1903-10-06

Hon.  J. I.@: I would like to inquire from the government whether or not any report has yet been received from the commissioners who were appointed to investigate certain matters in connection with) the Tneadgold and other concessions in the Yukon ? If the report has not been received, I would like to inquire whether or not the evidence has been received, and in either case I would like to know the intention of the government as to printing that evidence in full.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS Hon. James Sutherland). The right hon. the Prime Minister is not at present in the House, but I will mention the matter to him, and my hon. friend might renew his question when he is present.



SUPPLY-MAIL SERVICE AT PICTON.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['Continuation of supplies.']
Mr. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward).: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I desire to call the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General to the very unsatisfactory condition of affairs at Picton post office. The mails for Picton are delivered from the (Grand Trunk Railway over the Central Ontario Railway. The trains over this railway arrive very irregularly, and in consequence the mails are not delivered in the post office until long after the proper hour. The railway company carries the mail on the same train that they use for shunting and handling all the freight at the stations along the line, so that its arrival at Picton is very irregular. While the railway company is largely to blame, the staff of the post office is also highly inefficient, and the time occupied by them in the sorting and distribution of the mails is utterly unreasonable. In fact the staff has never been an efficient staff. The postmaster has had no clerical training and the hands in the office have been boys, also without training. With the exception of one young mail named Belch, there has never been a really efficient or competent official in that post office under this (Government. I hope the Postmaster General will find means to remedy this evil,

which is a cause of inconvenience to all of the inhabitants of Picton. Mails which should be delivered at 9 a.m. o'clock, or 9.30 a.m. at the outside, are frequently not delivered until 11 o'clock, and a similar state of affairs exists in the afternoon.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sorry to learn from my hon. friend (Mr. Alcorn) that any cause for complaint exists, and I will take all possible means to remedy any evil. As to the first portion of the hon. gentleman's complaint, that mail trains are used for handling local freight as well as for handling passengers, I fear the remedy is beyond the control of the government. As to any inefficiency on the part of the post office staff, that is a matter for which the government is responsible, and if this condition should continue it would be a ground of complaint against the government. Therefore, I assure my hon. friend that any ground of complaint of that kind will cease at the earliest possible moment. As to the former ground of complaint, I will bring that matter to the attention of the railway in question and ascertain whether it would be possible for them to improve their methods.



The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: I wish for .a few minutes to allude to a question on which some difference of opinion occurred in the House the other day, and which I think it is desirable to have cleared up. I refer to the differences of opinion between the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the right hon. Prime Minister and myself with reference to the bonding privilege and coasting laws as exercised by the United States. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister thought that goods could not be shipped from one point or place in the United States to another American port or place except in American vessels. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) thought he was wrong in that, and that it might be shipped in Canadian vessels as well as in American vessels. On that occasion I read the law of the United States, which is:	.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That no merchandise shall be transported by water under penalty of forfeiture thereof from one part of the United States either directly or via a foreign port or for any part of the voyage in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.
The leader of the opposition on that occasion said it would depend upon what interpretation might be put upon the word ' voyage,' and asked if there had been any decisions of the Supreme Court in that ease. I said I was not aware, that the commissioner of the department was looking to see. Well, the commissioner has not been able to find any decisions. But we have here Mr. ALCORN.
the customs regulations of the United States, the instructions given to their officers by the Treasury Department, which they are to carry out in this respect, and they are set forth in article 707 :
Merchandise in transit from one port or place within the territory of the United States to another by a route a part of which is by land carriage through the Dominion of Canada, and a part by the great lakes and the rivers connecting the same, or by the River St. Lawrence, may be transported by water in American vessels only from ports on the northern frontier of the United States to ports on the Canadian frontier for transhipment to railway cars, from points on the Canadian frontier at the termini of railway transportation, to ports on the northern frontier of the United States.
It is as the Customs Departmeut thought, and as the Prime Minister thought; it is absolutely forbidden by tbeir statute as interpreted by their customs regulations, to carry goods otherwise than in American vessels from one American port to another. However, while the department felt sure, it did not like to speak too positively, and we thought we would find out positively how this matter stood, and for that reason the Commissioner of Customs wired Mr. Drewitt, who is Canadian Customs Officer at Depot Harbour, ou October 1st, 1903 :
Regarding freight originating in Boston destined for Duluth, carried by railway to Depot Harbour, will American officer allow this to be carried from Depot Harbour to Duluth in British vessel, wire reply.
The reply is as follows :
Depot Harbour, Ont., October, 1903. To John McDougald,
Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.
American customs officer will not allow freight originating in Boston destined for Duluth to be carried in British vessels from Depot Harbour to Duluth.
(Sgd.) F. J. DREWITT.
While that has reference to package freight, we wanted to be sure. It was suggested then that they might allow it to be carried for export, that grain originating at Duluth or Chicago might be sent to Liverpool via Boston. I said at the time that I did mot think that could be done. But I did not wisli to speak too positively, and in order to find out that point positively, the commissioner, on the 1st of October, wired Mr. Drewitt, the customs officer at Depot Harbour, Ontario, as follows :
Regarding American wheat from Duluth to Liverpool transported by railway from Depot Harbour to Boston, will American officer allow this wheat to be carried in British vessel from Duluth to Depot Harbour ? Wire reply.
This is the reply :	.
Depot. Harbour, October, 1903.
To John McDougald.
Commissioner of Customs,
Ottawa.
American customs officer will not allow American wheat from Duluth consigned to Liverpool

[DOT]via Depot Harbour and Boston to be carried on other than American vessels.
(Sgd.) F. J. DREWITT,
Customs Officer.
Now, I tliinlc that places the question in such a clear light before the House, that there can be no further doubt, and I have read these telegrams thinking they might be useful to the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: The hon. gentleman has made a portion of that matter fairly clear, but there is one aspect of it which he has not made clearer than it was before, and as to which I do not think his references have any application. It is perfectly clear, .notwithstanding what the hon. gentleman has said that we can bring grain or any other freight capable of being stored in an elevator, from Duluth or Chicago to Depot Harbour, consigned to Depot Harbour,
- and store it in an elevator there; then, after it has been so stored, we can route it thence either by Boston or by any port in Canada. But I would like to point out to the Minister of Customs that what the right hon. gentleman said in the course of the debate to which he has made reference, is something very different from that which the Minister of Customs has placed before the House to-day. Here is the language of the right hon. gentleman to be found on pages 12647 and 12648 of 'Hansard':
We would have to manag a fleet of steamers. There is something more. The fleet maintained on the lakes for the purpose of supplying traffic to the' Canada Atlantic Railway is composed in part of American bottoms. It would be impossible to have the trade we have to-day unless it was carried in American bottoms. We can carry Canadian freight in Canadian bottoms, but you cannot take freight at Duluth, Chicago or Milwaukee or any of the western ports and bring it to Depot Harbour except in American bottoms.
The PRIME MINISTER Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). That was qualified.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman did not qualify it at all. I am reading his own language.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not all.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it all :
The bonding privilege of the Americans has been so devised as to make that a necessity. Therefore the Canadian government would have to become the owners of a fleet of steamers under American register.
It is perfectly obvious, not only from the fact that the right hon. gentleman did not qualify his language, but from another circumstance, that he was under that impression at the time; because we were not proposing to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway or any other extension of the Intercolonial to the Georgian bay for the purpose of taking freight to Boston, we were proposing to acquire that railway for the purpose of taking freight to Halifax,
and St. John, and Quebec, and Montreal. That is what my right hon. friend was dealing with, if he was dealing with anything. Nothing could be more absolute, nothing could be more unqualified than his language which I have just read. The right hon. gentleman was dealing with a railway which, we will say, transports a considerable portion of grain from Duluth and Chicago to Depot Harbour. That grain, so far as I am aware, is carried principally if not altogether from Canadian ports. I asked my right hon. friend the other day whether he was aware that any considerable portion of this grain was exported from United States ports-I am referring to grain brought to Depot Harbour and carried by the Canada Atlantic Railway to Montreal. My right hon. friend was not able to say that any considerable portion of that grain did go by American ports. What w'e were dealing with was bringing American grain to Depot Harbour and transporting that grain to Europe via Canadian ports. My right hon. friend obviously was of the opinion that that could not be done, otherwise he would not have used the absolute and unqualified language which he did use with regard to that matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have only one word to say. I cannot find at this moment my language, but I am satisfied that if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will look again and see what I said, he will find that I stated that the traffic of the Canada Atlantic Railway was American traffic passing from American ports to American ports and that that traffic could not be carried on the lake except in American bottoms to be bonded on the Canada Atlantic Railway. That is the statement which I made at the time, certainly which I intended to make and I am pretty sure that I did so in so many words in some part of the remarks which I made.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated that two days afterwards in reply to a question put to him, but I do not think he stated it at that time. May I be permitted to bring another matter to the attention of the gov* ernment, and it is the very negligent and careless way in which the returns have been brought down in compliance with an address of the House of Commons dated the 11th of May, 1903. I moved on that date for copies of all Orders in Council, memorials, letters, telegrams and other correspondence relating to the granting of provincial autonomy to the Nortlh-w,est Territories. On the 19th of June, I directed the attention of the government to the fact that these documents had not been brought down. On the 26th of June my right hon. friend the Prime Minister brought down certain documents and said that there were some more to follow. On the 29th of June I moved that these documents should be printed. On the

20tli of July, after having examined these documents which had been brought down, I spoke of this return and pointed out a very long list of documents which I had been at great pains to tabulate, and which had not been included in the return brought down. Some of the documents which had been omitted were of the most important character. My right lion, friend said that these further documents would be brought down. On a subsequent occasion the lion. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) made a request for the postponement of the discussion of certain financial questions touching the North-west Territories to which I agreed. This was on the same day, the 20th July, and I suggested that the documents should be put in chronological order and should be printed. On the 24th July the hon. Minister of the Interior brought down a further return. I pointed out to him once more that a number of documents which were of very great importance had not been included in the former return. He stated that certain of these documents could not be found, and I offered to supply copies of the documents which could not be found, because I had obtained them from the printed proceedings of the North-west Territories. The first return which was brought down is printed as Sessional Paper No. 110, and the second return is printed as Sessional Paper No. 116a. These returns are still imperfect as a very large number of letters have been omitted and particularly two letters of very great importance, one from the right hon. Prime Minister to Mr. Haultain dated the 8th of June, 1903, and Mr. Haultain's reply dated 15th June, 1903. Besides those I believe from the very hasty examination of the return that a very considerable number of other letters to which I called the attention of the government have not yet been brought down. I do not know whether they are of great importance or not because I have not had time to go over the matter again. I spent half a day in July in going over the documents, and I gave a long list of the letters which were required and which will be found at pages 6891-2 of the revised ' Hansard.' The right hon. gentleman will find that I gave a list of between thirty and forty letters that have not been included in the first return brought down. I do not know whether it would be possible at this period of the session to bring down these documents and have them printed. I do think a little more care should be exercised in regard to these matters. I know there was some difficulty because a certain portion of the correspondence was in the Department of the Interior, and a certain other portion was in the hands of the right hon. Prime Minister. The return which lias been brought down is in a most embarrassing condition. You look for a letter of June, 1901, and you find it at the end of Sessional Paper No. 116a, the second return, while Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
you find another letter of a subsequent date at the beginning of the first return. The letters seem to have been thrown together in a confused heap and printed just as they were brought down. To place these important documents before the House in that way is of no assistance to any member of this House who desires to understand the position of affairs as disclosed by this correspondence. If there is not enough clerical assistance in the service of the government or in the service of this House to see that the returns are put in proper order, 1 think we had better make a sufficient appropriation to provide for that work. I would be ashamed as far as any work in my own business is concerned, and I think any corporation would be ashamed to have documents brought down in so irregular and confused a condition for the purpose of dismissing a business question of any kind, and why we should have to submit to this in connection with the public business is more than I can understand. It is not for want of attention on my part, because I spent nearly a whole day some time before the 20th of July for the purpose of ascertaining what documents had not Ibeen brought down and of suggesting to the government the importance of having these documents brought down in an orderly arrangement. I trust that when documents of great importance are brought down in the future there will be some attention given to the work of having them arranged in chronological order. It would not be out of place where documents are somewhat voluminous to have the return accompanied by an index and to have the printed return accompanied by an index, so that we could readily get at any document that we require. But really a great waste of time is imposed upon those members who desire to study documents brought down in this manner and there must be an absolutely unnecessary waste of time under the circumstances of this case.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There are two documents which perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would like to have ; those are the letter of myself to Mr. Haul-tain of the 8th of June, and the answer of Mr. Haultain of the 15th of June. I can bring these down this very day. In regard to the remarks made by my hon. friend, I must admit that the returns are brought down in a very slovenly manner. I shall give directions at once that an officer shall be appointed whose duty it shall be be to prepare all documents properly for presentation to this House. In former years I had often to complain of this matter. I am very sorry that we have not made very much improvement in this regard. I agree with what my hon. friend has said.
If I may be permitted to revert to the subject which was mentioned a moment ago, I would call my hon. friend's attention to page 12*147 of ' Hansard,' where he will find the remark that I made :

I come now to the main proposition of my hon. friend. He proposes to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway as it exists to-day. But though the government may acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway, it certainly could not operate it. How could you expect that a Canadian government could possibly, with any advantage to the country operate the Canada Atlantic Railway. It is within the knowledge of everybody that at this moment three-fourths at least of the business of the Canadian Pacific Railway and three-fourths of the business of the Canada Atlantic Railway is American business. It is business connected with the western states and carried to its destination in the eastern states. The Canadian government could not compete for that business if we were to acquire that railway.
Then I proceeded to give the reasons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Abbott's Harbour, N.S., $700.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This is to build an addition to the beach protection 30 feet in length. This is the amount estimated to complete the work.


Mr. CLARKE.: What county is it in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yarmouth.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Would the minister be good enough to state what county each work is in V


Robert Laird Borden: And the object of the expenditure in each case.
Abram's river-wharf, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for rebuilding a small stone wharf in Yarmouth county which was built 25 years ago. This is the total amount estimated by the chief engineer. These repairs will be done under the supervision of the engineer in charge.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who fixes the wages when it is done toy day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer in charge.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the fair-wage officer interfere in any way V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose he would if there was any complaint, but we have never had complaint.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose the fair-wage officer is held in reserve in case of emergency.
Bayfield harbour works-repairs and improvement, $6,850.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is .in Antigonish county, and this sum is the total estimated cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any considerable commerce at Bayfield, or is this for the benefit of the fishermen?


Mr. McISAAC.: This is a very important harbour. To show how important it is, I
may say that the Conservative government in 1889, voted $3,500 to commence the building of a wharf, and between 18S9 and 189G they expended $40,000 on this wharf.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is not that enough ?


Colin Francis McIsaac: Since the Liberals came to power only $1,000 has been expended. This present expenditure has been reported by the engineer to be urgent, in order to keep tlie work from going to decay. There was a breakwater built by the Conservative government, and there has been since no expenditure on that work until now. The engineer lias reported that the whole covering has been swept away by the storm last year, and it is to rebuild the covering of the breakwater that the sum is necessary.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the vote be sufficient ?


Colin Francis McIsaac: So the engineer reports.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any considerable commerce at this point ?


Colin Francis McIsaac: Before the building of the Intercolonial Railway to the strait of Canso, it was the most important shipping place in the county, and although it is not so -important now, still there is considerable business done in the shipping of cattle to Newfoundland. As Antigonish is almost entirely a farming county, that is an important" industry with us. During the summer, two or three vessels make fortnightly trips between Bayfield and St. John's, Newfoundland. It is the chief port for Newfoundland vessels.


Robert Laird Borden: How will this money be expended V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is practically for repairs, and it will be done under the supervision of the government engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: Is Mr. Dod-well the engineer 7
The MINISTER OI<' PUBLIC WORKS. Mr. Milledge is in charge.


Robert Laird Borden: How many resident engineers are there in Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are two, Mr. Dodwell and Mr. Mill-edge.


Robert Laird Borden: I think Mr. Locke has jurisdiction in the western part of the province.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there are three altogether.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister think that there is necessity for three resident engineers for that province-there may be ; I am only asking for information ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, The chief engineer says he should have more. Now that the matter has been brought to my attention, I will inquire into

it at an early date. I can understand that when a lot of money is being expended at different places it would be a saving to the country to have a responsible man in charge.
Baxter's Harbour-reconstruction of breakwater. $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county. It will cost $3,000 to reconstruct the work, and put it in good shape. There is considerable local trade from fishermen and farmers in that district. The money will be expended under the supervision of the local engineer. This is practically repairs, and cannot be done by contract because you do not know when you commence how much work you will have to do.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this vote cover the total expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the total cost is $3,000.
Benoit's Cove-improvements to boat landing $800.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the total cost of improvements that have been made at this point-the removal of 183 yards of boulders and the placing ot' 183 yards of stonework.


Robert Laird Borden: For what purpose is the boat landing used ?


Colin Francis McIsaac: This is for the benefit of a large fishing district. There has never been a wharf on the east side of Harbour Bouche. Altholigh there are forty or fifty large boats engaged every year in the fishing industry in that part of the harbour, there is no protection whatever for them. Benoit's Cove affords splendid natural protection for boats except for a number of boulders which obstruct the navigation. An investigation was made by the resident engineer last year, and he has reported that by the removal of these boulders very safe and secure shelter would be afforded to the fishermen in that locality.
Big Harbour (Port Bevis)-wharf, $3,700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to cover the cost of building a wharf 80 feet long and 12 feet deep at low water on the west side of the harbour. It is in Victoria county, N.S.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a new wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is a new work, and this $3,700 is the total cost estimated by the engineer.


Mr. CLANCY.: I am not going to find fault. I merely wish to say that there is a disposition to extend works in many cases and to build new works, which no doubt the people of the localities served may not object to ; but the question is whether they are of a character so pressing that they should be undertaken. These works not Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
only involve present expenditure, but they become a public charge for all time. Our experience under all governments has been that once you construct the most useless work, the people of the locality will never listen to the suggestion that an end should be put to it, though they know it is useless. I am not sure that the governments of the day are inclined to turn a dellf ear to these demands, especially on the eve of elections. Only a short time ago the Minister of Labour, Postmaster General and acting Minister of Public Works-I do not know that that trinity exists now-sent out a circular inviting applications for works, I presume, of this kind. I would like to ask the present Minister of Public Works if this work is the result of that invitation, or if it is a work of absolute necessity. While I am not prepared to say that it is not a necessary work, because I have no information' on the subject, I do say that this committee should scrutinize with great care any expenditure of this character, unless it is shown to be of some importance and of some lasting benefit. Will the hon. minister give us some statement as to the necessity of this, and what the engineer reports.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The representation made to the department is that the farmers and other inhabitants of that district can only dispose of their produce by taking it to Baddeck, a distance of nine or ten miles, and that this small work will give them accommodation by water.


James Clancy: What is the report of the engineer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am reading now from the report of the engineer.


James Clancy: When was that report made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the 14th of April last.


Mr. OSLER.: How many people are tributary to that part ? What is the nature of the country around ?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: As one who knows a little about the district, I may say to my hon. friend that this is not a useless work by any means. The community that is to be served by this wharf is a rather important community. It is a good farming district, and there is considerable fishing besides. The people live in a part of the country which is not served by a railway, and there is no likelihood that there will be a railway in the near future. Their only means of communication is by water. I repeat that it is not by any means a useless work, but is a necessity to accommodate the farmers and fishermen of the district.


James Clancy: Can the minister tell the committee how near this harbour is to other harbours 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I have already informed the hon. gentleman-I suppose he is only asking for fun


James Clancy: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that there is no fun about this.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I thought it was for amusement, because I have already within five minutes stated twice that at present the people have to haul their produce to Baddeck, which is nine or ten miles away. I am not able to say how far distant the nearest harbour is.


Alexander Johnston: The nearest harbour is Baddeck.


Mr. BLAIN.: Might I ask the minister if there is any revenue derived from any of these wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the work is completed by the Public Works Department, it is transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which collects the revenue. 1 should fancy that the revenue in this particular district would not be very large.


Richard Blain: I suppose the question whether there will be any revenue is taken into consideration by the government ? I notice that in these supplementary estimates there are votes for 103 places in Nova Scotia.


An hon. MEMBER.: There ought to be 203.


Richard Blain: That shows the hon. gentleman's idea of public expenditure.


Samuel Hughes: How many harbours are there in Nova Scotia ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said the other day that there were several thousand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what county is this wharf located ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Victoria. It is to connect the government wharf with the public highway, and the cost is $5,528.29.


Richard Blain: Was there any contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work was let by contract.


Richard Blain: When this item was up for discussion last year the minister said that the contract was let and that the work would be completed in June.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that it was completed in June.


Richard Blain: The statement was made last year that the vote then taken would complete the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WTORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that the statement then made was that the vote being taken would complete the work then under contract. The estimate now asked is for the building of a road 2,100 feet long connecting the wharf with the public highway, this being a different work from that to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. minister how much money has been expended in the past few years on this work ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIOi WORKS.
I am most happy to repeat again that the amount is $5,520.29.


Richard Blain: The $4,000 voted last year was the first investment in that wharf and this is an item to complete it, making the total cost over $5,000 ? Does the hon. gentleman expect there will be any revenue from this ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should think there should be some small revenue from this wharf.


James Clancy: Is that roadway a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


James Clancy: Was the land on which it is built purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the chief engineer informs me it cost $70.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I would like to ask if this is not a new departure, building Wharfs and also highways to connect them. I should think that when the public of Canada contribute money to build a wharf the people of the municipalities might build a road to connect with it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says, but it is not a new departure. There is a great deal in what my hon. friend says that localities might do some of this work.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Has the minister considered that by undertaking to build highways which are properly within the control of the' municipalities by virtue of the delegation of control over highways to provincial governments and the municipal authorities, this government may become responsible for the maintenance and repair of these highways and for any accidents that may occur upon them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I' suppose that if the work is done on our own property the liability of the government will not be the same as if this was on a public highway.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Would the hon. minister kindly give us some idea of the principle underlying the distribution of this pub-

lie money all along the Nova Scotia coast ? It seems extraordinary that a public wharf is built on the coast where there is no means of access to that wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Mr. FRASER.: I may say iu reference to the vote for Nova Scotia generally that these works are certainly required in the public interest. A wharf for example may be required' in a fishing village. The highway runs parallel to the coast and between it and the shore there may be small cultivated pieces of land. The wharf is located at the place where it will best suit the people of the district. There may, however, be no road running down to it and it may be necessary to build a road from the highway to the wharf which may be some little distance.


Bennett Rosamond: I would like to know whether a public port must be constructed for every one or two farmers along the coast. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that public money should be squandered in this manner, frittered away-I can only say it is-by building wharfs and places that require to be kept up later by the government, for which there is so little public use that there is no roadway into them at all, and the government have not only to make the wharfs but to build a road to them for the benefit of one or two farmers. If public money is to be squandered in that fashion, and if claims like that are to be set up for one province, why not for every other province ? Why should not wharfs be built along little rivers ? There are rivers running through my county, and lots of places where it would be convenient for the farmers to have a wharf.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Simply for the reason that these wharfs are built on the seaside where they are the only modes of communication the fishermen have. Besides, the sum total for these little wharfs is not equal to one single expenditure made in some of the other provinces. Here is a district, we will say, where 500 fishermen live by the seaside, and the only mode of communication they have with the outer world is by one of these wharfs. When they get the wharf they need a roadway running from it some distance to a highway in the country. The most suitable place is selected' for a wharf, and then in order to get to it or from it you have to have a road. As to one of these wharfs being for only one Mr. ROSAMOND.
or two farmers, I trust the hon. gentleman's intelligence will not allow him to speak in that manner.


Bennett Rosamond: Does the hon. member for Guysborough mean to say that the fishermen on that coast have a right to have wharfs all along the coast ? That is an absurdity.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: How could a schooner get to land unless there was a wharf to which she could be attached ? If the hon. gentleman understood anything about the lower provinces he would know that wharfs are the only method of communication the fishermen have with the inland. It is not at all like a river in Ontario, it is a coast where storms are frequent and violent.


Bennett Rosamond: Does every fisherman require a wharf for himself ? It seems to me an extraordinary proceeding to build wharfs all along the coast for objects of that kind, as if these fishermen were not clever enough to get from the coast inland, or to go to some neighbouring town where there is a wharf already buiit.


