1903-05-19

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 179) to amend the Act respecting safety of ships.
Mr. R. D. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the object of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is simply to make the Canadian law the same as the English law-regarding deck loads. It is purely a technical matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time. ,

Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister, a telegram which I have received from Dawson : ' Official organ says committee has been appointed to investigate Treadgold,' and the inquiry is made as to whether or not this statement is correct. Would the right hon. gentleman inform the House ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The statement is premature, but the commission will go in a very few days.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 17) to aid in the settlement of railway labour	disputes.-Sir William
Mulock.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I am perfectly willing to go up there and consult the hon. members of the riding before anything further is done.\nItem voted.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, May 20, 1903.']
Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: material, board, &c., to send in their claims in the form of affidavits. These have been received, and the aggregate for thirty miles of road is $226,276.88. We are now placed in this position-we have to distribute $16,000 among creditors to the extent of over $226,000. The proportion is so small that I am going to ask the government to change this last clause of the subsidy so as to begin to pay the labourers who are still in possession of their time checks, the labourers who have not sold their claim on the road, so that we may pay them at least fifty cents on the dollar If not -more. But I wish to go further and ask the government, when they will take up the new claims of the Atlantic and Lake Superior to remember that these trustees, represented by Mr. Joquin Galindey, advanced money to the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway and the guarantee that they have since 1900 been in possession of one hundred miles of railway which they are working for their own advantage and benefit, whereas the men who built the road, the farmers who gave the right of way, the men who supplied the material and the men who boarded the employees remain unpaid; so that if any money leaves the Dominion exchequer for this Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway or the trustees thereof, the government should take upon itself to pay the men who built the line and not pay the trustees who have taken possession of the road, and thus guaranteed their own advances. I believe that I need say no more, except that I wish to thank the right lion, the premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the lion. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) for the great trouble they have gone to in the effort to bring order out of chaos in the affairs of this road. And, before I resume my seat I very humbly request the government, before granting this additional application of the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway :
1.	That the Department of Railways and Canals ascertain by means of a public circular the amount due on the Baie des Chaleurs and Atlantic and Dake Superior Railway from Meta-pedia to Caplin, for right of way, labour, board, material, damage, &e.
2.	That all -circular payments to the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway be withheld until their line of railway has been placed in a proper condition, that suitable fences have been erected on the whole road and that the section from New Carlisle to Paspebiac has been completed and is operated and that the road-bed is improved, unsafe wooden bridges and trestles replaced by proper constructions.
3.	That any additional subsidy granted this railway besides that of $3,200 per mile for thirty miles from Caplin to Paspebiac authorized by chapter 7, Ed. VII., be applied by the government itself to the payment of debts due on the railway for right of way, hoard, material, construction and operation; that the trustees of these bondholders being in possession of the road and being therefore guaranteed for their advances and benefiting by its operation and by

the work of unpaid labour, material, &c., of other creditors should mot share in this additional subsidy.
4.	That if a double subsidy of $6,400 per mile on the thirty miles of road amounting to $96,000 be granted on the application by Joquin Galin-dey and of the trustees or any other of said trustees, or of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company, or any sum or part thereof, that said sum be applied by the Department of Railways and Canals to the payment of the unsecured creditors mentioned above.
5.	That the trustees or the company itself have no right to claim additional subsidies for work which has not been paid by them and which according to the sworn claims produced with the Department of Railways and Canals exceed $220,000 for thirty miles of the line only.
6.	That legislation be asked for by the Government during the present session if necessary to authorize the Department of Railways and Canals to pay to the unsecured creditors any subsidy granted to this road in addition to that of $3,200 per mile mentioned in section 9 chapter 7, 1 Ed. VII.
7.	That the balance of the original subsidy of $96,000 voted in section 9, chapter 7, 1 Ed. VII. not already paid or reserved for payment of labour, board and material be withheld until the line of railway has been put into proper condition as indicated above.
I believe both sides of the House will agree with me that what I ask in most reasonable. These claims are due to poor people, for the most part labourers and farmers who have suffered through the construction of this Baie des Chaleurs Railway to such an extent that it has become a by-word in the railway history of the Dominion. During the last fifteen or sixteen years, the county of Bonaventnre has gone through a crisis probably unparelleled in Canada; and I hope that before any more money leaves the Dominion exchequer for the purposes of this road, the government will see to it that the people who have built this road shall be first paid before any other payments are made by the Crown or by the department.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I assure my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil, Bona venture) that the matter shall have consideration.



Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if it is his Intention to lay on the Table the evidence that will be taken in the investigation held into the cause of the accident at Windsor Junction on the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I had not thought of it, but if the ho.ii. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) desires it, I shall be very glad to do so.


CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT.
Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I would like to inquire from the Minister of Railways if the new classification of freight 104J
known as the Canadian Freight Classification No. 12, has been authorized, as is customary, by Order in Council ? The same came into affect on May 1st.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I could not answer the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) offhand, I have no recollection of any recent order passing that had reference to any classification of freight. This may possibly have received sanction some months ago, though it only came into effect this month. I will ascertain and let the hon. gentleman know.


Albert Edward Kemp: To explain, I may say that the last classification was authorized by Order in Council in 1899 ? I hardly expect that the minister would have authorized another classification on the eve of the appointment of a commission. There are some very radical departures in this new classification. I will read the rule, which has never been applied to any other classification :
When articles are shipped under false names, in order to deceive the carrier, or to avoid this classification, agents at destination will collect charges according to proper classification, plus fifty per cent in addition to the rate which would have been charged had the property been correctly described.
There are 3,000 different items in this classification, perhaps more, and there is great confusion and misunderstanding between the shippers and the railway. This rule, if carried out, means that the company's view of the case in all instances must be the correct one, that they must be the judge, jury and court of appeal, and if goods upon which the freight would amount to $100, were not, according to their opinion, in accordance with this classification, one in which the public have nothing to say, if they consider that the goods are not properly described under this classification, which as I say contains 3,000 items, then they have a right to charge $50 extra on freight which would be $100, and to exact that as a fine from the shipper before the goods will be handed over to the consignee at the other end. I just draw the minister's attention to this matter in view of the appointment of a commission. There are other rules, new rules, in the new classification which are just as radical, and although all the merchandise of the country has been shipped under that classification, at this moment I am almost inclined to believe that the same has not been authorized by Order in Council according to law. If it had been authorized by Order in Council, it would be noted on the classification the same as on former classifications, by number 11, which was authorized on December 19, 1899.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I would suggest that the hon. member put his question on the Paper, and I will have the matter looked into. I do not recollect now that any

recent Order in Council has passed on that subject.


THE TREADGOLD CONCESSION.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is put, I would like to inquire of the government whether it is proposed to submit to the House the terms of the proposed commission to investigate matters concerning the Treadgold concession, and whether any and what precautions are to be taken to preserve the interests of the public by having them safeguarded by counsel. In other words, is it to be a thorough investigation, or is it simply to be a departmental investigation in which the public may possibly have no rights whatever, and in which the facts may not be so thoroughly investigated as might seem to be rendered necessary by newspaper comments and comments elsewhere with regard to these concessions. The Prime Minister is not here, and perhaps my hon. friend may not be able to give an answer to my inquiry at once. In the absence of the right hon. gentleman, I am giving this intimation rather in the shape of a notice of what will probably be demanded at an early day, and at somewhat greater length, in regard to this matter. I would also like to know whether the proposed investigation respecting the Treadgold concession is to be confined to that alone, or is it to deal also with other concessions in the Yukon which have, in that part of the country at least, caused almost as much comment as the Treadgold concession itself. I think it right at the earliest moment to ascertain the intentions of the government. I shall bring the matter again to the attention of the government, and I now intimate that the proposed commission will no doubt be discussed. At the earliest possible moment the intentions of the government with regard thereto will certainly be asked in this House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: In answer to the hon. gentleman I have to say that it is not possible for me to-day to answer in detail his various questions.^ But I may say that the government is now engaged in formulating the instructions that will accompany the commission. The commission will be comprehensive and far reaching in its work. It will apply not only to any existing concessions, but it will deal with the hydraulic, needs of the district in connection with the development of the mines.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the intention of the government to lay the composition of the commission and the instructions to the commission on the Table in order that they may be discussed before finally being sent out; in other words, will the House have any opportunity of discussing the terms of the commission before it is finally signed and sent forward ?


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That point has not been discussed, I will make it known to the government. No doubt, as soon as the commission is ready all the terms will be submitted to the House, but whether that will be before or after the adoption of the terms of the commission, I am not able at this moment to say. If the hon. gentleman desires to renew this question on this subject to-morrow, I will perhaps be able to give him an answer. In the meantime I may say that the commission will not only deal with the existing conditions as to the outcome of any grants, but it will endeavour in a comprehensive way to deal with the needs of the country. For that reason one of the commissioners at least will be an expert, competent to deal with the important question to be investigated by the commission.


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be pardoned another word to the hon. gentleman, I may say that it would not perhaps be of any use to submit the commission and the instructions to the House after the terms have once been settled and gone forward. It is within the bounds of possibility that some suggestions might be made from this side of the House which would be of use to the government and to the country with regard to the terms of the proposed commission, and it is in that view that I have made the remarks to the hon. gentleman which I did. It seemed to me, speaking of course with every deference, that there might be very good reason, seeing that this matter has been under public discussion, and a subject of considerable comment in the country, why the government should observe the course which has been taken in some eases, and submit to the House the terms of the proposed commission and the instructions to the commission before the commission has been fairly settled and sent forward.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As I have already mentioned to the hon. gentleman, I will make his observations known to the government, and perhaps I may be able to answer him to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec-River St. Lawrence ship channel, $515,800.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This vote of $515,800 is to continue the widening and deepening and improvement of the St. Lawrence channel between Montreal and Quebec.


Mr. MONK.: Would the hon. minister give us some more details as to the expenditure of this large sum ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A large amount of this vote is for the work of dredging. There are seven dredges employed. It is estimated that $340,000 of

this amount will be spent in the working of the dredges, $26,800 for shipyards, supplies, &c. New dredging plant, scows and repairs to dredges, $113,000, surveys, $25,000, and inspection and superintendence, $15,000, making a total of $515,800.


Mr. MORIN.: Would the hon. minister be kind enough to tell the committee at what places it is proposed to dredge the river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This dredging is all to be done on what is known as the channel between Montreal and Quebec. There are about sixty-five miles out of 100 that will be widened and deepened, the dredges will be set at work at different places, and they will continue the work that has been going on for the past two years.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Do I understand the hon. minister to say that there are 100 miles to be dredged ?


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


Joseph Israël Tarte: How many miles does the hon. gentleman say ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About sixty miles.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We cannot hear the hon. gentleman at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not my fault if the hon. gentlemen do not hear. I am speaking a great deal louder than is necessary. The estimate of the department is that about sixty miles of dredging is to be done on this channel.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not think that my hon. friend, if he allows me, is right in saying there are sixty miles to be dredged now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that either. I was asked a question as to the amount of dredging that was to be done, and as to what distance of this channel was to be improved. I said that the officers of the department estimated about sixty miles. According to their estimate about half the work is done, or about twenty-eight miles out of the sixty have been completed to a width of 450 feet, and to a depth of thirty feet.


Mr. MACLEAN.: What is the estimated expenditure on the whole work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $1,500,000.


William Findlay Maclean: How much has been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On this channel already there has been spent about $6,000,000. A great deal of that was spent by the Harbour Commissioners, but on this work which is under consideration now and which is to be continued, there has been an expenditure of about $4,000,000.


William Findlay Maclean: And when completed, that will give a channel of what depth ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About thirty feet.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What width would the channel be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Four hundred and fifty feet.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Has the minister under consideration the question of continuing this work to Montreal V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the chief engineer of the department tells me that the work of the department goes only to Longue Pointe, and that the balance of the work is under the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Mr. INGRAM.: What are the names of the dredges that are employed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will be kind enough to turn to page 152, of the Report of the Minister of Public Works, for the year 1902, he will find the names of the dredges. They are the ' Lady Aberdeen,' the ' Lady Minto,' the ' Laurier,' the * Laval,' the ' Lafontaine,' Dredge No. 8, the * Baldwin,' the ' J. Israel Tarte ' and spoon dredge No. 6. This dredge No. 6, I think, has been abandoned. .


Samuel Hughes: In this vote of $515,000, is there any sum for the construction of dredges, and if so, where will these dredges be built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there is no sum estimated here for the construction of dredges. There is a sum for the purpose of building some scows and improvements and repairs to dredges.


Samuel Hughes: I received a communication from Sorel the other day concerning the title to the property that the government has at present for its works and docks. I would like to ask the hon. minister from whom the government purchased the site of the Sorel works or docks, and what price was paid for this property ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be very much more convenient if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) would defer his question until we reach the item in connection with the works in Sorel, and which will be probably reached to-day.


Samuel Hughes: The Chairman said it had been passed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he made a mistake. The item stood for the purpose of bringing down some information, and I will be prepared to give the information which the hon. gentleman asks when that item is under consideration.


Joseph Israël Tarte: These docks are not on the same side of the river as the gov-

eminent shipyards. The docks are on the south side of. the river and the shipyards are on the north side. They have no connection whatever.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At what particular places between Montreal and Quebec is this dredging to be done, and what proportion of dredging is to be done in each place ? Will it give us a channel from Montreal to Quebec 450 feet wide and thirty-live feet deep at low water ? Has the large and costly dredge which we purchased two years ago been working satisfactorily ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The distance requiring deepening and widening was estimated by the engineers to be about sixty miles, and about twenty-eight miles of that is already completed, leaving thirty-two miles still to be done.


Samuel Hughes: Is this sixty miles altogether, or is it at different points ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is at different spots. As to the large dredge, the ' J. Israel Tarte,' I am informed that during the latter part of the season this dredge did very excellent work. It was a new piece of mechanism, the first of its kind in this country, and there were some delays.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: How many yards of sand, of clay, and of rock have yet to be taken out ? What did this new dredge cost us per yard ? I am anxious to know that because a promise was given last session that this dredge could work at considerably less than one cent a yard.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know what our experience might be next year, but the report of the department last year shows that the cost was two and one-half cents a yard. I am informed by the engineer that there is no more rock dredging to be done.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I may say that the dredge that bears my name cannot work in heavy clay, and especially in rock. Mr. Robinsou invented a rotary cutter which is attached at the end of the pipe and that enables the dredge to work in pretty hard material. The American dredges in the past were supplied with injectors which forced out water to soften the material, but this did not enable them to work, in as hard a material as our dredge does with the rotary cutter. The work of the dredge cannot be judged by our operations last year, but nevertheless I am informed that in the last month in which it worked, October, I think, she dredged the enormous quantity of over COO.000 yards. It is hoped by those who designed the dredge that she will turn out 1,000,000 yards a month. Her working capacity is 2,000 yards an hour and in my presence I saw her do that, but of course there will be accidents and perhaps delays. The Hon. Mr. TARTE.
estimated cost of the dredging by this dredge is half a cent a yard when everything goes right, but even if it should cost one cent a yard it is pretty cheap indeed.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Has the attention of the minister been called to the fact that some of the curves in that channel are too short ? I am informed by an eminent engineer and by some captains who navigated that river that a curve which was sufficient ten years ago is altogether insufficient today, because the vessels now are much longer than they were then. This engineer stated that if the curves were too short they had a tendency to run the vessel aground on the other side, and that the deepening of the channel where the curves were short was rather an impediment, because the increased depth caused a stronger current in the channel and made the navigation more difficult. This gentleman's idea was that if the money was spent in straightening the curves rather than in deepening the channel it would be a more useful expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a good deal in the representations made in regard to these curves and we are trying to improve them. The chief engineer tells me that between Longue Point and VerchSres there were eleven curves at one time, but now they have been reduced to three. That is receiving the attention of the engineers on the work, and the curves are being reduced to a minimum.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister whether, when this work is completed, we shall have a perfect channel 450 feet wide from Montreal to Quebec, and also whether or not he has any map showing that portion of the channel upon which the dredging operations are being conducted ? If so, I think it should be laid on the Table of the House while we are discussing this item, so that we may be enabled better to understand what we are really voting this money for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The result of this work will be to make the channel between Montreal and Quebec 450 feet wide and 30 feet deep. I think there is a plan, which I shall be glad to lay upon the Table, showing in detail where these improvements will be made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The maps have been changed year by year as the works have been proceeded with, and I believe these maps are available. The House would be under a very wrong impression to suppose that we have been only proceeding with the dredging of the river. Along with the deepening of the channel the work of straightening and cleaning the river has been proceeded with. When we first took up the work there were numerous curves and other difficulties. The part of the work which has

been completed has been' carried out thoroughly and well. In a few months the works between Lake St. Peter and Montreal will be fully completed, and in such a manner that both day navigation and night navigation will be not only possible, but easy in that part of the river.


John Graham Haggart: What arrangements have been made for night navigation?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Department of Marine and Fisheries has erected, especially during last year, very fine lighthouses along the channel. There is some little work yet to be completed, which, I understand, will be completed within a few weeks, and it will then be easy for the largest steamers to travel night and day between Sorel and Montreal. This part of the work, I suppose, will be pretty far advanced when this season closes, and the balance completed within two years. The 65 miles of dredging that was to be done three or four years ago will be thoroughly completed to a depth of 30 feet and a width of at least 450 feet, in the straight parts, and more in the curves. When we speak of a depth of 30 feet, we of course refer to the depth at the lowest water, which is only for about two months of the year. During the other months there is plenty of water, and the largest boats can navigate the river without any trouble. When the Department of Marine and Fisheries complete their part of the work, the channel between Montreal and Quebec will then be one of the safest channels in the world ; I say that without hesitation.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What about the accident to the ' Carrigan Head ' ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That vessel was grounded between two buoys, simply because one of the buoys was not located. At this time of the year, as my hon. friend from Gaspe knows, there is plenty of water in the channel of the St. Lawrence. The draught of the vessel was 26 feet ; but even if it had been 30 feet, there was plenty of water. The inquiry showed that the grounding of the boat was an accident.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think we should have a map showing where this work is going to be done this year. The hon. minister has admitted the usefulness of that, and I for my part do not like to vote such a large sum of money without seeing exactly what it is proposed to do this year and where. This work is a splendid one, and one in which we are very much interested, and I think we ought to be informed how far it is expected to go towards the completion of these 32 miles this year. The dredge which bears the name of the ex-Minister of Public Works, I understand, dredged 600,000 yards in one month last year ; and we are told there are six other dredges at work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They cannot all do as much.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They cannot all do as much, but they can do something. We ought to advance very materially towards the completion of these works during the present season. Under the circumstances, I would like to know where the work is to be done this year. No man would think of spending so large an amount of money as this without having that information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend is perfectly correct, and he has indicated what information he would like. We all hope this work will go on. How much will be done will depend largely, as the hon. member for St. Mary's says, on the working condition of each dredge. If the dredge turns out as we expected, with the improvement and changes made during the winter, there will be a wonderful difference in the amount of work done in the coming season. It is estimated that with this dredge and the others, there will be at least eight or nine miles dredged during the season, perhaps more.


John Graham Haggart: That will only be a quarter of the work.
The MINISTER OF rUBLIC WORKS. It will be over a third of the work because it is the heaviest portion.


John Graham Haggart: How many hundred yards must be excavated in order to finish these thirty-two miles ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not estimated the number of yards.


John Graham Haggart: An estimate should be made every week in the department. What sort of an engineering department is that which does not make a weekly estimate ?


Mr. SPROULE.: Lgst year or the year before an approximate estimate was given.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The approximate estimate of the number of yards to be removed is something like 32,000,000. If my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) will look up page 152 of the report of the Public Works Department, he will find the information which he inquires.


