public good to be served by this expenditure, it will not be made. In the meantime, I shall not spend a dollar before examining into the thing myself. I do not suppose that I can be asked to do more than that.
Hon. Mr. IIAGGAItT. This is a new idea of responsibility. The hon. minister asks the House to vote the amount and then tells us that if, after personal visit and examination, he finds it is not required, he pledges his honour not to spend it. But he should know the whole circumstances before asking for the money. That is the principle of ministerial responsibility. He has no right to ask us to vote the item after the statement he has just made. He should be frank enough now to tell the House that as he is not fully informed of the circumstances he will withdraw the item. For what purpose does he ask the vote ? For the purpose of inducing settlement from Chicago into a section of country which has been settled in every part of it, for forty years. That was the reason given by him, and now that he admits it he was Dot fully informed, he ought to withdraw the item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot do that, for the excellent reason that I have taken every possible precaution against any unnecessary expenditure being made. I am fully prepared to take my share of the responsibility. I pledge myself to the House to go there personally and investigate the whole matter. My hon. friend says that I should know all the circumstances now. Well, I sent a special engineer up there, Mr. Roy, and he gave me the report I have stated. Of course I am now in a rather difficult position from a certain standpoint. Here is a French Canadian settlement, and I am a


Joseph Israël Tarte: French Canadian minister, and I will be accused in the press of asking the House to vote a special sum in favour of a French settlement.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nobody else but the hon. minister has mentioned anything of the kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is just as well to go straight to the point in a case like this. I have nothing to gain in this business. Do I understand hon. gentlemen opposite to say that I should withdraw the vote ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, from the
statement the hon. minister has made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What statement ?


John Graham Haggart: His statement
that he pledged himself to the House to make inquiries afterwards.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Personal inquiries.


John Graham Haggart: That he would make inquiries afterwards, and if he found the circumstances did not warrant the expenditure he would not make it. When a minister asks the House to vote an expenditure, he thereby assures the House that he has made thorough inquiries; but from the statement of the Minister of Public Works, he has not the necessary information to justify his asking the House to vote this money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Half of the votes placed in the estimates are placed there before there is even a survey made. In this case there has been a survey made and full examination, but in view of the fact that Mr. Cantin does not seem to have realized all the expectations he held out with regard to certain people, I shall not spend the money before making a personal visit myself. I have some other business to bring me there, and I shall be there in a month or so after the House adjourns, and I say that I will not spend a dollar of the money unless I find that there is a good scheme of immigration under way. If there is a scheme to have families come in from the United States or elsewhere to settle there on a pretty large scale, I shall ask my colleagues to allow me to spend the money, but if there is not I shall not. I think that that is a fair statement.


John Graham Haggart: It is not a constitutional manner of treating the question at all. Besides who was it raised the question of prejudice or of opposition to the vote on account of twenty-five French families being there ? Why is it that in a little matter of this kind, the Minister of

Public Works should descend to racial prejudice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not do it.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is the only person who mentioned at all the fact of twenty-five French families being there, and he ascribed our opposition to the vote to that fact, and to his intention to induce other French families to emigrate into that section. Why does he make an appeal of that kind on a little question of voting a few thousand dollars for a harbour, which he can justify on no other ground ? It is the smallest kind of political manoeuvring that I ever witnessed in the House, and the Minister of Public Works will have to rise above that kind of tactics. He may appeal to racial prejudices on other questions, but it is perfectly absurd to appeal to them on a vote for a little harbour that no one in that section has heard of or requires. It is the smallest kind of parish politics that I ever heard introduced into this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Parish politics is not the kind of politics that I resort to. I do not see that my hon. friend is in any way justified in talking as he has done. I have not a word to take back of what I said.


John Graham Haggart: Make an apology, and do not do it again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not a word to take back. I say that I shall not spend the money until I make myself personally acquainted with all the facts and circumstances, and we will see now whether or not I shall not be accused-I do not say that I will be accused here-I know that my hon. friend is above that kind of thing; I know him too well to believe for one moment that anything of the kind will come to his mind. Permit me to say that I have not the slightest intention of ascribing anything of the kind to him. I have been accused in the press about different affairs. This time, I must plead 1 not guilty,' because there is no ground to commit anything of the kind.


John Graham Haggart: Don't do it again.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
James Clancy: The minister says that the fact of the item being in the estimates has induced some people to settle there, and that this is a reason for putting the item in the estimates this year. What then, induced the hon. gentleman to put it in in the first place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already stated that two deputations came to me, one of them from Montreal, composed of people I know very well. Unfortunately one of these gentlemen is dead. Mr. Vallee, who was a well known man among the members of parliament, and a man of means. They told me that they wished to establish a summer resort and build a hotel. The proof that such a scheme was a genuine one, is that the hotel ha* been started-a large structure. Unfortunately, as I have said, Mr. Vallee died. Among the gentlemen who accompanied him when he came to see me were a number of men of substance from Montreal, men I knew very well. Afterwards Mr. Cantin, the parish priest and half a dozen other people represented that they had organized an immigration scheme and that Chicago families were going to come in. These deputations induced us to place the item in the estimates. I simply ask to be allowed to investigate the case before doing anything more. If there is not an expectation of any large settlement there I will not spend the money.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister gives as his reason why this item should pass that there was no objection to it last year. On that basis of reasoning, why did he move to strike out an item-as he did just before six o'clock-which had passed last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained the case of Presqu'Isle.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not satisfactorily to this opposition.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend is not pleased, perhaps I could put the item back again in the estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister said that it is the duty of the opposition to criticise these items.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not complain.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now we -feel that the hon. minister has not given us sufficient information to justify us in supporting this item. One of the reasons against it is that a paper published in the riding in which the money was to be expended has denounced it, and the editor of that paper is a supporter of this government. We also find that an hon. gentleman who represents part of the territory contained within Huron county, de-