Edward Cochrane: I did not raise tills question as to the advisability of building wharfs, I raised a question in connection with the road to the wharf, and there has been no explanation given why we should build roads as well as wharfs. Now where a wharf is necessary I do not object Jo furnish the money. But there is a question in my mind about building such a great number of wharfs-we have built hundreds of wharfs, I think I am safe in saying, since the present government came into power. And I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, when the Conservatives were in power, how your heart was grieved at seeing the government buying up the people with their own money. I remember how the heart of the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to be grieved, and his righteous soul was vexed from day to day, with the unholy acts of the Tory party, when the people of Ontario were being ' bled white,' as he used to say. Now he is not only willing to sit in a position that he used to say was a sinecure, and that never should have been created, but he remains perfectly silent and is willing tamely to submit to this iniquity being perpetrated year by year to a still greater extent. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you feel grieved about it, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce takes it very coolly, he never says a word against it. He is not only willing to see the constituencies bought up by the building of wharfs with the people's own money, but he is willing to sit by and allow the hard-earned money of the people to be used to build roads down to the wharfs. Now I say that we on this side are willing, as a general thing, to vote money for the erection of wharfs where they are necessary, but we draw the line there, and we say that we should leave to the municipalities or to the

local legislatures the charge of building roads for the public to get to these wharfs. I hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will come to the rescue of the public exchequer ou these lines, and not allow it to be robbed, not allow the farmers of Ontario to be bled white as he said they used to be in days gone by.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand the member for Guysborough (Mr. Eraser) to say that these roads are necessary to connect with highways at some distance from the wharf. I would ask that hon. gentleman in what position that will put this government after it has constructed a road from an existing highway to the wharf. Now the Dominion government, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), should build a wharf where it is necessary, but after we have built the wharf for Dominion purposes, in the interest of the whole of Canada, I would like the hon. member fo'r Guysborough to tell us who becomes responsible for keeping up that road to the wharf. I do not care wdietlier the road is short or long. The hon. member for Guysborough says some of these highways are a long distance from the wharf, I presume he means a mile or two away. Now is that connecting road tinder the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, or of the municipality, or does it remain under the jurisdiction of this parliament, and is the Dominion of Canada responsible for keeping it up, and responsible for all the accidents that may occur upon it ? This involves an important principle, and now is the proper time to discuss it. In what position is the province, is the municipality, is the Dominion government, going to be in regard to liability for accidents as well as for keeping this roadway in repair ? Why should not the municipality build this roadway, expropriate the land for the purpose, and keep control of it ? If a municipality which expropriates the^land and builds the highway in the public interest, thereafter becomes responsible for keeping it up, on the same principle does not the member for Guysborough think that the Dominion government becomes responsible for keeping up a highway that it has constructed 1 Does he not think that the municipality can say :	We did not construct this highway,
you did it yourself, and you must be responsible ? Cases have arisen in the province of Ontario where a municipality being asked to take over the control of a highway have said to the government:	You
must give us a sum of money which, capitalized, will allow us sufficient income to keep this in repair. For instance, we want $50,000 from the Dominion of Canada to furnish us an income with which to keep this highway in repair. I can assure the hon. member for Guysborough that this is not as light a matter as he thinks. There is a wharf, and some distance away there is a public highway, and now the Dominion
of Canada is asked to build a roadway to connect the two. Who is to be responsible for keeping that up ? I want the member for Guysborough to enlighten us on this point, if he can.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not a lawyer


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Justice is a lawyer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I submit as a layman that the action which we may take under a vote of this kind does not in any way affect municipal rights, or Dominion rights, with regard to our responsibility for highways. That question is not involved at all. My hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) is like my-,self, he does not understand the legal aspects of the question.


Edward Cochrane: You had better let somebody answer who does understand it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be no different responsibility on the part of the Dominion in reference to this property than in reference to any other similar property in the country. The property will belong to the Dominion.


Richard Blain: I wish to point out the reckless manner in which the government is voting this public money. The hon. minister stated a few moments ago that the total amount required to construct this wharf would be a little over $5,000. I asked the hon. minister if there had been any revenue from this wharf and he said no, that it was a new work last year. Do I understand the hon. minister correctly in making that statement ? The hon. minister shakes his head. I would be very sorry to misquote him. Perhaps he would make a statement as to whether this was a new wharf commenced last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is mixing the discussion of this item with that of other votes. I said this wharf was completed in June, 1902.


Richard Blain: But I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the first expenditure was the $4,850 voted last year. When we were asked to vote this sum last year the then minister said :
The work is not completed yet and there Is' no revenue from it. It will be completed on June 30th.
The hon. minister said in discussing this vote that $4,850 was the whole sum voted for the wharf. I turned up 'Hansard' of 1901, the session previous, and I find that the minister asked for an appropriation of $1,100, and that when this was given he said :
This will complete the work.
The government came forward and asked for $1,100 and the then minister made the statement that It would complete the work.

On the following year the minister came forward and stated that he had the work under contract and this year the hon. minister says that the amount of the expenditure upon it is $4,850. Now, the hon. minister comes forward and says if you vote this $670 the work will be completed and it may be that we will get some revenue from it. That is the ground of complaint we have on this side of the House. We have the promise of the hon. minister that in no case will he ask for an expenditure until he is prepared to give the committee a proper estimate of the cost of the work. I hope that when this $670 is expended my hon. friend will not come back next year and ask for another vote.
Breton Cove-boat landing, $4,600.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What county is this in ?'


The MINISTER OF RUBRIC WORKS.: This is in Victoria county. This is to provide a boat landing at Briton's Cove. It is practically a wharf for the fishing industry that is going on at that point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this a new work V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new work.


James Clancy: What is the character of the boats that land there ? What class of people are being served now that were mot served before, and how were they served before ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 believe these people unfortunately had to get on shore by clambering on the rock or in any way they could manage it. The desirability of having this work constructed is greater now than in the past, because a lobster factory has been established at this point. Ten regular fishing boats are employed and the industry will give employment to quite a large number of people.


James Clancy: If I correctly understood the hon. gentleman lie said that a packing establishment had been recently established there. How long is it since that was established ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was established during the last season and it was enlarged during the present year.
. Mr. CLANCY. Who are the parties interested in it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no infomation.


James Clancy: How much capital is invested in it ? Is it a very large establishment or a very small one ? If it is a very large establishment there can be no complaint about expending money there and I suppose the hon. gentleman is prepared to give that information. .


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given all the information I can in Mr. BLAIN.
regard to it. I do not know what amount of capital is required to start an establishment of that kind. They have ten regular boats engaged in the fishing industry. The agricultural pursuits in the district, the fishing industry and the establishment of this factory give employment to a great many men and a large number of fishing boats ?


James Clancy: Are' these large or small fishing boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am unable to give my hon. friend the size of the boats.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman tell the size of the factory or the amount of business done at that point ?


Bennett Rosamond: It seems to me that this is a proposal to spend public money for the benefit of that company or individual who has established this lobster factory. Is there any authority for the government spending public money to benefit private individuals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very difficult to pass any legislation here that does not more directly affect one citizen than another. Even our tariff legislation has sometimes that effect. This expenditure is for the agriculturists and fishermen of the county, and while this factory may benefit, there is no doubt that the people of the locality will reap the greatest benefit from this work.


Mr. HACKETT.: How far is this harbour from the nearest place of refuge which fishermen might use ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that the nearest refuge is about fifteen miles distant. '


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the name of that nearest point ?
The MINISTER t)F PUBLIC WORKS. Ste. Anne's, in Antigonisli county. This is in Victoria county.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister read the salient points of the engineer's rexiort on this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report says that this is in Victoria county, on what is called the north shore, the residents being engaged in agriculture and fishing. Some of them fish off the shore near their homes, and others at French river, which is quite a distance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is that report signed by ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Milledge reports to the chief engineer, who is responsible to me. There is a lobster factory employing ten regular boats and buying fish from others. I suppose these are the salient points.


James Clancy: Did the engineer report on the number of men employed in the lobster factory, or the magnitude of the business ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps, as an engineer, he -would hardly be expected to report on these things. I understand that the extent of a lobster factory is judged by the number of boats more than by the capital invested.


James Clancy: While the engineer might not be expected to report on these things, yet the minister ought to be in possession of information to justify expenditure on this harbour. The minister does not know the value of the output of this factory, and he does not even know who the owners are. The minister has a great many items before him, and it -would be just as well that the committee would look with some anxiety for information regarding these very large expenditures.


Richard Blain: How far is this cove from Livingstone's Cove, in the same county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is Livingstone's Cove in the same county ?


Richard Blain: Is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot find from the map that it is.
Mr. MclSAAC. Livingstone's Cove is on the mainland in the county of Antigonish, and this is in Victoria county.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that any lion, gentleman in this House would object to giving reasonable accommodation for the boats of the fishing population in the province of Nova Scotia, or in the province of Quebec, or in the province of New' Brunswick, or elsewhere in Canada. The difficulty about these appropriations is that they do not seem to be brought before the House upon any definite principle, and that they are brought down with a very considerable lack of the information which the minister should supply. We could get along a great deal better in committee if the minister would give the House all the information which we eventually do elicit by asking a great number of questions. The minister will recognize that in these supplementary estimates, he is asking for an enormous number of appropriations for harbours and rivers in the different provinces, and when such appropriations are brought down in the closing days of the session, it is the duty of the opposition to try to get some information about each item, in order that they may understand how that item can Jie justified in the public interest. So far as our fishing industry is concerned, I doubt very much whether even all the members from the maritime provinces realize the very great importance of our fisheries to the people, not only of the maritime provinces, but to the people of all Canada. So far as my limited re-412
search has gone, it would lead me to believe that we have perhaps not kept pace with modern methods in the development of the fishing industry, such as obtain in other countries. We pursue, to a certain extent, the methods of fifty or .sixty years ago, and those who have made themselves acquainted with the latest appliances for catching and curing fish have assured me that our methods might be very much improved with great advantage, not only to the fishermen of the maritime provinces, but to the people of Ontario and Quebec, who at present are not supplied as they might be with the splendid fish which swarm around our eastern coasts. Let my hon. friends from Ontario and Quebec realize that it is within the bounds of possibility that in a very few years they can have a daily supply of the very best fish in the world from the maritime provinces.
There is no reason why they should not have it. But let them also remember that in order to ensure that supply, we must have in the first place better means of communication between the upper provinces and the maritime provinces. We must bring the fish along more expeditiously. In the next place, let them remember that in order to build up a trade of that kind, it is absolutely necessary that there should be a constant, regular and abundant supply of fish to the merchants who engage in that trade. That is an absolute requisite. Nobody can undertake to supply the needs of a great city like Montreal or Toronto, unless there are fishermen around the coasts on whom he can depend for a regular and abundant supply of fish every day in the week. And in order that there should be that regular supply, there should be a large number of fishermen engaged in the industry, and these in turn must be afforded the necessary facilities for sheltering their boats. In that way this expenditure can be justified, if it is justified at all. It should be made, however, upon some principle, some plan or some system. But, granting all that, granting that it is not made for political purposes, granting that it is not made in the interest of a political party in one district or another, I do not think we should object to it, although I concur in the view that on all occasions of this kind we should have the very fullest information from the hon. gentleman who is presenting these estimates to the House. Around the shores of Nova Scotia there are not only abundant supplies of the fish with which we are all familiar, but by adopting modern methods of fishing, I believe we may find there many other varieties of fish which are used for food in other countries, and which, if they could be supplied abundantly, regularly and constantly, could be sent from Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and even to the west. We have done a good deal in this country to encourage



other industries. We have provided bounties for manufacturing industries; we have regulated our taritf so that these industries should be developed; we have done a good deal for the farming community in the way of providing experimental farms and bringing experts into the country to teach the farmers how to mate butter and cheese and how to utilize their dairy products. But it seems to me that up to this time we have not devoted the attention to the fishing industry which the importance of that great industry demands; and for my part I am prepared to support the government in dealing with this matter on a fair, comprehensive, systematic basis not only by providing the fishermen with adequate accommodation but by giving them assistance in improving their methods of catching and curing fish, and especially by improving the means of transportation, by which the magnificent products of the sea, which are swarming around all the coasts of the maritime provinces, could be brought into the homes of the people of Ontario and Quebec. I assure my hon. friends from Ontario and Quebec-I need not assure the members from the maritime provinces-that in seeking to develop this great fishing industry, we would not be spending public money unwisely. I believe that we have in the fishing industry of Canada, referring more especially to the fishing industry of the maritime provinces, one of the greatest sources of wealth which are the heritage of Canadians at the present time. I do not underrate the magnificent wheat lands of the west or the agricultural resources of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; but the fishing industry of the maritime provinces will, I believe, in the future, if properly developed and sustained, yield in importance to none of these. Therefore, I think It is wise for my hon. friend cue Minister of Public Works to make such of these provisions as are necessary. At the same time, in presenting them to the House, I think it is very desirable that he should show the members from Ontario and Quebec and the west who are not as familiar as some of us from the maritime provinces, with the importance of this great industry, that it is absolutely necessary, in order that the fishermen may furnish a constant, regular and abundant supply, that they should have suitable shelter for their boats not only during the summer season, but also during the winter season ; because I believe the fishing industry can be prosecuted up to a much later date than it is at present. These men who pursue their labours around the coasts often in tempestuous weather, have sometimes almost at a moment's notice to seek refuge In some harbour. I am sure that what I have said here to-day with regard to the Importance of this industry is the view of all my friends from the maritime provinces; and i know that some of them, who have made, this matter much move of a study than I have and who are much more familiar
with the conditions, would be ready and glad to say a word in support of the view's I have endeavoured thus briefly to present to the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure that the House must be well pleased with the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition with regard to the importance of this industry to the Dominion of Canada. I am free to admit that I find in this House and out of it a considerable want of knowledge as to the importance of this industry-an industry which is now bringing to the Dominion treasury a revenue of over $20,000,000 a year; and I am satisfied, from my experience of a year ago, and from the opportunity I have had of looking into the matter, that, with a little assistance and encouragement, the trade could be increased to bringing a revenue to the Dominion of over $40,000,000. I do not make that statement without having given the matter considerable attention. I am pleased that my hon. friend has to-day drawn the attention of the members of this House and the people of the country to the importance of this great industry. As to the point at issue, I will submit to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition whether I have not given satisfactory information in a general way as to the necessity for this work to the fishing industry. My hon. friend has made a very good point, which is not generally understood, namely, that fishermen cannot catch fish wherever they choose to go; but that the fish are to be found only at certain points along the coast, which may be unimportant, so far as population and the presence of other industries. are concerned!, but which may be important places for the fishermen to land their fish. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect me, as the minister in charge of this work to give information as to whether it will change the relations between the municipality and the Dominion in regard to the highway. I could not be expected to give the capital invested by the people who established a factory or any details of that kind. In a general way I would be supposed to give information, as for instance the population to be served and the public facilities to be afforded. In that connection the work will be judged on its merits.


James Clancy: How are we to tell its merits unless we know what is the nature and magnitude of the business to be served, the amount of capital to be invested, and why it should not be done by the municipality ?	_


Edward Cochrane: As one having eon-iderable experience in municipal work, I do not see why this government should build roads to public wharfs. If the government expropriate the land and build the road they will be responsible for damages should any occur.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not if we hand it over to the municipality.


Edward Cochrane: But you are taking it out of the hands of the municipality. When a private company expropriates land and builds a road, it is not the municipality, but the private company which is responsible for damages. If the government were to build the wharf in the constituency I represent for the fishermen, the municipality would be only too glad to build a road leading to it from the highway.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: visitor to the shore sees the bodies of the ' drowned men and hears the wails of their kindred. An understanding of the conditions is essential and it must be understood that these roads connecting the wharf with the highways are exactly what is required to give the people the facilities they need and to aid them in successfully carrying on their business. I hope we will hear no more criticisms from the gentlemen from Ontario whose opposition X am sure results from imperfect knowledge of the conditions.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I wish to say in this connection that I think perhaps we are only beginning to do what must eventually be done. I know there is good reason why the fishing business In Nova Scotia, has not been better aided than it ought to be, and that is because we were expending large sums upon the training of the farmers of this country. That was all right. I was at an exhibition not long ago in the town of Orillia, and I was delighted to find there that at given times all the farmers were called to certain points and there they were taught how to pack apples. A man went through the packing process and gave full explanations. After a little while the wives and daughters were called to another place, and there they were all taught how to make butter by some one who went through the whole process. At another point the farmers' sons and daughters were called together and were taught how to feed poultry, even so small a matter as the best way of killing poultry was not overlooked. Now that was teaching the farmers, and that was all right. Now there are two or three things that must be done in the lower provinces, and everywhere else in Canada where people are fishing, they must be taught the best way of conducting their business. Speaking particularly of Nova Scotia, it is a hard thing for example for men living in a small district to change their methods of putting up fish. The salt fish business particularly is not as well attended to as it ought to be, and I would suggest to the government that one of the best investments they could make would be to have various stations, just as they have in the great province of Ontario, wherever fish packing is carried on, centres where the fishermen could be brought together, and taught the best method of curing salt fish, the amount of salt that ought to be used, and all that ought to be done to put fish up in the best method. We suffer in our fish business particularly when we come in competition with fish that is put up in the old country. There is no people in the world that know how to put up salt fish better than the Scotch. That goes without saying, because they know' how to do everything better than any one else. But when our fish come in contact with the fish put up by people who have been taught with great care the best methods of curing fish, our fish suffer from the


William Roche: comparison. They are fairly well put up, our fishermen are as intelligent as any fishermen in the world. But if the intelligent farmers of Ontario need assistance and training to conduct their business, it will not be surprising when I say that the fishermen living along the coast, and who follow largely the methods pursued by their fathers and grandfathers, are not able to put up fisli as well as they ought. That is one thing. Now training of that kind would be an excellent thing for them, and 1 am sure there would be no better investment on the part of the government, because every body knows how much fish are put up each year in Nova Scotia. We arc now changing our methods somewhat, and we can sell all the fresh fish, if it is properly put up, that we can catch. I make bold to say that from Halifax down to Louisburg there is the best fishing in the world. Taking Canso as a centre, I think that is' the best fishing district in the whole world.
The second thing the government ought to do is this :	The Intercolonial has beeu^
a little slow in giving facilities for shipment. Now there is one firm in Canso in my own county that pay the Intercolonial nearly $30,000 a year in freight. Well, they cannot get their fish sent off promptly. I have been talking to the department about it, but it takes a long while, as in every department, to get them fully interested. They will furnish a car or two, but if the fish could be got off immediately after they are caught, there is an unlimited market for them in Canada and the United States. The market cannot be too large for the ability of the lower provinces to supply the demand. The ocean is full of fish, they are not decreasing. It takes about thirty-five hours to transport fish from Canso to Ottawa, and we ought to have it carried on express trains, and in that way there is no reason why the whole of Canada could not be supplied with fresh fish within three or four days after they are taken out of the ocean. Now that business can be extended to any extent.
The third thing I would recommend is just what other people are doing. It has been brought to my attention that even in South Africa they have voted quite n large sum to bring a trawler from the old country. That is a thing this government should do. The wonderful thing about the operations of that trawler in South Africa was this, that they discovered fish there thai were never caught before, excellent fish were caught in the deep sea that were before unknown. You must remember that at our present rate and mode of fishing we are only skimming the surface. Of course, when you go out to the banks you get all these, but I am speaking of inshore fishing. Now this government has done a great deal in supplying freezers for the inshore fisheries. and they are now projecting-and I want to thank the government for that-

one or more stations for the bank fishing. The members from Ontario will understand that within the three-mile limit the inshore fisheries are conducted altogether by people who live on the land near by. But the people are becoming wealthier every day, and they are now able to send out schooners 15, 20 or up to 100 miles. In this respect the county represented by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbacli) takes the lead. They build schooners and send these out on the banks. This year, for example, the people lose between two and three months because they could not get sufficient bait anywhere, and the idea of the government now is to build a large freezer so that vessels from the bank can go in at any time and get their bait. Enough bait can be put up to supply the six or seven hundred vessels in Nova Scotia that are fishing on that bank, a sufficient amount of bait to last the season. Now that is the next move that the government of this country should undertake so far as fishing is concerned. They should undertake to train the fishermen, as they have been doing the farmers, in the best methods of putting up fish ; secondly, they should provide every facility of transportation and of cold-storage, so that immediately the fish are caught they can be put aboard steamers to be taken to the railway stations and carried off in cold-storage. Thirdly, they should find out more about the fish that are in the ocean. I join with my hon. friend from Halifax in saying that after voting this money we have only taken the first step. I speak so far as these estimates are concerned, because the county I represent is not largely interested in the fisheries. We have done a fair share, and I am not complaining. But considering what could be done with this investment in one of our districts ; I know a district where we have now a breakwater, and where men could not get in at all with their boats if there was a storm, they would have to go nine miles to another harbour and stay there all night. My hon. friends from Ontario will understand how pathetic must be the situation of the wives and mothers and sisters of those men who are out all night, and they do not know what has become of them. You will understand the difficulty. The fishermen of Nova Scotia are not coming to this parliament in forma pauperis. It must not be forgotten that the fishermen, man for man, pay more revenue into the treasury than any other class in the Dominion of Canada, for this reason, that they purchase everything that they require, so far as food is concerned, except fish. There they have small pieces of land. I know district after district in which there are men who would be very glad to have as much good land on which to raise vegetables as the space of the floor of this House. Then, it is with very great toil that they take away the stones. I would appeal to
the fair-minded men of Ontario to remember that things have changed and that just as the Nova Scotia fisherman is not able to form an intelligent idea or perhaps give an intelligent vote as to the wants, demands and conditions of the people of the great province of Ontario it takes a long time for a member from Ontario to understand the circumstances of the Nova Scotia fisherman.
I know very well how it strikes a gentleman from Ontario in this House. He says : There are $4,000 0r $5,000 to be expended in Nova Scotia. The first question naturally is :	What are we going to get out of it ?
What) are going to be the receipts ? Why should we make this investment ? I say, as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) said, that there is more than the simple return. There is the betterment of the whole fishing community, which is made up of a trained and stable population, a population that has a great future, and more than ever from the fact that it possesses the elements of forming a naval contingent such as no part of the world can produce. All these things I am sure will lead hon. gentleman, if they think over the matter a little to come to the conclusion that although the numbers are large the sum total is not. This is not done for political purposes at all. It is done by all governments. It must be under the condition of things and I know that my generous friends from Ontario look upon it in that fight. After enforcing as strongly as I can that view upon the government I would say that the next move should be along the lines that I have indicated. 1 have no hesitation in saying that the muni-ciaplitles should keep up the roads when they are built, perhaps not to the extent that hon. gentlemen propose, but I think I would not find very much fault with the government if they made it a condition precedent that they should do that. But after all, it has been done and I was glad that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) gave an instance of what had occurred in Ontario. He said that because the government built a road and the municipality were asked to look after it the municipality insisted that they should get a large sum from the government for doing it. The fishing business is of such, a character that it requires even more care than has been given to the agriculturists. The farmer is ten times wealthier than the fisherman. He can see what his neighbour is doing, and he can go to fairs and see what the farmers in other counties are doing. He has a better opportunity than the fisherman for becoming acquainted with the methods of others. If he receives assistance as he should, and I will vote for all reasonable assistance for the agriculturist, the fisherman should get an equal measure if not more assistance from the government. The best way after all is to put the fisherman in a position to produce an article of the highest char-

acter and to put It on the market in the best condition and if that is done it will be found that that money is well expended.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The bon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) made an attack upon Ontario as objecting to these expenditures ini Nova Scotia. I entirely deny that we are doing so. I say that Ontario has never objected and will never object to an expenditure that is good for any. particular part of this country and good for the whole country.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did not attack Ontario. I said that no man coming from Ontario could understand Nova Scotia any more than the man from Nova Scotia could understand the conditions in Ontario.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What I gathered from the remarks of these hon. gentlemen, and I think I was right, was that the Ontario members did not understand the position of Nova Scotia and that they were not just to Nova Scotia or to the fishermen. I resent that assertion or insinuation entirely. I say Ontario will always be and has always been just to Nova Scotia and has never begrudged any expenditure in connection with the fisheries. What we object to is that there is a constant frittering away of money without any definite object in view. I entirely agree with what my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) stated that these fisheries should toe developed and developed upon a system. I have no knowledge of Nova Scotia, but I have a knowledge of the conditions down the St. Lawrence river. For many years I have fished there, and there are no men in this country for whom I have greater respect than the fishermen who live along those shores. They are a fine class of men possessing virtues for which they are to be envied by the people of Ontario or any other part of the country. My own observations from driving along those shores as far down as Ste. Anne des Monts is that as much as 50 per cent of the money which is spent on wharfs is wasted. There has been no system adopted for the proper development of the fishing industry. There has been no systematic endeavour to find out where the wharfs should be placed or how facilities can best be given to the fishermen along the shore. I am quite sure that the same thing holds good in Nova Scotia, and I say that the government in reason cannot spend too much money in developing the fisheries on such lines that the money spent will toe productive. It is not as productive as it ought to be now because of the manner in which it is spent. The fishery industry is a valuable one and may be rendered ten times more valuable than it is to-day if it is properly developed. One illustration is better perhaps than a lot of theories. I was lost year at Matane, which is on the Mr. FRASER.
St. Lawrence thirty miles from the Intercolonial Railway. I was with a party on Friday morning and we caught salmon. We left on Friday, driving to Metis, and we were in Toronto at a quarter past four by the Grand Trunk Railway day express on Saturday, having the fish with us, which were cooked for dinner on Saturday evening, having been caught at Matane on Friday. If that could be done by an ordinary passenger, I claim that with a reasonable amount of investigation, care and judgment by the government, they could give a market for the fish that are caught there that would produce to the fishermen, two, three or four times the return which they get for their fish to-day. What I do complain of is that there is no systematic investigation as to how to spend the money in order to promote the interests of these fishermen and how best to develop the fishing industry, and I claim that as long as we continue to pass item after item for building wharfs here, there and everywhere, without following any systematic plan laid down by men who know their business and who know what is wanted, we are wasting the money of the country and not developing the fishing industry or doing the good to these men that can and should be done.