Mr. BENNETT.: In this half million dollars are the wages of the shops of Sorel included ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the expenditure of the shops there last year ? It seems to me that it alone ran up to $175,000. What is the estimated expenditure tills year in the shops as against $175,000 last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Just about the same for labour and material.


Mr. BLAIN.: How much would it cost to fit up the ' J. Israel Tarte ' dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost of the dredge is $300,000.


Richard Blain: What does that include ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Everything.


Richard Blain: What amount did the furnishings cost V I find there some pretty large items, for instance, one leather box lounge, $85.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were some $30,000 spent during the past season, which of course, will not be given in detail in the Auditor General's Report, until next year, but that was altogether for improvements and changes in machinery.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is not the cost nearer $400,000 than $300,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The figures given me by the officers of my department are $307,000, including the improvements done during the past season.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That dredge was built by the Poison Iron Works and the plan prepared by Mr. Robinson. It was found that some pieces of machinery were a little off. Any one who has had experience in new machinery knows that there are always breakages incident to any new work. The piping had been located in a wrong way. It was beneath the deck where the engineers could not reach it easily and it had to be changed. Before I left office I made a thorough investigation in company of Mr. Robinson and we found that some changes had to be made. Those changes have cost some money, but we have now a dredge which will give a good account of itself.


Richard Blain: How many miles does the hon. minister expect to dredge of Lake St. Peter this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About seven miles.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I thought so. The estimate given us a minute ago, I knew, applied to the ' Tarte ' dredge, and the oflier dredges should dredge as much as the 'Tarte' dredge should do in Lake St. Peter. I should expect that this year about fourteen or fifteen miles would be dredged. There remains about thirty miles of dredging in round figures, a little less, but let us say about thirty miles. So, if the dredge 'Tarte' carries out the expectations we have formed of her and does between seven and eight miles and the others do as much, there will remain only fifteen to eighteen miles to do another year. The fleet of dredges is now completed. These are all new dredges. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has at his disposal a very fine fleet of dredges, tugs, stone lifters, &c., and his Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
department is in a position to carry out work with a great deal of delight, if I may use that expression. But let me add immediately that a good deal depends upon the crew. The officers of the department will tell my hon. friend that we had a good deal of trouble in keeping all the officers at their posts at times. The dredge ' Tarte ' especially has to be manned with a great deal of care-it is a very complicated piece of machinery, very complicated indeed, and requires all the officers on board all the time, otherwise there will be accidents and the work will not be carried out as the department has a right to expect it to be car-7'ipd out. I hope my hon. friend will take advantage of the first holiday we give him 1o make a personal inspection of that dredge and of all the dredges. He will find that if he goes himself-if he will allow me to suggest It-his presence will give encouragement to the men, and his supervision will add to the quantity of the work, I am sure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the hon. gentleman will have to take me along with him if he wishes me to understand the work. The reference be has given me does not exactly answer my questions-in fact does not answer them at all. Where are our dredges to be placed ? I see that the dredge ' Laur-ier ' last year excavated over 400,000 yards, while the dredge ' Tarte '-probably because it got to work very late-only excavated 93,000 cubic yards.	.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In what month ? That is the work of her first month.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know the dredge is capable of doing a great deal more than that. But I do not find in the document which the hon. gentleman has referred me the information I wanted. I wished to find the capacity of each dredge by the year or by the month, the cost of operation of each dredge, the place where each dredge is to be located and the portions of dredging that will be completed this year. The minister a moment ago mentioned seven or eight miles, while the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that we shall have accomplished fifteen miles. So, we seem to be a little in the dark.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will see that I can hardly give him in detail the cost for next year. But the reference I have given him shows the cost per cubic yard for each dredge last year, and it is fair to assume that it will be the same with all the dredges, except the ' ,T. Israel Tarte,' next year. As I explained. if the improvements made during the winter turn out all that we hope, the ' ,T. Israel Tarte ' will do as good work as she did the last month of last year, in fact we hope for a great deal more work and at a lower rate.


Richard Blain: How many days did the ' J. Israel Tarte ' work last year ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Altogether one hundred and twenty-seven days. The ex-Miuister of Public Works probably explained, that as might be expected, when the dredge was first set to work there was a good deal of delay and loss of time. Though the first month's work was estimated to cost something like 8 cents a yard, the last month's work cost only 14 cents per yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: As to this expenditure for workmen, as I understand the hon. minister, it will cost $175,000 to pay the wages of the men employed in this shipyard at Sorel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is for men and material, if I am not mistaken.


William Humphrey Bennett: It would seem to have run to $175,000 last year for wages alone.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The officers of the department advise me differently. The amount given by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) includes wages and material. They seem to keep the books so as to show both items under one head. I am not able to separate the payments for wages.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have the document under my hand. If the hon. minister will turn to the Auditor General's Report, page V-35, and continuing to page V-46, he will find the total charges there of $175,000 for last year, and, glancing over it page by page, it seems quite clear that every dollar of that is referable to wages alone.
Hon. air. TARTE. As I have taken a deep interest in the shipyard at Sorel, I may be allowed to say, for the information of the House, that a good deal of the wages are paid for repairs. In a large fleet of dredges, tugs, scows, &c., such ns that which the department has at its disposal, there are always breakages calling for repairs. A good many of the dredges are working in hard material. Heavy pressure is brought on the machinery and there are breakages every day. To carry on the necessary repairs, the department must always keep in hand a pretty large supply of parts and materials. So, there were also new scows and boats and other equipment of all kinds to be built. In point of fact there is a quantity of work that the ordinary layman cannot understand unless he goes to inspect these works. I would be very gTad indeed if members of parliament on both sides of the House, when opportunity offers, would visit these shipyards.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Quite right.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) went once, and did not find them in such bad shape that he has much to say about them. These are very interesting shipyards. They are the only shipyards the government
has and perhaps may be a kind of experiment. I would like very much indeed if members of the House, on both sides, when they pass by the thriving town of Sorel, would call and visit the shipyards of the government.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Perhaps the minister would give us an excursion there.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: In reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) I would say that if he will read the explanatory foot note, given by the Auditor General as to the wages, he will see that they are taken out of other votes as well as this. For instance the building of the now dredge for the maritime provinces and the new dredge for Ontario come under this heading.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is a new dredge being built for the maritime provinces ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if there is no special account kept of the repairs on these boats. All I want to know is how we stand. This is a very large amount that we pay out at Sorel. though, of course, these yards are extremely useful. But we would like to know a little about the details. These dredges must have cost a good deal in repairs. What, for instance, is the cost for repairs on these seven dredges which we maintain in the St. Lawrence ? The minister will understand that there is reason for inquiring about that $177,000 for wages. What part of that was chargeable for repairs on these dredges ? Surely there must be a separate account for repairing each dredge. "Again, is not my hon. friend mistaken when he speaks of the construction there of a dredge for the maritime provinces ? I think I have seen a special item in the estimates for a dredge for the maritime provinces.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The wages paid out at Sorel include other items. The chief engineer Informs me, that under the system of bookkeeping at Sorel they could give detailed information with regard to the amount spent on each dredge. I will be pleased to have a copy made of the accounts, showing the amount of repairs put on each dredge. But I wished to explain to my hon. friend that the amount of wages paid out there is not altogether in connection with this vote, but on other works as well.


William Humphrey Bennett: It means that $175,000 is to be expended by the department next year at Sorel. That is evident from the discussion in reference to repairs to be effected on barges, tugs and other craft owned by the department. I would like to call the attention of the minister to this, that it means the employment of about 250 men every day in the year at $2 per day,

making repairs on boats. It means tliat out of this vote of $500,000 there will be at least $175,000 spent in wages for repairs. I turn to the account of the material supplied last year, commencing on page V-23 of the Auditor General's Report, and ending on page V-12, where it would appear that about $425,000 was spent for materials. Assuming the new dredge, the ' Tarte,' cost $300,000, that leaves about $125,000 for sundry material. May I ask the minister how much it is estimated will be spent the coming year for material or work to be done at the shops ?


The MINISTER OF RUBRIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken as to the amount spent at Sorel. The ' J. Israel Tarte' was not built at Sorel.


William Humphrey Bennett: The expenditure is $425,000, and in that is included an expenditure for the ' Tarte.' So deducting $300,000, which in round figures was the amount, spent on the ' Tarte,' that would leave a balance of $125,000 spent at Sorel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I was saying, the ' ,T. Israel Tarte ' was not built at Sorel, and the expenditure of $300,000 was not made at Sorel.


William Humphrey Bennett: Referring to the Auditor General's Report, he will find that the total expenditure on material was $425,000, and in that is included $300,000 for the ' Tarte.' Then the balance of $125,000 must have been in respect to other material that was used at Sorel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a great deal more than that. They are building a dredge there costing nearly double as much as the 'Tarte.'


William Humphrey Bennett: That was not last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and the material purchased for that dredge alone must have cost a great deal more than that. I was trying to explain that this $175,000 in wages is not for repairs alone at Sorel. It is for building, wages paid out in connection with these different boats, on barges, scows and tugs that are being built, and are charged to the different votes. If the hon. gentleman will look more closely into the Auditor General's Report he will see them shown in detail.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where are they being built, if not at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ' ,T. Israel Tarte.' was built at Toronto.


William Humphrey Bennett: That was the subject of a contract. Now, starting at page V-23 and continuing on you find an expenditure amounting to $425,000. Included in that are a lot of large expenditures in respect of this dredge, the 'Tarte.' I notice one of $137,000 and1 another of $45,000, and others Mr. BENNETT.
amounting in the aggregate to $300,000. If you deduct that $300,000 from the $425,000, it seems plain that there were $125,000 spent for material which was used at Sorel and probably in connection with these different dredges that were on the work, tugs, &c. Would the minister say how much money will be required out of this grant of $515,000, for material to be used by these workmen, whether on repairs or on new work at Sorel this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That expenditure was in connection with the repairs on these dredges that are on this channel work, in construction of the large dredge for the maritime provinces, of the dredge for the province of Ontario, and for scows and tugs in connection with the work. As I have said, I would be pleased to have a statement made from the books in Sorel showing in detail how much was spent on repairs of each dredge.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I may be permitted to explain what expenditures are taken from that sum under discussion now, $550,000. First, the department has to pay for the working of all the dredges that are in commission on the St. Lawrence. This is a special item for the River St. Lawrence ship channel, we have seven dredges. We have ten or twelve dredges, perhaps more than that. We have the hydrographic survey, which I do not think will be transferred to the Department of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. But last year the survey of that work was taken from this item. Now there is inspection work, all these working expenses have to be taken out of this item. Then there are repairs, building new scows and boats and all the implements that are necessary for dredging operations.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Can the hon. gentleman say about what that amounts to ?
Hon. Ml-. TARTE. I cannot say this year. But my hon. friend perhaps will be in a position to tell us how much he expects each dredge will spend this year. Last year one of the dredges was not supplied with electric light. These dredges are working night and day. The department has to pay double crews and it costs a large amount of money. There is a pretty large amount of money spent in repairs and there is a very large amount spent at Sorel, because there are other works which are not carried on under this item. For iustance, there is the large dredge for the maritime provinces which is being built there, and which has nothing to do with the St. Lawrence ship channel. In other words, to pay wages, to pay for the maintenance of the stone lifters, the inspection boats, and the hydrographic survey it costs a pretty large amount of money. This work will be completed within the year as it is very far advanced. The hydrographic survey costs about $20,000 or $25,000 a year. That item covers the ground I have just described.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, it would seem clear, that, if last year it cost $125,000 for supplies aud $175,000 for these works at Sorel making a total of $300,000, there is left out of this vote $215,000 to be spent on dredging. After that money is spent amongst the different dredges for wages and the keep of the men, you get your return for the work done in dredging, so that, of the total vote of $500,000 for the St. Lawrence ship channel over $300,000 is for work at Sorel and supplies furnished for the boats.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Out of that amount pretty large sums of money have also been taken to equip the shipyards and to complete buildings. In the shipyards there are always new implements required as any one who is familiar with mills and machinery knows. Out of that amount all these things have had to be bought in the past and I suppose this year the hon. Minister of Fublic Works will be also obliged to buy new implements. There is always something required in connection with a big work of that kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We hope that the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte ' will work satisfactorily as the result of the changes and if so we expect to reverse the figures and that at least $350,000 will be spent on dredging.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means, because the improvements will not give any more capacity to the dredge. There are only some piping and wheels to be changed. That will not add to the capacity of the dredge at all. If the hon. minister will give some attention to the subject he will find that the changes have nothing to do with the question. If the dredge ' Tarte ' does a million yards a month it will be so much the better, but the wages of the crew are the same whether the dredge does a large amount of work or does a less amount of work. The wages were the same last year. Unfortunately some of the machinery broke down, but the wages had always to be paid, so that it does not affect the expenditure at all. The expenditure will be the same whether the dredge works well or not, but what the hon. minister means, I suppose is, that if the dredge answers our expectations a much larger amount of work will be done, and the dredging will cost less, but the expenditure will be the same.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I made both statements and I think I am strictly correct. If the dredge works satisfactorily we will accomplish a great deal more work. If the dredge works five or six months instead of 100 days it will cost more money, as the ' Tarte ' consumes forty tons ot coal per day, but we will get more work.


Richard Blain: Here is an item that I would like a little explanation on :
A. W. Robinson, consulting engineer, four days time at Ottawa, consultation, $40 per day	$160 00
Journey to maritime provinces, to examine conditions under which proposed dredging will be done, and report on same, four days at $40 ; fare
$40.50 ; sundry outlay, $25.25	 225 75
One day at Sorel on shipyard improvements, $40; expenses, $4, April 2, 1900.	44 00
One day's time at Sorel, consultation.. 40 00
It seems to me that this is a very large amount to pay-$40 per day-for a consulting engineer. Perhaps the hou. minister can give us some explanation of that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only explanation I can give is that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) saw fit to engage a gentleman of talent and experience and probably bad to pay him for his services.


Richard Blain: Is he in the employ of the department all the time or is he specially employed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he has been the consulting engineer to the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is he ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sir. Robinson.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are his qualifications ?


Richard Blain: He is from Montreal.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year of the $500,000 voted something like one-half of it was to be expended an this way : To build a tug, $25,000; two large dump scows, $26,000; completion of one scow, $4,000; construction of one flat scow with boiler. $7,000; construction of one saw-mill, $15,000; construction of equipment of marine railway, workshops and shipyard, $20,000 ; refitting shipyard, $5,000; rebuilding wharf, $3,000; and unforeseen expenses, $30,000. Take these items from the $500,000 voted last year and you will get what the hou. gentleman would expend iu dredging during the past year. The year previous there were about sixty miles of channel to be dredged and ten miles of that was dredged out of the $500,000 vote of last year. Now, the hon. minister has increased the vote from $500,000 to $515,000. What I want to know is if all the works that the money was voted for last year have been completed. If they are, the hon. gentleman will have a much larger sum this year for the purpose of dredging.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The expectation is that we will be able to spend a very much larger sum on the dredging out of this total estimate-$340,000 or $350,000 we think will be spent. Some of these works the hon. gentleman has mentioned are completed and some are under construction.


Andrew B. Ingram: I asked the hon. gentleman the names of the dredges. In answer

to another question the hon. gentleman said that dredging cost per yard something like two cents and a fraction. We have a dredge here which does the work at one cent a yard and others which do it at three or four cents a yard. What is the cost per yard of each of the dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That, of course, altogether depends on what kind of material the dredges are working in. Some work costs less than three cents a yard, and in some other cases it would run nearly up to seven cents a yard. In the case of this dredge the first month the average cost was as high as eight cents a yard and the last month she worked it was a little less than one and one-half cents a yard, giving an average cost of two and one-quarter cents.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In spite of the fact that the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte ' was new and did not work all the time, what amount of dredging did she do last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One million nine hundred and sixty-one thousand two hundred and fifty yards.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So that the House may understand the great improvement that this dredge is, would the minister say what amount was done by all the other dredges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The other dredges altogether turned out a little over 2,500,000 yards. If the dredge ' Tarte ' is in good working order this season it ought to handle as much material as the other six, or about 2,500,000 yards.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course, this does not prove that the other dredges are not good; they are simply of a different pattern. The ' Tarte ' is a suction dredge destined to work in sand or in light clay while the other dredges are elevator dredges with buckets, and are intended for heavier dredging. I have seen one of the other dredges working for hours and hours at a piece of rock which afterwards we had to remove with a stone lifter. These other elevator dredges are fine dredges indeed; they are about the best of the kind on the continent of America, but their capacity cannot be estimated by the capacity of the ' Tarte,' which is a different kind of dredge altogether. The dredge which we are building for the maritime provinces will be both a suction dredge and an elevator dredge combined.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To get any fair idea of the capacity of the different dredges we would have to know what amount of work each one would do working in the same kind of material.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The average capacity of these dredges is between 5,000 and 0,000 yards a day, or about 8.000 yards night and day.


Mr INGRAM.: 


Mr. ROSAMOND.: What is the cost of one thousand yards of dredging done by the government dredges as compared with the cost of one thousand yards done by the contract dredges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be about two-thirds less by the government dredges.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand that the construction of dredges is practically done now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: What dredges are not completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are building a large dredge for the maritime provinces. Are you referring to the dredges that are working on this channel ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are all completed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it expected that this dredging will remain with the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When these items were being discussed before, we heard a great deal about the division of the departments; are ail the dredges on the St. Lawrence to continue under the management of the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What dredges, if any, have been taken out of the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None that I know of.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not catch the number of cubic yards which the hon. gentleman said would have to be dredged.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. gentleman a complete estimate.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood there was a statement last year that 24,000,000 cubic yards would be taken out of the whole channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer estimates that in Lake St. Peter alone 10,000,000 yards will be removed.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have contradictory statements as to that. Last year we were told that the quantity was 90,000,000 yards, and we were also told that the total was 24,000,000 yards. If the hon. gentleman looks up ' Hansard,' he will see these contradictory statements.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it must be some mistake. The information I gave the committee is from the chief engineer of the department. I asked him to give me an approximate estimate of the quantity, and he said it would he something like 22,000,000 yards.


William Humphrey Bennett: As it is contemplated in the coming year to spend $125,000 for material and $175,000 for labour at Sorel, does the minister think it good policy to expend so large an amount of money without calling for tenders for the work to be done ? I assume that during the coming year some scows and probably some tugs will be built there. Is that in contemplation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is in contemplation to build one spare dump scow of 200 yards capacity ; reconstruction of the upper part of the ' Laval ' ; additional accommodation on the ' Laurier ' for the night crew, at a cost of $2,000; a winch scow, with boiler and winch ; a flat scow, with derrick ; changing the buckets on the ' Aberdeen ' and the ' Minto,' to make them suitable for working in hard material ; a new coal barge, at an estimated cost of $15,000 ; and completion of tug No. 9.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely the amount of work which the minister has outlined is not going to keep 250 men employed every day in the year at Sorel-for that is what it amounts to-at an average of $2 a day, though many of them are not paid that much. I think it would be in the interest of the country to call for tenders for the construction of that new coal barge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The $175,000 is not paid out of this vote, though a portion of it may be. There have been at least 400 men working at Sorel in the past, if there is not that number there now.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have searched the Auditor General's Report, and I can only find one expenditure respecting the employment of men at Sorel, and it totals up to $175,000. Where is the rest of the expenditure, if it is not all included in that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained that that was not paid out of this vote. For instance, there was a special vote for building a dredge for the maritime provinces, and there are other special votes. So that if the hon. gentleman would deduct the amounts of these special votes from the amount paid in wages, the balance would be something less than $100,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would my hon. friend allow me to make the matter clear, if I can ? Would my hon. friend tell ns how much he expects to have to pay for the crews of his dredges on the St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that the $340,000 which I referred to includes the pay of the crews and the cost of the coal. I have not the amounts separated.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much does my hon. friend expect to pay in wages at Sorel out of this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Out of this vote, $125,000 is expected to be paid in material and wages, and the accounts are not kept in such a way that I can give the amount for each. Perhaps it will be about one half.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The material, I understand, is for the building of a scow and a coal barge ? Is that all the department intends to build this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does my hon. friend intend to build that barge in steel or in wood ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In wood.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What kind of wood, may I ask ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that it is British Columbia fir.