nounced this item. And the minister himself gives us no good reason for supporting it, but tells us to pass the item and he will investigate the item. It would be better to investigate first and be ready to give information to the committee to justify them in passing the item. The hon. minister also sneered at the House on account of the French families living there. I wish to point out to him the delicate position we would be in if we accepted his advice. He says that there are twenty-five French families there. He has been accused as he says himself in the public press of favouring the French element in this country. If he goes to investigate the case, is it not the fact that they will expect more from him than they would from an English speaking minister, and might unduly influence him to expend this money, or perhaps, even a| larger sum. If he does not want to be put in this position, all he has to do is to allow the item to stand, or withdraw it. He can then investigate. And, if the expenditure is justified, he can come and ask it from the House next session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is an extraordinary proposition that the hon. minister makes to us. I confess that I admire his sterling enterprise when he wishes to do a good thing. But I am afraid he sometimes shows the same zeal when he wishes to do a bad thing. And I am afraid he has stumbled upon something like that to-night. In the first place, the principle of asking the House to vote money without giving reasons for it, is wrong. To vote money first and investigate afterwards is hardly the way parliament should do business. The plea is raised that a certain enterprising gentleman, who, I believe, has a paper town to sell there, is bringing in immigration. For what purpose ? We are told that a mill is to be put up there. But, on the other hand, we hear that there is no timber to supply a mill. They are going to establish a brick yard, we are told, and there will be no possibility of vessels coming in to carry the brick to Chicago. But to start brickmaking in Canada, with a view to sending the product several hundreds of miles to Chicago and putting them on the market there against a heavy duty, and, in importing immigrants for that purpose- is that the object aimed at in building this breakwater ? The hon. gentleman can spend this amount of money much better in some other way. This is an old settled country- it has been settled for fifty years anyway. There is nothing there to start an enterprise. It is said it will become a summer resort. Why, there is not a decent grove there for a summer resort. You have to start it on a bare shore. It is said there is a hotel there. A hotel has been in the course of construction for several years, but it is not finished, because there has been no inducement to finish it; as lawyers some-


Andrew B. Ingram: times say of their cases, it is in statu quo. The minister says : Vote this money, and I will go on and make inquiry. He thinks that is sufficient excuse for voting the money. I want to ask the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McEwen), who lives in that county, whether he advises the expenditure of this money ?
This is a proposition to throw so much money away, or else to help some person. The minister does not even know who owns the land upon which it is proposed to build this dock. So far as we are told, it is the same man who has tried to build up a summer resort, it is the same man who is trying to sell his lot, the same man who is trying to make the public believe that the place can be built up by means of a brickyard. The idea of starting a brickyard there to make bricks for export to Chicago seems to be the wildest scheme I ever heard proposed to this House. There is nothing to support a saw-mill. There are no manufacturing establishments, nothing to begin a village. There are a few families there, and that is all the information we have. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, who knows the locality well, will you get up and defend it ? I would ask the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McEwen) if he will get up and defend It. Let this House know if they think it is desirable that that money should be spent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has not been one dollar spent yet.
am surprised that the members of the opposition become excited at this paltry sum of money. In the days of Sir John A. Macdonald I remember that we did not get excited at a little thing like that, we were looking for bigger things. Here is my position. I have not spent a dollar of that money, and my hon. friend talks as if I had pledged the country to an expenditure of a million dollars. I pledge myself not to spend one dollar before I look carefully and personally into that case. But on the faith of that vote, for which my hon. friends are just as responsible as I am, the people have settled there. Is it not a reasonable proposition ? I think that the standpoint taken by the hon. gentlemen opposite is altogether wrong. I have not spent one dollar, and do not propose to, unless I am convinced that it is useful, and unless my colleagues to whom I must appeal are convinced that it will be a wise expenditure of money. For it is a question of confidence, after all, whether this House will trust me with' that small amount of money. If I am not going to be trusted for that amount of money, I might just as well pass to the other side.


John Sherritt: The hon. minister seems to look upon it as a very small amount, but I do not think that this country can afford to let a minister run round through the country with these small amounts. I do not

think it is fair that we should be asked to authorize him to do a work of that kind. But the matter may not be as small as it appears. I am not an expert in harbour building, but 1 may mention that it is a shallow beach, a person can easily wade out into it ten or twelve rods. The minister this afternoon told us about a sum of $70,000 spent in Bayfield for a harbour. But this is a much harder place in which to build a harbour than was Bayfield. I think that $5,000 or even $8,000 will not accomplish the end that he mentions here. Indeed I do not think there is anything at this place to warrant such an undertaking. I am of the same opinion as that gentleman who is in the [DOT]county council, a leading Reformer, who stated in his paper that there was no use for the work. It is about ten miles from Bayfield, perhaps a little more. I have no idea that that dock will ever be used if it is built. It seems to me the minister is very easily convinced when he wants to construct a public work in any place. Even though it is a paltry amount of $5,000 or $8,000, he seems to be easily convinced that it is a proper expenditure, although the only argument he can make for it is that the town is a good place for a brickyard. We all know what a brickyard is. The place at present is only a little one horse affair, the brickyard will not develop it. It is a farming country, in fact one of the best in Ontario. We are told there will be a sawmill. It has been said that there was no timber there; perhaps that is rather a strong statement. I think nearly every farmer there has five or six acres of bush for his own use, that is all the timber there is for a saw mill. I may say to the minister that he will not be accused there of favouring the French people, because the French people there are as much opposed to this expenditure as anybody else. The French people in our part of the country are intelligent business men, and can easily see when money is being wasted. That French settlement I refer to is some ten miles long, and has been settled for forty or fifty years with French people from Lower Canada. I noticed this afternoon the minister, in referring to Bayfield, made comparisons. I do not object so much to the item for Bayfield, but the arguments that were brought forward to justify the present vote I think were very frivilous. He referred to the money spent in Bayfield thirty years ago. Well, those of us who knew that country thirty years ago know that there were no railroads when Bayfield harbour was built, and perhaps it was a proper expenditure. The grain in that portion of the country was all shipped from Bayfield, but to-day that Bayfield harbour is a dead letter. I am' not objecting to this vote, because the place may become a summer resort, it is growing in popularity ; but I am objecting to the argument advanced
by the minister for this vote when he refers to Bayfield, a work that has been useless for a number of years.