Mr. HOLMES.: I was one of those who, like the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), at one time thought that expenditures for Nova Scotia wharfs that were built were apparently made for party purposes pure and simple, but I want to say iliat I endorse all that my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) has said, and that I believe that a great many of^ the wharfs that are built in the lower provinces are built from necessity.
I can easily understand the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) or any of the members from the lower provinces, advocating the building of a large number of wharfs. I am satisfied that if more members from Ontario had an opportunity of visiting the lower provinces, they would be willing to admit that these items of expenditure are perfectly justifiable. I do not know that it is possible to follow out the suggestion made by the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Osier), but, as the result of limited observation, my own conviction is that you cannot follow any definite system in the development of the fishing industries of these provinces. It seems to me that the whole province of Nova Scotia is one vast fishing area, and that you have to provide accommodation simply as the immediate necessities of a particular place require at the time being. Personally I endorse these votes for the province of Nova Scotia, believing as I do that they tend to promote the welfare of the great fishing industry of that province.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) seems to

know all about Nova Scotia, and I would like to ask biin if the legislature of tbe province has taken any steps to assist the fishing Industry ? Of course, X believe it is the duty of this government to afford harbours of refuge and other accommodation for the fishermen, but tbe legislature of Nova Scotia has been remiss in its duty if it has not given some aid to its fishermen, and the member for Guysborough has been remiss in his duty if he has not insisted on the local government giving that aid.	.


Mr. BENNETT.: He never dug a fish-worm in his life.	_


Jabel Robinson: Oh, well, I believe he is a fisherman, but that is not. to the point just now. 1 have some knowledge of the farmers of Ontario, and 1 know that they are willing at all times to assist their fellow-countrymen in Nova Scotia, or in any other part of the Dominion. But the farmers of Ontario have been trying to help themselves. They have taxed themselves havily to establish agricultural schools and farmers' institutes, so that the people may better know the science of farming. The people of Nova Scotia should make an effort to help themselves, as the farmers of Ontario have done. I am sure that we in the upper provinces would be only too glad to get this cheap fish from Nova Scotia, and if the member for Guysborough lias not advocated the running of a fish train, lie has not done his duty. It would be far better for him to have a market for Nova Scotia fish in Ontario than to go begging for a market in the United States.


Mr. ERASER.: I do not want to be misunderstood. I did not accuse anybody of not helping the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I would like the hou. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) to get more fish from Nova Scotia, because it is productive of very much that he has not got. What I did say was that this government has done a great deal to (educate the farmers of Ontario, and I only suggested that they should do a little to educate the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I think that both the Dominion government and the provincial government should combine to makje the lot of the fishermen as comfortable as possible. That is all I have advocated.


Richard Blain: We who come from Ontario would not object to a,ny legitimate expenditure for the fishermen of Nova Scotia, or of any othfer part of Canada. I am surprised that the government supporter from Halifax (Mr. Roche) should venture to assert that the representatives of Ontario are opposed to this expenditure. No cne on this side of the House has objected to one dollar of expenditure for the fishermen of that province. But we do think that the government should be able to give us some idea as to the policy they are pursuing with regard to the expenditure of this
money. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) has told us that the county of Lunenburg is the chief fishing centre in Nova Scotia, but I am surprised in looking over these 103 items that not a dollar is to be expended in that county.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: They are engaged in the deep-sea fishing, which is entirely a different thing. They go 500 miles away from home.


William Humphrey Bennett: But they have to come back to port again.


Richard Blain: Is it any wonder that the representatives in this committee would object to this kind of expenditure, which leaves that important fishing county, represented by a gentleman on this side of the House, out in the cold ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It was well looked after when his friends were in power.


Richard Blain: Why, last ^session the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) condemned the hou. member from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) for not getting some money for his county when the Conservatives were in power. Here is a list of 103 votes for Nova Scotia, and the county of Victoria, represented by a government supporter, gets seven of these expenditures to my knowledge, and probably if I knew the topography of the district intimately, I would find that many more of these votes were for that county. I believe that it is a legitimate thing for this parliament to look after the fishermen, but how does it come that so little of this large amount is to be expended in counties represented by Liberal-Conservatives ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The leader of the opposition does not say so.


Richard Blain: The fishermen of Nova Scotia will be grateful to the leader of the opposition for bringing the Liberal members of this House to their feet in defence of their interests. These gentlemen opposite sat quietly by, without uttering a syllable, until the leader of the opposition drew the attention of the House to the facts.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no foundation for the statement that these appropriations have been made with any regard to the political allegiance of members who represent these counties. It is true that every county in Nova Scotia is not interested in the fishing industry to the same extent, but the hon. gentleman will find appropriations for works whenever they have been asked for ; I do not know of any appropriation which has been asked for, and which was recommended by the officials of the department, that was not granted. Of course, a great many have had to be overlooked for the present, but the appropriations appear in the estimates irrespective of who represents a particular county.


Richard Blain: I will accept the statement of (lie minister, but I will remind him that last session and the session before the hon. member for Lunenburg (Sir. Kaulbach) appealed from his place in this House for an expenditure in his county.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was in connection with dredging, and not in connection with the fishing industry.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) drew attention to the needs of his county in the matter of dredging, but that class of work, is not covered by these items. To the best of my knowledge, the people of Lunenburg have not asked for any appropriation, except in respect to dredging, whicli the hon. member (Mr. Kaulbach) has earnestly pressed here.


Richard Blain: Has the county of Lunenburg been taken care of with respect to dredging ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The vote for dredging is a general vote and does not apply to particular counties. We are at liberty to employ a dredge in any part of Canada where work is needed, and when we can get the dredge. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) laid down the general principle that these votes were for counties represented by friends of the government. I point out to him that there are votes here for the county of Halifax, which is represented by the leader of the opposition.


William Humphrey Bennett: And also by a government supporter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a vote for the county of Colchester, where there is no government supporter. There are votes respecting the county of Pietou, from which there is no government member. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works calls my attention to the fact that we made a special appropriation for dredging in the county of Lunenburg, and the only reason the work has not been done is that we have not been able to get the dredges. When my hon. friend states that these votes are only given to counties which support the government, he is entirely mistaken. If there are only a few counties in Nova Scotia which send gentlemen to the other side of the House to represent them, that is not our fault; but these moneys have been distributed irrespective of politics ; and, apart from dredging in the harbour of Lunenburg, there was no application for any public work in the county of Lunenburg before these estimates were prepared.


Mr. KAULBACH.: It is very natural that I should offer an expression on a matter of such vast importance as the fishing industry, in which lam very largely interest-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
ed, coming as I do from the largest fishing county in the Dominion, and being the representative of a class of men who, for bravery and skill, have no superiors. For that reason I am here, and for that reason I am on my feet now to advocate the claims of the fishermen. As last expressions leave the most vivid impressions, I may refer first to the remark which has just fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman opposite with regard to the county of Lunenburg. I consider that it is right, it is just) it is honest on the part of any government not to discriminate in regard to the distribution of public moneys in the interest of the fishermen ; yet it is a remarkable fact that not one solitary item, so far as I am hware, appears in these estimates for the county of Lunenburg. I must refute the statement that has been made that I have not asked for public benefits for the fishermen. I have asked at every opportunity this session, and have urged their necessity in strong terms. I have asked for a breakwater or pier at Mill Cove, St. Margaret's bay. The Minister of Public Works can find my remarks on that subject, both -this session and last session. I earnestly advocated the claims of the fishermen in that district. They live on an exposed portion of St. Margaret's bay, and are entirely dependent upon the fishing industry for a living. They possess no land from which to -gather any portion of their daily bread, and if their employment or occupation is in any way disturbed, or their rights, uncared for, they must necessarily suffer. I asked for that breakwater in order that they might have their little property, which has cost them many days' toil, protected in the event of storms. Very often these poor men are compelled to leave their homes in the morning before dawn, and perhaps by night they are compelled to take up their anchor and run for shore in, or fearing, a gale. There is perhaps no chance possible of their getting back to their homes till the gale subsides, and as a consequence they are compelled to seek refuge in some other harbour ; whereas a small expenditure would give them a harbour of refuge and protection for their property in the neighbourhood of their own homes. I therefore make the appeal now, and it Is not too late this session to place a sum of money in the supplementary estimates for that purpose. I also asked for the repair of the breakwater at Petite Riviere in my county. This work was started some years ago as a stone structure, which was to have been of lasting benefit ; but it was only partly built when it was allowed to suffer serious injury by the action of the sea in consequence of the laxity of the government in continuing the work, so that a large amount of money has gone to waste. These people depend very largely upon the industry of fishing for their living, and although I made appeals from

time to time on their behalf, I received no favourable response. I ^ ay that the fishermen of the county I represent, more than those of any other county in the Dominion, are entitled to redress, because they contribute more largely than any other county to the revenue. Our fishermen contribute more largely to the revenue of the country than any other class of men, because every article which they require for their daily food, (except a little fish) and their clothing, has to be purchased. When you consider that the fishing industry contributes $20,000,000 yearly to the revenues of the country, I think the county of Lunenburg is certainly entitled to a portion of that revenue. I am here for the purpose of demanding it, and 1 will never refrain from speaking for the rights of the fishermen, feeling satisfied that in so doing I am dojng a God's service. I say that the expenditure should be made indiscriminately in the interest of all the fishermen. If these fishermen, with pride and an intelligent purpose, have returned me ns their representative in the interest of the country, is it fair on the part of the government to treat them in the manner in which they are doing ? I answer for them without any hesitation, certainly not. I say it is not only wrong, but it is unfair and unjust. Now,
I respect the farmers as much as I do any other class of people. We have a bureau of agriculture, which is a sort of school to educate the farmers in the prosecution of their vocation. Why not also have a bureau of fisheries for the benefit of the fishermen, so that they may be taught how to pursue their industry in the most profitable manner ? Fishing has become a seience, and there is no reason why the fisheries on the Atlantic coast should not be developed as well as those in any other part of the world. A few years ago I complained that the farmer was in need of certain redress for wrongs done through the neglect of the government, in not making special inquiry as to the cause of the disappearance of kelp or sea weed.
This product of the sea, the kelp, has not been cared for In a proper manner. Experience had taught the most of our fishermen that the product kelp was destroyed- a sea vegetable matter-in consequence of the over catch of lobsters. I asked on a former occasion that a commission should be sent to the shores of the Atlantic-to my county if the government desired-to ascertain from the fishermen themselves the best method of protecting this sea fertilizer or weed from being completely destroyed. There is a sort of egg or shell fish found on our shores which lobsters feed upon, but in consequence of the depletion . of these waters, of lobsters, those egg or shell fish have become more numerous and a sort of calcareous substance or excrescence or salvia covers the whole bottom of the shores and causes it to be unproductive of
this weed. As a natural result there is no manure of this kind to be found for use as a fertilizer for the farmer. Such results might have been lessened had the government appointed a commission. The farmers are suffering to this day for want of this weed. If we had a bureau of information for fishermen, and a system of correspondence held between the fishermen and the department we would have gained a certain amount of valuable knowledge which would have enabled us to add to the welfare of both the fishermen and the farmers to a great extent. We want a certain distribution of benefits for-the deep sea fishermen. We have along the shores at present-although my county has not availed itself of the privilege of shore freezers for freezing bait in small quantities to supply the shore fishermen. We want as well a supply of bait for the deep sea fishermen. We want the same conditions and the same privileges extended to the deep sea fishermen as are enjoyed by the shore fishermen, which gives them fifty per cent of the entire cost of the construction of freezers, and I think a bonus of $5 for every ton of bait for three years, which is placed in those freezers. If that same benefit were extended to the deep sea fishermen, we would contribute in return a certain amount of benefit to the revenue which otherwise is lost. No doubt the revenue of the country would be greatly benefited this year by the fishermen had they had the benefit of freezers for bait, but the want of that commodify has caused almost a total failure this year of the fisheries in the deep sea. I find that it was not only the fishermen in my own province who have suffered but also the fishermen in Newfoundland. This year in all probability they shall have to come to the rescue of some of the fishermen in order to give them relief. I would not be at all surprised if an appeal should be made to the government, or by others on behalf of these fishermen to enable them to support their families this coming winter. Why should the government be so obdurate, why should they turn a deaf ear to the appeal I am making now on behalf of the fishermen. I am anxious also that the system of fishing should be improved, and if the government would establish a bureau for the fishermen, there would be no difficulty in reaching the desired end, and every one would be benefited. We can have incubators all along our shores for the reproduction of fish. At present a very large amount of the ova or fish egg goes to waste. Why V Because of the lack of care shown by the government. Those incubators, as far as lobsters are concerned, could be placed wherever there are packing establishments or canneries, but I would advocate more strongly that we should use natural ponds where they can be found where the seed lobsters could be placed and where they could deposit their eggs and undergo the natural

process instead of a method that is absolutely artificial.


Alexander Johnston: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that that is being done ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: In one county, Cape Breton; but that is no reason why we should not have one in Lunenburg and other counties. I do not think my hon. friend has gained much comfort by his inquiry. 1 also would advocate the freezing system for the reason that we could utilize those places for the storage of fish and for shipments to the west. That would benefit the fishermen all along our shores from Shelburne to Halifax in the east, and from Cape North to Halifax in the west. By that system they would be able to ship direct by the Intercolonial at Halifax without any interruption to the centre of this Dominion and get in return the products of the west. The farmers in the west and the fishermen in the east would have thereby the beuefit of a larger and more profitable trade. At present we are deprived of that opportunity because we have not the facilities for transportation. Would it not be infinitely better for us to have an amount included in the estimates to enable the fishermen to market their products so that after they have spent their hours, their days, their weeks, their years, their lives in the employment of fishing, they would have a better market for their product than they now have. I would also advocate-although in this perhaps I am in advance of my rights-the granting of a bonus by the government to a specially constructed steamer in order that it might convey bait from these freezers to the banks where the fishermen frequently rendevous and there distribute the bait to those who wish to take it, and also receive the catch of fish and convey them to the freezers. This would be a general benefit. I offer this to the Minister of Public Works merely as a suggestion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would suggest that this discussion might be more in order when the estimates of the Marine and Fisheries Department are under discussion.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will remember that I am only commenting on what has been stated by the gentleman who preceded me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not have raised the point except that I think the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition and the gentleman who followed him were more in reference to the facilities for the transportation and landing of fish.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I was loath to interrupt and was waiting patiently until *


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbaeh) had finished, but then we shall have to adhere more closely to the matter under discussion.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged for your kind consideration, but I think it is in the interests of the general public as well as of the fishermen that a public wharf be built on the shores of this Mill Cove harbour. What would be the use of the wharf, if the fishermen had no fish to land and if no boats came to it ? I am dealing with the matter in that way.	Not a dollar is included
in the estimates for Petite Riviere or for Mill Cove, although these places are deserving of a very great deal of consideration and would have had it long ago had it not been for interference. I have asked for a buoy off the eastern entrance to our habour, Lunenburg. This is necessary in the interests of the fishermen as well as for shipping generally, and also for the protection of life and property. Two steamers went ashore at this point within a very short time of each other, and several sailing vessels have been wrecked for want of a buoy; but I have not been able to obtain this necessary article. The constituency I represent pays into the treasury a large amount of money and to be told that we shall not receive one dollar is almost enough to set the people in revolt. I feel that we have not received justice, and it would have been better for the government themselves if they had not discriminated so conspicuously between my constituency and other constituencies, one of which, the constituency of Victoria, has nine votes in the estimates, but where is Lunenburg ? I feel I would be recreant to the trust imposed in me if I remained silent and did not give expression in the most earnest manner to this protest on behalf of the fishermen.
I still trust that the government will come to the rescue of Lunenburg ; it is not too late for them to include items for these purposes in the supplementary estimates that are yet -to cqme down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman will excuse me, but I certainly was perfectly in earnest when I said that I did not know that there was an urgent application for. the works he has asked. If the hon. gentleman will let me have a memorandum of the particular one to which he referred, I will have a report on it made at once.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: And an amount placed in the supplementary estimates for this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say that.


Mr. MATHESON.: It is unfortunate that some of our friends opposite do not know more about Nova Scotia. One gentleman asked if the local government are doing anything for the people. He also said that

they have a school in Ontario. I am sorry that school does not teach more than it does; if it did he would know that the government of Nova Scotia is doing all that it should do for that province and is appropriating about . as much for school purposes as any government in the world. That government also gives the people of Nova Scotia roads and bridges, good iron structures, and before the Dominion of Canada took their revenue they also gave to the people wharfs and piers. It will not do that to-day because the people of Nova Scotia are paying another government to do it. To hear some members talking in this House about the poor fishermen of Nova Scotia you would almost think that they were the recipients of something that did not belong to them. I venture to say that one fisherman in Nova Scotia will contribute to the general revenue of the country as much as half a dozen of your farmers, for the very reason that the fishermen import and buy more of the goods which they consume. I presume that a farmer in Ontario can live largely out of his farm. Our fishermen have to send their fish abroad and get cash in order to buy the produce of Ontario. You will not buy it, and it is a great pity that the people of Ontario will not buy fish-they need it.
Now, what we want from this government is harbours ; let them improve our harbours, improve our piers ; in other words, do for us what we were doing for ourselves before the Dominion government took away our revenue. I think that is very reasonable. When the hon. gentleman across the way was talking of the injustice that was done to his county, I was reminded how often we were told, in the old days, that we could not expect anything from the government, because we were not sending a supporter of the government. That is what we were always -told in the past, and in fact we learned not to look for anything. We did not look ifor anything during eighteen years, because we were taught that we had no right to expect government favours, that this heaven-bom right 'belonged only to those who were supporting the government of that day. Let our friends understand that the fishermen of Nova Scotia are not entirely dependent on the paltry help they may get from this government. The great trouble with our fishermen is that they have not received the attention that the farmer's of Ontario have received. They are scattered over the face of the Atlantic, and they do not often meet together to concoct plans and to send resolutions to the government asking for assistance. It would be well for them perhaps if they did. At the same time, I hope that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) will travel a little more. He will find that there are schools in Nova Scotia as well as in Ontario. He told us there were schools in Ontario for farming. Well, they might teach their children a little of something else, so that they might
know that there are other places in the world besides Ontario.


Richard Blain: The Hon, Finance Minister made the statement that one of the reasons why Lunenburg county was neglected was that the member for that county had failed to put in his requisition for help. I wish to read from the ' Hansard ' of last year a few words of the hon. member for Lunenburg. He said :
I observe quite a number ot estimates for different counties in Nova Scotia. Annapolis appears not to have been overlooked. Neither have Richmond, Guysborough, Victoria, Inverness and other counties. The two counties west and adjoining Lunenburg, not excepted, or in other words, all are included in the roll for benefits. But I am afraid that the Minister of Public Works has forgotten the most important part of the entire coast. He says he is very-desirous of forwarding the interests of the fishermen. ... I may tell him that there is a long stretch of coast in St. Margaret's bay where, for twelve or fifteen miles, there is almost a continuous town, house almost against house for that entire distance, with an immense population. X have been asking for a number of years for a breakwater for Mill Cove, St. Margaret's bay. The property of the fishermen there is in jeopardy every time there is a storm. They have to fish in large boats ; smaller boats would not do because they are exposed to the open ocean.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit whether that is not an open request to the government for some aid to be given to the fishermen in the county of Lunenburg. I may say for the information of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) that when an item was up for discussion last year in connection with the same county, my hon. friend from Lunenburg asked this :
I hope the minister will expend that sum this year.
And the hon. member for Guysborough said, ' Strike it out.'


An hon. MEMBER.: It ought to be struck out.


Richard Blain: Well, I am not here to say whether it ought to be struck out or not. t am only pointing out that the hon. member for Guysborough, who is so anxious about the counties in the province he represents, when an item was up in the estimates for the county represented by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, the hon. member for Guysborough so far forgot his interest in the fishermen for that county as to say ' Strike it out.' I might ask the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) why he wants it struck out ?


Mr. HYMAN.: The hon. member is mistaken, I made no interruption.


Richard Blain: I am just pointing out to the Finance Minister that my hon. friend from Lunenburg has not forgotten his duty. And perhaps the Minister of Finance will say why it is that that county has been overlooked ?


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not make any charge of neglect against the hon. member for Lunenburg (Sir. Kaulbach). I stated that I was not aware, except as respects dredging, of any application that my hon. friend had made from his county. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Biain) now calls attention to something my hon. friend said a year ago. Well, I can only say that when these estimates were being prepared I sent to the Public Works Department and asked if there were any applications from Lunenburg, and I was informed there were none. I do not want to find fault with the hon. member for Lunenburg ; he has been here for seven months, and I think that if this matter was of such vital importance, he might have taken the trouble to place it before the department. However, I am not making any accusation against the member for Lunenburg, far from it. Since I am speaking on the subject, let me say that there is a great difference between the county of Lunenburg and some other counties, notably the county of Victoria, in respect to fishing. Lunenburg is a county in which the great mass of the fishermen are deep-sea fishermen, who go away in fine vessels. They are not so much concerned as the boat fishermen in the matter of small breakwaters and works of that character, and it might follow that the member for Lunenburg would not want works of this character at ail, though there is one particular place the hon. gentleman now speaks of. But there is that important difference. There is another difference. The county of Victoria has no railway, not a mile of railway, and no prospect of any. This county, thus isolated, is exposed to the ocean and there is no other county in the province which is at such disadvantage in regard to the facilities for travel and the means of communication. It is only by such aids as these that have been granted that the people of that county can really carry on their business as boat fishermen. There is a very important difference, and nobody knows it better than the hon. gentleman from Lunenburg. The fishermen of his county are of a different class, as respects the majority. There are some boat fishermen, but the great majority of the fishing population in the county of Lunenburg, and the most prosperous fishermen in Nova Scotia, are the deep-sea fishermen, whose condition is not exactly the same as that of the boat fishermen.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I beg slightly to differ from the Minister of Finance in one particular. From the border of the county of Queen's, which he represents, to the county of Halifax, there is one continuous line of habitations of fishermen who are dependent very largely upon shore fishing for their living. There is another class of fishermen, known as deep-sea fishermen, most of whom Mr. BLAIN.
live along the shore, and a large number of whom depend entirely upon that kind of fishing in the summer time. But as soon as spring and autumn come they are then dependent upon the shore fishing, and look to that largely for their living. This year they are compelled to look to it entirely in consequence of the failure of the deep-sea fishing. Now, with regard to the appeal for assistance, the Minister of Finance must know that it was only two months ago I said to him, when meeting him : ' You will not forget me in the estimates.' Well, I will not say a great deal about that. I do not want to make an appeal from day to day, and make myself appear ridiculous, and get an answer by way of a refusal, but I certainly, from the friendly remark that was made at that time, expected that I would see something in the estimates for the county of Lunenburg.


Edward Hackett: I would like to refer to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance in regard to the county of Victoria. I think he said that it extended from the gulf on one side to the Atlantic on the other. Is that correct ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I saidi that Victoria had the sfea on two sides of it. Cape North is in the county of Victoria' and part of it in Inverness. Tbe county of Victoria is one of the most isolated counties in Nova Scotia, having no railways whatever. That was the point of my observation.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask the hon. minister what kind of a structure he is going to have at Briton Cove for oats to land at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is proposed to construct a wharf 200 feet long by 16 feet wide. It is to be built of both faced and round timber and to have ballasted cribwork.


Edward Hackett: What depth of water will there be at the end of the wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Four and a-half feet at low water.


Edward Hackett: What is tbe rise of the tide there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About four feet.


Edward Hackett: Is it intended specially for the accommodation of the lobsterpacking industry which has bejen erected there lately ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there is the lobster factory, but there is quite a large number of people interested besides those engaged in the lobster factory.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: You will pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I refer to a matter which

is of very material importance to the interests of the shore fishermen as well as thfe deep-sea fishermen, and it is the menace offered by the dog-fish frequenting the waters of Nova Scotia in certain seasons of the ypar. This is a matter that should be looked into very carefully. I know that petitions have been circulated through the various counties in Nova Scotia-I am not. sure about the adjoining provinces-and forwarded to the department of Marine and Fisheries in the early part of this year. 1 am sorry that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pr&fontaine) is not present. I would likje to know what has been done in that respect. Something ought to be done, because, during the past two years the dog-fish have Ween in such numbers that they have driven every other description of edible fish out of the water. X think the government might take the matter up and view it carefully in the interest of the country generally.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does my hon. friend mean that they will take this wharf ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: No, I do not mjean, that, but if the hon. minister gives me the' hint and says that I should bring it up later,; I shall do so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All right.


Edward Hackett: Is it intended that the boats shall go and land their lobsters or other fish on the pier and then seek shelter elsewhere ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not understand my hon. friend's question.