William Humphrey Bennett: According to the Auditor General's Report there were $175,000 spent, not for material, but for wages to workmen who were employed in the shops at Sorel. If the report of the Auditor General is wrong, we will have to amend it. The hon. minister says that in the coming season he does not expect that $175,000 will be spent in Sorel for wages, but that $125,000 will cover all the money expended there, including materials for work to be done in that place. We will have to wait until next year and see if he is effecting a saving between $175,000 for labour alone and $125,000 for labour and material.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is quite mistaken, I was explaining what amount would be spent out of this vote at Sorel, but there are four or five hundred merf working there on other work not provided for in this vote, and their wages will be paid out of these other votes. The Auditor General however, has made out the account in such a way as to make it clear that it all comes out of this vote, which causes the misunderstanding.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then it is expected that there'will be $125,000 spent in wages at Sorel in the coming year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is right. It is estimated that the total amount paid for wages will be about the same as last year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the hou. gentleman consider it good policy to build by

day labour and purchase the material, I presume, without tender, for a barge worth $15,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that we have to utilize these shops for repairs and for the building of these scows and tugs, it is good policy to have that work done by day labour at Sorel.


Samuel Hughes: Has the bon. minister any returns showing the work turned out during the past year and expected to be turned out during the coming year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just read that. I have read four or five times over a list of the scows, &c., intended to be built at Sorel and estimated to cost $113,000. There is a large dredge for the maritime provinces which will cost $150,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the half a million dollar dredge being built by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Then of course there are in addition the general repairs of the whole fleet of barges, scows and tugs.


William Humphrey Bennett: Here we have the other departments calling for tenders where much smaller expenditure is involved. Hake the Postmaster General's Department, tenders are called for carrying the mail bags a distance of ten miles, involving an expenditure of some $60 per year, yet in the case of an expenditure of $150,000 for a dredge, no tenders are called for and the work is done by day labour by a horde of officials, numbering some 400, paid top wages and hired on political grounds, and the material bought, I presume, without tenders. Are tenders called for to supply the material required for this new dreuge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I understand that tenders were asked for.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did the lowest tenderer get the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that it was awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Andrew B. Ingram: When was that tender awarded ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not say that there was a tender for the dredge, I understood the question to be whether tenders were called for to supply the material.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentlemtan to say that this is a dredge which was to cost $500,000. Last year it was estimated to cost only $300,000. What is the cause of the difference ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimated cost, if I remember rightly was $520,000, and I gave the details.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: When the department was under my direction, the work was started in Sorel, and I believe that the pltins have been since changed. I believe that this is right. I believe that it is a dredge which is more complicated than any we have yet built, and I think that the first estimate of Mr. Robinson was not so high.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The first estimate by my hon. friend was some $300,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What was the cause of the difference ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 do not know that there are any particular changes, but the estimate given by my hon. friend must have been too low. There can be no question about the accuracy of the estimate now as so much of the material and mtiehinery have been purchased, and so much work done. I gave the details when the item was under consideration.


Andrew B. Ingram: The fact is that the cost has gone up from $300,000 to $500,000. The hon. gentleman tells us that a part of the material was bought under contract, after tenders had been asked for. Whether the additional cost was in labour or in material not contracted for, it does not seem clear how the hon. minister can say that there has been no particular change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been no change at all. The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, as I understand it, says it was a very large work and that the change has been made under his direction on the advice of his engineer.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I asked Mr. Robinson's advice, he placed an estimate before me, and, if I remember aright that estimate was about $300,000. I concluded to go on with the work. Now, the government has a shipyard at Sorel which cost a pretty large amount of money, so we started building that dredge by day labour, just as a contractor would build it. For, in a matter of this kind, the department is in the position of an ordinary contractor, having its own shipyard. I found that shipyard in existence when I took office, and it had been in existence for years. Such an institution is necessary to the carrying on of the work on the St. Lawrence under the system in use. If the work on the St. Lawrence had, in the beginning, been given out by contract, it would have been a different matter. But when the present government took office, the work of dredging the St. Lawrence was in progress, and the shipyard was in existence. We had only to continue the work then under way. The shipyard was in a very dilapidated condition. The men were working in the rain and snow. I improved the shipyard, thinking it was the best policy, for otherwise we could not carry on there any work of very great magnitude. Moreover, I thought it

good policy for the government to have a shipyard of its own. In the past the government has imported its dredges from Scotland and elsewhere, and I made up my mind that it was better to have Canadian workmen build these dredges here. With the consent and hearty co-operation of my colleagues, I began the erection of these works in Sorel, and also began building dredges and so on. Well, the government, having that shipyard, went on with the work of building this dredge, the estimate placed before me being, as I have said, about $300,000. It is six months since I left office, and I am not responsible for what has been done during that time. I suppose that everything is going on all right but I am not responsible and it is not for me to answer.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to give me one piece of information.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Certainly.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the estimate was $300,000, and this was submitted to the hon. gentleman by Mr. Robinson and the officers of the department while he was Minister of Public Works ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot remember the exact figure, but it was in the neighbourhood of $300,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that, before leaving office, the hon. gentleman changed the plans of that dredge ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not change the plans of that dredge, but I believe that some changes-some slight changes, not very important-have been made in the plans.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, then, if there are no important changes made in the plans, I do not think the explanation satisfactorily accounts for this additional expenditure beyond $300,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) wish me to say ? Does he wish me to say that the dredge will not cost $520,000 ?


Andrew B. Ingram: No, what I want is to have the hon. minister give us an explanation of why there is this difference between $300,000 and $500,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) no doubt has explained that thoroughly to the satisfaction of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram).


Andrew B. Ingram: No.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Whatever the estimate was, I found there had been expended for the expenditure made or arranged to be made up to June 30 next, was $321,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much will be spent up to July 1 next ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Up to January 1 last there was spent, in round figures, $300,000, and there will be spent up to June 30, $321,955.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would that include the engine ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: That would include everything.


Mr. CLARE.: There were $300,000 spent up to January 1?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and an estimate in the department that $21,000 more would be spent in the present fiscal year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it possible that there is $200,000 more work on that dredge ? I cannot believe it. There must be some explanation of that.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) must have got the information on the vote for the dredge when it was passed. We spent hours upon it. I have no objection to taking it up again, even in this fashion, out of order as it is, to give information that any hon. gentleman may desire. But I think that no hon. gentleman, even on the other side, would support such an extreme departure from the existing rule as to commence anew the discussion of an item passed some weeks ago after being discussed in such detail. I appeal to my hon. friends that that is beyond the limits of reason and an unjustifiable departure from the rule. The vote asked for $200,000 for the completion of the work. I believe that, perhaps, this dredge cost more than it would have cost if it had been built at a well-equij)ped factory. At the same time, if it turns out as we expect, it will be one of the best dredges in the country, even though, perhaps, it cost a great deal more than the value of it, judged by the cost of a similar work done under contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When the hon. minister says that it would have cost less if it had been built in a well-equipped factory, I would ask him if he has visited the ship works at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I have.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, surely the hon. minister will not say that these are not well-equipped shipyards. I have visited nearly all the shipyards on this continent, and I say that the shipyards at Sorel are well equipped. I do not say that they are complete, of course, none are complete.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will allow me, I would say, that to have this item which has already been discussed


Joseph Israël Tarte: But if the hon. minister will allow me, I cannot permit him to say merely as a matter by the way that I have made a big mistake and that that mis-

take was due to the fact that the shipyard at Sorel was not well equipped. He is wrong on that point.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps one word, if the hon. gentleman will allow me, will settle the whole matter. He knows that the shipyard is not in a position to make machinery and all that sort of thing in connection with a work like this.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I differ with the hon. minister entirely. The shipyard in Sorel is quite capable of building engines and everything


William Humphrey Bennett: Boilers ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, boilers and everything needed in connection with such work. At times, we have not been able to complete certain works, but only because we have had too much to do. But the shipyard is perfectly equipped to carry out any kind of work though we have been compelled to go outside sometimes because of having too much to do. That is the reason why when the ' Tarte ' was built we went outside-though at that time the shipyard was not so well equipped as it is now. We have been equipping it gradually and now it is a very fine shipyard. I do not think the Poison Iron Works are as well equipped-certainly they are not better. And there are hon. gentlemen here who know that those works are a very well-equipped shipyard. I am glad to say that the shipyard in Sorel Is better equipped than that at Collingwood. I have visited them, the shipyard in Sorel is well equipped, and the reason why the work has not been carried out as quickly as it might have been, is not the one that is given now. I do not blame my hon. friend in any way, but it is only fair for me to state that the reason he has assigned is not the proper one.


Andrew B. Ingram: Am I to understand that, supposing a dredge is to be built at Sorel, for which the hon. gentleman asks $300,000 in his estimates, we are to be told the following year that that dredge is to cost $500,000, and that the money has already been expended on it ? When we ask what that dredge is to cost, I think the officials at Sorel ought to be in a position to tell us as nearly as possible. The difference between $300,000 and $500,000 on the cost of a dredge is altogether too much. I do not thiink the minister has given us a satisfactory answer.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It appears to me now, getting right down to business, that the minister should be in a position to tell us within a radius of $200,000 what the dredge is going to cost. Common sense would tell me that his department should be in a position to give us some kind of a fair estimate, and if he has not any officials capable of deciding a question like that, he ought Hon. Mr. TARTE.
to call in somebody else. I agree with the ex-minister when he places the government in the position of a manufacturer. To a certain extent they can assume that position. But when you come to get into details, there is a very wide departure from the course a manufacturer would adopt in getting his material. It appears to me that any business man, if he wanted a certain amount of material, would ask for tenders, there would be no political'consideration in connection with (it. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works or any other minister, can they free themselves from all the political influences that surround them ? I do not care what party is in power. The same trouble existed when we were in power, but it is very much worse now, because we can readily understand how hungry the Liberal party was to get a little money when they got into power. All these influences are now at work. Is it possible in human nature that any minister can free himself from the political influences surrounding him ? Can he ask for tenders and get material supplied without any consideration from party friends at all ? Enormous sums have been expended in connection with these works. I don't care for what the money was expended; when I know that every dollar of the public money is honestly expended, I don't care where it is expended. Now we don't want any such erroneous statements made in this House, telling us last session that the dredge was going to cost $300,000 and now telling us it is going to cost $500,000. Why, will any man tell me that any business concern in the Dominion of Canada would be as wide of the mark as $200,000 in the construction of a dredge ? I don't believe it. It appears to me there must be something radically wrong when there is $200,000 of a difference between the supposed cost of the dredge and the actual amount it is going to cost. I do not say that we were always right when we were in power; but is it any justification to say, every time we bring up this question :	Oh, you did it. Why,
Mr. Chairman, I recollect the time when we could hardly go out to get a breath that our friends opposite did not demand that we should do it under contract. My hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) used to make the House ring with his denunciations, even when ai member of the government went out to breathe, if he didn't do it under contract. Now he and his friends sit complacently and see all these expenditures of money, and not one dollar under contract. They swallow all their professions, and when we make any complaint they reply to us :	Oh, this is great Babylon that we have built, these are growing times. Well, Sir, I am here to tell you that it will be good policy for this government, instead of frittering away the public money, $200,000 here, $60,000 there, and nothing to show for it-for them to reduce

tile debt of this country, the growing debt, they used to talk; so much about when we were in power. There is the Minister of Customs sleeping so complacently. I would give a great deal if I could sleep. It is a sad illustration of how human nature can degenerate. That hon. gentleman used to talk to us so loudly about extravagance that his constituency away up in Brantford could almost hear him when he was denouncing the extravagance of the Tory government. No-w he can sit there complacently.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There was a time to speak then.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Yes, but it is no time to/ speak now. because you are getting the emoulments of office, you are getting $2,000 more than your predecessor, in an office, too, that you said there was no need of. You said the country did not require that office, and you supported by your vote a resolution condemning it. You said that office should not have been created, that there were tco many ministers, and now you sit there-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Chair, chair.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I say the other hon. gentlemen opposite did the same, they supported by their vote a motion declaring the office was unnecessary. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to you, perhaps it would not be out of the way, that I can even remember your musical voice-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I am talking about tlie $200,000.
Mr. DEPUTY # SPEAKER. I hope the hon. gentleman will keep to the subject before the Chair.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I was at the subject.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: No.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am in the judgment of the House if I was not trying to speak about that $200,000 that was not expended under contract; and I went back in memory and listened to your musical voice, along with other opponents of- the Conservative government. I was referring also to the Minister of Customs when he used to denounce the old government for extravagance. But now he can sleep, and it is all right. Things have changed, say they, we are getting the emoluments of office, and the other fellows are out of office, and that is all the difference.


Peter Macdonald: Carried.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, Mr. Chairman. 1 think the minister ought to have come down with information. If he had done so he would get his items through quicker. I think he should be able to give us more information with regard to the output. It has been mentioned here this afternoon that the ex-105
penditure at Sorel was something enormous. When we pay out over $177,000 for wages, we want to know what it is for. I am in favour of continuing the establishment at that town, but I think we are entitled to know what we get for the money we spend. The minister should have foreseen that this afternoon we would inquire as to the cost of each one of these dredges, and the maintenance of each one. He has no information upon that point at all. He could have got it by giving half an hour's notice to the employees of his department. We do not know the capacity of these dredges, nor where they are going to be located during the summer. We have no information as to what they are expected to do this summer. If the hon. gentleman had taken the precaution to get us that information he would have saved an hour and a half time on this item. I think, in his department, he could get that information and if he had done so he would not have spent an hour, or an hour and a half, upon this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend has asked first, the names of the dredges, second as to the capacity of the dredges, and thirdly as to the amount of work that has been done. I have given that information over and over again to the committee to-day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. minister is mistaken.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not mistaken. I have given this information in its various details.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Let me ask the hon. gentleman what is the capacity of the dredge ' Laurier,' and the cost of maintenance. He has not mentioned that this afternoon.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have answered that question over and over again. Hon. gentlemen talk about getting the vote through. We have discussed for at least an hour and a half an item which has no more to do with this vote than something in connection with the Department of Agriculture or with Japan or any other place, but with the desire to give the fullest information in regard to all these details, I have answered all the questions which hon. gentlemen have asked: yet, we have an hon. gentleman getting up and accusing me of an unwillingness to bring down the information. I would submit to this committee if the discussion which has been in progress for the last hour, or hour and a half, is not completely out of order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I object to that altogether. The questions that I asked the hon. gentleman were perfectly pertinent to the subject under discussion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never said the hon. gentleman's questions were out of order. I said that this dis-

cussion of the expenditure on the dredge ' Fielding,' which comes out of another vote altogether, and not one cent of the expenditure upon which is taken out of the vote now before the committee, is out of order. How can it he in order to discuss'a work for which we are not asking any appropriation ? From my desire to give the fullest possible information in every detail, I did not take the point that the discussion was out of order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No point of order could be taken. This discussion is quite pertinent. Surely, when we are discussing the maintenance of seven dredges and we And that one dredge which is being built in a shipyard where these dredges are being repaired, and is going to cost $200,000 more than we anticipated it would cost, the hon. gentleman is not going to say that the discussion is out of order.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Surely the hon. gentleman who is a great lawyer would not say, that, while we are considering an appropriation for a certain work because there are other works going on at the shops at Sorel,- he would ask for information in regard to something that has no connection with the vote whatever. It would be just as reasonable to say that if you were taking a vote for building a piece of roadway in Ottawa every other item of expenditure in Ottawa should come up lor discussion. On every item that the hon. gentleman has mentioned I have given the information over and over again. If there is any other information that lie wants I will be only too anxious to bring it down. If the department had been lax in bringing down any information asked for it would only be right that the discussion should be continued, or that the item should be held over until this information had been brought down. But, in this instance all the information has been given.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I must take exception to what the hon. minister says. I have been very moderate in my questions. He has not answered a single one of these questions. He has not told us where these dredges are going to be located during the summer because he does not know.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do know.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman has not stated where they are to be located.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did give that information. I gave the list of the dredges and I laid a plan on the Table that showed where the work was to be done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I followed the discussion carefully. The hon. gentleman has not given that information nor has he put upon the Table any plan which shows where these dredges would be located during the


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: summer. When the hon. gentleman says that he has given an answer to all the questions asked, 1 would remind him that I have asked as to the cost of the maintenance of these dredges. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that he has not given that information, nor has he given the capacity of these dredges, nor the results which he expects during the coming season. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that when this discussion began this afternoon he did not know the distance that these dredges were going to excavate during the summer. When the discussion began this afternoon he spoke about a channel sixty-five miles long and finally the hon. gentleman spoke about seven miles of a channel to be excavated during the summer, and which seemed so preposterous that eventually he brought it up to fourteen or fifteen miles. These are details which the hon. gentleman might have known that we would ask for. It might have been expected, in connection with the work of preparing these dredges that the discovery of an extra $200,000 in regard to a dredge to be built in the maritime provinces would give rise to a discussion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not under this vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is true that the dredge is not built out of this vote, but there is this reference to dredges and are we going to be to told when we discover that there is an extra of $200,000 for a dredge which was intended to cost $300,000, that because we are discussing the channel of the St. Lawrence we cannot get information as to the cost of that dredge or discuss that point ? It does seem to. put a limitation upon the committee which the rules never intended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This item was under discussion at a previous sitting of the House and all the information was given in regard to it. That Is one of the reasons why I think I should not be found fault with and lectured. We have spent an hour or two discussing an item which was discussed for two or three hours on a previous occasion. I am in the judgment of the committee as to whether this is not an unjust criticism of me. The hon. gentleman asks for details as to two matters. and although I have given that information over and over again to-day, rather than he should be disappointed or have an excuse for saying that this information has not been brought down in detail, if the hon. gentleman will allow me I will give it again. The first question the hon. gentleman -asked was as to the capacity of the different dredges. The capacity of the dredge ' Laur-ier ' is 1.700 cubic yards. It is almost Impossible to give a proper idea of the capacity of a dredge without stating ihe class of material the dredge is working in. This * is in hard clay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that working nine hours a day or ten hours a day ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is twenty hours a day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ' Lady Aberdeen ' does 2,000 yards and in ordinary earth 4,000, and the 'Laval ' 400 yards a day.


Joseph Israël Tarte: She has a greater capacity than that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is in rocks.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, yes ; but that does not indicate its capacity. She does not work in rocks all the time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must give the information in that way. I know it is unreasonable information to ask for, except in a general way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I asked in a general way, and that is the first answer I got.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps my hon. friend did not understand me, or he may have been out of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have been in the House all the afternoon.
The MINISTER OF PUBLli WORKS. As to the point at which these dredges will work, I may say that the * Lady Aberdeen ' will be in Lake St. Peter and the ' Tarte ' will be in Lake St. Peter. Of course, they will have to work over nine or ten miles of ground.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will the ' Tarte ' start from the point where she left off last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And the ' Lady Aberdeen ' will start from the lower part of the lake, going up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it not expected that the Lake St. Peter dredging will be completed this year with these two dredges at work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineers do not think they will be able to complete that work this season.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How many miles will the ' Lady Aberdeen ' be expected to cover ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ' Lady Aberdeen ' is sent there to prepare the work where the ' Tarte ' is located.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will they both work on the same spot ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at the same time. The engineer tells me that they will put the ' Lady Aberdeen ' 105J
there to make a depth for the ' Tarte ' to work on.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not understand that at all. I have been at that place many times, and they did not do that last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer informs me that we are doing exactly the same as we have done last year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the crew on board the ' Tarte ' the same as last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I know. I am informed that the crew is practically the same. It has not come under my notice, but the chief engineer informs me that it is practically the same. The officers are the same.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not speak of the men ; I was referring to the officers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The officers are the same.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I hope they will all stand by the dredge and remain on board, and see that the men work all the time. How many dredges are now at work on the ship channel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Six. The only dredge not at work now is the ' Tarte.'