Mr. GANONG.: One would suppose from listening to the lion. Minister of Public Works that he was really indignant. Well now, he would have some right to be indignant if any person in this country were filching his pocket book the way he is filching the pocket book of the country. We have had two or three samples of that this session. This is only a small affair, he said; it is only a small amount that is involved. It is not a matter of principle with this hon, gentleman at all. It is merely a question of the amount that it is proposed to expend. If the hon. gentleman is hunting for places to put money tip for summer hotels, we can give him a job in the maritime provinces that will take him the rest of his life. If it has come to the point in this country that private enterprises are to be subsidized, as we have had. them subsidized during the last few years by the hon. Minister of Public Works, I think it is time that the public called a halt. Brickyards, saw mills, summer resorts 1 A similar case came up the other night and how admirably the hon. minister parried the point as to who owned the Lovell seigneury when it was proposed to give $53,000 to a private enterprise in Gaspe county. Last session we had some concessions made to the maritime provinces. They were going to make a magnificent harbour on a magnificent lake but when they made it the lake drained dry. That is how these hon. gentlemen are making themselves solid in the country perhaps, but are frittering away the money of the people. These private enterprises, I have no doubt, will take notice from the hon. minister's action this year, and probably next year Ottawa will hardly be able to hold the huge delegations that will be up to interview the minister and endeavour to persuade him to assist in their enterprises. Perhaps the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) could give us a good deal of information in regard to this particular matter. He is surely here to represent that constituency. If he is here I am certain the committee would be very much gratified to hear him explain the matter.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think it is in one of Mar-ryatt's novels that a discussion arises as to what we will call an item in dispute and the excuse given, which, I think, was accepted, was that it was a very little one. I dare say there are many hon. members present who will remember what that refers to. This item in dispute is a very little one compared to most of the expenditures and items in dispute in this department. If we leave it, as the hon. minister suggests, I would say that it would facilitate the business of the committee to pass the whole estimates under this head, amounting to

$354,100, if the hon. minister will give ns his word that he will personally investigate each one of the works that it is proposed to expend this sum on in detail. It will take him a considerable time to do it, but if he will promise not to spend any money until he has first investigated all the items in this list, probably it would be better for us to pass them in a lump, taking the hon. minister's word that unless he finds there are brick-yards, town site exploiters or boomsters involved, or something that would justify the expenditure in each case, he will cancel the items and next year we will come here with a clean sheet and with no expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the lion. Minister of Public 'Works to say that we are accusing him of a crime because he proposes to spend this money in this way. I did not think that any one on this side of the House went so far as that, but we do pretend to say that lie is committing a grave indiscretion. We do pretend to say that he is violating well understood principles of parliamentary government and asking the opposition to abandon the functions of an opposition, because he, himself, told us the other night that it was our duty, which we were expected to perform, to criticise every item according to the intelligence we possessed and the information we had, and to say whether it was right or wrong. We have accepted that invitation and we reply to him to-night that from our inquiry, our investigation and our information he is not justified in spending this money, nor are we justified in voting it. For that reason we oppose it. We also oppose it because we believe that a well understood principle of parliamentary government is that when a minister of the Crown asks the House to consider the advisability or otherwise of voting public money he is prepared to lay before it such information or data as he has acquired and collected with a statement to the House that will convince it that this expenditure should be made and therefore it will vote that it be made. But, he wants us to vote the money beforehand and give him a free hand to go and spend it after investigation if he likes, or to do the reverse. This is the most amusing proposition that I ever heard presented before this committee. It is the most Utopian proposition that I have ever heard presented to the committee for a long time. I am quite sure there is no hon. member of this committee who would more intensely oppose it than the hon. Mipister of Public Works himself if he were in opposition. I know the hon. gentleman too well not to believe that he would be the first man to condemn it. He would show up, not the iniquity exactly, but the impropriety of parliament voting public money on such a ground. The defence that it is a small item is no excuse whatever. It is the prin-


Edmund Boyd Osler: ciple involved in the matter ; it is not the amount of money involved.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What principle ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The principle of asking parliament to vote money without having the data to justify it in voting that money. We are asking him for the verdict of his own friends but there is not a single hon. member of this House who will get up to say one word in defence of this proposition. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) was in the House when this discussion commenced. Where is he now ? The hon. gentleman should tell the House what he thinks about it. He is not here to do it. He has found it convenient to get out of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: He is there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is he there ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman is present he should make a statement and let the committee know what he thinks about it. For these reasons we oppose it. If the hon. minister is prepared to give me his ear, I am prepared to go on with the discussion. We oppose it on another principle, and it is this : We think the principle of spending money on private property is wrong. It is not a government dock ; he told the committee that he does not know who owns the land, yet he makes that expenditure and after a while we will probably find out that we have to do as we have done in the past few years, when, after having spent money to enhance the value of private property we have been obliged to turn round and buy a dock for $10,000, or may be $20,000, the same as we had to do at Bruce Mines or in some other places. There is no public demand for this dock and there is no purpose in building it other than the booming of an imaginary townsite and the helping of a private individual to sell his land. That is the purpose. The brick yard business would be laughed at if you talked in tlie west about establishing a brick yard to export bricks to Chicago. And talk about building a harbour there. Why, only yesterday I happened to be in that section of the county, and met a gentleman who told me that he could roll up his pants and walk out twenty rods without wetting them. Yet the minister is going to give ten feet of water with an expenditure of $5,000. I have it on reliable authority that all that is moonshine. This gentleman whom I met said to me : The minister must have been very badly imposed upon; I admit that he is a man of a great deal of intelligence and if he was on the shore and looked at the exposed and shallow beach he would not require to be there fifteen seconds until he saw