Edward Hackett: In Prince Edward Island where we carry on such an industry I know gentlemen who built their factories on headlands 100 feet high, built their own accommodation, and *[DOT]did not come tD the government and ask them for any assistance. These gentlemen found that by building their factories on these headlands, as high as this building, and placing their gear there; to hoist the lobsters from the fishermen's1 boats, canning the lobsters and placing them on the market, that they could makle money; Now, in this case, hon. gentlemen opposite are asking that an establishment having ten boats, which has been opened at Briton Cove, shall have the assistance of this government to the extent of expending $4,000 for the building of this wharf. This is only the commencement of this expenditure. I protest against this because I am aware that a fisherman in Prince Edward Island has to carry on his business through his enterprise and energy with whatever little, capital he can put into it himself without receiving any government assistance. The
gentlemen to whom I have referred and who have without any assistance established a business there, have found it to be very' remunerative. They have carried it on for years without any assistance of this kind. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) spoke particularly of fish. I am not going to speak altogether of fish. Hie spoke of the great fishing industry of Nova Scotia. It is a gx-eat industry, and we are all proud of it. But it is not all fish there.; If the hon. gentleman will look at the reports of a few days ago he will find that that province is about exporting to the old world one thousand barrels of apples, worth $4 per barrel. So that, when we arise here to speak of fishing matters, we are not speaking altogether of the resources of that great country from which we come. It is true that there may be some sectionalisin. Our hon. friends opposite want to make it appear that the province of Ontario is dw rectly oppos/ed to the interests of the maritime provinces. I claim that is not correct. I have found that in all my intercourse with my friends from Ontario and Quebec on this side of the House they have always been willing to do what is right and fair by the people of the maritime provinces witho'ut distinction, whether it was New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. I think it is a very bad policy for our lion, friends opposite to endeavour to place that particular province against the lower provinces in this respect. We are onie people from the west to the east. We are endeavouring, as far as possible, to carry out the great object of confederation. There should be no rivalry between one part of the country and the other, and the man "who raises that question-I do not care whether it is on this side of the House or the other- is an enemy to his country and not deserv-i ing of any praise from any person.
Cow Bay Run-breakwater to protect outlet of harbour, $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman explain this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a vote of $4,000 to make provision' for the construction of a breakwater at the outlet of Cow Bay Run, situated at the mouth of Halifax harbour. The outlet has for some years been a source of trouble to the people of that district who have been blocked on several occasions from getting into the shore of the lake, causing much in7 convenience to the fishermen who use the outlet as an entrance to the lake which forms their harbour of refuge, and which affords safe anchorage during rough seas.


Robert Laird Borden: This will complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report of the engineer says it will.

Cheticamp wharf, $11,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work ; the total cost is $15,000.
Cariboo Island causeway, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to form a harbour of refuge for fishermen in Pictou county. The estimated cost is $2,000.
Chegoggin pier, $1,400.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is in Yarmouth county. It is for a training pier to confine the water to the channel.


Richard Blain: Will it be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that it can be better done under the supervision of our local engineer. This vote will complete the work.
Drum Head breakwater, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete payment on the contract. The total expenditure has been $5,500.
Donald's Head-repairs to breakwater, $3,000. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is in Shelburne and Queen's. The estimated cost of the work is $3,000.
Duncan's Cove approach to wharf, $200.


Edward Hackett: Is this to be expended on a highway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Hackett: I suppose it is between the wharf and the highway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
East J-eddore wharf, $1,800.


Robert Laird Borden: This in Halifax county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it a new wharf ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, Yes, the total cost is estimated at $1,800.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the work be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer thinks that the work will be done more satisfactorily under the supervision of the local engineer.


Richard Blain: Is the minister keeping in mind whether there is any appropriation in the main estimates for any of these ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: i
East end Cape Sable island-entrance to boat harbour, $2,200.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Shelburne and Queen's county. It is a harbour for the fishermen.
East Berlin breakwater-to complete, $700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Queen's county.
East Bay wharf-to complete repairs, $300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Cape Breton county.
Frudes Point wharf, $1,500.


Richard Blain: Was there a petition from the people of the county for this expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is in Shelburne, and I am pretty certain there was. *


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister could get the information from the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pretty sure there was a request for it, because I see here that it has been referred to Mr. Locke, the local engineer, to make a report. That is the way we deal with these petitions as a rule.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is possible that representations may have been made to me by the people there, and I may have asked the department to inquire into it.


Richard Blain: I would like to know the form of these petitions, because we on this side of the House, are not familiar with the necessary form to reach the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no special form. *


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A great many of these small works are petitioned for either to the department direct or to the members. Y^e ask for a report from the engineer, and it is on that report, as a rule, that these estimates are made up.
Five Islands wharf

repairs, $700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to raise the government wharf two feet and renew covering. It has been asked for by the people of Colchester county.


Mr. GOURLEY.: It is a very proper expenditure. There is a good wharf there, and it ought to be repaired. Have you had a report from the engineer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Dodwell made a report.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Did he say $700 would be enough ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is his eslimate.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Tlie people themselves thought it would cost about that.
Finlay Point wharf. $2,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Inverness county.
Fort Lawrence landing pier, $11,400.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost of the work is $16,400, and this is to pay for the balance of the work under contract. It is in Cumberland eounty.


Richard Blain: When was this work commenced ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was let during the present calendar year ; a vote was taken in the main estimates and this is to complete it.


Edward Hackett: What will be the depth of the water at the end of the pier ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know what the average depth of the water is. It is said at the spring of the year to be 45 feet. I do not know what it is at low-water.


Edward Hackett: It is in the Straits of Northumberland.


Mr. LOGAN.: This work is not on the Straits of Northumberland, but is at the head of the Bay of Pundy. At high tide tlie depth of the water is sometimes 50 feet, and at low tide it is probably 12 or 15 feet. This landing pier is for the accommodation not only of Fort Lawrence, but of the town of Amherst as well. It is 2* miles from that town. The manufacturers there have complained for many years that they have not had facilities for unloading materials brought from the United States, particularly southern pine. Then, there are shipments of apples from the lower part of the Bay of Pundy and other things brought to Amherst, for which there is at present no landing place.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did tlie town of Amherst make any contribution towards the cost, or give a site ?


Hance James Logan: If I may be allowed to answer tlie question, I may say that the town of Amherst has contributed nothing. I do not think the site will cost anything, because it is to be built where the land is not valuable. I may say that the town of Amherst is a leading manufacturing town, and contributes largely to the revenue.


Richard Blain: Has any work been done on the wharf so far ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I expect so, as the contract was let in June.
tMr. BLAIN. What was the amount V


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Fourteen thousand, eight hundred and
ninety-five dollars. It is estimated that this will complete the work.
Freeport-landing pier, $3,500.
- The MINISTER OP PDBLIC WORKS. This is in Digby county. It is to provide for the construction of a landing pier at Freeport, on the east side of the Grand Passage between Long island and Brier island. It will reach a depth of 10 feet at low water in ordinary spring tide.
Granite village-mooring pier, $1,000.
The'MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS. This is in Shelburne county. The vote is expected to cover the total cost of the work.
Gabarouse-extension of breakwater, &c., $6,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that for the completion or the commencement of the work 1


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a continuation of a work that was under way. It is to be 80 feet long and 27 feet wide. This is the amount which the chief engineer estimates will complete the work now undertaken.


Robert Laird Borden: This is in the county of Cape Breton is it not ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Cochrane: Is this being done by day's work ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Cochrane: Why are these works being done by day's work ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They ar not all being done by day's work. It is to be done by tender and contract, except works which the chief engineer reports, for reasons given, can be better and more economically done by our own engineers buying materials and employing men, such as repairs and improvements, for which specifications cannot be made and which, if done by contract, would cost a great deal more.	,


Edward Cochrane: I can understand how the repairing of a wharf would be better done by day's work ; but where there is $6,000 for the extension of a pier-


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that I was mistaken in regard to this work. It will be done by contract.


Richard Blain: There was $3,500 voted for this work last year. Is it the policy of the department to have an engineer's report for a work before any money is voted for it V


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: In almost every case.


Richard Blain: What was the vote of $3,500 for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was an expenditure of $4,800 on this same breakwater, and $3,900 was spent on dredging at that point.


Richard Blain: What is the call for this very great expenditure on this breakwater ?


Mr. KENDALL.: I may say Gabarouse is the largest Ashing district in the county of Cape Breton. For twenty-five or thirty years the inhabitants of that place have requested successive governments to construct a breakwater. I have myself seen six large vessels smashed on the shore for want of this protection. Three or four years ago the Minister of Public Works visited the place and became impressed with the necessity of a beakwater. The representatives of Cape Breton county for the present and the future will not be satisfied unless larger appropriations are made for the work. This amount of $6,000 will perhaps be little more than sufficient to buy the creosoted timber which is necessary, and next year I shall ask the government to make a further vote to complete the work. It is an important work, and as long as I represent the county, I shall urge the government to make a sufficient appropriation to afford the necessary protection.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. gen-leman if there was a petition presented to the government for this work ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I may tell the hon. gentleman that petitions were presented to the late government again and again, but they turned a deaf ear to them. Petitions were made for this extension to my colleague and myself on several occasions and to the government, and we were determined to have this work constructed.


Richard Blain: I would like to know how the ear of the government is to be reached in connection with works of this kind. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) has tried to get the attention of the government on behalf of his county but without avail. The Finance Minister has told us that petitions have been sent in from time to time for this work, how did these get to the ear of the government ? Of course, my hon. friend (Mr. Ivendall) made a little threat about next year. Here is an amount of $3,500 for last year, and $6,000 for this year, and the hon. gentleman representing the county (Mr. Kendall) has given notice that that is not nearly enough and that next year they shall come for a further amount. When will this cease ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asking for a piece of work 80 feet long by 27 feet wide. If any further extension is required, it will be for the House to judge whether that will be granted.


Richard Blain: What about the $3,500 ?


Richard Blain: The MINISTER OF PUBLIC 'WORKS. There was a contract for $8,500, and $3,500 is for the approach.


Richard Blain: $3,500 was asked last year to vote a breakwater there. What became of the money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for a part of the breakwater, 190 feet long, which was under contract. It was to complete the contract under way.


Richard Blain: There is a further expenditure.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Yes, and it does not go far enough.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Has the hon. minister experimented in putting down some of these piers with cement instead of with timber as I suggested last year. By using cement, we would not have to spend so much money on repairs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some of the larger works, I have decided to use cement instead of timber. In some of the smaller works, I have asked the engineer to change from wood to cement when there is not too much difference in the cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Cement would last longer without repairs, would it not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If cement is well done, it lasts almost for ever.


Robert Laird Borden: And where you use creosote timber, you have to import it, whereas you can get the cement in our own country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Hackett: Is this work intended to concentrate the water of the river in the main channel or is it built into the ocean ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: It is in the ocean.


Edward Hackett: What will be the depth of water inside the breakwater ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Ten to fifteen feet.


Edward Hackett: That would give protection in local shipping.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Yes.
Glace Bay, N.S.-wharf, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a prolonged discussion on this subject last session. I am asking $15,000, and the money will not be spent unless an agreement, such as was then discussed in a general way, be entered into by the company.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the point made was that the bay, once this wharf was constructed, should be the property of the Crown and that some arrange-

ment should be made with the coal company to that effect.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Mr. INGRAM.: Were any moneys collected at this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The property is vested in the Dominion Coal Company, and the people have been asking for improvements which would cost a great deal of money. It was thought that some arrangement might be come to between the private owners and the department, which will be satisfactory and save a large expenditure.


Andrew B. Ingram: Were no moneys collected at this wharf ?


Alexander Johnston: The Dominion Coal Company are owners at present, and will collect the wharfage. The government have nothing to do with the wharfage.


Andrew B. Ingram: But this company is asking for $25,000.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. No, it is the people of Glace Bay, and not the company, who are asking for this money. The company are indifferent. Glace Bay used to be a shipping point but the company constructed a line of railway and shipped their coal elsewhere and the harbour fell into disuse. In the meantime it has become the centre of a mining district, with a population of some 20,000 within a radius of three miles, and the people desire communication by water as well as by rail. The idea is that if the government will give something, the company will be induced to co-operate and the harbour may be opened and a public wharf established there.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the wharf belong to the public ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will have to be a matter of negotiation between (lie company and the government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then it is not a public wharf and will not be until some future arrangement is made.	-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will have to be a public wharf, but the company might have some privileges over it in return for its contribution. The opening of a harbour and general improvements will cost a good deal more than $15,000. It will be a wharf in the general sense. But there will have to be an arrangement with the company.


Robert Laird Borden: The contention of the company was that they owned this harbour. That is to say, it is not a harbour at all until made so by the company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The old Glace Bay Mining Company.


Robert Laird Borden: Originally it was not a harbour, but it was made so by one of these companies whose rights are now vested in the Dominion Coal Company. A company could not interfere with a navigable water but it might be possible that this company having itself created a navigable water would have absolute control of it. When this vote came up before us, the point was taken by myself that before the government expended a large sum of money for the benefit of the public in Glace Bay they should see to it that the public would actually have rights in the harbour. It would therefore be necessary to procure from that company some assignment or conveyance of it rights so that when the harbour should be once established and the wharf built, the public would have the same rights as if the harbour had been a navigable water in tiie first instance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is quite right.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have here the Sydney ' Daily Post ' and in it I find an article in which it is stated that this matter has been the subject of negotiations carried on by a civic committee of which Mr. D. M. Burchell and Henry McDonald, of Glace Bay, were members. The item reads :
The supplementary estimates brought down in parliament contain an item of $15,000 for improvements of Glace Bay harbour. This with the $10,000 previously voted makes up the amount asked for by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, lessees of the Dominion Coal Company.
That would be $25,000 altogether, including the $10,000 in the original and the $15,000 now asked for. A letter is published in this paper from Mr. C. Shields, late manager of the company, to the committee above named, in which he says :


Sydney.   C.B.@: , March 9, 1903.
Gentlemen,-Replying to your favour of the 4th instant regarding Glace Bay harbour :-
As stated by me to your committee the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, lessees of the Dominion Coal Company, will build and repair its piers and wharfs at Glace Bay harbour, and also erect a coal shipping pier for the purpose of loading coal vessels coming to the port with produce or other freight and which desire a cargo of coal. It being understood, however, that we will not undertake to sell coal in order to find loading for such vessels, but will use them to move coal that we have sold as suits our convenience, or to sell them cargoes of coal if they desire it.
The above offer is made providing the government will grant the sum of $25,000 towards the repairs, and rebuilding the piers and wharfs


Alexander Johnston: The opening of the harbour at Glace Bay has been an issue for at least four or five years. As has been stated, this harbour is the property of the Dominion Coal Company. A number of years ago the Dominion Coal Company abandoned that harbour as a port for shipping coal and the people of Glace Bay and the surrounding district have felt for many years that it would be to their interest to have this harbour reopened and to have the Dominion Coal Company induced to resume the shipment of coal from it. Negotiations were carried on for a number of years between the Dominion Coal Company and the town council of Glace Bay. The letter which the bon. gentleman has read was written by the late manager of the Dominion Coal Company to a committee of the town council of Glace Bay. who were conducting negotiations between the town and the company. In order that the harbour might become the property of the government it would be necessary in the first instance to purchase the harbour. I myself approached the Dominion Coal Company three or four years ago and conducted some correspondence with them ; at that time they stated that they would not sell the harbour. It was felt then by the committee, consisting of the. mayor of Glace Bay, who is familiar with the interests and requirements of the people of that neighbourhood, and other gentlemen equally interested in the welfare of the town, that the best solution of this question was that which Is set forth in the letter from the general manager of the coal company to the committee. That delegation was in Ottawa at one time. The gentlemen present being the mayor of Glace Mr. INGRAM.
Bay, Mr. Henry Macdonald, who was a member of the council, and Mr. N. J. Gillis, one of the members of the local legislature and a resident of Glace Bay. They discussed this matter with the members of the government and with my colleague and myself and we all concluded that the interests 6f Glace Bay would be very well served by the government contributing this $25,000 towards the reopening of the harbour. The company estimate that in order to open the harbour and make it a fit place for the shipment of coal an expenditure of at least $75,000 would be required. For my part I feel that the mayor of Glace Bay and those who were associated with him in these negotiations will take good care that the rights of the people of Glace Bay are fully protected. Personally I will see, so far as I am able to see, that all possible rights are secured to the people of Glace Bay on these wharfs proposed to be rebuilt by the Dominion Coal Company. They have gone into this matter and have represented to my colleague and myself that if the Dominion Coal Company undertake to reopen the harbour and resume shipping coal it will be decidedly in the interests of the people at Glace Bay and at the surrounding collieries. Those who are acquainted with the situation know very well that this is a most important work and feel that the plan proposed and agreed upon between the committee of the town council of Glace Bay and the Dominion Coal Company, if carried into effect, would be perfectly satisfactory and I am satisfied that it would be perfectly satisfactory to the government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to mean that the people of this district prefer the arrangement as he has stated.	.


Alexander Johnston: I state without any hesitation whatever that the general opinion in the district as represented by, the mayor and members of the delegation is overwhelmingly in favour of such an arrangement as I have indicated.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the entrance to this harbour on the property of the company, or is it public property 7


Alexander Johnston: The entrance to the harbour is public property of course. It is on the shores of the Atlantic.


Andrew B. Ingram: And is it properly protected so that the company could not monopolize the entrance to the harbour ?


Alexander Johnston: There is no danger in the world of the company monopolizing the entrance, even if they wished to. The more trade comes to the harbour the better it is for the company.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. gentleman who represents the county why it was abandoned, why the original harbour was abandoned ?


Mr JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: It was abandoned when tbe property of tbe Glace Bay Mining Company, wlio were originally conducting tbe mining operations there, became tbe property of tbe Dominion Coal Company. In 1893 tbe coal properties in that region were consolidated, and as a result the Glace Bay Mining Company shipped its coal there. But tbe Dominion Coal Company constructed lines of railway between Louisburg and Sydney and concentrated as much as possible tbe shipping of its coal to Louisburg and Sydney.


Richard Blain: Is there plenty of water V


Alexander Johnston: Yes.


Richard Blain: When this matter was up last year the acting minister stated they had abandoned it for lack of water.


Alexander Johnston: It is not correct that they abandoned it for the sole reason that there was not sufficient water.
' They abandoned it ifor the reason I have stated.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There may have been a lack of water for .the larger class of vessels which were engaged in the coal trade. The Glace Bay Company conducted its operations on a modest scale, and their coal was handled with small vessels. The new enterprise undertook to employ heavier vessels, and for that reason they could not send their larger vessels into Glace Bay harbour. So, in a sense, it was due to lack of water for the larger vessels engaged in the coal trade.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Finance said last year there was formerly a coal mine at Glace Bay, and after it was purchased by the new company they ceased shipping there, owing to lack of water.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would mean lack of water for the larger vessels.
Mr, LEFURGEY. I would like to know if the government lias received any offer from the Dominion Coal Company as to the deepening of this harbour and the dredging and repairing of the wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No definite conclusion has been come to. As the member for Cape Breton Mi-. Johnston) has said, megotiattions have been going on, and it is assumed that a satisfactory arrangement could be made from a public standpoint if we had a vote of $25,000. The matter has been gone into fully and discussed on the floors of the House. The local people have offered to make arrangements for the improvements. Of course it is for the government to say whether these arrangements are satisfactory before they will agree to them.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I understand that the Dominion Coal Company own practically 413J
the whole harbour front there, and that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the residents of Glace Bay and vicinity as to the handling of these properties by the Dominion Coal Company. I also understand that the late general manager of the company, Mr. Shields, agreed or proposed that the company should dredge the harbour and fix up the wharfs if the government would give them $25,000 as a bonus. Now, Mr. Shields has left the company, and we have no guarantee that the Dominion Coal Company will dredge the harbour and repair the wharfs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member will see that we submit this estimate provisionally. No part of this money will be spent unless a satisfactory arrangement is made.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Nothing should be done until some arrangement is made satisfactory to the people of that vicinity. I think, as I have said, that the proper way to deal with this question is to appropriate part of the harbour front for the people of Glace Bay. There is a population of 25,000 or 30,000 in that territory who want to use this harbour, and I do not think that a monopoly of it should be held by one large corporation, or that we should give them $25,000 to keep up that monopoly. I understand that when the harbour front was prepared they changed the road and took away part of the public highway in order to take in these rights.


Alexander Johnston: Let me say one word more. I would like to say to my hon. friend that his informant is not up to date.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: My informant comes from Glace Bay, and possibly knows as much about it as the hon. gentleman.


Alexander Johnston: I know exactly where the hon. gentleman's information comes from. However, I want to say to the hon. gentleman that the successor of Mr. Shields, Mr. Duggan, has stated that he is prepared to carry out the arrangement entered into toy his predecessor in the office as manager of the Dominion Coal Company. Only a short time ago he was waited upon by the mayor, Mr. Burchell, and Mr. Macdonald, and others, in connection with this very matter, and Mayor Burchell and his associates received the assurance of Mr. Duggan that he was prepared to carry out every proposition submitted on behalf of his own company by Mr. Shields.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not think that this government should spend $25,000 upon the faith of any verbal statements by the manager of the Dominion Coal Company, however respectable he may be.


Edward Cochrane: I would like the minister to tell the committee what he considers would be a proper arrangement to make with this company. We have had

some explanations, but still the affair appears to me mysterious. I would like to know from the minister what arrangements he thinks should be made with this company, so that the interests of the public might be protected, and that we might feel sure in voting this money that it was going for the benefit of the community and not of a corporation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter is somewhat complicated. These people put a high value upon their property. On a previous occasion the House seemed to he favourable to making a contribution, provided it -could be done on terms that would be in the public interest.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do we understand the minister to say that the negotiations that have -taken place were of a verbal character ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There have been representations between the municipality and the company as I understand, and representations have been made to the government with regard to what the company were willing to do. I may say to -the committee that the company's interests there are very large. It will cost the Dominion an immense amount of money to provide the same facilities that the company offer to provide. If an arrangement can be come to between the company and the department by which the public interest will be secured, we will carry it out, if not this money will not be used.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is not very satisfactory to this committee. The hon. gentleman is asking for $2-5,000 for an entirely new work. Now, we are asking if this is a verbal arrangement entered into between Glace Bay and the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already said that there is no arrangement.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then what is the object of the government in putting $25,000 into the estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So that if we can make a satisfactory arrangement we will have this money to carry out this work. If not, it will not be spent.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister is not frank with the committee. Surely these people came to the -government in order to induce them to put this $25,000 in the estimates. If they had a proposition to make to the government, either verbally or in writing, it should have been communicated to this committee. It is only fair we should know what the proposition is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not state it half as well as the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has stated it to-day. I am sure he grasped it thoroughly. My hon. friend from Mr. COCHRANE
Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) has explained in a general way the arrangement that is proposed to be made.


Andrew B. Ingram: I may be thick headed enough not to understand it, and I do not believe that any lion, member on this side of the House can understand what the government anticipates in the shape of an expenditure for the dredging of this harbour. What obligation does the government undertake if we vote this $25,000, and what expenditure does the hon. minister anticipate that the government will be liable to make if this arrangement is carried out ? The hon. member -for Cape Breton says that an arrangement has been entered into between these parties.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) has misunderstood me. I did not say there was an arrangement entered into between the Dominion Coal Company and the government. What I did say was that the Dominion Coal Company had submitted a proposition to the town council of Glace Bay. That proposition, as embodied in a letter written by the general manager of the Dominion Coal Company, the hon. gentleman himself read a few moments ago. The hon. gentleman will find that the substance of the proposition is that the Dominion Coal Company propose to do certain work, provided the Dominion government make a grant of $25,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that an answer to the question I asked, if these people were satisfied with what the government were doing?


Alexander Johnston: They are perfectly satisfied. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Dominion government carry out the proposal embodied in the letter of the Dominion Coal Company, the overwhelming majority of the people interested would be perfectly satisfied that the government had done their duty. As far as I am concerned, I feel that I can speak for the mayor of Glace Bay and for others in the council, when I say that they will take every possible means in their power to have secured to the people of Glace Bay the same rights in respect to this harbour as if the property were entirely theirs. That is my own position, it is the position of my colleagues and the position of the mayor of Glace Bay and those associated with him in this matter.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I do not understand that the company have an exclusive right to the harbour at all.


Alexander Johnston: They own it. They constructed it.


John Graham Haggart: They cannot own it. Even if it were an artificial harbour, the moment they construct it it is dedicated to the public. The public have a right to pay for the user of it a fair remuneration.

No company can erect a harbour on the sea coast and have it exclusively for their own purposes. They could no more do that than they could have a navigable river exclusively for their own purposes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that they procured these rights before confederation, but whether it was before or since, they could have procured these rights from the Crown at the time, whether by provincial or Dominion legislation. That is the position of affairs.


John Graham Haggart: It could only be by Act of parliament. I do not understand how the provincial government would have the power to give over a harbour and the exclusive rights to it to an individual.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is quite right as far as navigable waters are concerned. There has been a decision that the Crown cannot grant any right that will interfere with navigation without the authority of un Act of parliament. It may be that there was in this instance such an Act of Nova Scotia, perhaps, before confederation. I do not know anything about that, but I understand that the company claims to have exclusive rights in that harbour, because they have practically made the harbour themselves. What I was insisting upon when an item in connection with this work was up for discussion was that the government, after spending $25,000, should be the owner -of the wharf. Further than that, I say that absolute rights should be conceded to the public in respect to this harbour.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was in view of the discussion between my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that I undertook to bring down this vote, and it, was with the intention of carrying -out the arrangement based upon the remarks made at that time.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is a question that must have been considered for some time, and yet we are now in the position that we have this supplementary estimate brought down asking for this increased sum of money. I have complained all along that one of the abuses that has been permitted In this House is that the government come down and ask for a sum to be placed in the estimates without informing parliament what the proposition is and what obligation the expenditure of the money will impose upon the government. The time of this House has been taken up session after session with the consideration of such votes as this. I had hoped at the early part of the session, when the hon. minister assured us that if any new work was to be undertaken, tfor which a large sum of money was to be asked, he would have full and ample Information laid before the House showing
the purpose to which the money was to be devoted. We are now told that unless there is a satisfactory arrangement entered into the money will not be spent. Lest this work should turn out a sink-hole for the expenditure of public money, it is time that we should pause before we proceed with it any further. Let us have the information, let us know what the probable cost of dredging this harbour is going to be. The government must agree to the arrangement before they can meet the views of the coal company, because the coal company say that the government must dredge out the harbour. They say that they are willing to dredge out between the piers inside the harbour. Before entering into an arrangement of that kind, we should know how much it would cost. It may require that a sum of money shall be expended every year upon the dredging of that harbour, or it may be that it will only be necessary to dredge the harbour once in two or five years. But if it is necessary that the dredging shall be done year after year, the money of the country will be wasted.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister if any of the $10,000 vote of last year has been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Richard Blain: And this vote is for $15,000 more, making a total of $25,000. I understand the hon. gentleman who represents the county to say that a certain letter was written by this coal company to the municipal authorities of the district. May I ask him if a similar letter was addressed to the government ?