Joseph Israël Tarte: Where are the other dredges at work now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At Contrecoeur, and Varennes, and Ver-chfires.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the coal for the dredges this year been bought ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. We advertised for the coal, and the tenders are in now.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want the minister to point out what the opposition has referred to that is not in keeping with this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly willing to go on and discuss the item. It will, I think, be admitted that the discussion should be confined to the object for which the money is used, and not one cent of this appropriation will be used in connection with the dredge 'W. S. Fielding.'


Joseph Israël Tarte: As the cost of that work comes out of this item, I would like to inquire further when my hon. friend expects it to be completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that the estimate is that it will be finished this season.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would my hon. friend oblige me by saying if the projects which were under preparation when I left office for the part of the work that was to be done have been completed since ?

333&


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must ask my hon. friend to allow me an opportunity to look into that, and I will let him know.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We had occasion this afternoon to discuss this item of $340,000, and reference was made to the large amount of wages paid at Sorel, part of which enters into this Item. My hon. friend from Simcoe discussed that also, and the minister informed my hon. friend that there were other very important works proceeding there, amongst others the building of this dredge ' Fielding.' It was then that my hon. friend stated, what was news to many members of this House, that that dredge was to cost over $100,000. That is the way that question came up, so that the remarks made on this side of the House were in order. Let me ask my hon. friend, if he does not think me too insistent, to give us the cost of the maintenance of each of these dredges, the three principal items of which would be wages, coal and repairs. This was one of the first questions I asked this afternoon. Let me ask what it cost for the maintenance of the ' Lady Aberdeen.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In round figures, about $30,000. I must apologize if I gave too much information this afternoon, and brought up this subject ; it was not with a desire to prolong the discussion. I certainly did not hear or notice the question which my hon. friend says he asked, in regard to the cost of maintenance of each dredge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I claim a little merit, because I asked this question at the very beginning, but did not get any answer. I suppose the $30,000 which the hon. minister has mentioned, includes wages, coal repairs, and everything necessary to keep the dredge going during the season ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what I am informed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I left office, the department was discussing the propriety of buying a piece of land adjoining the yards there. I do not know whether my hon. friend's attention has been called to the importance of securing that piece of land.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think we have bought one piece. I will bring down the information.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The officers will understand me. It is a square piece of land behind one of the yards.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that it is the Beauchemin property.


Joseph Israël Tarte: One more question. I do not ask questions for the purpose of creating embarrassment; but we had a good Hon. Mr. TARTE.
many projects in hand when I left office, and I would like to know what is being1 done in regard to them. The Department of the Interior transferred to the Department of Public Works the point there ; the title was ours when I left office, and we had some intention of building a slip there for the accommodation of dredges that were to be repaired. I do not know whether my hon. friend's attention has been called to that slip.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That matter will receive attention this season.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to let us have the names of the parties who tendered for the coal for these dredges, or state whether the order was given without any tenders V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tenders were asked for, and after the tenders are opened and the contract awarded, I will bring them down.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Quebec hai^iour improvements, $100,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not aware that the item we were on before recess was passed.


Peter Macdonald: I declared the item passed and the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) then asked what would be the next item after recess.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am in the hands of the committee, and if the committee want to debate the item further I shall not raise any further objection, but I was under the impression that the item had passed, which impression is borne out by what Mr. Deputy Speaker^ has just said. If any further information be required, I would have no objection to give it on another item.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Personally I have not the slightest objection to the item being declared passed, but I did not understand that it was passed before recess.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that the hon. member for Jacques Oartier should accept the offer I have made and that we should submit to the Chairman's ruling.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will the hon. gentleman explain the item now submitted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for additional berth room for deep draught sea going vessels along the river front. Here is the plan, which hon. gentlemen may examine for themselves. Representations were made by the harbour board of Quebec urging the necessity for more berth room, and I asked the engineers of the

[DOT]department to prepare for an extension, as shown on the plan laid on the Table, of 462 feet long and 40 feet wide at the base. I advertised for tenders and several were received, and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderers, Messrs Dusseault and Lemieux, or LSvis, for $198,700. The contract was awarded to them on the 8th of May.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the hon. gentleman mean to suggest that it was at the request of the harbour commissioners that the plans were changed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was on' the representations made by the harbour board that the plan now on the Table was prepared.


Joseph Israël Tarte: This is not an answer, and I must insist on a clear 'answer. The Pl;| ns on which I advertised for public tenders were prepared by the department with the co-operation of the harbour commissioners at Quebec. These gentlemen came to Ottawa with the board of trade and interviewed the right hon. gentleman and myself, and the government decided to go on with the work. Money was asked and voted by the House. During the last session of parliament I laid on the Table of the House the plans on which these tenders were to be asked, and I say again that these pJans, after being prepared by the department were submitted to the harbour board and approved by thefo. So I understand the bon. minister to say that these large plans- for the plans for which I advertised were for much larger works than those now proposed to be carried out-were abandoned at the request of the Quebec harbour board.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What reasons may have influenced them I do not know, blit when I took office the representation made by the harbour board to me was that the plan at present submitted was the one they wished carried out. I am not seeking to avoid the hon. gentleman's question, but simply to say that representations made both in writing and personally by the president, engineers and other representatives of the harbour board were iu favour of these plans. I am not prepared to say whether the harbour board had a meeting or not, and formally decided to ask to have these new plans substituted for the other, but they did ask that this plan be adopted at the present time, and they also made suggestions to me which I will explain when the plans they have suggested and which are a little different from the original plan are discussed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What surprises me is the statement that the harbour board suggested smaller works, after they had approved of the plans on which tenders were asked. Of course, I have not one word more to say. But I have asked for the correspondence and I do not know whether it has been brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that the correspondence has been brought down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I understand that the minister is doing this preliminary work, and that later on further provision will be made, if the trade requires it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Are further works in contemplation in the port of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no other representations have been made to me, nor any other plans submitted.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Because, there was some difficulty about that work. Other parties wanted the work to be made elsewhere. But I am fully satisfied with the explanation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No further representations were made to me. The change in the larger plan as suggested by the harbour board was to extend four or five hundred feet or perhaps further to deep water before turning.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In fact only part of the larger works that would have been carried on are applied for this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is all.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is there any request from Quebec looking to the deepening of the harbour ? I understood that the water was not quite deep enough for some of the larger vessels that come into the St. Lawrence ? ' The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. No representations have been made, unless they were made some time ago. Nothing of that kind has been brought to my notice.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I suppose wliat my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr Kemp) refers to is the Louise basin ? It is very difficult to dredge deeper there, because the wharfs are built in such a way that if you dredge deeper they will tumble.


Albert Edward Kemp: I was told by a gentleman who conies from Quebec Jliat there is a difficulty about docking. That is why I asked the question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will give them about forty or fifty feet of water. Outside of the basin I think they have about thirty feet. The matter has not been brought to my attention.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. minister kindly tell me how many tenderers there were and from whom, if he has the information at hand 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot speak with certainty from memory, but I believe there were five or six tenders, including one from M. P. Davis, or Davis Bros., the Connollys, Poupore-almost all * the large contractors who have a plant.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much additional space would these improvements give ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ill round figures, 500 feet. The actual wharf is 460 feet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is in one direction. How long is it in the other '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is straight out to deep water. It is left so that in the future, if we decide, we can either go further or return as by the plans formerly made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How many feet of water will be inside the works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The figures are given on the plan. It is shallow water.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The dredging will not be carried out now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at present.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So, there will be only one berth wharf for a large ship ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I am concerned, the question with the department is whether we should extend this from 400 to 600 feet and then return.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The plans formerly decided on gave a large basin, and three berths. These reduced plans, will be a good improvement, however, though not quite so useful as the others would have been.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I remember seeing last year in ' Le Soleil,' the government organ in Quebec, that very extensive improvements had been formally decided upon in the harbour there, to cost several hundred thousand dollars, that the improvements had been approved of, the plans sanctioned and work to begin immediately. I believe the names of the successful tenderers were mentioned. The recollection I have is that these improvements had been solicited a long time by the people of Quebec, that they were absolutely necessary, and were to cost over a million ultimately. Now am I to understand that the harbour commissioners of Quebec approve of these improvements which have been decided on by the government, and to which reference has been made here tonight, and am I to understand that they have gone back upon their decision and are now satisfied with this vote of $100,000 and these diminished improvements ? Has the minister any authentic declaration to that effect ? And are these the only improvements which this year will be executed in and around the city of Quebec 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as the matter has received the attention of the department, these are the immediate improvements that will be undertaken this season. It is perfectly true that, as the Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
trade of the port increases, these plans will have to be extended, and it is expected that it will cost over a million dollars to complete improvements that will accommodate vessels of deep draught at the port of Quebec. Probably this is the work the papers referred to. After representations had been made to the harbour board, they decided to go on with this part of the work, and to advertise for tenders ; and I have just read the amount of the contract that was entered into.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the minister say that these new plans had been formally approved by the harbour commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. Further than that, I say that It was on their representations and suggestions that I carried out these plans. After they were prepared in the department they were sent down to the harbour commissioners to examine and to make any further representations which they wished.
Mr, MONK. Had any tenders been accepted for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, a tender was accepted and the contract let. The contractors are Dusseault & Le-mieux, of L6vis. The contract calls for the completion of the work inside of two years.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What kind of timber is going to be used ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Spruce, and either elm or oak. I think if we can get good rock elm it is as good as oak. The engineer of the harbour board of Quebec, who has had considerable experience, consulted with my officials in regard to that. The plans have been approved by the chief engineer. The timber used is below water.


Samuel Hughes: Would it not be advisable, in cases such as this, to make sure that the timber contracted for will be the right kind ? If hemlock does as well, would it not be just as well to give a contract for hemlock instead of spruce, inasmuch as hemlock sometimes finds its way into the quantity supplied ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That matter was under discussion, and the officers of the department did not seem to think that hemlock is equal to hardwood. We are using concrete where it has to support a heavy weight. Hemlock might last under water for ages, but this work has to carry a very heavy weight.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would urge my hon. friend to use concrete as much as he can. The ordinary life of timber is not overeight or ten years, and I would advise my hon. friend not to be afraid of the additional expense of concrete. I think he has made a mistake in saying t'hat correspondence has been brought down. The Clerk of the House tells me it lias not been brought down. I shall wait for it. I do not object to the item because the correspondence is not brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must have misunderstood the clerk, because the correspondence was prepared, and I ordered it to be sent over.
I will see that a copy is brought down again.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister putting concrete upon the'piling ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not piling, this is cribwork. The concrete is above low water mark. I am pleased to say that the improved methods of making concrete makes the difference in cost between concrete and timber very little now.
Harbours and rivers, Ontario-Port Arthur, dredging, $50,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman explain where he intends doing that dredging at Port Arthur ? Perhaps he has not the plans by him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the plan. This is in the channel. My hon. friend is no doubt familiar with the locality there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, I have been there several times.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are the channels leading to the docks there through which the vesselmen have found so much trouble in getting their boats. This is to continue the dredging that I think was started a few years ago. Many representations have been made but more dredging is required to allow- large boats to get in. The idea is to make this channel twenty-one feet deep.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Joseph Israël Tarte: What channel ?


Samuel Hughes: In view of the great improvement in the trade of Port Arthur and of .the importance which that port will assume in the near future, has the hon. minister given his attention to the possibility of extending the breakwater ? The breakwater is a very short affair, not over half a mile long, and I think it should be extended to make the harbour what the demands there would require it to be.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) that I had some representations made to me that the breakwater was long enough to protect the present docks. With an extension of the work there I dare say it would be necessary to extend the breakwater.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to know exactly where the hon. minister intends to carry out the dredging. There are tw-o elevators in Port Arthur. There is the Canadian Northern elevator. There is also the King elevator. Dredging has been done at both elevators, but dredging is also required to deepen the channel. I would like to know exactly what the hon. minister intends 'doing. He has a plan prepared, I am sure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but it lias not been customary to lay plans on the Table.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not ask the plans lo be brought here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to do dredging from the entrance of the breakwater up to the docks which the hon. gentleman has named, the Canadian Northern dock and King's dock.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has just said .a word about the breakwater. I was there in August last year and I made an examination of the works. That breakwater which cost a large amount of money, will be destroyed if the hon. Minister of Public Works does not repair it now. It is in very bad condition. I would invite his attention to the necessity of repairing it without delay. It. is being destroyed now. It is a work of large importance. It is necessary work, yet, if it is not repaired, it will not be worth anything. I think it will cost quite a large amount of money, but all the same repairs are necessary.


Samuel Hughes: It is just a question whether the breakwater is not too close in towards the docks. At the time it was constructed the vessels that are now plying on the lakes were not built. Vessels of many thousands tons burden enter the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William. They find that the sea room inside of the breakwater is rather contracted. I am not finding fault but I merely want to give the

lion, minister a suggestion. In case it should be found that the breakwater needs extensive repairing, or in case that a new breakwater would be constructed and extended in a line south-westerly from the present breakwater, it will be well to place it further out and give more sea room inside of the present breakwater there. As the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) suggests, something will require to be done, and at an early date, or the present breakwater will fall to pieces.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think we all recognize the importance of the great trade that is growing up at that port and which is likely to grow very fast. We hope so at any rate. The improvements to tiie breakwater and the dredging will have to lie continued. This vote in the main estimates is especially for dredging to carry out urgent work, in fact, I have taken the responsibility, in view of the telegrams received and the representations made as to the urgency of this work, of giving instructions that the dredging shall go on as soon as this vote is passed. The further improvements which are required there will be carefully considered in connection with the supplementary estimates for 1003-4. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) refers to the necessity of repairing the breakwater. There is no doubt that is urgent and when the estimates are brought down we will see that the work is undertaken.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. minister is dredging a twenty-one foot channel. Would he be good enough to tell us in what way he is carrying out that work ? Is he carrying out the old arrangement that was made formerly ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I am at present just carrying out the arrangement.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it with the same company ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With the Great Lakes Dredging Company.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it the same company ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: At the same price- fifteen cents a yard?	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifteen cents a yard.


Joseph Israël Tarte: You cannot do better.


Richard Blain: I notice that an item of $35,000 was passed last year partly for the extension of the breakwater and partly for dredging. When that item was up for discussion the then lion. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made the statement that $35,000 would complete the work. Could the hon. Minister of Public Works


Samuel Hughes: say whether that did complete the work, and if this is new dredging that lie proposes to do ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be very muph surprised to see that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works said that $35,000 would complete the work at Port Arthur. I do not think that he said that. He may have said that it would complete that season's dredging or some special piece of work that he had under consideration at the time.


Hon.   S@: I do not remember very well what I said last year. Of course, it depends. There is plenty to be done there.


Samuel Hughes: You made liberal promises. .


Joseph Israël Tarte: As usual.


Samuel Hughes: That is right.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think this country should not hesitate for one minute to equip Port Arthur and Fort William and all the other important ports on the lakes. We have lost a great deal of time. These ports should lie equipped as well ns money can do it, and they should be equipped now and not wait till we are all dead and buried and in heaven.


Richard Blain: This is the statement that was made:
We expect to spend $35,000 this year to complete the dredging necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt the hon. ex-Minister of Public. Works referred to the work that was pressing at that time.


Samuel Hughes: Vessels this fall drawing only eight feet of water grounded in Port Arthur and there was considerable trouble as a result. This increases the rates of insurance on these vessels, and I am satisfied that no one would object to every dollar being expended that is absolutely necessary to place this harbour in a proper condition.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite correct that vessels have grounded in this port, because I was at Port Arthur in the latter part of October, and I saw a vessel which had been aground for two or three days. Dredging work is undoubtedly necessary at that place and I entirely agree that such dredging should be done as to make it a safe port to enter. It is increasing in importance in proportion as the grain trade of the Northwest is increasing. That is true of Port Arthur as well as Fort William. I think the money could not be put to better use than to spend it in making Fort William and Port Arthur safe harbours for large boats to enter.
Hon. Mr.' TARTE. When I went to Port Arthur in August. I found that orders had been given for dredging to eighteen feet

deep, aud I immediately instructed tlie officers to dredge to twenty-one feet. Is there only one dredge at work there now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are three dredges at work.
lion. Mr. TARTE. Belonging to tlie same company


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. Two belong to the company and one to Mr. Booth.
ILon. Mr. TARTE. The three are at Port Arthur, and they are at the same price of fifteen cents a yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Richard Blain: What part of this $35,000 voted last year was expended for dredging, and what part on the breakwater ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was all expended for dredging.


Samuel Hughes: The United States government and the various parties interested, have spent millions of dollars in making splendid harbours at'Duluth and West Superior. At a little place called Two Harbours there has been upwards of $2.000,000 spent in giving shipping facilities. Canada has ports at Port Arthur and Fort William undoubtedly far superior to Duluth and West Superior, and I am satisfied that the Canadian government could make no wiser expenditure of a large sum of money than to equip Fort William and Port Arthur with harbours sufficient to meet the great demands that will be undoubtedly made on them in the near future. I believe that the minister could double and quadruple this amount and expend it on these harbours with profit to the whole country.


Mr. McCREARY.: I cannot agree with the member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) when he says that Port Arthur and Fort William are better natural harbours than Duluth and West Superior. I am informed bv those who know that these two latter harbours are the best on the American continent. I believe that we should not discuss this question here and now, but that we should wait until the transportation commission brings down their report, and one of the most important things this commission will have to cousidet1 will be to provide facilities for the shipping of grain from tlie head of Lake Superior. Sixty-five vessels stayed at Duluth this winter, and they were able to move grain out this spring at the rate of two cents a bushel. I learn from the grain shippers that Port Arthur is very badly equipped ; the breakwater does not go out' far enough, and dredging requires to be done. At Fort William the river is too narrow, and I am told by men who know, that it will require an expenditure of half a million dollars, and not $95,000, to put these harbours in [DOT]anything like as good shape as the harbour
at Dulutli and West Superior. We cannot expect that the minister will provide this large sum in the estimates now.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Why not ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Because he is not acquainted with all the facts, and because it will be the duty of the transportation commission to inquire from all parties interested as to what are the actual needs at that point. There is no doubt that with the encouragement given to Canadian owners of lake vessels by the removal of the harbour dues and one thing and another, there will be a Canadian fleet put on these lakes able to handle all our grain. If that he so it will be the duty of the government to spend there half a million, or a million if necessary, for widening the Kaministiquia river and the two small rivers that flow into that point, and deepening the harbour at Port Arthur and extending the breakwater. When the question about the transportation commission is brought up, I intend to give the figures of the expenditures for the past twenty years on West Superior and Duluth : these figures having been supplied me by a gentleman who is well acquainted with the subject. I urge on the Minister of Public Works the Importance of doing something to increase the facilities at thpse harbours.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is what Col. Hughes did and you contradicted him.