the folly of trying to build a dock there to accommodate, what he says, are the needs of the country. The minister promises that he will go up and see that place, but what we object to is the principle of voting money upon such flimsy excuses. It is our duty here to vote away public money only when it is absolutely needed, and only when the minister convinces the House that there is sufficient trade in the locality to justify t(he expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The late John McMillan was a much respected member of this parliament. He was a farmer ; he was an old man and had been for twenty-five years a member of the House. In the month of May and in the month of Septembei', 1900, he transmitted to the department with his approval letters and petitions asking that a wharf be built there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps if I ask the hon. minister how long it was before the general elections, it may explain the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, that is a horse of another colour. I will not deviate from my argument. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says that I have no ground to ask this parliament to vote this money, and I refer him to the authority of a member of parliament of twenty-five years' standing, who represented that riding, and who asked that a wharf should he built there. Of course, I take the full responsibility for what has been done in this matter, but I was away in 1900, and in my absence my colleagues ordered a survey and an examination. It was on the representation of a much-respected member of the Liberal party and of the House of Commons that this little enterprise was started. There were very great hopes then that a settlement would be made in that place. I have heard with surprise the statement of several members on the other side that there are no lands available for settlement there, because I understand that there is a large tract of land available and that already at least twenty-five families have settled there who were not there two years ago. We expected more. I repeat that a deputation of the Montreal business men and capitalists represented to me that they wanted to build a large hotel. The hotel has been started and there is the beginning of a settlement. What mistake have I committed in the face of all these statements ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him if he is aware of the fact, that the very respectable member who recommended that and got him to put the item in the estimates, was defeated at the elecJ tions ? Will the minister also tell me, if he does not know that this very thing helped to defeat Mr. Macmillan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Without one word of opposition from the
ether side, this small amount was voted in the estimates, and on the faith of that vote I am told that a pretty large settlement has taken place there. All that I am asking is that the House shall not ask me to withdraw this amount from the estimates. I have not spent a dollar and I shall not spend a dollar until I have investigated the matter more fully. It is the privilege of gentlemen opposite to criticise this vote; and I have never complained of their criticism. I fully recognize the importance of being criticized, and I fully recognize the right of the opposition to do so. At the same time I believe that I am within my right and duty in insisting that the item should pass.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister told us that lie sent an engineer to get a report on this work. Will he be good enough to place that report on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend moves for that report he will get it with pleasure.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Public Works seems anxious to avoid the peculiar position he has placed himself in. He tells us that he will not expend this money until he inquires whether the expenditure is justifiable or not. I misunderstand the duties of a minister, responsible to this parliament and under a responsible government, if such a plea should prevail. The hon. gentleman must see the ridiculous position he is in. He asks the House to have perfect confidence in him; he tells us that he may not make the expenditure, but he wants us to vote a sum of money without his being able to justify the expenditure. What an extraordinary and absurd position ? I venture to say that such an exhibition was never made by a minister before. Under responsible government, the minister cannot ask a vote from this House without first being convinced himself of the absolute necessity of the expenditure; then he must convince his colleagues that the vote should be submitted to the House, and then he must have the approval of the Governor General on the ground that the expenditure is in the public interest. But the minister now asks us that the money shall be granted to him in trust, and he pledges his honour to the House that if the expenditure is not justifiable he will not make it. Why do we not vote all appropriations in the same manner ? Why do we not give a lump sum to the minister and trust to his honour and judgment as to the expediency of the expenditure ? That is not our form of government at all; that is not ministerial responsibility. That is the position of the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not the position.


John Graham Haggart: It is exactly the position of the Minister of Public Works. A more absurd and ridiculous position a