Alexander Johnston: This communication, addressed by the Dominion Coal! Company to the authorities of Glace Bay, was forwarded to me accompanied by a resolution of the town council, endorsing the proposition: and these communications I sent to the Department of Public Works.


Richard Blain: Do we understand that this $25,000 will not be expended unless the coal company carries out what is contained in, that letter.


Alexander Johnston: Certainly.


Richard Blain: It seems to me that there should be a direct communication from the company to the government, and that the minister should submit to us that communication, so that the committee might have a fair understanding of what agreement was likely to be entered into. This expenditure may be in the interests of the people, but it is an unbusinesslike proposition for a private member to state to the committee that he received the correspondence on which this vote is based. Are we to understand that whenever a private company wants an expenditure by the government, whether it be

legitimate or not, it is to communicate with the representative of the county and not with the government direct ? Surely that is not going to be the policy of the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The great majority of these resolutions and representations made by municipal bodies throughout the Dominion come through the member of parliament, no matter on what side of the House he is. I think it is well that such should be the case. 1 do not see anything wrong about it.


Richard Blain: I can understand that if a municipal body asks for an expenditure in the public interest, it should send that representation through the member, but when a private company asks for an appropriation, it is a different thing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The company is not asking for any appropriation here, or any favours. It is the people of the locality who want this done.


Richard Blain: I do not understand it that way, and the committee does not either.


Alexander Johnston: The committee does.


Richard Blain: The committee does not. The hon. gentleman may have it in his mind, but if so he has not been able to express it to the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the leader of the opposition made it clear to every gentleman in this House what was the object of this expenditure.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Public Works says that it is the usual custom for a private member to hand these documents to the government?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) criticised the municipality for sending this communication to the member for the county, and I said that in my experience that was the usual custom.


Andrew B. Ingram: What does the member do with the communication ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I should think it would be his duty to forward it to the department, as my hon. friend did in this case. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) has often done so himself.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister state what reply was made to this communication ? I suppose that as a matter of courtesy, some reply would be made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The substance of the reply was that the matter would receive consideration.


Andrew B. Ingram: And that is all the information that the department has to justify it in placing this $25,000 in the estimates.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that this is a newfound practice with the minister? I can foresee that there is going to be a large sum of money expended on this harbour, rightly or wrongly, and I protest against the meagre information given to the House. It has been like pulling teeth to get the little information we have got. There seems to be something to conceal. If this is to be the course pursued, I can tell the government that they will not shorten the session in getting through these estimates. We have our rights and duties on this side of the House and we intend to perform them. We are not like some gentlemen on the other side who are ready to swallow everything holus-bolus. We are criticising in a much more gentlemanly fashion than did the Liberals when they sat in opposition, and I know that we have been found fault with because we are too mild in our criticism of the various expenditures that are submitted to parliament. I had great hopes of the present Minister of Public Works, and I trust that he will not persist in following the course he has pursued in regard to this item, but that he will retrieve his position and be more frank in giving us information. Surely an engineer was sent to-examine this place as to the probable cost, before tills item for $25,000 was inserted. If the Minister of Public Works thinks it wise to treat the House in this fashion, I would like to hear him say so.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: If the hon. gentleman-is anxious to know about the dredging of Glace Bay harbour, I may tell him that there is a good sound bottom right out to sea, but sand and gravel and sea-weed accumulates,, and that harbour has to be dredged perhaps once in three years, or perhaps once in 15 or 20 years. The outside cost would be from $1,000 to $3,000 whenever the operation has to be repeated.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was that the information the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) gave to the government to induce them to put this $25,000 in the estimates ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: I presume it met with the approval of the engineer of the department, who. I suppose, knows this particular harbour ?


Mr. KENDALL  .@: Even if the repairs to the harbour and the additional equipment which we expect to have made were not asked for and were not provided, in all probability my colleague and myself would have asked the government to send a dredge there, in order to make ample provision for the small schooners that now frequent the harbour.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that this $25,000 is to be expended for dredging ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: None of it.


Mr BLAIN.: Then it seems a little difficult to understand. The Finance Minister last year said that Glace Bay had been abandoned, for the reason that there was insufficient water to carry on the trade. The hon. gentleman who represents the county says no portion of this money is to he expended for dredging.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I presume so. I am not the responsible minister.


Richard Blain: Whether that be true or not, how does the hon. minister expect vessels to get in now when they could not get in last year ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Large vessels cannot get in now, but small ones can.


Richard Blain: When the $10,000 was asked for last year, the Minister of Public Works said :
We will build about 250 feet of breakwater for this amount.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: That should lie breastwork, not breakwater.


Richard Blain: What is the difference V Does the minister propose to use any portion of the $25,000 to construct this 250 feet of breakwateir, or is there a change of policy now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think there is any intention of using any part of this money, except in accordance with the explanation which I have given to the committee.


Richard Blain: Mr. Chairman, you cannot but feel that the opposition have some duties here. The Minister of Public Works, last year, comes forward and says :	Here
is an important work, for which we want you to appropriate $10,000. The money was voted but not expended, and the present Minister of Public Works comes forward and says :	We want that $10,000 and $15,000
more, and he says : We do not propose to construct the 250 feet of breakwater at all. There is a change of policy. This is one of the reasons why the opposition are compelled to criticise these items a little more fully than would otherwise be necessary- because the government come forward hastily asking for appropriations of this kind without sufficient information.


Andrew B. Ingram: You had better let this item stand, and perhaps at eight o'clock the minister can have the information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have answered as far as I can every possible question, and have brought down^ all the information it is possible to obtain. That lias been acknowledged and endorsed by the hon. leader of the opposition. If there is anything that the hon. gentleman will ask me to bring down, I will be only too glad to bring it; but the item must be considered and disposed of some time.


Andrew B. Ingram: If there is a breakwater there, surely the government will do something ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the use of the hon. gentleman making statements which he knows are not correct ? That may have been a policy thought of at the time.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No, it is a printer's mistake. The word should be ' breastwork,' not ' breakwater.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Are they not the same thing ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No, no. A breastwork is to keep back the land.
Mr. INGRAM, i understand that the government are going to abandon the work that was spoken of last year. Hon. gentlemen do not feel inclined to answer the question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already told the hon. gentleman that if there was any such proposition, it has been abandoned.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not so understand the hon. gentleman. That is definite.
Grand Narrows-extension to wharf, $3,100.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for extending the n'overnment wharf a further distance of 57 feet. This is the total amount intended to be expended on this work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are there any buildings or storehouses on these docks ? If so, are they rented, and what is the amount of the rent ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. There are no buildings on this wharf.
Georgeville wharf-extension, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for the extension of the wharf 50 feet in length and 2o feet in width. The total cost of the work is estimated at $4,000. It is in the county of Antigonish.


Mr GOURLEY.: I want to ask if the work at Five Islands has been c mmenced yet, or do you propose to do it this fall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The intention was to have the work started immediately after the passing of the estimates.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It should be done this fall, because in the spring it would not be possible to get at it early enough.
Hall's harbour-improvsments, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county. The total cost is $4,600. It is for a breakwater.

Indian harbour-wharf, $1,200.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the construction of a small wharf.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will there be any revenue ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is a small landing for the fishermen.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any wharfinger there ?


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that on these small landings there is no wharfinger and no charges. They are kept in the Department of Public Works and not transferred to the Marine depart-rnent. There are no expenses except for repairs.
At six o clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.


Edward Hackett: What is the depth of the harbour ?


Mr. MCLENNAN.: In some parts of it there is a depth of from 25 to 30 feet. Originally it was a very large pond and this company which was opening the mines there diedged it out. They secured a dredge themselves, dredged the pond to a considerable depth, had the neck of land separating this pond from the waters of the gulf cut out and built breastworks on both sides of this opening so that the harbour is rather a commodious one now, except that these breastworks must be extended by addin" piers to them in order to prevent the entrance to the harbour from filling in owing to the shifting of the sand.


Edward Hackett: How far is it. from Broad Cove to Canso ?


Angus McLennan: About fifty miles.
Iona-extension to harbour, $5,000.
Committee resumed at eight; o'clock.
Inverness (Broad Cove) Mines harbour-r* pairs to harbour works, $10,000.


Angus McLennan: 
Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This .$5,000 is to make provision for the extension of the wharf at Iona, adding at the outer end of the wharf an extension 157* feet long. The total cost is estimated by the chief engineer of the department at $10,000.


Richard Blain: A contract was let for this last year.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think a contract was let. I think this is the first vote and this appropriation of $5,000 is taken now so that the contract might be let and the timber and stone taken out during the winter.


Richard Blain: There was something voted for this last year. The minister then said that a contract was let at $7,840. Was that contract abandoned ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that I was under a wrong impression. I thought the Dominion had spent no money on that property before, that there was simply the wharf which was built there by the government of Nova Scotia before confederation. The chief engineer now tells me that $<3,000 was voted by the Dominion and that is the vote to which my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) refers.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman say whether that contract was completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that contract was completed last year. There has been expended on this work, including $3,000 in the main estimates $15 -925.60. The estimated cost of the completion of the work is $3,065.
$1^00iaeStOne'S Cove-rePairs t0 breakwater,
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS This is in the county of Antigonisb. 'Phis breakwater sustained considerable damage

by storm. The wharf there cost $14,000 or $15,000.


Edward Hackett: Is this breakwater built for the purpose of deepening the channel in the harbour, or is it on the outside beach?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This was originally built, I think, only as a harbour of refuge.
L'Ardoise-extension of breakwater up to shore (revote, $6,000), $18,000.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Richmond county, and the work is undertaken in accordance with the report of the engineer. It is proposed to build an extension 1,190 feet in length.


Edward Hackett: What is the meaning of the words ' up to shore ' ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was an isolated breakwater, and we are making a connection to the shore from the old block. This is in Richmond county. It will he let by contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has been spent, approximately ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $30,000 previous to this. The chief engineer expects this vote will complete the work.
McKay's Point-wharf, $6,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this a new work, and Will this amount complete it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the estimated cost to complete. It is in Victoria county.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any town there?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry the member for this county (Hon. Mr. Ross) is not able to be with us. There must be a place of some importance there, because I find that a steamer makes two trips a day to this place, with passengers and mail.
McNutt's Island beach protection-extension of, and repairs to work, $530.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for an extension, and for filling up the cribwork and making repairs. It is in the county of Shelburne and Queen's. It will be done by day work under the supervision of the local engineer.
Malignant Cove harbour-repairs to works, $600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Antigonish county. The original cost was $13,266.
Main a. Dieu-breakwater on west side of harbour (revote), $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: This is in Cape Breton county. The extension will be 320 feet long. This is a work on which nearly $150,000 has been spent in the
past. The chief engineer informs me that he has no doubt this $2,000 will complete the repairs.
Margaretville-general repairs to breakwater, $500.


Richard Blain: Then the proposition is to extend it further ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Yes, 157i feet.


Richard Blain: Is the population in this section increasing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is an increasing trade there, in general merchandise.


Edward Hackett: Is this in Cape Breton county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, in Victoria county where the bridge crosses.
Ketch harbour-dredging entrance channel, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This harbour is in Halifax county. The vote is for the removal of sand in order to allow boats to get in.
Kingsport-reconstruction of pier, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county, Nova Scotia, and is to supplement a vote of $3,000 in the main estimates.


Edward Hackett: Will the hon. minister kindly explain the vote for Margaretville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: This is in Annapolis county. This is for miscellaneous repairs to the pier. This pier cost over $38,000.
Middle river-Shear dam, $2,400.


William Humphrey Bennett: AA'hat county is this in 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Victoria county. This is to make provision for the construction of a pile brush and shear dam on Middle river, 518 feet in length by 15 feet in width.


Richard Blain: Is this a new work ?
The A1INISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS. A new work. The total cost is estimated at $2,400.


Edward Hackett: AVliat is the purpose of this shear-dam ?
The AlINISTElt. OF PUBLIC AVORKS. This is to keep accumulations from going into the mouth of the river.


Richard Blain: AVas there any petition from this section of the country asking for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer's report does not say that there was a petition but he says that representations were made by the inhabitants.

Malagawateh-improvements of boat channel, $300.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Inverness county.
Musquodoboit harbour-to complete approach to wharf, $300.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Halifax county and it is to complete the work that is going on there. The total estimated cost is $5,800.
Melbourne wharf-improvements, $900.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Where is Melbourne wharf V


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: It is in Yarmouth county.


Richard Blain: What is the engineer's report on this Melbourne wharf V


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: This is on the east side of the estuary of the river. A wharf is to be built 100 feet long and 20 feet wide with a return 20 x 20 feet so as to give a length of 40 feet to the outer edge. The depth of water at spring tide is 9 feet. This is being done on the representations of the people of Melbourne.


Richard Blain: Was there a petition from that county '!


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, a petition was received on February 28tli from the residents of Melbourne.
Necum Teuch-(revote, $1,200), $2,000.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Where is that V


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: In Halifax county. This is to complete a work which will cost $5,800.
North Gut, St. Ann's-wharf at Morrison's point, $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this a new work and what will be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is a new work and the total cost is estimated at $2,800.


William Humphrey Bennett: What county V
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Victoria county.


Richard Blain: Is this by petition or through the member ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: A petition was received from Mr. J. L. Bethune who was at one time a member of this House and others.
North river, St. Ann-repairs to wharf, $900.


Richard Blain: What county is that in ?


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: Victoria county.


Richard Blain: Did all these wharfs give out at once ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. These are repairs.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are all these docks given to Victoria in compensation for losing a member ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so.


William Humphrey Bennett: There seems to be a kind of squaring away.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The great majority of these small votes are simply made on the report of the local engineer that these improvements and repairs are necessary.


Edward Hackett: Will the hon. minister explain the difference between the item for North Gut, St. Ann's, and North river, St. Ann's ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: These works are eight or ten miles apart.
Noel wharf-repairs, $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we still in Victoria county V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we have struck Hants county. This is to complete this work costing altogther $3,345.


Richard Blain: 
The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: No, this was done under the supervision of the local engineer. This work cost originally $27,000 and the repairs and improvements which have been put upon it require an expenditure of $3,345. This is to complete the work.


Richard Blain: This work has been completed 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Antigonish.


Edward Hackett: What is being done there V


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a crib work forming a harbour at this place.
Oyster pond-beach protection, spur at outer end, $450.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Guysboro county.


Edward Hackett: What is the meaning of the words ' spur at outer end ' ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They mean that this is an extension at the outer end of this protection work.

Poirierville (lower D'Ecousse) wharf-revote), $1,500.


Tiie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete a work under contract.


Richard Blain: What was the contract price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was $4,388 and its contingencies $612, making $5,000.
Prospect wharf, $1,000.


Richard Blain: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Halifax county. It seems to be a race now between Halifax county and Victoria county, and some one might calculate which is ahead. This vote, like others we have passed, is to complete a work that had been under contract.
Pleasant Bay-boat harbour, $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this Pleasant Bay any where near Prospect wharf 1


Angus McLennan: This is for a boat harbour for the fishermen of Pleasant Bay. There are thirty-five of forty families in that settlement, and it is separated from the rest of the community by twenty-five miles of dense forest. There is no landing place except what will be afforded them by this wharf.
5Ir. HACKETT. How many boats and men are employed in the fishery at Pleasant bay ?


Angus McLennan: They are all fishermen, and almost each family has a boat. They fish in small boats and dories because they could not pull large boats upon the beach. They fish salmon and lobsters, and mackerel in the fall.
Parrsborough-landing pier, $750.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Cumberland county.
Pugwash wharf, repairs, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Cumberland county.
Picketts pier, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county.
Pictou light beach, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Pictou county ; this is the total estimated cost.
Pembroke breakwater, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the construction of a breakwater to provide shelter for the fishermen's boats and vessels.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Hants county.
Porter's channel, to finish, $2,500.


Richard Blain: Where is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Halifax county.


Richard Blain: What was expended last year for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure up to June, 1903, was $17,480. This $2,500 is to complete the work.


Richard Blain: Last year there was a vote of $2,500 to complete the outlet, and the Minister of Public Works then stated as reported in ' Hansard.'
This work is going on for the last two years, and this is to complete it.
Is this a new story, or is it the same old story as last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know anything about the story of last year, but I am advised by the engineer that this will complete the work.


Richard Blain: What about the engineer's report last year ? Do I understand the minister to say that this vote will complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer informs me that this will complete the work. The total expenditure will be $20,000.
Port Hood-repairs, $1,500.
Port Hood harbour-closing of northern entrance with brush and stonework, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure on the Port Hood pier has been $61,855, and this $1,500 is asked by the local engineer for repairs. This is a large wharf which was taken over by the Dominion government from the provincial government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are two items for Port Hood and we had better consider them together.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Is this large vote for the closing of the northern entrance to connect the island with the mainland ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the proposition.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the object of all this expenditure ?
Mr. McLennan. The $1,500 is for the repairs of the government wharf inside the harbour. The harbour of Port Hood, some 50 or 60 years ago, was one of the best harbours in eastern Nova Scotia, and was the home of the American fishing fleet, when there was a treaty of reciprocity between the United States and Canada. On many occasions about 300 sail would take shelter in Port Hood harbour, coming in from the storms of the gulf of St. Lawrence. About

sixty or seventy years ago Smith's Island which is about a mile from the coast, was connected with the mainland by a narrow sandy beach, including a sheet of water about two miles long and a mile wide, constituting the harbour of Port Hood. At that time it was an excellent harbour of refuge. But this narrow beach was at first broken up slightly by the waves, and a small channel was formed through it, which has continued from that day to this, though the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence beating in through it every year since have made it considerably wider. During that time the government of Nova Scotia had this wharf, upon which repairs are now to be made, built inside the harbour. At the time of confederation the Dominion government took over the wharf and made repairs and extensions to it. But owing to the breach in the beach to which I have referred, the sand began to pour in along the coast and right up against the government wharf, rendering a great portion of the harbour useless. I may say that where about sixty years ago the admiralty chart showed forty or forty-five feet of water in Port Hood harbour, there is not to-day over six or seven feet. That portion of the harbour which is exposed to the northwest wind is especially filling up badly with sand, Some years ago a coal mining company took hold of the coal areas just at the entrance to this harbour, within 300 or 400 yards of the water's edge. For about twenty years very little was done in developing this property. But about six or seven years ago, certain gentlemen from the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, took hold of this coal property, and built a shipping pier along the southern portion of this harbour, at an expense to the company of about $60,000. But it was found by experience that year after year, the northern entrance being open, the sand was pouring in and was not only injuring the shipping facilities around the government wharf, but was also reaching the company's pier at the southern entrance to the harbour. This company, then, in common with the public, are pressing upon the government the importance of having this northern entrance closed, if not altogether, at least partially in the meantime, and a sufficiently long pier built from the shore to keep out the sand, for a. number of years at least. It is supposed by the local engineer, and it is also the opinion of the chief engineer, that as the pier is extended out the sand will bank up against it, and thus make it perfectly safe to "have this entrance closed with work composed of brushwood and stone. I may say that the importance of this harbour was considered to be so great in the year 1878 that Sir Charles Tupper spoke of it in this House in the following words :
Mr. Tupper said he would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Public Works if the government had arrived at any conclusion with Mr. Mclennan.
reference to a work of considerable importance in Nova Scotia, which had been under the consideration of the late government, and which had been brought to the notice of this government from time to time. He referred to the closing of the Port Hood harbour, Cape Breton.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this $20,000 all that will be required to make the obstruction to which the hon. gentleman has referred ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. To close this gap would be a very expensive work. As my hon. friend lias said, this has grown to be a very important point. I will read a short extract from a report of the collector of customs there :
During the month of July, 1902, sixty-six sailing vessels reported inwards at this port. Forty-one of them subsequently reported outwards laden with coal from the Port Hood colliery. In August, sixty sailing vessels reported inwards, fifty-five of which took coal outwards. In September, sixty-one sailing vessels reported inwards, forty-eight taking coal outwards, and in October, all of the same year, thirty-five reported inwards, twenty-eight taking coal outwards. During the same months of 1902, eighty-two steamers reported inwards. During the present month the following large steamers loaded coal here and reported outwards : Greetlands, for Three Rivers, Que., 1,400 tons coal ; Congal, for Portland, Me., U.S.A., 2,000 tons coal ; Polino, for Quebec, 900 tons coal ; Eros, for Halifax, 1,450 tons coal ; also fourteen sailing vessels taking coal.
So that my hon. friend will see that a very large trade is being done there. But I may say that the engineers have looked into this subject very carefully, and they recommend this work, costing some $20,000, which they feel will afford great protection and relief to the harbour. A permanent dam would cost some $300,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this intended as the first vote towards a permanent work ; or is it merely a temporary expedient, as the hon. member for Inverness suggests ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot speak for the future, but the present intention is to do exactly what we are proposing.' It may be more or less of an experiment, but the local engineers and the chief engineer think this work may obviate the necessity of the larger work. Of course, if the large work should have to be under taken, it will be necessary to ask for an appropriation for it, and to give full information with regard to it.


Angus McLennan: The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) is certainly mistaken if he thought I referred to this as a temporary work. I meant nothing of that kind. I meant that the work would be carried out piecemeal, and this would be a very fair beginning.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We are getting at the bottom of it now. What will a work of the

character proposed cost as compared with the more substantial work ?


Angus McLennan: If I remember rightly, the estimate of the engineer was $150,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this the first vote towards the $150,000 for this brush and timber work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the engineers consider that this work can be carried across the deep water, but they think it will afford great relief to the harbour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would prefer to assume my share of the responsibility of making a permanent work there at a cost of $300,000 rather than embark upon an expenditure that will run up to $150,000 and be only temporary in its character, requiring to be renewed perhaps in two or three years.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The experiment, if it is to be called such, is to cost $20,000. I stated most emphatically that in the future the work would have to be dealt with on its merits.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Port Hood is going to be a very important shipping port, and if the government are going to spend money there it ought to be spent intelligently. The best means should be taken to formulate a plan and then spend the money according to it. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have opened up large coal seams, from which they will ship enormous quantities of coal, and the work should be done thoroughly.


Angus McLennan: The engineer reported that the work could be easily carried out with brush and stone.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that the engineer reported that the work would cost $150,000 ?


Angus McLennan: The local engineer reported upon the various plans by which this work could be carried out. The cheapest was by brush and stone. Another plan was by crib-work and there was a third plan more expensive than either.


Richard Blain: This $20,000 is to be expended in the manner recommended by the engineer, as a part of the $150,000 ?
Mr. McLennan. Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: What are the prospects of trade at this point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend was not here when I read from the report of the collector of customs, showing the very large trade. In the month of May there were shipped in, steamers 5,650 tons of coal and fourteen sailing vessels besides were loaded at that port. A year ago in the month of August sixty vessels came into that port and fifty-five went: out.


Angus McLennan: I may say that one of the directors of that company is the Hon. George E. Foster, of Toronto, and if he did not consider it a prosperous concern, he would not have invested in it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We will have to foster that industry.
Port Greville-extension of breakwater and repairs, $12,750.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for repairs on account of damage done by storms. The work will have to be let by contract. This harbour is in the county of Cumberland.
Port Howe-wharf, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to be a reconstruction by raising the old pier thirty feet. The total cost will be $2,000. This port is in Cumberland county. The work will be done under the direction of the local engineer. It consists of adding thirty feet to the old pier.
Port Latour-breakwater, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Shelburne county.
Port George-repairs to main breakwater,
&e., $2,100.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Annapolis county.


Richard Blain: Was any money expended there last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I have not the amount.


Richard Blain: By contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Under the supervision of the engineer. It is just urgent repairs. These repairs, were so necessary that I gave instruction to go on with them at once to prevent the whole work being destroyed.


Richard Blain: There was an item last year of $2,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was expended.
Port au Pique-wharf, $2,500.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: This work should be proceeded with promptly, because unless done in the fall it will be too late. You cannot get the work done in time in the spring to make it available at the season of the year when the people want it. I am very glad this item is in the estimates. I have been urging on the minister ever since I came here, to give us this work. We have forty or fifty miles of coast without a harbour, so that our people are compelled, in treacherous weather, to make for land without the slightest protection from being cast on the rocks. We want from ten to fifteen wharfs along that shore in the county of Colchester, and I hope the government will regard this

simply as a beginning. This work should be proceeded with at once in order that it may be completed in the winter in time for the spring navigation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that this item would not have been placed in the estimates had it not been that it was necessary that instructions should be given for the work to go on at once.
Port Maitland-extension of buttress on seaward side western breakwater shorewards, $1 ,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tliis is in Yarmouth county ; we are building 21,600 cubic feet of cribwork towards the shore.
Scott's Bay-extension of breakwater, &c.,


Tile MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county, and is for the carrying out of desirable improvements in the harbour of Scott's Bay, in accordance with the estimates of the engineer. There is to be an extension of the south breakwater, 50 feet, $1,300 ; raising south breakwater 3 feet, $200 ; extension of north breakwater, $400 ; and contingencies, $100. making altogether $2,000, the total cost of the improvement.
Swim's Point wharf-extension of, &c., $1,600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the extension of some works in Shelburne county.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it necessary to extend the wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To afford accommodation for the south shore steamships. This is a new service that lias been established there, and the department is doing this so that these steamships can land at this wharf.