Samuel Hughes: I did not use the term 'natural harbour' in connection with Port Arthur and Fort William, nor can the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) use the term ' natural harbour ' in connection [DOT]with Dulutli, because it is a created harbour. Not very many years ago what is now the great harbour of Dulutli was simply a bog and it had to be dredged out. I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) inclines towards favouring the harbour of Dulutli. It is not so many years since the Liberal party in Manitoba endeavoured to tie up this country to a scheme to run a railway to Dulutli, but owing to the policy of the Conservative party that road was diverted to Port Arthur and in consequence Port Arthur is a growing Canadian town and a credit to the Dominion of Canada. T do not know whether my friends from Manitoba of the Liberal cult have gotten over their discomfiture at the success of the scheme which was promoted by the Conservative party of making this an all-Canadian route. When my bon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was in the government. I was pleased to find him following the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party in developing our Canadian lake ports of Port Arthur and Fort William. I trust that my good friend (Mr. McCreary) will fall in line now. If one-half the money is spent on our own Canadian ports that has been spent on Duluth and West Superior,

we need not fear the rivalry of the American ports.


William Forsythe McCreary: It ill becomes the member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to accuse me of disloyalty when a moment ago I asked the government to spend half a million dollars and not $95,000. What I pointed out to the House was that unless we .made Port Arthur and Fort William somewhat equal to Duluth and West Superior we might possibly lose the trade that should come through Canadian ports. The estimate quoted to me shortly before I left Winnipeg was that it would take $1,000,000 to put Port Arthur and Fort William in as good shape as Duluth and West Superior. With regard to loyalty, I do not think the hon. gentleman should say anything to me. Had I done what some of his friends did about twenty years ago, I would have stopped in Dakota or Minnesota instead of going on and settling as a pioneer in Manitoba.
Hon.- Mr. TARTE. Let us try not to make party politics of these broad questions, but discuss them from a broad standpoint. Duluth and West Superior are very fine harbours ; they are practically one harbour. Both have cost a very large amount of money. The harbour of Duluth has natural advantages, which have been improved. I think the dredging alone inside of that harbour has cost in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000. There is a splendid brenkwtater to protect the harbour, and there are practically two harbours, an outside one and an inside one. We can make at Fort William and Port Arthur a very fine harbour. Port Arthur is a good harbour, though it has this disadvantage, that it closes about fifteen days earlier than Fort William. There is an island at the right hand of the port on which the ice jams, so that the entrance to Port Arthur is closed practically two weeks earlier in the fall than the entrance to Fort William. The first Improvement that should in my humble opinion be carried on there is the dredging of Mission river, which would give an additional entrance to Fort William, and prevent the ice forming there so early in the fall and ensure it moving out earlier in the spring. This I think would give three weeks more navigation, and it would not cost a large amount of money. After I took a trip up there I instructed Mr. Coste, a very experienced engineer, to have a plan ensemble-a general plan-made of those harbours. I do not know whether that instruction has been carried out ; if not, I think my hon. friend should lose no time in having such a plan prepared. I am sure that the House would be very ready to vote any sum necessary to make of these two harbours a really national harbour. My hon. friend is perfectly right when he says that Duluth offers advantages which these harbours do not offer. Duluth has one of the best elevators in tlie world. We are having a large elevator Capacity built at Port Arthur and Fort Wil-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
liam by the two railway companies ; but it seems to me that it is the duty of this government and of parliament to help private companies to do what the United States government does, that is, to equip the harbours. That should be done without any delay. If we expect to get the trade to which we are entitled, we must spend the money necessary to achieve that end.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the hon. minister able to state the amount spent on Port Arthur harbour since confederation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The tol'al expenditure is $550,332.42.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the amount is comparatively small when you consider the importance of the harbour. It is the only outlet for the great wheat fields of the west, where the two railways come together, and it should be made as tine a harbour as there is on the lakes. I think the government would be justified in doubling the expenditure on tWat harbour during the next year so long as they used the money wisely. If the government does less than make adequate provision for the shipping there, they will be criticised.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any general plan of the improvements prepared ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have several plans and several reports. I said before, and I say again, that this vote is for carrying on urgent work which is under way at the present time. The whole matter is now receiving the attention of the department. I fully recognize its importance, and should be pleased to have the support of both sides of the House in doing what may be necessary under the circumstances. I slitill be pleased to bring down a report on the subject.
Sir. aiONK. Is the minister able to say what further expenditure would be entailed tinder the pr, posed plan for improvement?
The ailNISTER OF PUBLIC WORK*. Discussing in a general way a few days ago of the improvement of the aiission river, which the ex-minister has referred to,
I obtained a rough estinnate that it would cost about $200,000. I do not say that would make the harbour equal to very large ports, on which millions have been spent ; lmt that is my recollection of the discussion we had a few days ago. when some representatives from Port Arthur and Fort William were here.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Kaministiquia river is wide enough to make one of the finest harbours in the world when the work is completed.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it would be desirable for the government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as soon as possible, that is, to have a general plan made of the harbour at Port Arthur and *

the Kaministiquia river. That harbour impresses one with the possibilities of the future. i understood from those who were on the spot that the river alone could be utilized for about twelve miles and that the banks would afford available sites for elevators and docks for the shipping of grain. The river is very peculiar in being more like a natural canal than anything else. It is dee]) and of great width and with firm banks on both sides, capable of affording strong foundations for elevators. There would hardly seem to be *any place which could afford better facilities than that harbour and especially the river I have alluded to. I do not think that this House would begrudge any money for the dredging of the river and harbour in the best passible way. But we should not spend any! money in a fragmentary manner. We should have a general plan of improving the harbour and river after obtaining the best possible advice, and if necessary expert assistance from outside, so that there may be no obstacle to our securing the traffic which is developing so rapidly in the Northwest.


Samuel Hughes: I might point out that in the near future Port Arthur and Port William will be iron ore shipping centres, the same as Duluth and West Superior. I would like to endorse the opinion of my leader and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier in support of some general plan being carried out. In addition the Kaministiquia river has a delta of three mouths which could be utilized very readily iu case of necessity. Then the stream far above this is navigable several miles for vessels drawing fifteen to eighteen feet of water, and with a little dredging the river could be made of great importance. It requires a turning basin.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is a good turning basin there now.


Samuel Hughes: It is far above that. The Mission river is one of the mouths of the Kaministiquia. Par above that are the Canadian Pacific Railway elevators. and vessels have to back down from the elevators, which is a drawback. I might point out that the old Chicago river was not as large as the MacIntyre and Neebing. The old Chicago creek, which developed the largest inland city on the American continent was not as large as any of the mouths of the Kaministiqnda, Neebing or MacIntyre rivers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard a suggestion made which might be valuable, and that is for the construction of an iceboat to break up the ice. That would make navigation two or three weeks earlier. The gentleman who made that suggestion told me that in the straits of Makinaw they have boats which break up the ice without trouble.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have had my attention drawn to the necessity of having an iceboat there, but our first duty would be to improve the harbour. This matter is receiving serious consideration, and I am glad to know that if we can bring down a plan which will meet the approval of the House, the House will not hesitate voting the money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An ice breaking boat would not conflict with any improvements going on in the harbour.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt, but at the same time it is questionable whether an iceboat would be necessary. There seems to be a great deal of difference of opinion on that point. But the suggestion is worthy of consideration.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the Mission river is dredged, it will not be necessary to use any iceboats, because the dredging will permit the vessels to avoid the ice which forms on the island and blocks the entrance of Port Arthur.


The MINISTER DP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that is another phase of the question.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The boats then would simply go by the new channel.


Robert Laird Borden: That seemed to be the universal opinion of those to whom I spoke. The Mission river cannot be used for large vessels, and the idea was that if it were deepened so as to admit large boats, that would lengthen the season by two or three weeks.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I have been listening to the remarks regarding the advisability of a large amount being expended on the enlarging and deepening of Port Arthur and Port William, but what guarantee have we that we could thus prevent the diversion of the trade down to Buffalo and other American ports ? Can the hon. minister give ns an idea what quantity of grain goes to American ports and what portion to Canadian ports ? I am afraid that they are expending a large amount of money for the advantage of American ports instead of our own, and neglecting perhaps the channels through Canadian territory, through which grain could be carried to our own seaports.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that there is any doubt that with proper exertions we will be able to maintain a Canadityi route for the grain from the west. I have not these statistics at hand just now, but I am in sympathy with the view that by means of proper harbour improvements and storage facilities we will be able to return a large portion of the trade for our Canadian routes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I see that we have spent last year some $20,000 at Port Arthur on the extension of the breakwater and dredges, and some $11,000 were paid the Duluth Dock

and Dredge Company for dredging at the rate of fifteen and a half cents per cubic yard. Was this done by tender or otherwise ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I doubt whether it was done by tender, as the difficulty is to get dredges. The price paid is the regular price.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Does the hon. minister not think that we are making a great mistake in spending large amounts at Port Arthur and Fort William and neglecting the ports in the east ? We should spend money first in improving channels from the sea to these ports instead of commencing at the back and coming forward, only to find that the channels to the sea are not of a sufficient depth to enable us to send the exports that come from Port Arthur and Fort William out through a Canadian seaport.


Robert Laird Borden: The dredging in this case seems to cost fifteen cents per cubic yard. Of course, I know nothing about wliat that cost should be. But it has been represented in the discussion in the committee that in the St. Lawrence the price can be reduced to two cents and even less than that with first-class dredges. If I am right in my understanding of what lias been said on that point, it would seem important, if these operations have to be carried on upon an extensive scale at Port Arthur and Fort William, that the government should take into consideration this very high rate that we are paying and should endeavour to approximate the work as closely as may be to the conditions that prevail in the St. Lawrence.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer of the department informs me that a dredge such as the ' J. Israel Tnrte,' which is a suction dredge, could not handle the material there. The price depends a great deal on the conditions, the class of material and the kind of dredge that is doing the work. I think the rates that we have been paying are lower than those paid on the other side of the line. The dredges are threatening to take contracts from the Americans, where, they say, they receive higher rates. Some material we cannot get removed for less than twenty cents at least. The question of building or buying dredges is well worthy of consideration, and it is a matter to which the department is giving a great deal of attention, making comparisons between the work done by the dredges of*the department and those working under contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There are no dredges available on the Canadian side of the lakes. I know them all. They are good dredges, but not modern ; they are spoon dredges. But there is no doubt that, with an elevator dredge, the Kaministiquia and the Mission river and Tort Arthur could be dredged at a rate of two or three cents a yard. In Mr. CLARKE.
former days, there was a government dredge, No. 6 I think it was, which carried on dredging at two cents a yard at Fort William, and I make bold to say that if one of our dredges on the St. Lawrence could be sent up there-of course, it cannot be done-the dredging could be done there for less than two cents a yard. There is no possible doubt about that. I know that the department require spoon dredges to dredge near the wharfs, but the modern elevator dredges can work elsewhere. The department, in my humble opinion, could equip itself with one or two of these spoon dredges also. But in such dredging as that in the Kaministiquia or the Mission river, one elevator dredge could do more work than three or four of these dredges for which we pay fifteen ceuts a yard. That is the whole story in two words. But they are not available, so the minister cannot help himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the dredging in the Kaministiquia. I understood it was only soft material brought down the river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a good deal of soft stuff in the Kaministiquia, but there is hard material below it. If we had a large suction dredge, I understand it could do the work in the Mission river.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much would an elevator dredge cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In round figures-$100,000 or $125,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It depends on the size.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The trouble is to get dredges. Some of the dredges that were under commission last year at the present rate told us that they could get better rates on the other side of the line, and we are in a position where we must make the best possible bargain. We have arranged at present to continue under the old arrangement


William Findlay Maclean: Does not all this prove that what we require is a broad, comprehensive plan and also a modern equipment ? There is only one way to do this thing, and that is to do it. The country will be quite willing to bear the expense. It is far better to have improved dredges and get the work done, than to fritter away the money of the people on a small and imperfect plan. Why should not the government take the responsibility of coming down with a plan for the improvement of these harbours, and, if necessary, provide the government dredges to carry out the work ? The result of this would be that we should actually get harbours improved and the work would be done at the lowest cost.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) must not lose sight of the fact that the work on the St. Lawrence
l

ship channel will soon be completed. On a visit I paid to the lakes and harbours last year, I instructed Mr. Coste to prepare a general plan for the improvement of the harbours, and the rivers as well, from a Canadian standpoint. My intention was to come before the House with a report showing what, in my humble opinion and in the opinion of the officers of the department were the most pressing works to be carried out. The completion of the works on the St. Lawrence will set free a powerful fleet of dredges, and these dredges can work on the lakes. So, perhaps, we should not hurry too much in building new dredges. But, for the time being, it seems to me that the thing to be done is to prepare a careful plan not only covering Port Arthur and Fort William, but covering the whole system because it will be of no use if we carry out improvements at the head of the lake only. My hou. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) said that a great deal of our trade is diverted to American ports. The reason is obvioifs-these American ports are splendidly equipped. Duluth, Milwaukee, Chicago, West Superior, Buffalo are all magnificently equipped, while we have on the great lakes not one single harbour which can be called properly equipped. We have only the beginning of an equipment on any harbour on the lakes. We must equip the port of Montreal and all the harbours if we expect trade to be carried through them. It is all very well to say : Let us have improvements in the west; let us have more railways. I altogether share the views of my hon. friend from Lunenburg. Unless we equip our harbours on the lakes, the Canadian trade will not go through Canadian channels. Nobody who knows anything about the carriage of trade can fail to understand that the time will never come when an all-rail route will supersede the waterway. That is out of the question. So I cannot too strongly urge upon the Minister of Public Works to give his personal and immediate attention to the important question of equipping our waterways and our harbours on the lakes and on the St. Lawrence. That is a national question.


George Adam Clare: When does the Minister of Public Works expect this dredge to be completed ? When the vote was asked for, it was supposed $300,000 would complete this dredge, hut the Minister of Public Works tells us to-day that it is going to cost $500,000, and at the same time he tells us that from the last of December to the 1st of .Tune there has been expended $20,000 on it. At that rate it will take twenty-five years to finish this dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is mistaken. But I would say to him that we have fully discussed this question, and he can look up the report and see what was said.


Peter Macdonald: I would ask members of the committee not to diverge from the general question of transportation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the amount paid per cubic yard last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifteen and fifteen and a half cents.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At that rate the contractors must have made a fair profit. I suppose it is understood that we are not going to pay any more than fifteen or fifteen and a half cents a yard this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not if we can make a contract at that price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was up the St. Mary's river last year and inquired what was being paid for dredging, and my information was that it cost thirteen cents.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That may be quite correct. A dredge may make more money at thirteen cents in some localities than at forty cents in others.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who is the engineer on these works, and who are the inspectors ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Temple is the engineer. I cannot give the names of the inspectors.
St. Andrews Rapids improvements, Red river,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to carry on works under contract at St. Andrews rapids. I find on investigation that the progress is rather slow. On the contract itself something like $28,000 or $30,000 only has been spent.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Has not the life of that contract nearly expired ? Practically the work has not started yet. This is practically all a revote of the item of last year. I hope the minister will tell us what course ho is going to follow to secure the early completion of that work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount of the contract is $169,000. The cost of the land, engineering and that sort of thing, is put down at $47,000. The time for the completion of the contract will expire during this summer. There has probably been good reason for the delay.


Arthur W. Puttee: What are the reasons ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made asking for a change in the contract. I think my hon. friend will remember that the first year there was high water, floods had something to do with the delay. I have been looking over the matter, but have not come to a decision yet to recommend a change in the contract. I think tliev first started work in 1901-2.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What were the changes they asked for ?	,	j


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I remember right, they asked to have concrete work changed to stonework. Representations were made that solid concrete work would not stand so well as stone work in that climate subject to extremes of heat and frost. I have asked for a report from the engineers on this subject.
ITon. .Mr. TARTE. The true reason why that work has not proceeded more rapidly is because the contractor took it at too low a price. I do not know what may have induced him to take that contract at the price lie named. His tender was a regular one, he made a deposit and I signed the contract, He had been a contractor on the Canadian Pacific Railway on a large scale, and he made a deposit in the neighbourhood of $50,000, so I had nothing else to do than to sign the contract. But all the same, the price was too low, and it was not long before lie asked to change the concrete to stone work. When my hon. friend has been Minister of Public ^Vbrks for a longer time, he will find that whenever a contractor takes a contract at too low a price, it will not lie long before he will ask for changes. Tlie Messrs. Kelly, very able contractors, asked for changes. They stated that in their opinion it was better to have stone than concrete. Of course anybody who knows anything about works of that kind is aware that concrete is better than stone in that climate. I declined to make the change. 1 said to Mr. Kelly, 1 will do everything I can to help you out, I will not be unduly hard with you, but I cannot consent to that change. The hon. Minister of Public Works has just said that perhaps the demand for these changes has been a cause of delay, but I gave him a very clear answer, on .the report of the officers of the department, of course, and other engineers with whom I consulted, that the changes could not possible: be made, that I could not take upon myself to recommend to my colleagues that these changes should be made which would have increased the cost by a quarter of a million dollars. I could not possibly have entertained that suggestion for one minute. I said :	If you want to give up your contract, I will ask my colleagues to give you back your deposit, although, in the ordinary course of business, we should confiscate it. That contractor cannot possibly carry out this work without a great loss of money.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has he done any work ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: lie has done very little work indeed. If parliament will insist upon a contractor losing money it has a right to do so. We have a right to exact from him that he will carry out his contract. We should say to him : You must either carry out your work or give it up. He did not carry out the work and he did not give it up. He waited but I declined to make the changes. I told him that I could not possiblyr recommend these changes. But, Mr. MONK.
if I had a good word to say on behalf of the contractors, I would not hesitate in stating that they Wave very foolishly taken up that contract. Their price is too low by far, it is too low by at least $75,000 and perhaps more. It is a great pity indeed because I suppose these men acted in perfect good faith. These are facts, and if I were allowed, I would recommend these contractors to the mercy of the hon. Minister of Public Works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have any' changes been made or allowed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No changes have been made by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works or allowed by me. There have been some representations made by the city and by others as to having water power there. In view of the statement made by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, I have been making some inquiries of the chief engineer, and he says that this contract is very much below his estimate.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Am I mistaken in saying that it is $75,000 below the estimate ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $100;000. That is one of the misfortunes in connection with public works of this kind. I do not advocate it, but if you were to give the minister latitude to say that he would not accept the lowest tender you might avoid a great deal of difficulty, because, when you let a contract under these circumstances in the face of the report of the officials of the department that the work cannot be done for the amount stipulated it only leads to difficulty. In view of the suggestion made by the hon. ex-minister I will take the matter up and be prepared to make a report in regard to it and to ascertain if the contractors are able to go on with the work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: These contractors cannot carry out the work for the price. They must have spent $20,000 but they have practically done no work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the contractors stand to lose $75,000, I for my part, would be in favour of relieving them. I do not think we should insist upon the carrying out of works where it is clearly evident that the contractors are going to lose such a large amount as that. I do not think we should countenance any' change from the original specifications. Works of this kind are much better done in concrete than stone and one can very easily understand why the contractors are in favour of making the substitution. I am not in favour of that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I hope the hon. Minister of Public Works will never consent to this change.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would like to say a few words in reference to this matter. If i hon. gentlemen will look up the first pub-

lislied report of tlie Winnipeg board of trade printed in 1870, they will ascertain from that report that a delegation was sent down to the government in 1870 asking for the improvement of St. Andrew's rapids. That delegation was promised that the work would be commenced within one year and this was about twenty-four years ago. The m'atter was urged upon the department each year until .18S4, when Sir Hector Laugevin visited Winnipeg, and although I am not supposed to be a very strong Conservative, I attended a banquet given to that lion, gentleman in Winnipeg that ySar because we united on both sides of politics to entertain that lion, gentleman in the hope tlAit he would let a contract for this work. Notwithstanding that we gave him one of the best banquets that ever had been given in the city of Winnipeg', that we fed him well, that we dined him and wined him and sent him away rejoicing, not one step was taken in the direction of proceeding with this work. Matters remained in that form until this government came into power and we hoped that this government would do something. I submit that they have done something. They have made a beginning, but they have made little more than a beginning. As the lion. Minister of Public Works has said, the great mistake that was made was in letting this, work by contract at all. I believe this work should have been done by day's labour. It is a work that one man can grasp and he could easily have looked after the whole thing. It is not like a railway which extends several miles away but it is a work that could be kept under the individual supervision of one man. However, a contract was let to the lowest tenderer and it has been pointed out, that the tender was $100,000 below what the work was worth. If it was $100,000 below what the work was worth at that time with the advance in the cost of material and labour which has taken place since, the work is worth $100,000 more now than it was then, and therefore, the tender is $200,000 lower than the work is worth to complete. Unfortunately, while these contractors were most energetic contractors, while they had been contractors in the city of Winnipeg for twenty years and had built the greater portion of the sewer system of that city, they seemed to have hard luck in the year they undertook this work. The first thing they did after getting the contract w*as to build a spur line from the Selkirk branch of the main line down to the works and the water became so high that the track was submerged. For twenty-one years I have been passing up and down that railway and never until that year had I seen the railway line submerged at four different places. Hast year it was almost the same. The work has been hampered in every shape and form. [DOT] They have done about $30,000 worth of work, they have machinery on the ground and 0.000 yards of sand and they will be out about $30,000
or $40,000. The matter is in a very unsatisfactory condition, but there is no use of crying over spilt milk. The best way for the hon. minister to do in my opinion is to try and grapple with the subject. If it is possible to get the contractors to give up the work then I would have them do so. On the first of July the three years term is up, but as the plans were not prepared until the 1st of October, the contractors claim that extra time, as they say they were not able to go on with the work. During the last six months the citizens of Winnipeg have been clamouring for water power. They find that cheaper power will have to be supplied to the city of Winnipeg and they have submitted a basis upon which tenders will be received for the supply of that power. The nearest source of power on the Winnipeg river is about sixty miles from the city, but it is believed that between 3,000 and 5,000 horse power might be developed at these rapids. The municipalities of St. Paul, St. Andrews, Kildonan and St. Clements, believe that if they could get a bridge across the river at some point there it would be greatly to their advantage and they are willing to contribute a share of the cost. The local government would also contribute. As I understand it, all that would be necessary for the municipalities to do would be to build abutments from the end of the dam to the shore on both sides. I am also informed that some of the railways would like to cross the river at about this point, and probably the bridge erected there might be made suitable for vehicular and passenger traffic as well as for steam railways and electric railways. I have been informed by a gentleman recently, that the electric railway company which is running a line to Winnipeg Beach, would be willing to share in the cost of the bridge [DOT] if they were allowed to cross the river at this point. In view of all these facts, I think the minister should ask his engineers to report on what changes would be necessary to carry out the conditions which I have enumerated. I believe that the feeling . of the people of Winnipeg is along this line.
If 3,000 or 4,000 horse power can be developed there it would be a great benefit to the city. I would ask the minister to give this matter serious consideration within the next two or three weeks, and probably when the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) returns, the matter can be discussed at greater length.