minister never occupied in this House at all. Why does he not come out manfully and say, I am responsible for the expenditure, and I ask this House to vote the money, instead of asking us to trust to his honour and his knowledge and experience, to decide whether the expenditure is justifiable or not. X will venture to say that such a request was never presented to a constitutional assembly before this evening.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the use of my hon. friend trying to lecture me on constitutional law, which I know just as well as he does, if not better ? The amount was placed in the estimates when my hon. friend was in the House, and lie did not object to it or say one word against it. If it were a new vote altogether, my position would not be as clear as it is; but it is not a new vote: the amount has been in the estimates for years, and I simply ask that it be allowed to remain there until I get further information. My hon. friend's lecture is not in the right direction. I do not profess to be infallible on constitutional law, but in this case I do not believe I am making a mistake, in taking the position that this amount having been placed in the estimates, I do not want to withdraw it without more information. I think that is a fair position, and if our lion, friends opposite cannot agree with us, I am very sorry.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It seems to me that the minister has not improved his position at all. He says this is partly a revote. That shows that he has had a year or two to ascertain whether it is a proper vote or not; but he does not know now any more than he did twelve months ago whether there is any necessity for a harbour at this place. That being the case, there is no need of putting this vote through to-night, and it may continue to rest in the imagination of the hon. minister without doing any harm to anybody. I do not think the minister's statement that it was voted before is any reason why he should revote it. Surely when it comes before parliament it is a new vote, and should be considered without regard to the past, if the work has not been commenced. Evidently it is a useless expenditure, or the minister would be able to give some reason why the money was not expended. The opposition know more of the matter now than they did when the item was in the estimates last year, and they know that it is one that should not pass the House.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Our friends on the other side have been so exceedingly good to the hon. Minister of Public Works in allowing so many items to pass that they appear to have arranged a little tilt to-night in order to have a little amusement I am not familar with this particular work. I Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
have obtained my information of it from what has been said to-night by the hon. Minister of Public Works and the hon. gentlemen on the other side; and if I were on the other side, animated with a desire to make a little political capital out of this matter, I could convince myself that our friends over there are probably adopting the right course; but if we look at it as a business proposition, I think the attitude of the minister is quite reasonable. He says that on the representations of an influential committee of gentlemen from Montreal, and also at the request of a number of people who live in the district, and under the advice of the late Mr. McMillan, a gentleman whom we all respected, he was induced to place a sum in the estimates for this work. This year renewed pressure was brought upon him to go on with this work, and in good faith he puts the item in the estimates. He is not to suppose that conditions have changed; he expects that the matter will be treated as a business proposition; and for the first time he hears objections to the scheme which he was not aware of before. He is not satisfied, however, and I am not satisfied, that all the statements made on the other side of the House are correct. We hear so many statements emanating from that source that on subsequent investigation we find to be inaccurate that we feel quite justified sometimes in taking Ijhe statements that are made by our hon. friends opposite with a little grain of suspicion. I am on this occasion with the minister. I say that he was justified, upon the information he had, in putting this item in the estimates, and he is not willing to withdraw it upon the statements made by our friends on the other side. But at the same time they have created enough suspicion in his mind to induce him to satisfy himself as to their accuracy, and if he finds them to be true, he is willing that this particular sum shall not be expended. That is quite sufficient for me as a supporter of the hon. minister, and I am quite willing, if the opposition insist on that item standing, to support the minister with my vote. I have learned, after four or five years experience in this House, not to believe everything that emanates from the other side of the Speaker.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down is no doubt very much in touch with the Minister of Public Works, because the Minister of Public Works announces himself to be an out-and-out protectionist; and in these days, when my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) is losing so much sleep looking after the interests of his political sponsors, the Massey-Harris Company, and asking for additional protection for them, I can readily understand why he rushes to the help of the Minister of Public Works.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is not in his department.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, but my hon. friend from South Brant will acknowledge the great prestige and power which the hon. Minister of Public Works possesses in the Cabinet. Now, what is the first statement made by the hon. member for South "Brant to justify his position ? He says that a deputation from Montreal waited on the Minister of Public Works and asked that this work be proceeded with. Now, who were the gentlemen who waited on the Minister of Public Works ? It was a gentleman who was building a summer hotel, and wanted a dock to lead up to it. Surely my hon. friend does not contend that the money of this country should be used to build docks for people who wish to build summer hotels? My hon. friend from South Brant poses as a business man in this House, and yet he stands op and says that if a gentleman desires to build a summer hotel at any point in the Dominion, all he needs to do, in his opinion, is to apply to the people of this country for a wharf to be built at the public expense, to be used in conjunction with his hotel. I am surprised that my hon. friend is not asking the Minister of Public Works to build a livery stable for some gentleman who wishes to start one and hire out horses. Surely, if it is right to build a wharf to accommodate a man who is building a summer hotel, it is equally right to build a livery stable for any one who wants to engage in that business. Now, there are two principles involved in this matter, and it is immaterial whether the vote is $5,000 or $50,000. What did we have in this House the other night ? The Minister of Public Works made the statement that the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell), having a large timber tract in the county of Gaspfi, desired to establish mills there, and in order to save expenditure in connection with his mill, he wanted the government of the country, or the people-because it is the people's money-to build a $50,000 dock for him. Nobody disputed that that was the case, and the hon. gentleman stated that the building of a saw-mill was contingent on the government building the dock. The hon. member for South Brant, if in the House, I presume, acquiesced in that. The hon. gentleman now attacks the statements made by my hon. friend from North Middlesex (Mr. Sherritt). I think he is very unfair to my hon. friend, who does not obtrude himself very much on the House; and when he makes statements of fact in this House, living as he does a few miles from the place, it is bad grace on the part of the hon. member for South Brant to suggest that those statements are not true. I will be bound to say that every statement the hon. member for North Middlesex makes is true.
The gentleman who represents the riding where this wrork is to be done left the chamber as soon as it was mentioned. That cannot be denied. He was sitting in the House immediately before this item was called and then left the chamber. Why did he leave ? Because he knew he could not make any statement of facts that would at all justify it. The statement of the Minister of Public Works itself makes out a case, which could not be possibly stronger, for any one attacking this expenditure. He said that the demand for this work came first from a gentleman who owned the land, that this gentleman intended constructing a summer hotel at that point, and that there is a saw-mill there. No one denies these facts, but the mill has no connection with the dock because it is not even built on the water's edge. It is a small mill intended to cut up logs that are now standing timber in that part of the country. It is not built near the water edge at all. Then as regards the brickyard, it is absurd to talk of building a dock in order that brick may be exported to the United States. Every one knows that brick is not exported to the United States from this country. But in order to get this vote through, the minister makes this novel pledge, which has been commented on by my hon. friends from North Lanark (Mr. I-Iaggart) and West Toronto (Mr. Osier). He gives the House his word that if on inquiry he finds that the circumstances do not justify the expenditure, the money will not be spent. Well, he need not have waited to make a personal visit for he could have got all the information he required from the hon. member in whose riding this work is to be done. And the fact that that hon. gentleman deliberately went out of the chamber as soon as the item was called is pretty clear evidence that there is no justification for it. Or the hon. minister could have called on Mr. Deputy Speaker, who might have left the Chair, and attempted some justification of this vote. But neither of these two gentlemen ventured to defend it.
I was surprised to find the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) rising to support this vote. I thought at first that this was the last straw breaking the camel's back, and that the hon. gentleman was really rising in his place in protest. Then there is the hon. member for South Perth, who went out against the government on the Yukon deal. That was a question of principle with the hon. gentleman. Is he going to stulify the reputation for independence which he made on that occasion ? Is he going to sit here and vote for a proposition, which the minister himself says he is not now in a position to justify. Is he going to vote for expenditure on a work which is of no public utility at all, but which, as the Minister of Public of Works has himself