Richard Blain: Is any of this money being expended on private property, or is the property generally owned by the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far ns the information I received from the chief engineer of the department goes, none of these appropriations are being spent on private property. In any case where sucli property was not vested in the Crown,
I have given instructions that it should be acquired before any appropriation was made. As I have said, the number of items is very large, but a great many of these are for urgent repairs to protect our own property. With a very few exceptions, no new works are being undertaken that are not completed by the amount here appropriated. Thus, although the amount is something like $300,000, we are not committing the country to any large undertaking, except two or three works that cannot be completed this year, as I have already explained.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: My complaint is that all your votes are trifling. I want you to know that we in Nova Scotia are not going to put up with these little trifling votes of $300. You are not dealing with the public service of Nova Scotia in a liberal and decent way, especially in regard to harbours. The whole of Nova Scotia is practically a harbour ; the people are scattered around on the coasts in little villages, and the only means of communication with Halifax and other cities in summer is by boat, and therefore these small harbours are necessary. Otherwise, the fishermen would run the risk of having their boats thrown on the rocks without any protection. My charge is that you do not grasp the situation at all. The country in the early days got into the way of dealing with little dribblets in the maritime provinces, but henceforth we are not going to put up with that treatment, but will demand liberal and just expenditures. There are a number of items, but they aggregate only $300,000 when they should be neai'er $3,000,000.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Address your remarks to the opposition.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am addressing the government. They should find out that every item is for some beneficial purpose. I am charging them, as the government of the country, responsible for dealing with this whole service, with doing so in a niggardly manner. I want to enter my protest against the niggardly way in which the whole public service in respect to wharfs in Nova Scotia is being dealt with.


Richard Blain: Did I- understand the minister to say that the money is not being expended on private property in any of these cases ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is my information. Some cases of that kind came under my notice, and before I recommended an appropriation I asked that the proper .steps be taken by the Justice Department to vest the property in the Crown.


Robert Laird Borden: In any cases where money was being expended on property which was not the property of the Crown, would it not be the duty of the minister to inform the House of that fact ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fully agree with that statement, and, as I have said, in the one or two cases of the kind that has occurred I insisted that the property should be vested in the Crown.


Richard Blain: What cases were these ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One is the case where $25,000 were spent on property which was vested in the Dominion Coal Company, and the other case, which has slipped my memory, was dealt with yesterday.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 

Skinner's Cove-boat channel and protective works, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Digby county, and the total cost of the work is estimated at $10,500.
Sydney quarantine station-extension of, and repairs to wharf, $3,050.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is done at the request of the Quarantine Branch of the Agriculture Department.
Summerville wharf-addition, $1,600.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it necessary to make the addition ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Hants county. The wharf is now 300 feet long and 9 feet wide. The engineer reports that by adding a block we will render it safe for the steamer which calls regularly at this wharf. The water at present is not deep enough.
Spry Bay-wharf, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Halifax county and is a new work.


Richard Blain: Will the minister say how much the property cost, and when it was transferred to the Crown ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We do not anticipate that we will have to pay anything for the site.
Tenecape-breakwater, $7,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Hants county.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain that ? It is a pretty- large item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is called for by the engineer in a report of January 9, 1902. It is at the mouth of the Tenecape river. It will reach a depth of twenty-four and a half feet at high water in ordinary spring tide. The proposed structure is to be 200 feet in length. The nearest railway station is thirteen miles away. Most of the trading is done by water, tile nearest wharf being six miles distant. Tlie proposed breakwater will give ample protection to shipping, and afford suitable facilities for landing. It serves the purpose of a wharf as well as a breakwater. The work will be let by contract.
Victoria beach-wharf, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a somewhat expensive work. The engineer reports that it is to construct a deep water pier on the north side of the Annapolis basin, two miles across Digby Gut. It extends from the shore in a southerly direction, a distance of 734 feet. It is primarily intended to serve the purpose of a railway terminal and shipping pier, and also for schooners and small craft. I do not think the railway is altogether completed, but it will be completed during the present season. The total cost of the work is estimated to be $74,000.


Mr. COPP.: I would ask the minister if this work is to be commenced before the completion of the railway. I am very doubtful if the railway will ever be built, and if built, I am still more doubtful whether it will ever be operated. I think it would be wise for the government to wait until the road is 'built. The road has not been commenced yet from Bridgetown to Victoria Beach, a distance of 30 miles.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am somewhat of the opinion of my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Copp). I doubt very much if the railway will ever be built, and I think the Minister of Public Works would be acting unwisely were lie to expend this immense amount of money in the construction of a public pier before he is very certain that the railway will be built beyond this point.


Hance James Logan: I am sorry that I cannot agree with either my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Copp) or my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. ICaulbach). This pier will be built at the terminus, not of a road 30 miles long, but at the terminus of a system of railways operated by the firm of Mackenzie & Mann In the province of Nova Scotia. They are building a road from Yarmouth to Halifax along the south shore, and have purchased what is known as the Nova Scotia Central Railway. They have also purchased this property known as the Victoria Beach Railway, so when this road is built to Victoria Beach, it will be one of the termini of their system of railways in the province of Nova Scotia. I do not think myself there is any question but that this road will be built, and if built it will be necessary to build this wharf and pier, not only for the purpose of the railway but for the purpose of the general public.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not wish to speak disparagingly of the road, but I have an opinion, judging from the geography of that portion of the province, that a road may be built from Middleton down to Granville, opposite the town of Annapolis. When they reach that, I think they will hesitate before they go down along the basin to Victoria Beach. For that reason I think it would be wisdom on the part of the government not to build the pier until they decide definitely whether that railway will ever be built.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made to me that there was no doubt about this railway being completed almost immediately. I have no reason to think that there ever was any doubt about the parties being able to complete that work. I understand the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) states now the road is in the hands of a very strong company who are building several hundred miles of railway, and that it is their in-

tention to complete this work at once. But having these statements before me I shall certainly be careful before spending the money. Representations have been made to me that the road is necessary for the development of the country and for the shipping, and I have put this allowance in the estimates, but the money will not be spent before I am satisfied beyond doubt that this road will be completed.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I have no doubt in regard to the ability of Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann to build the road, but I have doubt as to whether they will build the road from Granville opposite Annapolis to Victoria beach.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Victoria beach was the objective point of the original western railway construction in Nova Scotia. The original construction was proposed from Halifax to Victoria beach. Later the road was diverted in another direction, but I think Victoria beach has always been in the minds of the people in that region as the objective point, so that it is really taking up what is a very old project. The road was in the hands of some gentlemen in Montreal of good standing and there is no reason to doubt that they would have carried it out but I was advised recently that they had made an arrangement for the sale of the road to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann by means of which arrangement the road runs down through Lunenburg.


Albert James Smith Copp: The road is already built from Lunenburg to Middleton, and this is an extension from Middleton to Victoria beach.
I do not want to be understood as opposing this grant, but I have a doubt whether the road will ever be built from Bridgetown to Victoria beach, and I think it would be wise for the hon. minister to satisfy himself as to whether the road will be built before this breakwater is commenced.


Robert Laird Borden: How far is Victoria beach from Annapolis ?


Albert James Smith Copp: Seventeen miles down the Granville shore.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is on the Annapolis basin.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: 
Robert Laird Borden: What is the intention in regard to the wharf when it is Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
constructed ? Is it to be used simply in connection with the railway or for other purposes ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be a government wharf under the direction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and will be for shipping and for the use of the general public.


Robert Laird Borden: Will you have trains running down on it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the intention.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Trains run on the wharf at Digby now, but it is still a government wharf.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that if the road is not constructed the hon. minister will not go on with the wharf ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I have said most distinctly that unless I was perfectly satisfied of the representations made to me that I would not feel warranted in going on with that work. I will inquire and be satisfied beyond doubt as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the road in course of construction ?


Albert James Smith Copp: Not from Bridgetown down. It is between Bridgetown and Sliddleton only.
Wallace harbour-improvements and repairs, $4,000.
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC 5VORKS. This is in Cumberland county. These are two extensions of the ferry landings at Wallace harbour, to cost $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose this work will be done under the supervision of the engineer ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes.
Wentworth-wharf, $3,500.
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is in Hants county. This is to make provision for the construction of a crib-work wharfing 120 feet long by 20 feet wide. The total cost is estimated to be $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a new work ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it to be constructed by tender or how ?
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is a new work and I would be in favour of letting it by tender.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you so strongly in favour of it that you will do it in that way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am so strongly In favour of it that I will do it in that way unless the engineer reports to me any reason why it should not be done in that way. If it were merely repair work there might be some justification for not doing it by contract, but where it Is a new work it is very much more satisfactory to me at all events to do it by contract.
tend it in order that the harbour may not be stopped up by sand which accumulates there at present. This work will give more force to the current.
Yarmouth bar-repairs, &c., $1,500.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Has the minister any idea of what the harbour of Yarmouth has cost for dredging and so forth.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: While referring to this item, I would ask the hon. minister if he is aware that the Tancook breakwater, which was repaired some two years ago, but which was very imperfectly repaired, requires attention ? I do not see any vote for it. It is sadly in need of repair in consequence of the work being imperfectly done. The piles placed there were too short and the ice and tide have lifted the breakwater up and destroyed it to such an extent that it is all but useless. I want to know why there has been no vote in the estimates for this breakwater.
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The matter was not brought to my notice and the chief engineer says he has had no report from the local engineer. He has taken a memorandum and will make inquiry to-morrow.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Representations were made, I am sure of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure according to the memo, of the chief engineer is $117,476.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It must be more than that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would not include the dredging. As I did not expect the question to be asked. I cannot speak with certainty.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The dredging has been going on from year to year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know that there are a great many demands for dredging. It is hoped that we may be able to get a dredge which will not only do the work in Yarmouth, but In other places in Nova Scotia.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Lunenburg, I suppose.
Beach Point, P.E.I.-widening boat channel through bar, $900.
West Bay-wharf (revote, $2,000), $3,300. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. The total estimated cost of this work is $3,300.


Robert Laird Borden: What county is this in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Richmond county.


Edward Hackett: What is the explanation of this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be applied to widening aud deepening the channel. There is a good basin inside, affording a shelter for boats, but it cannot be reached at low water without inconvenience and loss of time. The total cost of the work is nine hundred dollars odd.
IVest Arichat-breakwater, $700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Richmond county, and it is for general repairs.
Wedge Point-extension of breakwater, $4,500. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is in Yarmouth county. The estimated cost is $4,500.
Wolfville-wharf repairs, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county.
W'hite's Cove-improvements to breakwater, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Digby county.
West Chezzetcook-breakwater, repairs, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Halifax county.


Richard Blain: Will this complete the work ?


William Roche: The present breakwater is ineffective, and this is to ex-414


Edward Hackett: What depth of water will there be when this is completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five feet at low water.


Edward Hackett: How wide will the channel be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twenty-eight feet.
Canoe Cove-breakwater, repairs, &c., $500.


Edward Hackett: How does it come that this breakwater, which was only completed last year, requires repairs now ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There were $3,000 spent on it last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is very hard for me to explain why these breakwaters require so much repairs to keep them up. These are examined by the engineer and on the report that he makes, the department prepares these estimates. Probably it would be on account of the heavy weather and storms.



Mr. I-IACKETT. What part requires repairs ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. The first section of 100 feet has been badly damaged.


Edward Hackett: Carried away by the storms ?


Tile MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it has all been carried away.
Cape Traverse or Carleton Head-survey. $3,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Would the minister explain what has been done in regard to this 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the House and out of it, many representations have been made to the department in regard to the winter service there, and I thought it would be wise to take a small vote to have a survey made. The report of that survey must be of service to the country. I ask for this vote in order to have a survey made by some competent officer.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There was a survey made there last winter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who made that survey ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Mr. Egan, the resident engineer, and he had several assistants. It is about time that report was before the House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A report was made, but the chief engineer of the department was not altogether satisfied with the information furnished, and he thought there should be some further evidence from an expert with regard to this matter, before any expenditure was undertaken. The expenditure will be very large and the hon. gentleman representing the province will admit that it is important that we should have all the information that can be obtained with regard to this matter. I am personally in favour of doing something in the direction of meeting the wishes of the people of Prince Edward Island for a better service but with the difference of opinion that exists, the minister is at a loss to know what to recommend. I am sure the committee will agree, that it would be money well spent to gather whatever information can be obtained by an expert.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am pleased to hear the remarks of the minister, but I would remind him that a survey was made there in 1894. The then chief engineer of the department resident at St. John made a very satisfactory report on a pier for Carleton Point. The report is a lengthy one, and the engineer recommends in the strongest language possible the establishment of a pier at Carleton Point for the winter service.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does my hon. friend remember what the estimated cost of that work would be ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was somewhat in the neighbourhood of a million dollars I believe. It is not the cost we are talking about now, but the desirability of fulfilling the terms of union by giving us a pier at Carleton Point for the winter service. I do not want to go into the history of Prince Edward Island navigation just now, but I may say that it has been demonstrated, that Carleton Point is the best place to which the boats can ply during the winter. It is now ten years since the first survey was made when the engineer of the government recommended that a pier should be built there, and it is too bad that we should have to wait so long for that report to be carried out. The minister says that the survey of last year was not suitable, and now we are to have a third survey.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say the survey was not suitable, but I do say that a difference of opinion exists, and the department wishes further information.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: At all events we have had to wait nine years for the government to fulfil the terms of union by establishing a pier at this point, and now we do not know how much longer we shall have to wait. I trust that the hon. Minister of Public Works who I know is desirous of giving the islandi the best facilities for winter transportation, will take this matter thoroughly in hand and not lot it drop until he finds that this is the proper place, and has the work pushed forward with speed..


Edward Hackett: I simply desire to emphasize the remarks made by the hon. member for East Prince. The hon. Minister of Public Works will remember that in the early part of this session, some five or six months ago, we waited upon him in his office and presented him with a petition sign-< ed by a large number of the people in all parts of Prince Edward Island, asking for the construction of a pier at Carleton Point, in order that the terms of confederation might be carried out, and that communication might be maintained between the island and the mainland during the winter season. The hon. minister received us very kindly, as he always does, and assured us that he would give the matter his best consideration. Now, the only consideration he gave us is to place $3,000 in the supplementary estimates to pay the cost of the survey carried on during last winter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. It is all very well to blame the minister, but my hon. friend knows that I gave this matter a good deal of attention. There was so much difference of opinion between the engi-

ueers and the people of the locality that I am taking this vote in order to try to get Information which we have not now in the department.


Edward Hackett: I remember that when I crossed from Cape Traverse to Cape Tor-mentine in the month of March last, Mr. Higgins was on the ice with two or three assistants making a survey. Has his report reached the department, and if so, what is the result of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the report has been received.


Edward Hackett: And what does he estimate the cost of this work at ? The very life of the province depends on its means of communication with the outside world, and we want to be frank and plain with each other in this connection.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cost estimated by Mr. Higgins is something like $1,300,000 for building a pier at Carleton Head.


Edward Hackett: I would ask the minister why he does not place an amount in the estimates for the construction of this pier ? Does he think that too large an amount to expend for the purpose of maintaining communication with the province of Prince Edward Island ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know that I do. If I had as much trouble proportionately to put it through as I have to put through a total of $300,000 for the maritime provinces, somebody else would probably think it too much. However, speaking seriously, my hon. friend will admit that if a better plan can be got at less cost, there'is no reason why I should not get it; and if the engineer tells me that this work can be done on a different plan at less cost, I think I am justified in spending a little money to make inquiry into it.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman speaks about $300,000 for the maritime provinces. What is he doing for Prince Edward Island ? Simply giving $31,000 for harbours and rivers. The total is $66,800, with revotes amounting to $35,000, making in all a new vote of $31,800 for the province of Prince Edward Island. He surely cannot say that we are delaying the committee very much when we insist on having more done than this. He is spending large sums of money in other provinces, and we must insist, as long as we are here representing the people of Prince Edward Island, on our rights being carried out. I trust that the hon. minister will see his way clear to bring down another supplementary estimate, in which we shall find the sum of $1,300,000 to build this pier at Carleton Point.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did the engineer recommend Carleton Point for the construction of this pier and breakwater ?
414J


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Instead of answering that question, I would prefer giving my hon. friend a copy of the engineer's report.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would be very much obliged if the minister would give us a copy of the report.


Edward Hackett: Will the minister kindly bring down the report and lay it on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I shall be pleased to do so.
Cove Head harbour-improvement of entrance channel, $1,900.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract, and this vote is to pay the balance due.
Higgin's shore-repairs' to pier, $1,000.


Edward Hackett: This is in the riding which I have the honour to represent, and on a previous occasion I showed the hon. minister that these repairs to' the shore pier are no good. Is it his intention to make further repairs, or to build a new pier at that place 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I dare say that the construction of a new pier might be more satisfactory; but our engineer reports that these repairs will make the pier very satisfactory.


Edward Hackett: We have already voted $1,000 in the main estimates for repairs to this pier, and I represented to the hon. minister on that occasion that they would be of no service at all. In the month of March last, previous to coming to Ottawa, I attended a meeting of the electors of that section, who agreed, almost unanimously, Liberals and Conservatives alike, that there would be no benefit whatever from spending money in repairs to the old pier, but that a new pier should be constructed about 100 yards east of the old one; and they forwarded a petition to the department to that effect. With the $1,000 voted in the main estimates and the $1,000 in the supplementary estimates. you could make a good start on a new pier, instead of throwing away money on the old pier.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the bon. gentlemen brought this matter to my attention before, and I asked! for a report from the engineer, and that report is the basis for this vote. I think miy! hon. friend had better allow the item to pass, and I will reconsider the matter and ask for a further report.


Edward Hackett: At the meeting I attended, Senator Yeo was present and he agreed with me. The Hon. James Richards, who is a member of the local executive, also attended that meeting and all agreed that there should be a new pier, and that

it would be a waste of money to spend anything more on the old pier.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 will have a further examination made.
Lewis Point pier, P.E.I.-repairs, $1,100.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in King's county.
New London harbour-improvement to entrance to Clifton and French river, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: According to the report of Mr. Simpson, engineer, the channel is obstructed by a bar, and since the dredging done in 1900, quite a change has taken place. The construction of a break-water dam will give sufficient depth of water.
North Cardigan-extension, $4,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What is wrong with the present pier ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The object of this is to get greater depth of water and furnish better shipping facilities.
Point Prim-wharf, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to be applied to the construction of a wharf 1,000 feet long and 20 feet wide,
0	feet deep at low water and 15 feet at high water. The cost will be $15,000.
Richmond Bay-reconstruction of wharf near Grand river ferry, $1,500.


Edward Hackett: Has this wharf fallen into decay or been neglected by the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for general repairs. The engineer reports that the works are required.


Edward Hackett: I would suggest that instead of reconstructing the wharf at Grand River ferry, the government should build a bridge across the Grand river. We have this afternoon passed a vote for the purpose of opening up a highway in the province of Nova Scotia between the main road and the pier. It is only a short distance between the Grand river and the wharf on the one side, and the pier on the other side, about one-eighth of a mile. I think that the government, instead of going on repairing the wharf in this way should build a bridge across the Grand river, and allow the people living in lots 12, 13 and 14 an opportunity of crossing over and doing their business in summer time instead of going around eight or ten miles by the upper bridge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1	will have that suggestion brought to the attention of the engineer, and a report made with regard to it.
Summerside-breakwater (revote), $35,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We have ha'd this matter up quite a number of years and it is Mr. HACKETT.
getting to be an old story. I find in the votes in 1898,	$30,000 for Summerside
break-water ; in 1899, $3,000 ; in 1900, $20,000 ; in 1901, $20,000 ; in 1902, $35,000 ; and now we have another $35,000. In votes and revotes, we have had $108,000 voted for Summerside breakwater. I would like to ask how much money has been expended on it, and how much work done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In reply to the hon. gentleman, I would say that $3,388 haye been paid out on account of this contract, and about 250 feet of the breakwater built. In 1900 a. contract was let, but for some reason the contractor has not been going on for some time with the work. I have not had time personally to take this matter up, and I am asking for a revote until I have had an opportunity of investigating and considering it. The intention is to go on with the work, but if the circumstances are as represented, it would be better to cancel the contract, and call for new tenders.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think there has been ample time to do that. The work has been suspended over a year. Have the government taken steps to investigate whether this contract will be carried out or not ? The department has had correspondence from the contractors claiming that from the nature of the contract the plans submitted were not practicable, and they could not carry them out in ten years, with continuous work during workable days. It is claimed that the contract was stopped because the stones were not suitable, but I find that some of the correspondence between the engineer on the island and the engineer in Ottawa is conflicting on that point. The contract calls for a stone that is sound and of good durable quality, suited to resist the effects of the exposure and subject at all times to the approval or rejection of the engineer. The engineer 'did not reject the stone on the breakwater and the work went on for some time until an engineer came from Ottawa and condemned the stone. Then the contractors refused to go on with the contract, because the stones that had been passed by the engineer in charge of the work had been condemned by the engineer from Ottawa. It seems improper to me that a work which the government found desirable in 1898 should on every occasion be used for election purposes. In 1898, when I was running a by-election they published this big poster, and distributed it around the town :


HURRAH FOR BETTER TIMES.
[Stage Direction]
Work ! Work !
And plenty of it this winter for the working men of Summerside and Outsiders as well. The work at the breakwater goes on and the 'Stanley' is guaranteed to come to Summer-side to test the feasibility of the Summerside and Cape Tormentine route.
An Outlay of $5,000 in cash Monthly. Hurrah again for good times for Summerside.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the manner in which the public works which the government apparently found necessary are being exploited for party purposes, and I would say to the hon. minister that if it is the intention of the government to go on with this work, if it is found necessary or advisable to get the sand out of the harbour and to give a good deep channel and also to create a current through the passage in order to break up the ice and make the harbour an outlet for a longer time each year, I cannot see why it should be subjected to all of this waiting and foolery, and why it should be brought up on the eve of each election to be used for political purposes.
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that he does not approve of this work ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not think that the hon. minister caught that from my Words.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understood you to say : If it is thought to be advisable to go on with it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not the engineer; I am not supposed to dictate , to- the engineers whether a work is advisable and should be carried on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 understood that this work is being pressed for in the public interest and not for political purposes and I was asking the hon. gentleman if he thought it is a work that should be gone on with.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am simply stating that if the work is found necessary by the government it should not be used as a humbug for political purposes but should be pressed forward with all possible vigour. This matter has been up since 1898 and if it is a necessary work-and I presume it must have been or the government would not have undertaken to spend $50,000 or $100,000 on it-the contract should be gone on with and if it is not it should be condemned by the engineer and a new contract made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot offer much explanation of the conduct of this work from 1898 up to within a few months of the present date. The matter has been brought to my attention by the chief engineer. The parties interested live a long way off and I have not had time to go into this case fully. I had an idea the work was one of necessity and of advantage to this district, and it was my intention at the earliest possible moment to have this work renewed and pressed forward.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In answer to the hon. minister's question as to whether I consider it necessary I may say that if a proper breakwater was constructed across from
Indian Head to the lighthouse at Summer-side harbour you would possibly obtain a greater flow of current and not only keep the sand from choking the harbour, but also would be able to keep the harbour open for a longer time without its being blocked with ice. I may say that I have a letter from the contractors written in March about the time they abandoned the work in which they say :
Ottawa, March 18, 1902.


Hon.  J. I.@: Tarte,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Re Indian Head breakwater-Summerside harbour, P.E.I.
Sir,-We commenced the construction of this work in June last and completed but 250 feet by the end of the season, the length of the breakwater when completed will be 3,150 feet, the progress has been as we could reasonably do; we employed thirty men and had two steam tugs, a steam pile driver with steam derricks and four large lighters, besides two schooners carrying stone ; we met with this difficulty, that we could place the brush and stone only when wind was off the shore, and at low tide ; this prevented the completion of this work as rapidly as expected, in many instances the lighters loa,ded with stone remained for four or five days at a time in the harbour waiting for suitable weather and very low tide.
We could only work three hours some days and ndt more than five hours a day, this was because the tide interfered.
We have an expensive plant, and keeping the men employed but four or five hours a day and some days idle, it will take a considerable time to complete.
If there is any remedy that you can allow, such as a change, by substituting a timber core for the brush and piling in the interior without additional cost the difficulty would be overcome, and we could proceed with the work rapidly.
Awaiting your reply,
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) HUGH MCDONALD.
That was in March 1902, and I think the department has had ample opportunity to investigate the case in time for the people to have had a definite reply and to have knowledge as to whether they would go on with the work at the opening of operations in the spring. I trust, now that the Minister of Public Works has the case in hand, that he will see that it is pushed forward thoroughly.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will endeavour to straighten it out.