Robert Laird Borden: Last year my hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) estimated that the contractors would do $250,000 worth of work this year.


William Forsythe McCreary: I hoped so.


Robert Laird Borden: If they have only done $30,000 worth of work in the last three years, their attempt to perform the contract does not amount to very much. Is there any difficulty about dealing with this matter ? Does not this contract con-

tain the usual provision that if the contractors do not make satisfactory progress the work can be taken over by the government. I would be the last one to suggest that any harsh measures should be taken with contractors who made a mistake in the amount of their estimate, but at the same time I do not see any sense in waiting for these gentlemen to find that at ti e end of three years they have< only accomplished $30,000 worth of work* At that rate it would take, I suppose, fifteen years to finish the contract. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) speaks of floods delaying the work, hut I would hardly think that the floods have been so continuous for three years that only $30,000 worth of work could be done. When did the contractors come to the conclusion that this was a losing work and have they made any representations to the department ? I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) when he says that the government should deal with this work efficiently and expeditiously. I do not know whether the scheme which he mentions is a scheme which the government should embark in, but certainly something should be done one way or the other. I agree with those gentlemen who say that the government ought to treat the contractors fairly, and perhaps release them from their contract on equitable terms if they are not in a position to carry it on. I agree also as to the inadvisability of making any such change in material as has been suggested, because there is no information before the House from the minister or from his officers which would justify it. In any event it would involve the necessity of a new contract being let, so that everybody in the Dominion who wished to do so would be at liberty to tender for this work. Perhaps the minister would inform us whether this contract contains the usual clause, and whether the contractors have made any excuse for allowing three years to elapse without doing any more than what may be fairly considered as trifling.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is only fair to the contractors to say that the contract was entered into in July, 1900, the price being $469,000. If. as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says, the price was too low, then it must be still lower now considering the increased cost of wages and material in the meantime. The plans were not placed in the hands of the contractors until the fall of 1900, so that they have not been three years at the work.


Robert Laird Borden: I admit that; it is three years next October.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were then made asking for a change, but these representations were refused and that caused further delay. It was my intention to ask the chief engineer to go there and make a personal report, but with the various works going on and Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
bis attendance here in parliament, it has been found impossible for him to get away. It is also true that the secretary of the Canadian Pacific Railway has made an official proposition to the department, that if a change could be made in the work they would contribute to the cost. It may be of not only local but national interest that such a change should be made. I think the best thing for me to do is to ask the chief engineer to go there and make a full report on all these matters. We have also received a petition JTom the board of trade or the city council of Winnipeg, I forget which, with regard to the development of water power at these rapids. I do not believe myself, that this would increase the cost, but if it did we would have to consider whether such an income could be derived as would compensate us for that increased cost. At any rate, in view of the representations made to us by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, it would be well worth while to see how much of the cost they would be willing to contribute if the proposed change were made. I understand from the officers of the department that the representations as to changing from concrete to stone were made by a petition from the [DOT] citizens of that district. There is a difference of opinion among the engineers, both of the Public Works Department and the Department of Railways and Canals, in regard to the matter. My own opinion is that good concrete properly put up is under most conditions better than stone; in other cases stone is better. To overcome the effect of great changes of temperature, I think the concrete should be made in blocks so as to allow for contraction and expansion.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that some criticism was offered last year in regard to the quality of the stone. I know nothing about that ; but I think the minister has this matter entirely in his own hands. The contract in question must contain the provision which is in all government contracts, giving the government power to take over the work if it is not proceeded with, in the opinion of the engineer, with sufficient expedition to ensure its completion within the time fixed by the contract. We know that it has not been proceeded with with any such expedition ; it has not been proceeded with at all. except so far as $30,000 may be compared with $469,000. This power which the government has is not, of course, to be exercised harshly or tyrannically ; but it is to be exercised in such a way as to protect the public interest by enabling the work to be done within the time fixed by the contract. The department may take the work out of the hands of the contractors, and if they do, they should deal with th<f contractors fairly under the circumstances.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I may say. in answer to the hon. leader of the opposition, that the
33C1

336Z
reason I did not exercise the right which the government undoubtedly have to take the contract from the Messrs. Kelly Brothers, was that every time we wrote to' them and warned them that they were not carrying out the work, they invariably answered that they would go on with it. They were men of reputation, who had carried out very large works elsewhere, and it was pretty difficult for'the department to say to such men : We have no confidence in you. The last time I told them very firmly that I could not grant the changes which they asked for, and I added that if they would not go on with the work I would cancel the contract immediately. Then Mr. Kelly told me that even if he lost $100,000, he would carry out the work. His words to me were : ' I have never failed to carry out a contract yet, and I will carry out this one.' The hon. minister says that since I left office the department has received an intimation from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they will contribute towards the work if certain changes are made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have a proposition in writing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I understand that if that proposition is accepted by the government, new tenders will be asked, because it will be a new work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Joseph Israël Tarte: As to changing from concrete to stone, I do not know whether I correctly understood the hon. minister to say that there was a difference of opinion on the subject in the Department of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said among the engineers. The hon. gentleman must know from his experience that engineers differ- in opinion as between stone and concrete ; but I said that in my own experience good concrete, if properly put in, was better under certain conditions than stone.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not think that any engineer will say that stone is better than concrete ; it cannot be maintained. I know the way in which petitions are got up. The truth is, the contractor is in a hole, and if my hon. friend can arrange with him by paying him what he has spent, say $25,000 or $30,000, and ask for new tenders on the new proposition which he has before him, I suppose it would be the best thing that could be done. That work is of great importance. If the department obliges the contractor to go on, it will take him years to do the work, and he will be losing money all the time. Therefore, I think it will be better to arrange witli him. The minister has in the department engineers in whom I have full confidence, and when he has a report signed by his engineers I have no fear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that this item is in a very unsatisfactory position.
hen we approached it this evening, I understood the minister to say that it was intended to go on with this work. But unless we act very harshly with these contractors, we are not going to force them to execute their contract. I think it is evident that we are not going to hold the contractors to the execution of their contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that it was not my intention to make them carry out the contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the item was first broached, the minister said that it was in order to carry out these works, tlAit there was a contract, but that not much progress had been made, because difficulties had arisen. But I do not think there is any doubt that we are not going to force these contractors to carry out the work as undertaken. The remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), have led me to believe, since the government had the proposition of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company before them, and it would be possible to construct these works in such a way as to make them of assistance in developing power for the city of Winnipeg, that it would be desirable to construct them th'at way. For my part, if that were done, and if the arrangement proposed by these parties were put into shape, I would have much more pleasure in supporting this item. We are now voting more or less in the dark, because it is evident that , these men are not going to be held to their contract, unless they -are allowed to substitute inferior material, and the whole affair is in a state of uncertainty.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman has just stated that he will not allow any change any more than I did. His information is that the contractors are not going on with the work and he will try to arrange with them by paying them just what is due, and then ask for new tenders, owing to the proposition which was submitted to him by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I had no intention of doing anything else than go on with the contract as it is, but in view of the statements made here and the proposition submitted by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the department, hon. gentlemen will admit that it is quite proper to ask the engineers of the department to make a report.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would once more suggest that the hon. minister should try to arrange with the contractor as soon as possible so that before the session is over, a vote may be put in the estimates and new tenders asked for, and the work done as soon as possible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer cannot go himself, but



we have gentlemen in the department who might take up all the propositions and make a report in a week or two.. Then I could ask the contractor either to go on with the work or, if any change is proposed, to come to some reasonable arrangement. _


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not suggest that the contractors should be paid, but that they should be relieved from this prospective loss of a very large amount.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what I understood.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have the contractors themselves made any proposition to be relieved from the performance of their contract without, of course, receiving any additional indemnity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have received no proposition. The last action of the department was notifying them of their delay and urging them to go on with their contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the contractors do licit go on with their contract, as it is, new tenders will be asked 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Arthur W. Puttee: We are in the same position to-night as we were in last year when this item was up, and I am afraid that we will be in the same position next year. It looks as if the contractors had never made an honest attempt to complete the work. Why there should be a mistake, I cannot understand, because tenders were called for twice, and when they found they could not do the work, without even making a fair start at it, there must have been something more than a mistake. As regards the changing from concrete to stone, the hon. minister says that petitions came from Winnipeg for that change, but these were based on the fact that there is native stone available, and the petitioners asked the department to decide whether a change could be made without detriment to the work. What the city of Winnipeg wants is not that the specification should be changed, but that the work should be proceeded with. They do not want to injure the contractor, but the work should not be held back when he is altogether in fault.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only promise I can make is that one I have made. I will take the best talent I have in the department and have a report made before the session closes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there is an offer from the Canadian Pacific Railway and the city as well, and I would suggest that this power should not be allowed to fall into the hands of a private individual or even the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The proposition of the Canadian Pacific Railway is not to get the power, but propose that if certain changes are made, they will contribute to the cost.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg, I may say that I never hinted that a mistake was made. I only said'that the Kelly's had tendered too low. They never said that they had made a mistake in their specifications or in any part of their tender.


Mr. LENNOX.: It appears to me that it would be better to settle with the contractors in default before undertaking the larger scheme. If you send out an engineer and have it understood that you are abandoning the original scheme, then you will find that the government, instead of the contractor, will be in the position of having made default. The contractor will then say :	I have expended $30,000, and I have
a large quantity of plant and material on the ground, and if the government is going to take this matter out of my hands, I will be entitled to compensation. The minister should at once notify these men to proceed with their contract and put them in default before entertaining any of these larger propositions suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk and others. Otherwise they will find that, great as is the difficulty, we| are in at present, still greater difficulties will surround us.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. minister will find when he visits Winnipeg that the question of improving the Red river to overcome the obstruction at St. Andrew's Rapids is a very live question. The object is to allow boats to go up into Lake Winnipeg and the tributaries of the lake and other water courses, and in that way improve transportation and allow supplies to come down at reasonable freight rates.


An hon. MEMBER.: And fuel.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes. The people of Winnipeg feel it is a serious matter that the work has not been gone on with. They have even gone so far as to say that the railways were, to some extent, responsible for the delay in carying out this work. I am not responsible for that statement, but I have heard it made. These contractors, it has been said, will neither give up their contract nor go on with the work. Is not the contract with the government the same as a contract with a private individual or an ordinary corporation ? Surely the government has the means of forcing them to do one thing or the other. It has been said that materials have advanced very much since the contract has been made and the contracts could not be made now at as low a price as at the time the contract was entered into. Have the government agreed to let the contractors off ? I do not see why the government should act as

philanthrophists in dealing with these contractors who are now in default. At any rate, I hope the minister will see that this matter is settled at an early day, and that in some way the works are gone on with. Even if this work is not heard so much of here, the hon. minister will find when he visits Winnipeg that this question is one of the liveliest questions in the west, and the work one of the most important in the country. I hope that next session, whoever has the honour of occupying the position of Minister of Public Works, will be able to tell us that the thing has been cleaned up and that the work is proceeding as fast as possible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall make every effort to gain that end.


Richard Blain: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work under contract.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When does the hon. minister expect that the contractor will be through his work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are taking a vote for the full amount necessary to complete the work. It is expected that the work will be completed before the end of the next fiscal year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The contractor is a little behind time, of course.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The work was to have been completed by July or August, if I remember aright.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: According to the contract, it was to be completed on the 25th December last.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And it will not be completed before the beginning of next season ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the opinion of the chief engineer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was not some change made in regard to the material to be used ? Was not one kind of wood substituted for another with the consent of the department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The chief engineer tells me that the only change made was that the contractor was allowed to use a certain amount of hemlock instead of spruce in the foundations -under water.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many thousand feet ?
106J


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between two and three hundred thousand feet. The specifications, as I understand it, call for spruce, and hemlock is allowed to be used.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was it not more than five hundred thousand feet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that it was between two and three hundred thousand feet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was there any change in the price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer and the department did not consider there was any difference in the value.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The question did not come up at all then ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was before my time. I take the information given by the chief engineer, who tells me that the report made to the minister was that the price was the same.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it true that hemlock was substituted for spruce for all the work under water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that it was not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any report in the department on that point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think there is.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, there is.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a report ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that he does not remember any report, but I will make a memorandum of it, and if there are reports, they will be brought down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am responsible for the change the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) refers to. The contractor came to the department and stated that it was impossible for him to obtain all the spruce that was necessary to carry on the work. I consulted the resident engineer and he made the report to me that hemlock was just as good as spruce. I consulted the chief engineer and he told me the same thing. I do not remember whether there is a written report from him, but I think there is. If my hon. friend will be good enough to look, he will find that there is one report at least. The change was made only for the interior of the foundation, what I may call the cross section. As hemlock was just as good as spruce and as we were anxious to get the work proceeded with as speedily as possible, I allowed the change. But there is certainly a report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. minister will allow us to have the report, I shall be glad.
I understand that in these works there are very heavy blocks of concrete over the hemlock foundation. Is that the case ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister, in connection with this item if anything has been decided with regard to the dry dock in the vicinity of where this pier is being built, or is that matter still in the same condition as it was a year or two ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No decision has been come to with regard to that matter.


Mr. KIDD.: May I ask the minister what is the difference between the price of spruce timber and hemlock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say from my personal knowledge, but I am told that at Montreal there is no difference in price.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I have a subject matter I would like to bring up that is allied to this transportation question; I refer to the improvements in Summerside harbour that were started some three or four years ago.


Peter Macdonald: I am afraid we cannot take up Summerside harbour.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But there is no other item in the estimates on which I could bring it up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be an item, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity of discussing Summerside harbour when I will be in a better position to give him information.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is perfectly in order for my hon. friend to discuss the absence of an item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was suggesting that I would be in a much better position to give him information when the supplementaries come down. I know what he refers to, it is one of these unfortunate contracts.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: At an earlier period of the session the minister promised to bring down the correspondence in connection with this matter; I do not think it has been tabled yet. I would like to have that correspondence down before the item comes up in the supplementaries.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The correspondence I have promised is being prepared, and will he laid on the Table perhaps to-morrow.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Did I understand the minister to say that there will be an item I Hon. Mr. TARTE.
in the supplementary estimates for Summer-side breakwater ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is my intention.
Port Colborne-harbour improvements, $142,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This sum is to complete the work under contract at Port Colborne.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the work is completed what will be its length and width ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be fifty feet wide and 5,700 feet long, including a head block 100 feet by 60 feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the original contract, was the width of the structure to be tweuty: five feet or, fifty feet ? And if there was a change from twenty-five to fifty feet, was that the subject of extras, or was there a new contract for the additional work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The original specifications were for a width of twenty-five feet. It was found that the work would he too light, and it was made fifty feet. No new tenders were asked for. The price was arranged with the present contractor.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the cost of the additional twenty-five feet in width ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In round numbers, $100,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand, then, that when it was decided to widen it to an additional twenty-five feet, no tenders were asked for. Was that work performed by the original contractor, and how and upon what terms was the basis of payment arrived at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An agreement was entered into between the department and the original contractors.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the additional work crib or pile work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was crib work, simply widened to fifty feet. The chief engineer informs me that it; was the same kind of work, only made double width. The original contract price was $395,000; after the widening was called for the price was $495,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the original work done for a lump sum, or was it done for so much per yard or so much per foot ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The tender was for a lump sum.


William Humphrey Bennett: Upon what basis was the widening part of the work done ? Was it so much per yard or so much per foot ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, am informed that the extra amount of

crib work was to be done pro rata the price of the original work.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems to me that was a very unfair computation so far as the interests of the public were concerned. As I understand it, the structure for twenty-five feet width had been completed, and after that work had been performed, the minister, without asking for tenders, gave an additional contract for widening the work twenty-five feet more, and the price for the addition was at the same rate as the original contract. As I understand it, this breakwater was to be 5,000 feet in length, running out into the lake. It must be patent that it would cost the contractor a great deal more to build 5,000 feet with a width of twenty-five feet than it would to build an additional twenty-five feet after the first original part of the work was completed. He had all the disadvantages in the first instance of placing his plant iu the lake, of driving his piles and sinking his cribs; and in the second instance, he had every facility afforded by having prepared a dock upon which to work. I think the minister himself must give us a better explanation why no tenders were called for, and why the contractor was allowed to exact tlie same price for the additional twenty-five feet as for the first twenty-five feet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let me explain that, my hon. friend the minister is in' no way responsible except as being one of my colleagues then. When I was in France, the first contract was signed. Before I left Canada plans had been prepared for a breakwater fifty feet wide. When I was away the plans were reduced to thirty feet wide. If I remember right, four or five hundred feet of that work was performed. When I came back Mr. Coste, represented to me, and the engineers of the department joined with him, that the work would be carried away like a straw if an additional width was not added. We had to make the work solid with stone and all sorts of material. The contractors were not responsible for the plans. They were carrying out the plans upon which they had been invited to tender, but these plans were not the original plans which I bad sanctioned before I left here. The plans were reduced to a dangerous degree. My hon. friends, when they go there, will only have to look at the works to find that they have been distorted. They were very nearly being carried away. Parliament was not then sitting. It was not possible for us to ask for tenders because we were in expectation of the works being carried away. I immediately made an arrangement with the contractors as they were the only parties that could carry out the work quickly .because they were on the spot with all their plant to do the work that was necessary. Any business man would do what I was
obliged to do. It was a case of necessity as there is no doubt that the works would have been carried away. In point of fact the works as they are now will scarcely be able to resist the pressure of the waves. We have been obliged to pay a little more to the contractors than the price of their first contract, but it was a case of necessity. The trouble is that the plans were reduced with the view of economy when they should not have been reduced.