said, was taken up by the government on the request of a private individual, who asked to have his private property improved at the expense of the public.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have seen a good many tempests in a teapot, but this is the smallest kind of a tempest and the smallest kind of a pot I ever saw. Whether the hon. gentleman who represents one of the Hurons is or is not in the House or whether our Chairman did not leave the Chair in order to address the House, does not affect the case. Why should the Minister of Public Works or of any other department withdraw an item at the dictation of the opposition ? This item was placed in the estimates, with the consent of the House, and because two or three of my hon. friends on the other side have thought proper to rise in their might and tell me that I am not to be trusted with this wonderful sum of money, I am forsooth to drop the item. They threaten us with a vote. Well, if we have nothing more to fear than a division on a question like this, we will be very long on this side of the House. I repeat that this item was placed in the estimates with the consent of hon. gentlemen opposite. Circumstances justified the government in placing it in the estimates, and because I do not now eat humble pie, because I do not make up my mind to be lectured by my hon. friend's opposite, we are going to have a vote. We have had votes in the past and have not been killed by them, and I do not think we stand much danger of being slaughtered on this occasion. We will see whether the country will support hon. gentlemen opposite in their demands that I should withdraw this item without being given the chance of looking into it myself. This is a most unreasonable position for the opposition to take. I hope that my hon. friends have no other motive than to vindicate constitutional law, and the country will judge whether it is any such high motive which animates them on this occasion. I have nothing more to add except to call the attention of my hon. friend who has just sat down, to the unfairness of his statement. I do not suppose that he meant to be unfair but what is the use of his saying that the sum was placed in the estimates at the exclusive demand of gentlemen from Montreal.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understood the hon. minister to say that Mr. Cantin and another gentleman had asked for the grant in the first instance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have devoted a good deal of time to this item, and if we are to take a vote, we might as well take it now. I do not think anything more can be said which would throw any additional light on this subject. The position Mr. BENNETT.
is this. A couple of years ago a sum was placed in the estimates for the building of a wharf at the place in question. There was some business representations made to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of this expenditure, and he acceded. This appears this year to have shocked the sense of my hon. friend from Simcoe in particular among others. But he ought not to be so very particular. Why, this very afternoon he asked the hon. Minister of Public Works to put an item in the estimates of $3,000 for an expenditure at Orillia, and for no other reason than that the Minister of Public Works had paid a visit to Orillia last summer, and that on that occasion my hon. friend had brought all the pretty girls of that town in a deputation to ask him to have a wharf built there. There were no business reasons, but simply this appeal to my hon. colleague who, having French blood in his veins, is very susceptible and could not resist the blandishments of the fair sex of that charming little town. But my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) and the opposition had no fault to find with my hon. colleague for his susceptibility on that occasion. On the contrary they invited the Minister of Public Works to accede to that appeal of the fair maidens of Orillia. I do not think therefore that it lies in the mouth of my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) to blame the Minister of Public Works for following this precedent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The tenor of the hon. minister's defence is simply this, that the item was put in last year and the opposition did not object. But at the time there did not happen to be among hon. members on this side any one who kney the locality well enough to express an intelligent opinion on the expenditure, and we accepted it on the strength of the statement of the Minister of Public Works that it was needed. But, this year, we tell him we have the information and that he is not justified in asking for this vote. The only defence he has is that we did not object last year. It may have been wrong, he tells us, but the fact that we did it last year is the reason why we should do it this year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a reason for looking into the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Two wrongs do not make a right. Though, for want of information, we let it pass last year, yet now that we have acquired information we tell him it is wrong. That is a reason why he should refrain from pushing it. He said that an hon. member in this House, who is not now in the House, recommended this vote. And that gentleman went to the country two months afterwards and was defeated. That was not a very strong argument in favour of the expenditure. The hon. gentleman

says that he sent an engineer and got a report. If that report justifies the expenditure, why not give it to the House and convince the House that the money should be voted ? The hon. gentleman keeps back the report and tells us to move for it, and it will be brought down. That is, vote the money first and see the report afterwards. We want that report now, so that we may know whether it justifies us in voting this money or not. The very fact that he says he will not spend a dollar of this mofiey until he sends another engineer to report discredits the engineer he sent in the first place.	-


Robert Johnston: The Minister of Public Works tells us that he was recommended by the late member for the county to build the dock. He laid great stress upon that. I would ask him if he has asked the opinion of the hon. gentleman now representing the county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not.


Robert Johnston: Does not the hon. gentleman think that the hon. member who now represents the county, now that this thing has been noised abroad, would be able to give valuable suggestions ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman who represents the county never asked me to withdraw the item. I will act in this case as I acted in the Presqu'Isle case. I looked into that matter carefully, and this year I asked to withdraw the vote. If, on investigating this matter, I find that I have been misinformed, I will do what I did in the Presqu'Isle case. More than that, I must not be asked to; more than that, I will not do.


Robert Johnston: Has the present member for the county never made any suggestion on the point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Johnston: If I do not mistake, I see the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McCreary) standing in the entrance to this chamber. Perhaps he will come in and give his opinion upon this matter.


Gilbert White Ganong: We have heard from the minister several times that we are as much responsible as are the occupants of the government benches for some of these items. I can only say that if the minister will be frank with us when he attempts to fly his kite, we will acknowledge our responsibility. But a case arose the other night. Last year he had flown a small kite of $15,000; this year he comes with the tail to the kite in the form of an additional $38,000. If the minister wants us to be responsible, let him give us the absolute facts when these items come before us, so that we may know whether we are going to spend $5,000 or $100,000. A vote of $15,000 last year hardly justified him in making a contract for $53,000. But that is what he did. Then he comes to us and says I have thrown this little sop to a supporter of the government, and we want you to ladle out the rest of the money so as to keep this gentleman quiet. The sooner the members of the opposition and the people of the country generally understand this system, the better it will be for all. The hon. minister has been remarkably considerate of one of his friends in the cabinet, the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock). You will remember that the Postmaster General issued a circular, and not only that, but he issued it when the hon. Minister of Public Works was in Europe. This is one of these ill-omened birds that sometimes come home to roost. I. have no doubt that the minister has on file the application for this vote. Probably those who made it gave as one of their reasons for making it this circular of the Postmaster General. Perhaps there are other applications of a similar nature on file, and it might be well for the minister to bring them down. It would be interesting to know how many applications have arisen from that circular of the Postmaster General. That circular probably had about as much good effect as the Labour Bureau that we are paying for. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) gave a wonderful justification of this vote. That justification was that the hon. member said so, and that was enough. The Postmaster General's circular led to the asking for it, the Minister of Public. Works granted it, and the hon. member for South Brant is willing to support it. There has been a considerable exhibition this evening of a sort of weakness of the knees. I have noticed it several times in the case of the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). He was in a back seat and he partly rose, but dropped back again- his heart failed him. He has come down a seat or two and has tried to get on his feet. I hope he will have strength enough to get up and either defend this vote, or do as he ought to do, move that it would be struck out.