Edward Hackett: How much has been expended on this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between $3,000 and $4,000.


Edward Hackett: And we have had votes in this parliament for $108,000 for this work. This is simply deception on the part of the government. I hold in my hand the issue of the Charlottetown ' Patriot ' of October, the 2nd, and it has here :

Summerside harbour, $35,000.
It gives the greatest praise to the government and to the government's supporters from the Island because of the great work they are doing. Here too we have pictures of Mr. MacKinnon who has not been here for a long time and whom we have almost forgotten and also of Mr. Hughes the hon. member for King's whom we are pleased to see here with us all the time. These pictures are placed in the paper for the purpose of deceiving the people with regard to this work. These are both excellent young men; I have no objection to their appearance in the papers, and apart from their being young and fine looking they are jolly good fellows as well. But it is a serious matter and I find here in that very paper the proposition that a revote of $35,000 is to be taken in connection with the Summerside breakwater. I remember very well, as my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) has said, when he was running his election in 1898, that his opponents, on scores of platforms, said that Summerside harbour would be made one of the finest harbours in Prince Edward Island, and that the government were going to make a large grant for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is that what beat him, because he advocated this breakwater ?


Edward Hackett: There is no doubt it elected his opponent on that occasion. But I can tell you that afterwards at a local election, when Mr. Desroehes was running against Angus McMillan in Summerside, Mr. McMillan was elected by two votes, simply because he told the people of Summerside and that section of the country that if they supported him there would be a tremendous boom at Summerside and great works would be carried out. Yet for five years nothing has been done, and now we find that, on the eve of another election,, for the purpose of deceiving the people again, this amount is put in the estimates below the pictures of the two hon. gentlemen who care not one snap about Summerside.


Mr. HUGHES (King's).: If our hon. friends opposite are not in favour of this item, I would suggest that it be struck out. There are many places in the county I represent which would be glad to get this money, and where it could be usefully employed.


Mr. HENDERSON.: If this item is struck out, then the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Hughes) must take the responsibility of it.
New Brunswick-Black Brook - additional wharf accommodation, $5,000.


Mr. GANONG.: Perhaps the minister will give us some information with regard to this work.


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is asked for to afford wharf accommodation, which is urgently needed in the interest of a rapidly growing trade. A government wharf had been built, and an effort was made to acquire the land. The department and the owner of the property were widely apart as to the price. After some negotiations, a few months ago we came to a satisfactory arrangement, the papers have passed the Department of Justice, and the land is now the property of the Crown. This $5,000 is asked to make the settlement, and to make some addition to the wharf that has been acquired.


Gilbert White Ganong: Are we to understand that the government built a wharf there on somebody else's property without acquiring it, and now they are paying the forfeit by asking this parliament to vote $5,000 to settle up for some of their mistakes ?
' The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS. I am afraid that is about the state of affairs.
Cape Tormentine-improvements, $10,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What improvements is it proposed to make at Cape Tormentine ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a large and important place, as my hon. friend knows. This vote is asked principally for stone work. I Understand that the structure is in a bad state of repair, and unless something is done immediately great damage is likely to be done to this important work.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is a new pier to be built outside ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a terrace alongside the present work.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Are they going to extend the wharf V


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Not under this vote. This is only for protection to the present work.
Campobello-breakwater at Wilson's beach (revote), $3,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Perhaps the minister would tell us how much this work has already cost ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: In round figures $30,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this $3,000 presumed to finish it ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Gilbert White Ganong: How far has the work proceeded already ? Can any one get near it with a vessel ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The work at present is 207 feet long, and

when the additional work is done it will be 455 feet long. I do not see that I have any ref erence, to the depth-of the water.


Gilbert White Ganong: This is one of the votes that we had some talk of before. Some hon. members might think that it is unwise in me to criticise it because it refers to my county. But, I will criticise it very freely because I think if this system were followed throughout the country instead of having a vote of $67,000,000 we would require a vote of $367,000,000 to meet the requirements of the country. Instead of letting this work by tender so as to give the fishermen of that district value for every dollar that is expended the government have undertaken to do the work themselves and we have got about $20,000 worth of work for an expenditure of $30,000. Nineteen tiers have been put where there is a 30 foot rise and fall of the tide and yet after two year's work a vessel cannot approach the work. The total excess expenditure there of $10,000 has been used simply to furnish some work for good supporters of the present government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no information except what I have read from the report of the engineer. My hon. friend is a very shrewd business man. I am informed that the department have advertised for tenders and that they have not received one either from the hon. gentleman or any of his constituents offering to do this work. Therefore, I suppose they would have to do it under the supervision of the engineer.


Gilbert White Ganong: There was not much effort made in that direction. However, as we have discussed it before it is useless to waste the time-of the committee.
Campbellton-wharf extension, repairs, &c.,


Gilbert White Ganong: Was there not some grant made in the main estimates for this same purpose 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we have $15,000 in the main estimates. This is to extend the present wharf at Campbellton a distance of 300 feet. This additional vote includes the payment, when the sum is known, to Mr. Shive, for the property which was purchased from him.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this another instance in which the government are building a wharf without obtaining the property from Mr. Shive 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not think this is a similar case. It was not necessary to purchase the whole property. Expropriation proceedings were taken, the property has been taken over and vested in the crown but the settlement has not been made. The amount in the estimates will pay for the property when the
award is made and it will carry out the improvements proposed.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this all a new work 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total probable cost of this work is $35,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: That is not just the point I was after. This appears to be an extension simply of the wharf. There must have been an original wharf to be able to extend it. Was the title to the original wharf vested in the government 7 Do they own the property 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that the crown do own the property upon which the new wharf has been built. They had not a title to the adjoining property which has since been taken over by expropriation.


Edward Cochrane: Why do the government want this additional property if they had the property on which to build the wharf 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that there is quite a large amount of shipping done at this point. It was necessary to acquire this in the public interest and it was very much cheaper than to have extended our own property.


Edward Cochrane: What I understand by the extension of a new work is that you extend it out into the ocean. Why do you want more land 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not so in this case, and we are not requiring any more land at all. There was a wharf built alongside the government wharf but it was found insufficient for the trade of the place. Being alongside of the government wharf it was purchased and united with the government wharf so as to make one large wharf to furnish the necessary facilities for this port.


Edward Cochrane: Why does the wharf want to be so wide that you should buy more land 7	_


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are not buying more land.


Edward Cochrane: If you are expropriating what are you expropriating 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Part of this wharf may be on a water lot. The wharf was acquired and the land with it.


Edward Cochrane: You have bought a wharf and then you have extended it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was built years ago.


Edward Cochrane: We don't want to go back into ancient history. We are talking about what we are doing now.

Chatham-slip for lightship, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work was undertaken on the representations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It was represented that it would effect a large saving to the country if lightships could be taken in there, repaired and then taken out early in the spring.
Cocagne-wharf, compensation to Captain Antoine Arsenault of the schooner ' Morning Star ' for damages to his vessel resulting from the failure of a defective mooring post, $250.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of this item ?


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Who owns the schooner 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: ; This is for damage done to a schooner owned by Captain Antoine Arsenault. This vote is asked for on the report of the officials of the department. I have no doubt it is a fair settlement of the damage.


Gilbert White Ganong: Do the government take the position that they are liable for all these troubles ? They might become liable for a buoy getting displaced ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not lawyer enough to tell my'hon. friend how he will collect any claim against the government, but I always have taken the stand that if the government representing the country is responsible for anything it should be in very much the same position as any honest man would be. It should settle any claim that is a proper one V


Edward Cochrane: How could the captain of this vessel have any claim against the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He claimed that on account of some negligence in connection with the government works this schooner was damaged. The claim was for $500 but it was compromised at $250 by the officials.


Robert Laird Borden: Where was the mooring post ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At Cocagne.


John Dowsley Reid: Occasionally vessels have got into trouble in the locks and mooring posts have given way but in every case the government have claimed this was the fault of the vessel because of too heavy a strain being put on the post. This now forms a precedent for other vessels in the case of accidents of this kind happening in the canals. This establishes a tery serious precedent for the future.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so.


Edward Cochrane: 


Gilbert White Ganong: This has the appearance of having a friend at court, and the country will view it in that light.


John Dowsley Reid: The precedent now established by the minister renders the government liable to this sort of damages for all time to come.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an exaggeration to say that it will be a precedent. I do not see why the government should not be liable for damages the same as any one else. I have no personal knowledge of this ; it was referred to the officials and they reported in favour of paying it.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the minister that when the government causes damage they should be responsible, but as I understand it, such a case as this should be referred to the Exchequer Court. Has this matter been referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion, or why did it not go to the Exchequer Court ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a small matter, and the hon. gentleman knows that it would be cold justice to ask the claimant to go to the courts. I do not think he would have much left by the time he got his $250 damages. I have confidence in the officers of the department to which this matter was referred, and I believe they must have been satisfied that there was a just claim for this amount.


Edward Cochrane: If a private individual owned a wharf and if a vessel came up to it to load or unload, does the minister think (hat if a storm came and the vessel sustained damage, the private individual would be liable ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not a lawyer, but if the hon. gentleman asks me what would be fair between man and man, I would say that if the owner of the boat paid his fee-and I have heard complaints that the wharfage fees are pretty high on the lakes-and if the mooring posts were not sufficient, I imagine that the owner of the wharf would be liable. However, I do not care to offer an opinion on that.


Gilbert White Ganong: What revenue is derived from this wharf or is it a free wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand it is a free wharf.


Gilbert White Ganong: Then we give this man the use of the wharf, free, and pay him for tearing it to pieces.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not objecting to the amount of this vote, but I object to paying this amount when you compel other people to go to the Exchequer Court for claims just as small. If there is a dispute about expropriation it has to go to the 'Exchequer Court.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is in a case where the officers will not recommend paj^ment.


John Dowsley Reid: I object to this because it forms a precedent to which the government is bound for all time.
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Oh, no.


John Dowsley Reid: I certainly think it will.	'


Gilbert White Ganong: Here is a ease) in which the wharf is given free of charge, and if a man ties his vessel up to it, and takes all the advantages of that wharf free of charge, you pay him if he sustains any damage.


John Dowsley Reid: There are many cases of this kind in which the government has not paid damages. Suppose a vessel is loaded with a valuable cargo, and that the cargo is damaged, would not the government on the same principle be liable for a large amount to compensate for the cargo ? I am afraid that the government has done an unwise thing in establishing this precedent.
Dalhousie harbour-improvements, $10,000.
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is to make improvements at this wharf so that ships may receive cargoes of lumber direct, without the necessity of using lighters.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What will be the total cost of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The probable total cost is estimated by the engineer at $40,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this the first amount that, has been voted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Dipper harbour-breakwater, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is asked by the chief engineer to make provision for the construction of a protection breakwater 235 feet long, 44 feet wide on top, and reaching to a depth of 32| feet high water in spring tide. The new work is to be built on the site occupied by the old pier on the western side of the harbour. The foundation of the new breakwater has already been partly prepared, and the work is to be done by contract. Its total cost is estimated to be $25,000.


Richard Blain: Was any money expended at this point last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that there was not.
Hopewell Cape wharf-repairs, &c., $5,800.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work under contract. The amount of the contract is $19,998.


Richard Blain: When was this contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the 8th of October, 1900, to be completed on the 8th of October, 1901.


Richard Blain: Was it completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it has only been completed recently.
Miseou harbour-wharf, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this a new wharf, and will this complete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new work, and this vote is to commence it. The total estimated cost is $11,850.


William Humphrey Bennett: What county is it in 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Gloucester county.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any village at the place, and what object is to be served by the construction of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an island on which there are about seventy houses and eleven lobster factories. The population is estimated at about 500. The occupation of the people is mostly fishing. Farming is carried on to some extent.


William Humphrey Bennett: And is the government going to build a $11,000 dock on an island where there are only 500 people ? Does anybody contribute anything towards the cost of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As there are eleven lobster factories, there must be considerable commerce.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the trade, is sufficient to warrant the construction of a dock, why do not the people in the business construct it ?
North Head breakwater wharf, Grand Manan, $10,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Perhaps the minister will advise us as to how large a work he purposes at Grand Manan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a pretty extensive work. The total cost, as estimated by the engineer of the department is about $91,000.
Petit Rocher-breakwater, $6,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this a new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is a new work. This vote is to make provision for the construction of a breakwater 350 feet long. The total cost is estimated at $27,400.


Richard Blain: What county is this in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Gloucester county.

Pointe du Ch6ne-repairs to breakwaters, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to make good damage "done to the works caused by a storm last January, and to protect other breakwaters with stone ballasting.
Richibucto harbour-extension oi north pier (revote), $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay the balance, of the contract, which completes the work.


Gilbert White Ganong: May I ask if any report has been made as to the cost of dredging at St. Andrews ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that a report has been asked for, but has not yet reached the department.
Amherstburg, Ont.-dredging, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is rather an expensive and important work. It has been under discussion for some time. It is estimated that it can be carried out for $45,000, and I am asking for a vote of $15,000.
Mi-. HUGHES (Victoria). What is the general traffic at Amherstburg ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a very large amount of shipping there, and considerable amount of difficulty is found on the Canadian side in competing with the Americans, who have spent a good deal on improvements on their harbours.


Richard Blain: Has the government dredge been working there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, this is for next season, and we intend trying to improve the facilities of the harbour.


Richard Blain: There was an item voted last year, was it not expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there were many difficulties about carrying on the work. We have adopted a plan by which I think we can, for the amount I have stated, do some good work for the harbour.
Blind river wharf-addition of head block, $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there any revenue at all from this dock? It is in the district of Algoma. I believe. What was the original cost of the dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $9,310. The wharf has not been completed and handed over to the Marine Department yet, so that there is no revenue. I understand that the country is developing fast.


Samuel Hughes: Where is this river ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is eighty miles east of Sault Ste. Marie.


Richard Blain: Was there not money expended there last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was completed and the total cost was some $9,000.
Barry's Bay, Madawaska river-wharf, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide for a small wharf there. There is a great increase in mining going on there and quite a settlement. After looking into the matter carefully, I found that a small wharf would be a great accommodation for that section and a great convenience for the shipping and mining industries.


Richard Blain: What representations were made to the department by the citizens ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A very important deputation, including the head of the mines there, waited on me; and on their representation, I looked into the matter and am satisfied that this is a very proper work.


Richard Blain: Will this complete the work?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Richard Blain: How will this be expended?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By contract. I am letting the construction of all these small hew works by contract.
Bracebridge-wharf, $5,800.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that complete that work, and does it include the purchase of a site, and is the town contributing anything?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in new Muskoka. I do not see any estimate made for the site, so I take it for granted that it is not costing anything.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the $5,S00 complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: It is a very necessary work. Bracebridge is an arm from Lake Muskoka. There is a-great deal of summer traffic there. The wharf was one of the promises given in the recent election. but for all that it is a very necessary work.
Bronte harbour-improvements, $6,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work going on.


Richard Blain: Is that private property or do the government own it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Bronte harbour is in Halton county. I have not the information here, but it never oc-

curred to me that it was not public property. A very considerable amount of money has been spent there. Probably my hon, friend knows. I will look into the matter. It never occurred to me that it is not public property.
Burlington channel piers-to complete works of renewal and repairs under contract'(revote) $10,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is on account of work going on.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Are these places to be found in the geography ?


Samuel Hughes: It connects with Burlington Bay, and is the entrance to Hamilton at the bar.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We regard ourselves as the maritime part of the country, and we only get $313,000 for expenditure on harbours and rivers. But when we come to an inland country like Ontario, we find an expenditure of $142,000 more. I do not want to complain, because if every dollar is rightly asked, it is my duty to vote for the expenditure, whether it be in Ontario or Nova Scotia; but after hearing from the other side, during the past ten or twenty years, constant abuse for the voting of money to harbours in a really maritime province" like Nova Scotia, it seems a want of politeness for Ontario to get a half a million dollars for wharfs and harbours in a purely inland country. I merely want t.o bring that to the notice of gentlemen opposite from Ontario who spoke so vigorously about Nova Scotia votes. If these items are necessary, I will be glad to vote for them, but I hope that this talking about Nova Scotia or British Columbia votes, simply because these provinces are at the extremities of the Dominion, will cease. If they do not we will have to criticise items in Ontario. There must be absolute reciprocity in this matter. The only inquiry that should be made by members of this House is : Is it necessary and in the interests of Canada as a whole.


Andrew B. Ingram: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gourley) but I wish to call his attention, to the fact that we want to have the same rule applied to all the provinces. We have fishermen in Ontario. They are not along side the sea it is true, but they are beside waters that are asi important to us as the waters of any other province are to it. When we find fishermen in other districts of Canada having harbours provided for them out of public funds we think it is hardly fair that our fishermen, who have paid their license fees to this government and are now paying them to the Ontario government should be refused a small sum like $1,000 or $1,500 to make their harbours safe. We have then reason to complain and I do complain. The bon. gentleman states that in Nova Scotia
they have harbour votes of $314,000. Let me remind him that one of our large counties in Ontario is nearly as large as Nova Scotia.
I think that Nova Scotia is getting its share of harbour votes.


William Roche: How many harbours have you ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose as many as you have in Nova Scotia. If Nova Scotia is getting this money and it is properly expended there I am glad to hear it and I trust that it will be properly expended, but when we look at that expenditure we in Ontario are justified in pointing out that many ports, such as are helped in Nova Scotia, are not helped in Ontario.


David Henderson: In connection with the vote for Burlington channel I wish to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Nova Scotia who seems to think Ontario is getting more than its fair share. This is a work of great importance. Although it is called Burlington channel it is not in my county but it is very close to it ; it is the entrance to Hamilton from Lake Ontario. Vessels from Lake Ontario going into Hamilton harbour must pass' through this Burlington channel. In the early days this channel was nearer to the south shore, but perhaps seventy-five years ago the government closed up the old channel and made this new channel. I believe the work was first constructed about 1825. It has, however, become very much out of repair ; in fact I think the government is making a sad mistake in not appropriating somewhere about $250,000 and making one complete job of the whole thing. By spending $10,000 this year and $25,000 next year I am afraid that this work will never be put in proper shape.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work was under contract just in the way that riiy hon. friend suggests and this extra amount of $10,000 is taken in the supplementary estimates in addition to $50,000 in that main estimate. This $10,000 is to be paid on account of the contract this year. The work is being carried on just in the way my hon. friend advises and I hope It will be completed early next season.


David Henderson: I am quite sure that the money that has been appropriated during the last two or three years is not sufficient for the requirements and it will be necessary for the government to spend very considerably more to keep that channel open. It is an absolute necessity not only for the city of Hamilton but for the entire country around there that has its shipping interests bound up with the important city of Hamilton, that the channel should be kept open.
Cumberland wharf, $5,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is on the Ottawa river in Russell coup-

ty ; it is a new work and this is the estimate which the chief engineer thinks will complete the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much has the municipality contributed to this ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They have not contributed anything to it.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe this is the only county on this river that has not one or more wharfs. The reeve called on me and I was perhaps a little weak, but I gave way. They have a large trade there. The place is about twenty miles from the city of Ottawa.


Richard Blain: Has a site been procured ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site will be given free.
Collingwood-improvements to harbour, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In a general way this is to continue work that has been going on there in winding the channel from 110 to 220 feet principally by dredging.


William Humphrey Bennett: To what width is it intended to widen the channel with this vote and will this complete the work ? The chief engineer tells me that this vote will go a long way towards completing work. It will make a bell shaped entrance of 300 feet long for the whole channel, 20 feet at low water.


William Humphrey Bennett: $60,000 will make it a width of 200 feet all the way down ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the estimate of the engineer.
Depot Harbour-breakwater, $20,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I see by the main estimates there were $75,000 aud $25,000 more in subsequent estimates. Will the minister say what the total cost is likely to be, and how much has been spent already ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost is estimated in round figures at $195,000. In round figures about $00,000 has been spent, and $40,000 will complete the work.
Grand Bend-breakwater pier, &c., $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in the county of Lambton. A large deputation came to the department representing that this work was required, and that it would be a great convenience to a large population.


Mr. SHERRITT.: What amount does the hon. minister propose to expend there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we carry out the plan as formed by the


Robert Franklin Sutherland: engineer, the total work, bridge and all, will cost aibout $22,000.


John Sherritt: What will be the depth of water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twelve feet at low water. As soon as this vote is passed and the contract is let, the work will be commenced.
Goderich-breakwater off entrance to harbour, $20,000.	'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations have been made by the shipping interests that if a breakwater were built at Goderich that would become a first-class harbour. At present all the boats going up and down Lake Huron are forced to go to the American side when there is a storm, for want of a refuge. At present boats in a heavy sea have great difficulty in entering Goderich harbour. I was waited on personally by representatives of the shipping trade, who told me that if a breakwater was placed there it would be a great convenience and benefit to shipping. After consultation with the engineers, I came to the conclusion to make at first 200 feet as a trial, to see whether it would prove effectual and yield the benefits claimed by the representations made to me. This will only cost some $53,000. If it proves successful, we might extend the work. They asked for 1,700 feet, which would cost in' the neighbourhood of $200,000.


Samuel Hughes: What would be the depth of that 1,700 feet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twenty-five or thirty feet.


Samuel Hughes: Would it not be cheaper to dig into the shore for your harbour V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This matter has been taken up, not alone by the Goderich people, but by the large business find commercial interests of Ontario, especially from Toronto west, who represent in the strongest manner the importance of this work. I am asking for this vote of $20,000 for the purpose of making a trial of 200 feet of this breakwater. If it proves as successful as these gentlemen have represented. I am sure it will be a work much in the interest of Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the total expenditure on Goderich harbour up to date ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This has nothing to do with the previous works. I know that a great deal of public money has been spent in Goderich on public works, but much of it, I fear has not been very useful for the want of this breakwater protection. I cannot at this moment give my hon. friend the amount expended by the Department of Public Works on the Goderich harbour. But this proposed work has nothing to do, except in an indirect way,

with any expenditure that has already been made on that harbour.
iMr. INGRAM. This is a serious question for the shipping interests in the town of Goderich. They have had breakwaters built there. I do not know whether they have 'been successful or not. Perhaps the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) could tell us where this breakwater is intended to be built.
Mr. HOLME'S. I may supplement the Information given by the Minister of Public Works. The chief object in making this breakwater is to make Godierich a harbour of refuge. There is no harbour! of refuge on the shores of Lake Huron within 150 miles. It was originally intended that Goderich should be a harbour of refuge, but that idea has never! been carried out. A number of lives have been lost during storms, simply because the vessels were unable to get in during a heavy sea. The purpose is to build a breakwater out into the lake 700 or 800 feet from the entrance of the harbour, whereby vessels could safely enter during a storm. No breakwater has paver been built in that direction, but only at the side of the river. Originally the piers ran in a south-westerly direction, but twenty-five or thirty years ago, at aj very great cost, the engineer ran the piers out straight, w-hie'h was a mistake, because they allowed the full force of the waves to come in. I may say also that the deputation which waited upon the hon. minister did not happen to be headed by the 'admiral,' as the hon. gentleman calls him. It happened to be headed by the mayor of Godierich, who is not a political supporter of my own. In addition to that, representations have been made to the government by the shipping men from all sections of the province of Ontario. A large quantity of grain has been handled at Goderich during the past year. They have ample water in the harbour for the largest lake-going vessels. and I believe that many vessels which find their way to Detroit and Buffalo would-, if a suitable breakwater were provided, discharge their cargoes at Goderich. The depth of water is greater at Goderich than it is at the Lime Kiln crossing.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What is the depth ?


Robert Holmes: In the neighbourhood of 21 feet.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is that a natural harbour ?


Robert Holmes: Yes, certainly. Strong representations have been made to the government in the interest of this breakwater. As a matter of fact the delegation asked for a much larger breakwater than is being provided. but it is expected that this one, built as an experiment, will demonstrate its utility and warrant its -extension later on.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: How is this breakwater toi be built-on solid masonry?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My intention was, if found practicable, to advise the building of this breakwater with concrete.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have a very kindly feeling for the town of Goderich, and if the hon. minister is acting on the advice of his engineers I think it will be money well spent. There has been a great deal of difficulty in the past in regard to the piers constructed there, but as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) says, perhaps, they were not constructed in th-e right way. They did not run at the right angle out into the lake. If the hon. minister has reliable information as to the practicability of making a harbour there, I believe it ought to be a good harbour of refuge and if it is found that vessels can make that harbour in any weather it will bring a great deal of business to that part of the province.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister says he is going to make the breakwater of concrete. How deep below water level is he going to put the concrete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As a rule we just put it below the extreme water level.


Samuel Hughes: If the breakwater is not put deep enough below the low water-level the waves will lift it. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) speaks of this being a great shipping port and says that grain is going this way. He evidently has given up his view in favour of the transcontinental railway and has gone in for the water route.


Robert Holmes: I think this will be- part of the transcontinental route because that line of railway already runs to Goderich.


Mr. MACLAREN (Perth).: I have had a lot of correspondence in reference to this work with people in Stratford, Mitchell and other places along the line and they are strongly in favour of something being done at Goderich. I am very strongly in favour of this vote.