William Humphrey Bennett: If I understand the hon. minister correctly a total length of 5,000 feet by a total width of 50 feet is now completed, and if not, will this $142,000 ensure the completion of the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $142,000 is intended to complete the work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the hon. minister's attention been called to the necessity of having another breakwater on the other side of the canal entrance constructed ? The present breakwater and the works of the Department of Railways and Canals will be of no use-I make that statement here and I know I am right-unless there is another breakwater on the other side. The entrance will not be protected and ships will not be able to find anchor there. In point of fact the works of the Department of Railways and Canals have not been proceeded with because the breakwater was not built and the waves are so strong that the works of the Department of Railways and Canals could not stand the pressure from them. Perhaps, before the session is over, the hon. Minister of Public Works might inquire and he will find that what I say now is perfectly right. We want to equip the entrance of our Canadian system of canals. We have, I suppose, received a pretty good lesson. We are not handling very much freight through our canals and unless Port Colborne is equipped it is no use relying on any exchange of trade there, because boats cannot have shelter unless these breakwater works are built, and that without delay. The present breakwater must be considered only as the beginning of the work that has to be carried out.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works what is the depth of water at this 5,000 feet face of dock, and furthermore if any applications have been made by any parties for any use of the breakwater there, or has any use been made of that part of the work which has been completed up to date ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is only intended for a breakwater. I do not know that any application has been made for any use of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the depth of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From twenty feet down to twelve feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: When tliis work was first launched a few years ago, Involving, I think, an outlay between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals, of a sum exceeding very considerably $500,000, it was anticipated that as soon as it was completed applications would be made by private parties for permission to erect elevators on this proposed esplanade or breakwater.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals. It does not apply to this work at all. This is purely a breakwater built by the Department of Public Works and the amount spent there already, I think, is more than the amount mentioned by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett). I have not the amount spent by the Department of Railways and Canals, but the grain elevators are proposed to be built on the piers to be constructed by the Department of Railways and Canals.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are the piers that are being built by the Department of Railways and Canals opposite this or in a line from it in one direction or another ? Unfortunately I have not been at Port Colborne and I am not familiar witli the situation there.


Mr. GERMAN.: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that the cost of improving the harbour at Port Colborne, including the work done by the Department of Railways and Canals, would probably exceed $500,000. My recollection is that the statement was made to parliament when these works at Port Colborne were launched was that the cost would be very nearly $2,000,000, and I think before Port Colborne harbour is fully completed, as it must be if the money already expended is to be of any public utility, there will have to be a sum in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 expended there. The breakwater which is under construction at the present time and which is nearly completed, is a fairly good breakwater. I am not, I may say, absolutely in love with it. There was a mistake made at its inception by starting out to build a breakwater absolutely too narrow to withstand the strain of the waves coming down the whole length of Lake Erie. However, that was remedied by doubling the width. The breakwater now as originally contemplated is nearly completed. As has been said by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) it will not afford the facilities which will be necessary for a complete harbour at Port Colborne until another breakwater is constructed to the east shutting off the waves coming from the eastern part of Lake Erie. The piers which are under construction by the Department of Railways and Canals on which to erect elevators are inside the breakwater, which is already constructed and so far as westerly winds are concerned the present harbour is sheltered and it makes an excellent harbour of refuge from western or south-western storms.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask which direction the breakwater runs in-east and west or north and south ?
Jlr. GERaiAN. The breakwater runs from Sugar Loaf Point out into the lake in a south-easterly direction. The piers which are under construction by the Department of Railways and Canals run directly south, starting from the shore line which is 2,500 or 3,000 feet inside the breakwater. The Canadian Transportation and Storage Company which is asking for incorporation this session, has already applied to the Department of Railways and Canals for the right to construct two elevators each having a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. The promotors of this company are men of ample means, and they will have at least one elevator constructed at the opening of navigation next spring. The Wolvin Syndicate which is called in Canada the St. Lawrence Terminal Company, has also applied for terminal facilities at Port Colborne. I believe that the expenditure of money at Port Colborne in connection with the completion of our waterways will be a very valuable national expenditure indeed. I think that without a doubt, you w'ill see from 30,000,000 to 40,000.000 bushels of the wheat of the west carried to the seaboard next year by way of Port Colborne and the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. That will not be half or perhaps one-quarter of what will eventually go through our Canadian transportation routes. Large quantities will go from Depot Harbour and Midland, and I submit that if we expend $1,500,000 or even $2,000,000 at Port Colborne it will be an expenditure for the general good of Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: The subject is interesting and perli'aps the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) could tell us the length and width of those piers, and to what extent the work has progressed.


William Manley German: The piers are each GOO feet long by 200 feet wide. They were constructed by laying concrete walls on each side and the intention was to fill in the vacancy with loose stone that was dredged from the bottom of the harbour; the harbour being deepened from 14 or 18 feet to 21 feet. It has been stated by experts in elevator building that this loose stone would not make a satisfactory foundation for an elevator, and I am told by the Minister of Railways and Canals tlfat he has instructed the contractors to not put any more loose stone in there, and it will be decided very shortly what kind of foundation will be laid in order to allow of the erection of elevators on the piers.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the depth of water at these piers ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


William Manley German: Wlien tlie work is finished the depth will be 21 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have not 21 feet there now ?


William Manley German: The piers are built on the solid rock. The rock alongside of the piers is blasted bind taken out by the dredge. It would be useless to build concrete where the rock is, because the rock is as good a foundation as the concrete. They are building the piers on the rock foundation and all around the piers is deepened to 21 feet or 22 feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: What would be the widtli of the basin formed between these piers and the opposite breakw'ater ?


William Manley German: Between the. outer end of the piers and the breakwater is 2,500 feet or 3,000 feet which leaves ample room for the largest boats tp turn in the basin provided the proper depth of water is afforded.


Mr. SHERRITT.: Is it the intention of the government to do any work this year at Grand Bend on the Lake Huron shore ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS..: That m'atter is under consideration. I can hardly tell the hon. gentleman what may be in the supplementary estimates, but it is under the consideration of the department.


John Sherritt: Will the minister tell us why this item has been dropped from the estimates ? In 1900, at the time of the election, the government engineer went up there and made a survey and in the estimates for 1901, there was fan item of $5,700 inserted for this work. Since that, this item has been dropped out of the estimates altogether, and perhaps the minister can tell us why it has been dropped. I might state that this work would be very useful indeed. The fishermen for ten miles around come and fish at that point as it seems to be the best place for fishing in the district, 'and the completion of this work would be a great advantage to the fishing community.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only reason the item was dropped was, that in preparing the main estimates for 1903-4, only estimates were included for works under way. I think you will find that there are no new works provided for in these estimates at 'all, and as this work was not under contract it was left over for consideration the same as all other items of a similar nature.


John Sherritt: Has it been considered?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is under consideration now.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: In view of what the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has s'aid. might I ask what is the intention of the government with regard to constructing another breakwater at Port Colborne ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is quite impossible for me to make any promise as to what may be done until council decides what shall be put in the estimates.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is it under the consideration of the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.
Sorel deep water wharf, $47,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is this wharf built for the Richelieu and Onl'ario Navigation Company, or is it built for the public generally ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that it was built for the general public.


Robert Laird Borden: The object of this vote, as explained on a previous occasion, seems to have been to create an ocean port at Sorel for the purpose of doing a large export business. I understood, from the remarks of the Prime Minister on this subject last year, that the expenditure was very largely based on the fact that a considerable railway system had been developed in the vicinity of Sorel. Would the lion. Minister of Public Works tell us what the railway situation there is at the present time and to what extent it warrants a very large expenditure at this particular point for the purpose indicated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt that the building of this wharf was to provide deep water accommodation at that port. I believe the depth of water at this point is now thirty feet. I understand that the railway system on which Sorel depended so much has been somewhat unfortunate; but I am informed that it is under operation again. As to what the volume of trade will be, I am quite unable to say. I suppose there could not have been any tonnage there previous to. this accommodation being furnished. "Whether it will meet the expectation of those who advocate it, I am unable to say.


Albert Edward Kemp: It looks as though from a vei-y small beginning, we were in for a pretty large expenditure on this matter. Last year, in answer to some inquiries which I made in regard to it, the Prime Minister stated that $25,000 was first voted for this work. The papers which have been brought down and laid on the Table of the House, show that the engineer of the department estimated that it would take $935,000 to carry out the various works for which petitions had been handed to the government. The Prime Minister. stated that the appropriation had been decided upon when the Minister of Public Works was absent from the city. As the amount voted was not sufficient, $100,000 was asked for and voted, and the Prime Minister stated that it would doubtless cost" $150,000 or $175,000 to complete this work. He said :

But railways are taking the place of waterways, and two railways are now converging at Sorel, the South Shore which has been constructed from Montreal to Sorel and beyond Sorel to Nicolet, and will be completed this year probably to LotbiniSre. There is the United Counties Railway also, which became the Rutland Railway, and which I believe now belongs to the New York Central, and it comes from the New York Central Railway system at Lake Champlain to the town of Sorel.
The papers which have been brought down show that the petitioners who were influential in getting the government to start this work were the United Counties Railway and the bank of St. Hyaeinthe. The petition of the United Counties Railway in one place says :
Your government will readily understand that, in order to induce steamers to dock at Sorel, large inducements will have to be given to them by the line of railway carrying the freight to that point, which will be a heavy charge upon this railway, and for this reason, among others, your petitioners confidently appeal to your government for support in their undertaking.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman tell me the date of that petition ?


Albert Edward Kemp: The letter transmitting it is dated Montreal, December 22, 1899, and is signed by Mr. J. N. Greenshields. The petition further says :
This road's plans are entirely contingent upon the completion of the dock, elevator and opening of the channel, and the building of several miles of railway leading to the docks, on or before the month of June of next year, and this company is prepared to complete such work as it may be properly expected to assume on or before that date, and confidently expects that your government, in the general interests of the country, and the development of its carrying trade, will accede to the requests of the present memorial.
The acting chief engineer of the department, Mr. Eugene D. Lafleur, made a report on the subject, which I will read in order that we may have an intelligent idea of what is before us :
Department of Public Works of Canada, Chief Engineer's Office,
Ottawa, January 10, 1900.
Sir,-With reference to file No. 208,734, being an application from Mr. J. N. Greenshields, on behalf of the United Counties Railway, for the construction of deep water terminal facilities at Sorel, I have the honour to state that a certain portion of the ground to be occupied by the improvements in question has already been surveyed by Mr. Assistant Engineer F. W. Cowie, and that judging from the estimate of the cost of the works then proposed, which only consisted of 1,000 feet of wharfing instead of the 2,000 feet applied for, the estimated cost of the works now required cannot be placed at a less figure than $935,000, as follows Dredging an area 800 feet wide by 25,000
feet in length, an average depth of 18
feet to 27| feet at extreme low water.. $255,000
-Cribwork and sheds	 430,000
Elevator of 1,000,000 bushels capacity.. 250'000 Mr. KEMP.
If the department decides to undertake this work it will of course be necessary to have a complete survey made, in order that the above estimate may be revised, especially as far as the dredging is concerned.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR,
Acting Chief Engineer.
The Secretary,
Department of Public Works.
Then, there is a petition from the city council of St. Hyaeinthe and a petition from the Bank of St. Hyaeinthe. There is si further report from the acting engineer, dated Ottawa, April 23, 1900, going into the matter more minutely. For, the dock at Sorel, which cost within about $5,000 of the estimate made by Mr. Lafleur, it suggests three sites. The site whicli he recommends would cost $200,330. There is nothing in these reports with reference to elevator facilities or dfedging a channel to the dock; but it must be assumed that if the government built the dock, they would have to provide a channel which would enable deep water steamers to reach the dock. So that what I said at the outset is apparently, that we are in for a tremendous expenditure for this work; and for my part, I do not see what benefit it will be to the country. When this matter was up before, it was said that these three railways converged at Sorel. But one of them only runs occasionally and sometimes does not run at all, and the statement of the Prime Minister about one of them becoming a part of the New York Central Railway was rather mythical and visionary; nothing has come of it. We have spent a good deal of money there, but I do not see what is the use of going on with the work. Sorel will never be able to compete as an ocean port with Quebec or Montreal. It is a river port and should have been left as such, and for my part I do not see why it should be necessary to throw away the resources of the country in an attempt to make it an ocean port.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will see that the total cost is $273,500, and the work is almost complete. What I am asking now is for $40,000 to pay the balance of the contract in full, so that whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the value of the work, it is now nearly completed and we have to pay for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this for a wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Mr, GALLERY. Will the hon. minister tell us whether, after all the money we have spent to improve the St. Lawrence route, the insurance rates have been reduced ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say whether any reduction has been made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The rates have been very much decreased this year. The Canadian Pacific Railway fleet have obtained rates just as good as those in any other American port.
Ml'. GALLERY. And how is it that the Grand Trunk Railway can ship grain from Portland, 300 miles further than from Montreal, and cheaper than they can send it down the St. Lawrence ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: One reason is that we have no proper equipment in Montreal. The Grand Trunk Railway Company has an old elevator there and the Canadian Pacific Railway has two, but they are not modern elevators. The harbour commissioners are now building an elevator. Not only had we no modern elevators, but we had not handling facilities, and in fact we were not in it at all. I think that the rates this year will be as favourable as those at American ports. My hon. friend must not forget that perhaps competition was not as keen ns it might have been between the different companies, but now that the Canadian Pacific Railway can make cheap rates from west to east, other companies will follow suit. We must not forget also that grain is only a small portion of a steamer's cargo. A steamer takes as a rule about 50,000 bushels, so that if there are other competing trades as well, navigation companies will be in a condition to give better rates.


Mr. GALLERY.: When we have thirty feet in the channel from Montreal to Quebec, how is it that there are so many accidents V Is the pilotage system bad or what is wrong ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman will find that last season there were very few accidents between Quebec and Montreal. The most of them were below Quebec. An accident happened to a man-of-war, but that ship grounded at a spot where the channel was 1,500 feet wide with fifty feet depth of water through a mistake of the pilot. Accidents of that kind will occur, but you cannot charge them against the St. Lawrence route. A week or two ago there was an accident because the buoys were either misplaced or displaced, and the pilot going between two buoys thought he was perfectly safe. Accidents like that cannot be explained, but there were no accidents last year between Quebec and Montreal worth mentioning. The channel is in good shape now. We have thirty feet of water all along the route at thisi period of the year, but after the 15th of September, when the water is low, there. will not be that depth. In a year or two, however,>
we will have that depth all through the season, and the ship channel is in better shape than it ever was-better buoys and better lighted.


Peter Macdonald: Hon. gentlemen are wandering away from the item
which is for the construction of a wharf at Sorel.


Albert Edward Kemp: This item speaks of a wharf, but I understood the hon. minister to say that it includes the dredging of the channel Is it for both ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract is for the erection of a wharf but it includes dredging of the approach to the wharf.


Albert Edward Kemp: The report of the engineer of the department contemplates an expenditure of $935,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is all wrong. The total cost is $273,000, and this is to pay $47,000 which is the balance due to contractors.


Albert Edward Kemp: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to build a wharf 700 feet long, forty-six feet high, and forty feet wide at the, base, and with thirty feet of water at low tide, together with 000 feet of trestle work.


Albert Edward Kemp: This report contemplates an expenditure of $935,000, and the intention was to make Sorel an ocean port. Will this expenditure, which the hon. minister has mentioned, make Sorel a port for ocean vessels of the capacity of those which go to Montreal ? If that be the case, how can the minister account for this estimate of $935,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never heard before of that estimate. We have to deal with the plan adopted and not with estimates which often vary.


Albert Edward Kemp: According to this report, the work should cost $900,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is an old report and was never acted upon.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman will not say that when the money is expended and the contract completed, we shall have an ocean port for large vessels.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see that there is any doubt about it. There will be thirty feet of water and probably the largest vessels can stop there.
I am told that when this is finished, there will be 1,300 feet of wharfage, which will give facilities for two of the largest boats.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who will build the elevator referred to in the report ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is another question.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are there any prospects of using the port for ocean vessels and utilizing the railways that were referred to ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The local people seem to think that trade will come there.


Albert Edward Kemp: What does the hon. minister think ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The minister may be like my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) perhaps, not a very good authority, but optimistic, with great confidence in Canada and with great hope that all these ports will be successful in the near future.