Robert Holmes: It is not in my riding.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think we need no further evidence than the refusal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) to see that this item is not a good one. I wish to point out the dangerous character of the doctrine laid down by the Minister of Public Works when he says that the opposition, by consenting to this item last year, gave up their right to object to it this year. If that is followed up to its logical conclusion, then, every new item that is placed in the estimates should be objected to by the opposition whether they have any knowledge in the

matter or not, whether they believe the item to be reasonable or not. As a member of the opposition, I object to taking that stand. I do not think it would be in the interest of the country or in the interest of the members of this House. The course the opposition is taking on this occasion is, in my judgment, the only proper course to take, namely, that if they know of no reasonable objection to an item, then the item should be allowed to pass the House. But if they find there are objections to an item, then they would be neglectful of their duty if they did not rise and object to it. I want to tell the Minister of Public Works that so far as I am concerned, I care not when an item appears in the estimates, if it is ten years hence, and I should be then a member of this House, and it was again submitted to the House, I would take the opportunity of rising in my place and objecting to it.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to say a few words with reference to the statement of the Minister of Public Works as to a duty of the opposition in criticising items which appear in the estimates. I would not have paid much attention to it were it not that I notice that the same argument was used by the Minister of Finance when addressing the electors in one of the Ontario constituencies. He argued that because the opposition had not challenged an item in the estimates by their vote, that therefore they consented to it. A more absurd statement was never made by any minister. Let the Minister of Public Works read the statement of the hon. Joseph Chamberlain when he was criticised in the same direction. He said the government was responsible for every item that was put in the estimates, and that the duty of the opposition was confined to fair criticism. Their duty is, not to divide the House upon an estimate they object to, but to state their objections and leave it there. And yet we are told by the Minister of Finance of this country that because the opposition did not divide the House on an estimate, therefore they consented to it. Let him read the speech of Mr. Chamberlain where he shows the absurdity of such an argument, let him read the speeches of leading statesmen in England on the same subject, and he will find that they hold the principle that the duty of an opposition is merely criticism, not to divide the House on an item, but to leave the entire responsibility with the government who propose it. If we do not divide the House upon it, that is no reason why we should be accused of supporting the vote. The Prime Minister says we may as well have a division at once upon the subject. Let me answer that we do not divide the House in committee where the votes are not registered.


The PRIME MINISTER.: One of the hon. gentleman's friends has just moved to have the vote struck out.


John Graham Haggart: I have not heard anything of the kind.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) just moved it.


Gilbert White Ganong: No.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I beg his pardon then, I misunderstood him.


John Graham Haggart: We do not divide the House where the votes are not registered, as it would be useless to do so. Our opposition is not so much for the purpose of influencing the government as for the purpose of influencing the country, because we know we are in a minority in this House, and when we divide the House we want our votes to appear to the public throughout the Dominion to show whether we support an item or not. The Minister of Public Works taunts the opposition with having made no objection to the vote last year. The position we ocupy as a party is that for every item in the estimates the government of the day are responsible, and that our functions are confined to criticising an item we object to. That is the principle laid down by English statesmen, as I have just mentioned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully agree with the constitutional views which the hon. member for Lanark has just expressed. Let the hon. gentleman understand me well. I stated that last year there was no opposition to this item, but in saying that I did not mean to argue that our friends opposite have no right to oppose the item this year. But I say that having raised no opposition last year, it is too late for them to expect that I will withdraw the item now when, for the first time they raise an opposition.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have not spent a dollar yet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let our friends opposite understand me well. They did not oppose this item last year, and they have not since then shown sufficient reason to induce me to withdraw it this year. I quite understand that the opposition have every right to criticise the items in the estimates, whether they were placed there last year or this year. When the Minister of Finance argued in the country that the opposition consented to votes by not dividing the House upon them, he meant to convey the idea, which is a true one, that the opposition are every day asking us to spend money for public works in their ridings' still, when they discuss the Budget, either in the House or in the country, they complain that we are spending too much. I claim that they are not fair, and that the Minister of Finance was perfectly right in saying what he did.


John Sherritt: I am perfectly satisfied that if the minister will go down and look


Andrew B. Ingram: over this place as lie has promised to do, he will be convinced that the proposed expenditure is not a proper one to make. I understood him to say there was a lot of land available that could be got for settlers. That is true in a sense, but the country is an old settled country. I think land there is worth $40 an acre. There Is no wild land there available for settlers. I wish the Chairman was in a position to rise and give us his opinion upon this proposition. The country has been settled ever since I was a boy. The farmers own, perhaps, five or six acres of timber each. I am perfectly satisfied that if the minister goes down there and examines the situation he will be convinced that he has been misled, and he will not spend this money, because I think the hon. gentleman will not break faith with the House nor go back on his promise. I wish to say now, in answer to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd), that I think he was a little too harsh in accusing me of making statements that are not absolutely correct. I feel that my actions in the House do not justify him in making such a statement as that about me. I have not taken up very much of the time of the House.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sherritt) (thinks that I made a reflection upon anything he said, I can assure him that such was very far from my intention. I have not the slightest doubt but that everything he said was true in connection with this matter.