John Sherritt: I also have a v-ery kindly feeling for the old town of Goderich, because of the service that harbour renders to the country in the early days when we had no railways. I was horn within a short distance of the place and know something about it. I think it is a very wise expenditure of money which has for its object the making of Goderich a harbour of refuge. It is important that this work should be proceeded with when we consider the distance that vessels have to go up Lake Huron before finding a harbour of refuge. I may also say in reference to this- grant of $5,000 to Grand Bend, that I am pleased to see that the hon. minister has placed in the -estimates a sum for the construction of a breakwater at that place. I was up there

a few days ago and there are some people who are very sceptical about this item being spent. I hope the hon. minister will not disappoint them this time. An item was placed in the estimates upon a former occasion and just before the general election an engineer was sent up to make some surveys. I am not going to say that the surveys were so effective that they brought about the state of affairs that existed at the last election, but I will say that in the end of the township in which the work was proposed to be undertaken, every vote was polled for the government candidate against the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Simmons). Even some of the hon. gentleman's own friends are very sceptical to-day about that work. I am very pleased to find this estimate here, and I hope the hon. minister will not disappoint them and will let the contract for the work at once. This place is very much in need of a breakwater. We have heard a good deal to-night of the fishermen of different parts of the country but I think this is one of the best fishing poihts, if not the best fishing point, on the Take Huron shore. The fishermen have no place to land their boats and there have been great complaints in the past from them. In addition Grand Bend is becoming very popular as a summer resort. Many people from different parts of Ontario go there (o camp. The hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McEwan) knows something about this as do other hon. members. I think the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. McLaren) and the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) will bear me out in what I say. A great many people come from London and spend the summer in cottages (here. We have spent about $20,000 at this place. While I was in the municipal council we had some dredging work done at the mouth of the Au Sable river and it does seem to be a natural harbour. I think $22,000 would be a sufficient expenditure to construct a work that would be a credit to the government and a relief to the people of Grand Bend.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to suggest to the hon. Minister of Public Works that if money is expended well everybody is gratified and if it is lost everybody is discouraged. We had some experience in building'a bridge over (he Shubenacadie river some two or three years ago. Some American engineers came up there who were not acquainted with the Bay of Fundy tide. They said it was folly to go down to bedrock and they put their piers on the hard-pan without reaching the rock. The tides came in and every one of the piers were moved. They had to go down and reach bedrock and the work was then made permanent. If you are going to make a good wharf you should go down to bedrock and if you do anything else you will find that it will be a failure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are all interested in this work on ac-Mr. SHERRITT.
count of the representations that have been made by the shipping and commercial interests of the province. As to the work itself it is probably to some extent an experiment as to what the results will be. I am confident from the representations made to me by practical men, captains of the large boats and others, (Jiat it will certainly bring many millions of bushels of grain to the Huron shore that now go to the American side. The trade of the whole Dominion will be very large if we are successful in establishing a good harbour of refuge at Goderich.
Gore's landing-wharf, $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. minister, if, in regard to this item and also in regard to the next item of $4,000 for the Honora wharf, these amounts will complete the works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost of the first one ife estimated by the chief engineer to be $3,000. The Honora wharf work will cost $7,000 to complete.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since the Liberals came into power these docks have been strung out all along the shore of the Algoma district. There were private wharfs there before, built by the enterprise of individuals, and fees were charged on the shipping, but the government entered into the business, and rendered useless the expenditure by private citizens on these wharfs. Is it proposed to charge rent for the use of these docks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: You built a dock at Bruce Mines which cost $12,000, and last year you realized the paltry sum of $10.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a growing business in that district.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, and there is a growing business in the city of Toronto, and vessels have to pay for the use of the docks there. It is all on a par with the building of docks at Hawkestone in East Simcoe, against which I protested. This government practically threw $3,000 into the lake for the purpose of getting a little political advantage, but it did not help them a bit, and that dock is rotting to-day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not anxious to build any work without necessity.
Kingsville-filling superstructure of extension of breakwater with stone ballast, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimated cost of this is $3,840. This work originally cost $15,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this for the west pier or the east pier ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The west pier.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there not something the matter with one-of these piers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that some damage was reported, but he does not consider it very dangerous.
Little Bear creek-dredging, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Kent county, and it is a very necessary work.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it between Chatham and the lake ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The creek enters into the channel at the eastern side of St. Anne's island, Lake St. Clair, and is about ten miles from Chatham and seven from Wallaceburg.
Little Current-improvement of northern steamboat channel in Georgian bay, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is proposed to have a channel 200 feet wide and 21 feet deep at lowest water. If that work were carried out for the whole distance, it would cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Large shipowners, the Messrs. Long, among others, have reported that some considerable improvement can be made by a reasonable appropriation from time to time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much has already been expended on that channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure up to January, 1903, was $83,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that channel at Little Current the only place between Manitoulin and the north shore where there is not 20 feet of water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the only place, so far as my information goes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I should say that on the Canadian side of the St. Mary's river, there are not 20 feet of water in some places, and even if you do this work, you would still he obliged to use Hay lake channel for freighters.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is correct. I am informed by the chief engineer that in some places there is only 18 or 19 feet of water.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not think there are 16 feet in some parts of the old channel of the St. Mary's river, and we would have to complete all that work to make us independent of our neighbours.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt that my hon. friend is right, but we will make this expenditure in the meantime.
Leamington-wharf, $3,800.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Essex county, and the work is undertaken under the report of the engineer.
Midland harbour-improvements, $12,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I saw last week in the town of Midland a plan of a proposed dock there. Is that the plan that is to be followed-the one that was sent to the town clerk V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that that is the plan on which tenders are being called for.


William Humphrey Bennett: By way of explanation, let me state the position. Owing to the fact that docks were being built at a great many places, the town of Midland made this ' offer to the government of Canada. They said, we will purchase this water frontage for $10,000 and hand it over to the government on condition that the government will build a dock on it. That was agreed to, and on that understanding the town voted the $10,000, purchased the site, and handed it over to the government. By the plan which the department have sent to the town council it appears they have actually given a portion of this frontage to some party friends. I would ask the minister what consideration has been received by the government for this portion, on which these people have built a dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If there is any foundation for the hon. gentleman's statement that the government have given away to party friends or to anybody else any portion of the property which the town conveyed to the government, it would be a matter for inquiry.


William Humphrey Bennett: I asked whether it was given for nothing, or whether it was paid for V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not given at all. It was not either sold or given. The facts are not as the hon. gentleman states. ,	.


William Humphrey Bennett: The plan shows that a part of this property which was purchased by the town and handed over to the department has to-day a dock built upon it by party friends of hon. gentlemen opposite. I can tell the minister that the effect of this action is such that had the question to buy the site and hand it over to the government to be put again before the town of Midland, it would be voted down almost unanimously. I do not know who is to blame for it, hut I suppose the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The little spur of dock which the town is getting to-day for the $10,000 which they gave is so trifling that I am sure if they had known what they were going to get they would never have

voted the money. May I ask what rent is being received by the department for the use of the storehouses which are on this property that the government acquired from the town ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I have not looked into this matter personally, but either my hon. friend is greatly mistaken or the officials of my department are deceived. As the matter came up before, I asked them to look carefully into it, and they say that there is no foundation whatever for the statement, but that we have all the property that was handed over to us by the town. No rents have been received, and no action has been taken with regard to this property. The transfer was only completed a short time ago, and the plans have been prepared.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do any of these parties who are in occupation of this government property pay any rent to the department V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me no.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was not an application received by the minister from a firm in the town of Midland inquiring what rent was being asked by the department for this dock, and making an overture for renting ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will ask the deputy minister to make a memorandum of that. He says he has no recollection.


William Humphrey Bennett: I can tell the minister that I saw the letter from his own department to those parties, acknowledging the receipt of their letter, and saying that the matter would be considered; but they heard nothing further.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman give the name of the party V


William Humphrey Bennett: Stafford & Company-the Midland Mercantile Company. They wanted to rent the warehouse, and were willing to pay $500 a year for it; but one of the hon. minister's party friends has it, presumably for nothing.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not to my knowledge. My hon. friend knows that it is not in the plan or policy of the department to remove the old buildings.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not suppose the hon. gentleman will interfere with them. In fact, there is no room on the new docks to put any buildings. I can tell the minister that the handling of that dock has not been such as to win any friends to the government. One of their own party friends, Mr. Playfair, has possession of that dock without paying any rental. This1 is like some other actions of the government there. For


William Humphrey Bennett: instance the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, at my solicitation, decided to put up two range lights. The department had the lights sent to the town, and what do you suppose they did ? Instead of placing them where they should have been placed, they decide, because Mr. Playfair had a couple of electric lights, to send them back to Ottawa or somewhere else; and in the meantime the marine trade has had to depend on two little lights which the people there supposed were fire-flies among the trees. I suppose the government think that Mr. Playfair can help them. All I can say is that I court his opposition, and I court the opposition of the government if they conduct other matters at Midland as they have done this. When parties were willing to pay a decent rent for the property if they had a chance at competition for it, these parties have had the use of the dock and the warehouses without paying a cent of remuneration. It will be news for the people, and from that they will judge how the general business of the country is carried on.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend is mistaken, but I will have a further report made in regard to this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: It ought to be a simple matter to ascertain whether or not the land conveyed by the town of Midland to the crown is in part occupied by other persons, and I should think it would be advisable for my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to bring the plan here and have some explanation of the matter placed before the House. I should think my hon. friend might bring the plan down to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will have a copy of the plan brought down to-morrow. I will have a report made on the other point, and if such a state of affairs exists as my hon. friend described, it is wholly without my knowledge. I am not aware, nor do I think that my deputy is, that any sucb state of affairs existed.
Pembroke-wharf, $10,000.


James Clancy: Permit me to ask the hon. minister if he intends to go on with the work at Little Bear Creek ? That has been in the estimates four or five years in succession and nothing done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a dredge working in that locality, and I have given instructions to have it sent there at once.
Parry Sound-wharf, $8,000.


Samuel Hughes: Where is that wharf to be located ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to be built by the Parry Sound Lumber Company.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much is the hon. minister giving the company for that dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nothing; the site is free.


William Humphrey Bennett: You have a very fa-favourable proposition from the town of Parry Sound.
Point Edward-dredging, $6,000.


James Clancy: What is the extent of the work there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work at that place is very important. Large boats could not get up to the wharf, and we are consequently having this work - done. I think that $6,000 will finish the work under contemplation at present.
Port Burwell-improvement of harbour (revote, $5,000), $34,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work under contract there. This is for all the improvements going on there under the Department of Public Works, and the chief engineer informs me that it will complete it.
Port Stanley-dredging, $4,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this involve the replacing of the gentleman who died a short time ago and who superintended the works there ? Is it necessary to re-appoint another man to look after the dredges?


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


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, there will be no appointment made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None.
Port Perry-dredging harbour, $2,200.


Samuel Hughes: Is anything being done in connection with dredging the river leading up to Port Perry ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps if we had a dredge there we might do it out of the general votes.
Port Perry-dredging harbour, $2,200.


Samuel Hughes: This breakwater was built a number of years ago and badly wrecked. It should be lengthened very materially. In fact, a new one should be built further out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am making an effort to improve the one we have.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the dredging which was going on last year been finished, and what are the results ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not finished, but the work done this season has given great satisfaction.
Rosedale-wharf, $1,000.


Samuel Hughes: This is a very necessary work, and I might point out in connection with that water-way now in the ,	415
control of the Dominion government that there is a number of logs towed and brought through the locks from time to time, occasionally some fall out of the boom or crib and become water-logged and are a perfect nuisance. From time to time we expend money to clear these out of the channel. Logs 12 to 16 feet are sunk in ten feet of water, boats strike them, the screws and paddle wheels become broken and other injuries and accidents occur. The province has control of these logs, but inasmuch as the government has taken over these waterways, it should look into the matter and see if the Department of Public Works or the Department of Railways and Canals has not authority to have those logs taken away. That is to give any one finding a log in the water a right to take it as his own property. I can assure the minister that in that way the government would save a good deal of money, many accidents would be avoided and the channels and water courses would be cleared of logs. Another point is that the locks of all the systems operate' very slowly. The gates should be changed and should be made to operate much more rapidly than they do. Then, too, a great deal of country in the northern half of Victoria and Haliburton, near the Trent river, could be thrown open to traffic by the construction of four locks opening from the water north of Balsam lake into Haliburton. This would throw open a tract of country1 over 100 miles in length, containing much valuable birch and maple, which cannot now be hauled out to the railways owing to the conformation of the country. But I have previously entered into this detail and the plans and data are always in the departments.


THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
1 will be pleased to have this matter looked into.
River Syden 1mm-improvement of, $5,800.
James Clancy: How is that money being expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Principally in dredging. It is to improve the navigable channels of the Sydenham river. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is familiar with these places. This is a work on which we made some representations. It is in the county of Bothwell, and this work is along the lines of representations made by a deputation introduced by the hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: I suppose this money is to be expended in the east branch of the river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not sufficiently familiar with the river to say.


James Clancy: I call the attention of the hon. minister to this matter, because the River Svdenliam includes the north and east branches. Wallaceburg is at the junction of the north and east branches, and I sup-



pose this is to be expended between Wallace-hurg and Dresden.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to carry out the work asked for by the deputation introduced by the hon. gentleman.


James Clancy: As that is a very pressing work, particularly at this time of the year, I would ask if it would not be possible to send a dredge in there at once ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will give instruction to the engineer to have it taken up at once.


James Clancy: There is a good dredge at his disposal, it is a very important work, and if some portion of it could be done during the present season it would be of great advantage to the people there.


Richard Blain: During the last two sessions I drew the attention of the government to some work that was very necessary in the harbour of Port Credit, .on Lake Ontario. Will the hon. minister state what is going to be done about that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman brought it to my attention, and I sent for a report. One of the great difficulties is that the harbour there is private property, and whatever may have been the policy of the department in the past, it is not now the policy of the department, except under exceptional circumstances, to spend public money on property which is not the property of the Crown. I Intended to write my hon. friend about that in order that he might take it up.


Richard Blain: Although that is the policy of the government, I do not think it has always been adhered to. There are other instances in Ontario where harbours are in exactly the same position. This is very close to Toronto, where the kon. gentleman has a dredge working all the time, and perhaps the hon. minister could allow that dredge to go to Port Credit and dredge out some of the sand that is continually drifting in there.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think no one would object to that, and I will see that it is attended to, if there is a dredge in that locality.
Ottawa river-improvement of narrows at Petewawa above Pembroke-to pay G. C. Pou-pore in full for work done previous to July 1, 1903 (revote of lapsed amount), $7,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is an amount of $7,000 that has been voted for several years. The contractor filed claims for a larger amount. This was in the main estimates, and I had it struck out, in order to look into it. After discussion of the matter the contractor has agreed to accept this, and I am asking this in order to make the settlement.


James Clancy: River St. Lawrence-dredging steamboat channel through shoal at foot of Wolfe Island, $5,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see anything in the main estimates for the Canadian channel through the Thousand Islands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is not this a part of it ?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand a survey was made with a view to running a channel there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend knows that we must have our new Ontario dredge before we can do that.


Mr. AVERY.: This work at the foot of Wolfe island is very useful.
Regulation of waters at Lake Simcoe and Couchiching-repairs to works at Washago, &c.. $2,000.
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. A great deal of damage is done at this place from the overflow of the water in consequence of the government works. I find that $7,652 have been spent there in time past, and representations have been made to me that this $2,000 will renew this work in such a way as to protect the people of that locality from further loss.


William Humphrey Bennett: At certain times in the past there was an overflow by the water of Lake Simcoe backing up on the south side. But since the stop-logs have been put in a few years ago, I understand no further trouble lias been felt. I do not know what this $2,000 is needed for, unless it is to make a more perfect arrangement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for repairs to those works, to those stop-logs.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have always understood that the people of Orillia township were satisfied with the arrangement.


Samuel Hughes: There is a report in the Department of Railways and Canals showing that in certain seasons of the year the water rises on all these lakes, but there is no more overflow in this locality than anywhere else. But on account of the blasting that was done years ago, these-stop-logs were put in. If the minister means that this money is to repair those stop-logs, that is all right ; but if it means that it is to reduce the present level of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe, he will find the country will not tolerate it.
Sault Ste. Marie-harbour improvements, including dredging of approaches (revote), $18 -300.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would like to have some explanation from the minister of what is proposed to he done here. I was up ait [DOT] Sault Ste. Marie recently, and it appears to

me a good deal of work needs to be done there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations have been made to me that a good deal of work was required there, but I have had no money to do it with. With this money it may be possible to do some dredging this fall.


Haughton Lennox: That is a place where I think the government will be wise in taking a comprehensive view of the matter, and in proceeding deliberately upoi. some careful system by which that river will be. utilized, and by which we may have a channel that will compare with the American channel. At present docks are being built through private enterprise. A dock was put up recently by a private company, who claim that they have spent a large amount of money. I do not speak with any technical knowledge, but it appears to me that that dock is carried out into the river too far.
I think the government would meet the wishes of the country if they proceeded in some comprehensive manner with their work on the water front, which is to serve as a dock along the Canadian Soo. There is no one who visits the American side and then comes across to the Canadian side, but must feel, if he is a patriotic Canadian, ashamed of the appearance of our own country, as compared with the American side. That remark applies particularly to the lack of dockage accommodation and to the slovenly condition in which the Canadian side generally appears. There is evidently an immense amount of shipping done there* and I should think that some such system as has been adopted at Montreal would be a proper system at the Soo, that is to say, that instead of running out these docks or piers into the river, we should have a dock extending along the line of the river parallel to the shore, to serve as a means of anchorage for all the vessels coming from the Canadian locks. There is another matter that deserves attention, and that is the condition of the land round about the Canadian locks. On the American side everything is in beautiful condition, there is a lawn and a park, but on the Canadian side everything is rough and unfinished. It is important that we should make our side compare favourably with the other side. Although I do not often advocate the expenditure of money, I think it is important that the Canadian side of the Soo should be considerably improved. The Canadian Soo has a great future before it, tlie trade through that channel is rapidly increasing, and the percentage of increase is now in favour of our locks. I think we would be justified in expending money on a well-considered plan, both as regards the dredging of the river and improving the land round about the locks. I might remind the hon. Minister of Public Works that the Americans are spending a very large sum of money almost every year, and 415}	'
there is a very large contemplated expenditure at the present time in improving their channel. When we are coming into direct competition with them, as we are at that point and at some other points on the lakes, I would be somewhat generous in the expenditure of money. Of course, I would advocate a very well-considered plan for the whole scheme before the expenditure is engaged in.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think on this matter we are almost unanimous and the only reason I did not take it up sooner was that I wanted to have a plan prepared before I asked for my vote.
Thessalon-breakwater, $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is that for ? You have a government dock there already that produces almost nothing in revenue.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision towards the construction of a breakwater 420 feet long at Thessalon for the protection of all classes of vessels on the great lakes. Very strong representations have been made to me by people engaged in the vessel trade and by fishermen and others upon the subject and it has been pointed out to me that the wharf under present conditions' is of very little use to them. It will be a great advantage to the district to have another harbour of refuge there and I have brought down a vote for this purpose.


Samuel Hughes: What depth of water is there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From twelve to fifteen feet of water.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know whether the hon. minister has been at Thessalon, but he must know that this has been a town for fifteen years. It has done business for the last fifteen years and there is a very expensive government dock at that point now and as there is little or no revenue why this large expenditure should be gone into now seems incredible. I am sorry that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Dyment) is not here because I would like to compliment him personally on being able to get more money expended in his riding than the most sanguine well-wisher for the distribution of public funds with the view of political advantage coming from it.
Toronto harbour-works at eastern entrance, close piling, channel face of east pier and levelling up pier, $20,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I observe there is nothing in the estimates for the dredging out of Toronto harbour. This work has been necessitated because of the persistent refusal of the government of Canada for the last sixty years to take steps to protect what was once a peninsula inclosing the harbour of Toronto. I have the documents in my desk now but I do not want to weary the commit-

tee about it at this time. It is really incredible when we look over the official documents in connection with the preservation of Toronto harbour for the last sixty years to see how impossible it has been, because of changing governments and changing opinions, to have anything permanent done in respect to the preservation of the harbour. These eastern works have been made necessary because all the recommendations made again and again looking towards the protection of the peninsula have been entirely ignored. The force of the waves of Lake Ontario destroyed the peninsula and formed the present island. Since 1833, Capt. Bonny-eastle, who was then the harbour master, and his various successors ha ve been recommending that something should be done for the preservation of the harbour. Capt. Bonnyc-astle's statement were prophetic, and unless the government do something at an early day in regard to the diversion of the channel of the Don, and in the way of dredging, there will be good grounds for complaint.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think we can take up the discussion at the present time of the improvements of the Don. Representations were made to me asi to dredging at the eastern entrance. I was unable to get a dredge to do this work. It was only last week that I was able to get a' dredge, the one that had been working for the city of Toronto and I gave the owners a contract. We happened to procure a dredge up the lakes but they got into some trouble and they were not able to fulfil their contract. As to the other work that will have to .be taken up again.
Toronto harbour-works at eastern entrance -to pay Magann and Phin in full and final settlement of all claims in connection with their contract of February 10, 1900, for the extension of the western pier, $9,100.51.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How has this adjustment been arrived at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This settlement was made with the officials of the department and on the report of our own officials.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. minister bring the papers down in connection with this matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I will be very glad to. I have not looked into them myself.
Victoria harbour-dredging, $4,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that money be spent this year and if so will it complete the dredging at that point ? This is an important point. This year 75,000,000 feet of lumber will be cut there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This money will be all spent. There have been applications for about $3,000 of $4,000 Mr. CLARKE.
more to complete this work, but I do not think we can take it upi this year.
Wiarton-wharf, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a new wharf at Wiarton.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost ?	'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost will be about $11,000. My hon. friend is familiar with the conditions there. Owing to the establishment of new factories at that place strong representations have been made as to the necessity for this work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who furnishes the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site does not cost us anything, but the chief engineer tells me that he expects that will be given. I do not know whether it will be furnished by the provincial government or by the town, but at any rate it will be furnished.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns, I wish to refer to a matter that I understand was brought before the Committee of Supply last evening. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), I understand, intimated to the committee that I was an interested party in a company at Newmarket which was in receipt of government work. I wish to say that the statement is wholly without foundation.
I know nothing about the company's financial arrangements and I have never had any interest in it. I do not know whether it has shareholders or whether it has not. It is quite true that I have felt it to be my duty from time to time to endeavour to promote the interests of this company. It is carrying on business in a town I am interested in and for many reasons I wish that town well. I am pleased to be able to be of service to that town in promoting the welfare of a great industry like the Office Specialty Company. Further than taking a public interest in the matter, I know nothing in respect to it. I think it would have been fairer if the hon. gentleman had reserved his remarks till I could have been in the House so that my denial might have immediately followed his insinuation.


William Humphrey Bennett: I happened to be in the town of Newmarket during the by-election, last spring, and I heard a wordy altercation between two electors. One was pretending that the Postmaster General was the backbone of the town of Newmarket, and in support of his contention he announced that

the Postmaster General was a stockholder In this company. Tile other contended that the Postmaster General was not interested in it, and that if the town had to depend on the Postmaster General, the office specialty works would not have been there. The Postmaster General's supporter repeated time and again that the Postmaster General was interested in this work, and the other gentleman, who was a Conservative, I need hardly say, asserted time and again that the town had not to thank the Postmaster General for this enterprising establishment. It now seems that this gentleman was right. This gentleman also asserted that the Postmaster General was never known to enter into any enterprise in the town. Be that as it may, since the Postmaster General says that he is not interested, I can only regret that he has not joined with other enterprising men in this concern, which is so creditable to the town of Newmarket. I hope the Postmaster General will follow at an early date, the example set by other gentlemen who have invested money in manufacturing concerns in that town.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The point of my observation was to deny the insinuation of the member for East Simcoe, that I had been-as he put it-sending grist to my mill, and using my position as a minister to enrich myself through the medium of this company. That was an unfair insinuation to make on the floor of this House. It is false in every respect.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was the assertion of one of the Postmaster General's political friends, that his enterprise was so great, and that such was his admiration for the town of Newmarket, that he had been one of the gentlemen who had engaged in this enterprise. However, that appears to be untrue, and I join in wishing well to Newmarket.


ACCIDENT AT SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Hance James Logan: I regret to have to state that I received a telegram from Springhill this morning stating that a very serious explosion has occurred in the Dominion public building there, by which a gentleman named McDowell was killed, and a gentleman named Eaton and two boys seriously injured. I have received a later telegram saving that probably Mr. Eaton will die. I aslt the Minister of Public Works to make an immediate investigation into the cause of this frightful accident, which has resulted in loss Qf life, and has wrecked the public building which has just been constructed in that town.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Andrew B. Ingram: What fuel were they using ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nova Scotia coal, I think.


REPORT OF TREADGOLD COMMISSION.
Robert Laird Borden: I was told this morning that I would receive an answer later in the day as to the report of Tread-gold Commission, and the printing of the evidence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I spoke to the Premier and lie intended to give an answer, but I may say that tlie report has not been received yet.


AUDIT ACT AMENDMENT.
Robert Laird Borden: I would ask whether the Bill to amend the Audit Act is to be proceeded with, and if so, whether any date has been fixed for its consideration?


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am unable to fix any date with regard to that Bill at present.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman does intend to proceed with it this session ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not given It consideration of late. I am not able to say anything more definite on that point than that the matter is still nnder consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Continuation of supplies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.40 a.no.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 7, 1903.