Robert Laird Borden: No doubt, when this matter was put before the House by the Prime Minister last session it was represented to be in somewhat different shape from that in which the Minister of Public Works finds it to-night. The Prime Minister said :
Now, the intention is to make Sorel an ocean port.
And, at the conclusion of his remarks he
says :
This

That is, this expenditure

-is not only for Sorel but it is part of the system to equip the harbours of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. I am sure that my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) has no doubt whatever that before many years there will be enough trade coming from Ontario and the west to supply all those harbours, of which Sorel is one.	.
Does the hon. Minister of Public Works desire to commit us to a scheme of that kind to-night ? Is it not plain that Montreal and Quebec are not getting one-tenth of the trade they ought to have; and, while that state of affairs exists, are we to equip this third ocean port on the St. Lawrence without the slightest probability so far as any one can see of its being of any use for the purpose within the lifetime of any of us ? This rote may be to pay the contractors, but what is the intention of the government with regard to the project itself? My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) reasonably asks : Who is going to build the elevator, which must be built if Sorel is to do the trade of the west along with or instead of Montreal or Quebec ? Does the government commit itself to the project of establishing Sorel as a port to do the grain business of the west ? One would suppose that that was so absolutely visionary that the hon. minister would not commit himself to it. Or, perhaps, he will do so. This extensive work that is being done seems altogether too large for local traffic, but entirely inadequate, without additional enormous expenditure in the future, for doing any of this proposed grain business from the west. This whole expenditure of a quarter of a million of dollars seems based upon the theory that these railways are to be part of a very important system, but that portion of the scheme seems to have absolutely broken down. In any case, the railway system with which it is proposed to connect Sorel, from what I can gather from the debate of last Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
year, would direct the grain trade toward New York instead of Sorel. Of course, I do not speak by the book with regard to that. I think that before we pass this item the Minister of Public Works ought to be frank with the House and tell us whether he thinks it is a justifiable expenditure for the purposes of local traffic; or, if there is something more than that, and, if as the Prime Minister stated last year, this is to be an ocean port to take the grain trade of the west, where is our expenditure to stop, and what reasonable prospect is there in the mind of any of us that Sorel can ever compete with Montreal or Quebec, and what reason is there it should be required to do so ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a considerable expenditure for a wharf for local trade. But, of course, it has created an ocean port, if that is the term to apply to a port where you have a depth of thirty feet of water. As to the expectations formed, as my hon. friend has pointed out, that a great railway system, as was represented by the government, would do so much, it seems to have met with some mishap and the prospect is not so bright for the grain trade as it appeared at that time. The contract was entered into on June 25, 1901, and the work has been almost completed. No matter what my views may be as to the future prospects of Sorel, I think that there can be no doubt that we are called upon to pay the contractors the amount due. I am not in position to say what the future of this railway system, concerning which such representations were made to the government, may be. But, of course, we hope for the best.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to amount to this-that the hon. minister thinks there is not very much in this, but we are committed to it to the extent of $240,000. and we must pay a debt which the government contracted without very much justification. I am very sorry indeed that the right hon. the Prime Minister is not able to be here to-night. I am not complaining of that, because I know we cannot expect him to be here always. But I do think the hon. Minister of Public Works had better let the item stand until the Prime Minister is here, and we can then have some explanation from him, for, no doubt, he is more familiar with the matter than the Minister of Public Works is. I think it must be pretty apparent that the position the right hon. Prime Minister took last year is not a very strong one, to say the least. But he may be able to give us some explanation which my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works does seem to be able to give. But I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the item be allowed to stand in the meantime. Of course, if we are to say that every place on the St. Lawrence where you get thirty feet of water is to be equipped as an ocean port, and a quarter

of a million, or a million or two million dollars must be spent there, we will all agree that that is a pretty plain proposition, but I do not know how far the Minister of Public Works would commend it as a sensible or a reasonable proposition. And there does not seem to be much in the proposition with regard to Sorel, that goes beyond that. I am willing to expend public money on Sorel, or anywhere else, if it is in the interest of the country to do so. But to expend a quarter of a million dollars there under present circumstances is really too absurd for us to discuss. We kaye got to decide what are to be the great ocean ports for our grain trade from the west, and it is our duty to equip them in order to keep that trade of our own country for the ports of our own country. But it seems to me that we are only handicapping our interests if, while leaving Montreal and Quebec and other ports which have a prospect of getting this trade, comparatively unequipped, we are to spend money in projects of this kind which have not any reasonable foundation, and which depend for any possibility of success upon schemes with regard to railways which have not had any success at all, and which have no probability or possibility of success except in the minds of certain railway promoters. I do not want to put this matter too strongly ; but I have not heard anything from my hon. friend which convinces me that my view is a wrong one. It seems to me this sum is altogether too large to be expended at this place, unless "you propose to equip it as an ocean port; and how can you justify the project of equipping it as an ocean port for the grain trade of the west, in view of the situation as it has developed there ? Under these circumstances does the Minister of Public Works not think that some better explanation is due to the House before we should be called upon to vote this item.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps the proposition of the leader of the opposition is a reasonable one. I have only to say that we have spent a great deal of the time of the session discussing this question on various occasions. Perhaps the Prime Minister will make a statement and answer any question in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: We know that the hon. gentleman has had a good deal of discussion over his estimates, but I want to remind him that to-night we have been voting money at the rate of $5,000 a minute, according to a calculation I made a short time ago. So. for once in his life, he ought to be satisfied with the progress which has been made. Perhaps the views which I have presented to him may strike him as reasonable.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before we leave that item, I would like to ask the minister if he would state the amounts that have been paid to these contractors since they signed that contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amounts paid up to the 30th of September, were $178,788.81. The total amount that will be paid up to the 30th of June will be $226,500. There remains a balance of $47,000. Does the leader of the opposition want this item to stand ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to interfere with any discussion that might affect the disposal of the item. If any hon. gentleman has anything to say about the item he might go on and say it. But I would like it to stand eventually in order that we may get some explanation from the Prime Minister of the situation from his standpoint.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let it stand.
Item allowed to stand.
St. Joseph, Lake Huron-wharf, $5,000.


Mr. McEWEN.: Is it the intention of the minister to spend that money on this wharf this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the item is voted and we undertake to complete the work, it will probably be expended this year. The question to be decided is whether the work should be abandoned or whether the $5,000 now asked for should be voted and spent. The ex-Minister of Public Works mentioned the other night, when some objection was taken to the item, that he would look into the matter and that he had recommended the work to be gone on with. But now some exception is taken as to the value of the work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When the item came before the House last year I pledged myself not to go on with the work without being there. In my absence, during the Paris exposition, some gentlemen from Montreal and St. Joseph came to Ottawa on a deputation to the Prime Minister, who promised them to look carefully into this question. He ordered a survey, as he was replacing me to a large extent in the department, so far as the province of Quebec was concerned. A survey had been made when I came back. I also pledged myself to look into the question and I did so. After the session was over last year I went to St. Joseph and found out what perhaps I might have found by looking at the map, that between Goderich and Sarnia there are thirty miles of coast without any wharf, except at Bayfield, around which there is scarcely any water. This is a wharf that has not been used very much in the past because there has been no available depth of water. But, Waving ascertained these facts I made up my mind that the work would be a most useful one, not to St. Joseph alone, but to the surrounding population that would lie put in a position to trade with that point. There are different interests, I know, which are opposed to the building of this work. Those who have interests in the villages

behind are naturally opposed to the building of a wharf there. Hum'an nature is the same everywhere in the world. I know some of our friends have stores and interests at the station and they are opposed to the building of a wharf. A Minister of the Crown has not to look at these small interests. He has to look at the general interests. I made up iny mind tb'at it would be a good thing to have a wharf between Sarnia and Goderich. I ordered a survey. Mr. Corriveau, a well known and energetic engineer, made the survey. His report is in the department and it has been confirmed by Mr. Roy, who was then inspector general of public works. The work was to cost a little over $5,000. Under these conditions I ordered the work to be proceeded with. I am very much surprised to hear that it will cost $15,000. I understand there have been accidents. I entrusted the work to Mr. Sing, one of the most experienced engineers in the service of the department. I do not exactly remember the name of the foreman, but Mr. Sing was in charge. X understand that the work, not being completed, was partly carried away by the waves. That, of course has contributed to the increased cost of the work. St. Joseph is a little French village. It is a little French spot. There have always been little French spots over this Canadian laud of ours. There are some industries already there. It is not a large village, but it is a very nice place, very picturesque and very nicely located indeed. I think that the building of a wharf would be a source of development and progress. It will serve not only the village of St. Joseph, but the population around. I would be sorry to see the work abandoned. It has cost a great deal more than I expected it would cost, because the estimate which was in my hands when the work was started was that the cost would-be a little over $5,000. Part of the money is spent and it seems to me tli'at the work should he carried out. Of course my hon. friend has now charge of the Department of Public Works, and if he believes the work should be abandoned it is his right to abandon it.
Mr. MeEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the government to allow this matter to stand over for another year. You have heard what the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has said about this village. These men who have this village in charge talk very large ; in fact, very much larger than they will ever do. I do not wish to say anything against them but I would like this item to be left over for another year to see if they will carry out their undertakings. They have not yet established a manufactory of any kind or any other thing that would require 'a wharf. I would be the first one to assist them in getting it if there was any necessity for it, but there is not a single commodity of product there to be brought in or sent out.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is not a manufactory of any kind that is running. They have a sawmill and a number of other buildings. It is true that they have a hotel building 150 feet by 150 feet, but it is there high and dry and there is nothing for it to do. As to the wharf there has been $10,000 spent and I am very sorry to say that the money has been unwisely spent. There are seven or eight cribs on the shore and one crib in two or three feet of water and that is the whole result of the expenditure of $10,000.
I know whereof I speak, as I have been there and have seen it. When I was there Mr. Cantin, the promoter of the village, told me that there had been 200 or 300 cords of stone gathered up along the shore but when I looked along the shore I could see no stone gathered up. There is a quantity of timber which has not been fixed up. In the meantime I think the government should allow the matter to remain in abeyance for another year so as to see if the promoters of this village will go on with their undertakings. If they do so, and if they show that they mean business I will be the first one to help them. But, under the present circumstances, I could not approve of this expenditure because nine out of ten of my constituents believe that the money has been unwisely expended.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perli'aps the lion. Minister of Public Works will allow me to say that there has been a strong company formed to purchase the different properties and works that were initiated a couple of years ago by Mr. Cantin. I know the men in Montreal who are in this company and they 'are very substantial men. One of them is at the head of the very well known firm of Damontagne & Company, one of the very . largest firms in Montreal. The company that has been formed to develop the little village that was started two or three years, is a substantial company.


Mr. SCOTT.: Is it not an American company ?	*


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, it is a Canadian company, mostly composed of French Canadians.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is a work of encoui'age-meut ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is no reason why they should not be encouraged. They are good people when they are working for the development of the country, and it seems to me that the province of Ontario which has been losing population should not prevent French Canadians from settling there.
I think if I appeal on this ground to my hon. friends on both sides of the House my voice will be heard with a certain amount of sympathy. I would appeal to the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McEwen). These people will become his best electors. I would invite him to withdraw his objection to the work. He says that he will wait and

see what these people will do. The way to help them Is to give them a wharf. If you do not give them the means of communication they might not carry out as successfully as they expect the work they have undertaken. The work has been undertaken. An accident has happened. This is not the first wharf in a difficult place where an accident has happened. Other works have been carried away but have been built all the same. Under the circumstances, I think that my hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) would be wise in withdrawing his objection. Of course the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is responsible for the administration of his department, but lam giving my advice to the best of my knowledge, and it seems to me that the House should feel kindly towards those who have invested their money there. A big hotel was built there at a cost of $250,000 I am told, but it was a failure. There are two or three small factories, but I grant they are not big.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the bricks they were to manufacture, and that they were to ship to Chicago.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They are manufacturing bricks there now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they sending them to Chicago ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: They will when they have a wharf. There is no wharf between Sarnia and Goderich, a distance of thirty miles, except at Bayfield, where there is no water. It seems to me that the House should not hesitate to spend this small sum of money.


George McEwen: I would have raised my voice against this vote last year, only I never dreamt, and no one in that part of the country ever dreamt, that when the Hon. Mr. Tarte went up there and saw the place he would spend the money. The hon. gentleman promised to come my way and we would go out together and see it, but instead of that he went by way of Parkhill and he was there only two hours and we never saw a sight of him. The great majority of even the French people who are there never asked for this money. It is true that the people who put money into that scheme have lost their money and will never see a cent of it again. Mr. Cantin has a peculiar way with him and he seems to succeed in making people give their money to put into enterprises that could never produce a cent. What surprises me is that a man of his kind should be able to mislead this government into spending money where there is no need for it at the present time or for years to come, any more than there is any need of building a wharf on the top of a mountain. If this wharf is built it will be built at the foot of a hill where there is no way to get at it unless you buy land
from some one, unless there will be a road built through a gulch that is a very hard place to get at. In the meantime they make the road through somebody's land, and they get around to it in that way, but where this dock is being built there is a hill about fifty feet high. It is not quite straight up, but nearly so, and it will be very hard to get at it suppose the dock is built. With all due regard to the engineers, $5,000 is not worth anything to build a wharf there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So far as the hill is concerned my hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) knows that'it is an easy thing to have a slanting road there. I went down the hill myself and there is already a road there. My hon. friend has reproached me for not having called on him when I went there.


George McEwen: You promised to.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I will tell my reason frankly to tile House.


George McEwen: I want to hear it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) showed himself very favourable to the work when he was talking to these men.


George McEwen: To what men.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, to Mr. Cantin and others and my hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) had written to me that he was not favourable to it. I always deal straight with men.


George McEwen: Did you deal straight with me when you did not come to see me as yon promised ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) had written to me that he did not like the work while he had said to other people that he was favourable to the work, and under those circumstances I made up my mind to judge for myself, what any other minister would have done. Bet us deal frankly and fairly between man and man. I fully made up my mind to judge for myself. My hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) moreover, had been elected as an independent member of the House against Mr. MacMillan, an old Liberal that we all respected here. My hon. friend (Mr. McEwen) was not looked upon as a straight supporter of the government. He was an independent member of parliament, having been elected against a strong Liberal, who sat for years in this House. Under the circumstances I thought that without meaning offence to the hon. gentleman, I was justified in going there as I had pledged myself to the House I would, and see for myself. The site of the wharf has been chosen with the greatest care, and it is easy indeed to get access to it. A big storm has carried away part of the work and it has increased the cost. I repeat that a strong company has been formed ; the little village has been divided into lots; there are two or three small

factories; there is a brick factory; there is a pipe organ factory; I grant it is not a large place, but we have built wharfs in other parts of the country in places that were not very large.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This man is no doubt a good deal of the character the hon. gentleman (Mr. McEwen) spoke of. He seems to be able to live by his wits and to induce people to put money in schemes that have little foundation. I do not know him myself or anything about him except what I have heard in~comiection with tliis matter. He deceived a great many people into putting money into this scheme. It is stated now that a good many substantial people have taken hold of the work, and I think we might probably take the vote and spend it on the conditions as to whether they are going on to develop this place and the work will help to do so. Now that we have spent so much money we might go on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And aid him to deceive others.
Mr. MeEWEN. The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that I was elected as an independent. I wish to deny that statement in toto. I wish to say that the speech which I made at Seaforth tlie day of the nomination did not say anything to the effect that I was an independent. I have a copy of my speeches at home and I can produce them at any time, and they will show that the Hon. Mr. Tarte is not well informed about that. So far as the spending of the money is concerned, you can go on and spend the money if you like, but you will not do it with my consent. I voice the opinion of nine out of ten people, not only in my riding, but in the whole county, and I think my representations should have some attention paid to them.


Mr. TAYLOR.: You seem to be an independent.


John Sherritt: This is an extraordinary state of affairs when we find the government going into the riding of a member who supports them and spending money there contrary to his wishes. It does seem to me that there is not a precedent for this to be found in the Dominion of Canada. I have listened with considerable interest to what was said by the hon. member (Mr. McEwen) and also what was said by the ex-minister who has referred to there being a French settlement at that place. I am very glad to be able to say that there is a small French settlement there, and I wish there were more of the same kind of people. They are an intelligent and industrious people, and I can assure the hon. minister that they are no more in favour of throwing away money in this way than the rest of us. It is news to me, as the hon. ex-minister told us to-night, that there was $10,000 spent last year at that point, because, if I remember rightly, $5,000 was the amount placed Hon. Mr. TARTE.
in the estimates last year, and from what I have heard of the amount of work, done there, and the way it was done, I think the people of that part of the country considered that $5,000, or even a much less sum, spent on that work, was very improperly spent. I have not visited the place; but when listening to the discussion to-night, it occurred to me that asi there is a hill there, it is a pity the wharf was not built on the top of the hill; for it would have served as useful a purpose as it does now, and the government would have been in a much better position to move it away and utilize it in some other part of the country. The exMinister of Public Works said there were men of capital behind this scheme. I can tell him that there were, and they have not now as much capital as they had before. I do not wish to make this statement to hurt the feelings of the man who was the chief mover in this work; but one of our wealthiest men lost his money in that enterprise, and died, I will not say a pauper, but very much poorer than he would have been if he had not met the gentleman who was pushing that scheme. I am stating not merely my own opinion, but the opinion of every intelligent man, whether Liberal or Conservative, who knows what the St. Joseph wharf is, when I say that when this expenditure is mentioned, it is looked upon as a ridiculous expenditure. I do not wish to say this in the way of criticising the government, because if that wharf were going to be of any benefit to that part of the country, I am sure that my hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McEwen) and myself would be the last men to stand up in this House and ask that the item be dropped, because it is in a part of the country in which we are both much interested. As for any enterprise going forward at that point, there has not been any and there will not be any. I do not think the hon. exMinister of Public Works will stand up here and say that an expenditure of $15,000 or $20,000 will build a wharf at that place. Bayfield is a natural harbour, where work could be carried on, but St. Joseph is on an open beach, at about as exposed a place on the Lake Huron shore as it would be possible to find. I think all hon. members will agree with me that $15,000 or $20,000 is of no use to build a harbour there; and even if a harbour were built, I can assure you that it would serve no purpose. I am sorry the item was ever placed in the estimates. The money already spent there has been thrown away, and if the government spend any more there, it will be thrown away also. I can do nothing less than to move that the Item be struck out.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perhaps the hon. Minister of Public Works will tell the House how much money has been spent at Bayfield. My hon. friend (Mr. Sherritt) should not forget that there is no harbour there. He knows that between Sarnia and Goderich

for a distance of thirty miles, there is no harbour. I know he has been voting side by side with my hon. friend from South Huron (McEwen) against that wharf; I knew they were a unit against it. There are not many parts of the country in such an important portion of Canada as that district is where there is a coast of thirty miles without a wharf. My hon. friend knows that as well as I do; but still, because the place-, is called St. Joseph, my hon. friends are dead against it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I express my views as I believe them to be. I really believe it, because I call the attention of the House and the country to this fact, that in a distance of thirty miles there is not a wharf available, and there is a large population of about 30,000 people in that distinct who will use that wharf later on. There is a large trade there. But there are two reasons why the wharf is opposed : First, because the little place is called St. Joseph; and, second, because there are interests at the station and at Hensall and Zurich which are opposed to that wharf, because they think it will drive business from them. These are the interests that have raised opposition to this little work, about which I think there should not be so much fuss.


George McEwen: I am sorry that our hon. friend the late Minister of Tublic Works seems to think that we are opposed to this work because the people there are French. I! wish to inform him and the House that there is nothing in that, and I am sorry that my hon. friend, I was going to say, was foolish enough to say so. The people who were imported there by Mr. Cantin are waiting to get their money back from him. Whether in municipal elections or in other elections these people have been my very best friends. With regard to the position of Hensall and Zurich, I cannot speak for Zurich, but I am sure that the people of Hensall never thought of opposing this wharf because it would take business from them. That idea never entered into the question at all. There might be some opposition to a railroad on that account ; but so far as the lake is concerned, $15,000 or $20,000 will build no wharf at that point that will be worth ten cents to any vessel that may come there. It is on the open lake, where there is a sweep of about 200 miles from the Northwest and about sixty miles from the west, and a single pier running out 200 or 300 feet in shallow water is not worth ten cents for any boat to come to. No sailing vessel will come there except at the very finest time of the year, and no steam barge will come there, because it is so close to the shore. As regards opposition to these French people, there is nothing in it and that charge is an absurd falsehood. These people are our best friends and there are none we would sooner help, but in that regard there
is nothing to be done at present. In fact there is nothing doing there. I am aware that there is one man who makes pipe organs for the churches, and be is a very decent fellow who works all the time and apart from that industry, there is a small brick and tile works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know7 that there is a great deal of difference of opinion with regard to this.


John Sherritt: Not in Huron.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been over $10,000 expended on the work, but I am perfectly willing, if the item passes, to have an inquiry into all the circumstances, and if this work is not in the public interest, I will not finish it. The chief engineer of the department says that there are ten or eleven feet of water there, and I cannot understand how he could have made such a report if there is none.


George McEwen: As far as I am personally concerned, if the hon. minister will go up there and see for himself, I am willing to let the item drop.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman thinks that I should go instead of the chief engineer, I am quite willing to do so.


John Sherritt: Before the item passes, I want to put myself right. The ex-Minister of Public Works has said that I am opposed to this expenditure because the place is called St. Joseph. That sort of thing may make an impression in this House, but he would have considerable difficulty in getting the people of that locality to take any stock in it. The hon. gentleman is a little short of the distance because it is longer than he makes it out, between Goderich and Sarnia, but there is a place, some six or seven miles below that, for which an appropriation was made in 1891, and which is an old place of considerable Importance, wrhere there are mills and considerable business done, and where besides the municipality have spent $20,000 in straightening the river. I refer to Grand Bend. There was an item of $5,700 put iuto the estimates of 1901 for the purpose of dredging the river there, but that item lias been dropped. I can assure the hqn. minister that that is a work the people consider necessary, as the place is a fishing point which would be very valuable if proper accommodation were furnished. Besides, there is a good sawmill running there and considerable timber, and it is a very extensive summer resort. That is a place where work should be done, and I am glad that the hon. minister has promised to consider the advisability of putting in an item in the supplementaries for that purpose. We are further from market there than at St. Joseph, and it is a much easier place to build a breakwater and a harbour. I am satisfied that if the hon. minister will go

there and will look into the matter carefully, he will see that it is a place where an expenditure would be a good investment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly willing to go up there and consult the hon. members of the riding before anything further is done.
Item voted.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 20, 1903.