John Sherritt: I am glad to accept that apology, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that I am in a position to know a little of what I am talking about. There are some questions in reference to this matter, particularly as to the number of people there, that I do not feel inclined to answer, but I make this statement that a few years ago this locality was an open field used for farming purposes. A gentleman came there and started a summer hotel, and commenced the erection of some other buildings. There are a number of proposed buildings with northing but the foundations completed. This gentleman undertook to make a city, but he failed in that effort and the hotel stands there to-day unfinished. There is no business man in that part of the country but considers that the time is coming when the hotel will be torn down and the brick used for the erection of bank barns. It is an agricultural country. There is noit a tree near the place to provide the shade necessary for a summer resort. It has been suggested that this gentleman is going to bring trees there and make a grove. This man has failed to do as he contemplated, and he comes with a deputation to the minister. I know if the hon. minister goes down there and examines the place for himself he will return to this
House and say that he will not go on with this expenditure. The late Mr. McMillan has been referred to, a gentleman that I knew for many years, and one in whom I have had every confidence. If it is in accordance with .the rules of the House, * I would like the hon. Minister of Public Works to bring down the letter which he says he received from the late Mr. McMillau and show it to the House because, having every confidence in the late Mr. McMillan, I cannot believe that he ever considered this a proper place in which to spend money for the making of a harbour. I hope, if it is not contrary to the rules of the House, the hon. minister will have that letter brought down that we may have an opportunity of reading it.
Toronto hi.rbour-works at eastern entrance, &c., $8,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The vote in the estimates for Toronto harbour is rather infinitesimal when we consider the amount we have just been discussing. We have had a vote of $5,000 for a village supposed to contain twenty-five families. Estimating that each of these families contains ten members apiece that would be 250 people, the proportionate vote would be about $5,000,000 for Toronto containing about 250,000 people. While 1 am a strong objector to spending public money except judiciously, and where it will result for the general good of the community, I do think that the amount the hon. Minister of Public Works and the government have been devoting to the most important harbour in Canada, practically, a harbour where there has been more business done than in any other harbour in the Dominion, is so absurd that there can be only one explanation for it and this explanation appears to be, that, do what they can, the government cannot get supporters of their own returned for Toronto. Perhaps it is unfortunate that Toronto should be such a Conservative city, but the fact remains that practically no public money is being expended on the most important harbour in Canada. I agree, I must say, with the position that the hon. Minister of Public Works has taken in connection with the main expenditure on the harbour that the government should not expend money there until the city of Toronto takes charge of its own drainage. I agree with the hon. minister there entirely. In regard to the question of the straightening of the Don, or preventing the silt which comes down from the Don and is filling up the harbour, it is entirely another matter, and it is one which should be taken charge of by the government. The government should take charge of the silt which comes down from that river and should prevent the harbour from being filled up as it has been with this silt. The money that is voted for the improvement of Toronto harbour is simply absurd.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) will allow me, I will not enter Into a discussion of the question from the standpoint that he has just adopted. This small amount of money is applied for to pay the balance of the contract which is going on. I must have the money to pay it and to erect three groynes that were asked from me the last time I had the pleasure of being in Toronto. As to the larger question it will bt* discussed in the supplementary estimates. The main estimates contain nothing at all for new works.


Edmund Boyd Osler: All right.


Albert Edward Kemp: There will be an appropriation in the supplementary estimates for the diversion of the Don river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the supplementary estimates come down my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) will find whether there is an amount or not. I am not free to say now. I have never given any definite answer to any member of parliament no matter to which side he might belong. The supplementary estimates have not yet been decided upon.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hour is late, and I do not wish to have the discussion just now, but I want to let the hon. minister know that on the supplementary estimates we desire to have a full discussion of the Toronto harbour and the diversion of the Don.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be no trouble about that.


Mr. BARKER.: On this question of the supplementary estimates, I wish to say a word or two in regard to this particular vote. It seems to me very objectionable that estimates should be brought down piecemeal when the minister knows there are going to be supplementary estimates. I think that when a supplementary estimate is intended by the minister the main vote should be postponed until the supplementary estimate is brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has never been done in that way here.


Samuel Barker: It may not have been. I do not understand how a body of men can intelligently decide upon whether they will vote any sum whatever when they know a further sum is going to be asked for. The fact that a further sum is likely to be asked for might influence the minds of hon. gentlemen as to whether they would grant any sum at all.
Manitoba-general repairs and improvements to harbour, river and bridge works, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the usual vote.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he has done anything since last session to improve the mouth of the Mossey river ? He will remember that last session I drew his attention to the fact that there was a bar across the mouth of that river, and that he promised to send an officer to look into the matter. He had a dredge on Lake Manitoba and he proposed to send it up there to do this work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that he has instructed our resident engineer in Manitoba to make a survey, but he is not sure whether he has received his report or hot. We will look into the question, if my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) will be good enough to call at the office we will show him the report if it is there.


William James Roche: Where is this particular vote to be expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a general vote to be expended all over the province.
Columbia river-improvomimts in1 narrows between upper and lower Arrow lakes, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What improvements do you intend to make there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have given a contract for a small dredge to carry on the improvements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this for a dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, the wording of your item is wrong. It speaks of the improvements in the channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The best way of making these improvements is to build a dredge there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you should ask for money to build the dredge. The wording of the item is misleading. I do not think the minister will try to justify that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe it is all right. We are doing the same thing at Lake Temiscamingue. Suppose instead of building a dredge I should buy shovels and things like that to make the improvements. I think I am justified in getting the dredge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister may be quite justified in building a dredge, but he cannot take the money for that purpose from a vote to improve the channel. The Auditor General would not allow that to pass if he was looking after it, because one of his duties is to see that the money voted by

parliament for a specific purpose is spent for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it is all right. I do not hide anything, I am stating the facts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not say that you are not stating the facts, but I complain of the impropriety of voting money for one purpose and spending it on another.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to changing the wording of the item if the hon. gentleman wishes. I move to add the words ' to include the building of a dredge.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is all right then.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Skeena rlvor, $7,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you doing on the Skeena river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is one of the great salmon rivers and there is a great deal of trade there, and we are removing snags and obstacles of all kinds.


Richard Blain: Have you a government dredge in British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have two dredges there ?


Richard Blain: Do you use these dredges on that work ?
The MINISTER OF, PUBLIC WORKS. We do not always use 'dredges; we use implements of all kinds to do the work.
Dredge vessels-repairs, $30,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is over half a million dollars involved in tiie item before the House, and I would suggest that you do not go on with it to-night, as some of our friends may have something to say about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to that.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Public Works, House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Monday, March 17, 1902.