1903-04-07

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 87) to incorporate the Vancouver and Coast Kootenay Railway Company.- Mr. Macpherson.

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved:: That the second report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of this House during the present session, which recommends that Mr. S. A. Mackay be paid at the rate of $4 per day from the 20th May, 1902, to 3rd April, instant, for services rendered as temporary substitute on the staff of the translators of the debates be adopted.
air. HENRI BOTJRASSA (Labelle). (Translation.) Before this motion passes, I think it desirable that the chairman of the committee should give us a few words of explanation. Did this air. aiackay, who has been employed on the translating staff of the Debates ever pass his qualifying examination ? If not, I should like to know the reasons which have induced the committee to depart from the rule which has been so strictly adhered to within the last two or three years, in the case of the translators of our ' Debates.' If air. aiackay did not pass the required examination, why was he given employment in that capacity ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Louis Napoléon Champagne: (Translation.) I think it will be sufficient in order to satisfy my hon. friend, to state to the House the facts of the case, such as they have been brought to the notice of the Debates Committee. The facts will show that the claim put in by Mr. aiackay is a just one. Let me, then briefly review the facts in connection with that claim. At the beginning of last session air. aiackay was engaged as a translator by the committee, at the rate of $4 a day. That appointment was necessitated by the fact that air. Beaulieu, one of the officers of the regular translating staff was incapacitated owing to his poor health, from doing his work. Mr. Beaulieu, as my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville reminds me, was the former chief of the translating staff. As I said, the committee, finding it necessary to employ temporary assistance, sceured air. aiaekay's services and recommended that he be paid at the rate of $4 a day, which was equivalent for the work resulting from the session, to the sum of $1,000 which was the .salary then paid to the officers of the regular staff. Later^ on, and while air. Beaulieu was still unable' to discharge his duties, the position of the other officers of the permanent staff was changed, so far as their salary was concerned. Towards the close of the session of 1902, the House of Commons, acting upon the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the Debates of this House, thought it proper to raise the salary of the officers of the translating staff from $1,000 to $1,500. Up to that time, they had received $1,000 per session ; but the House deemed it desirable to grant them a salary of $1,500 per annum, Instead of $1,000 per session. But it was not within the power of the committee to interfere with Mr. Mac-kay's position so far as the payments for his work was concerned. That gentleman, therefore, continued being employed temporarily on the staff, as the Hansard Committee was in hopes that Mr. Beaulieu would soon recover his health and resume his former occupation. The fact is that Mr. Beaulieu died three months after the close of the session, in the month of August, I think. Mr. Mackay being engaged only temporarily, we did not think it within our power to increase his salary, as the House had deemed it proper to do, upon the recommendation of the committee in the ease of the officers who compose the permanent staff, to whom the House had granted, for the future, a salary of $1,500. When the matter came up before the committee, and after the facts I have just referred to had been stated to them, namely, that Mr. Mackay had been engaged temporarily, they came to the conclusion that he was entitled to ask for the same remuneration as was paid to the other translators. After taking all the facts of the case into consideration, the committee deemed it but fair, and I think the House will agree with them, that Mr. Mac-

kay should be put upon a footing of equality with the rest of the translating staff.
My hon. friend from Labelle was anxious to know whether Mr. Mackay had gone through the test of an examination, thereby calling in doubt the competency of that gentleman. I must say that Mr. Mackay did not pass the examination which has been required within the last few years from all candidates who aspire to an appointment on the regular translating staff. The reason why the committee did not deem it proper to enforce the rule with that rigour the hon. gentleman seems to take exception to, is that Mr. Mackay was only appointed as a temporary substitute on the staff, in order to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Beaulieu's illness. I may further say, for the information of the House, that the committee did by no means depart from the rigour they have brought, within the past three or four years, to the discharge of their duty, in the matter of appointing translators on the regular staff, to fill such vacancies as may occur in that office. As concerns those appointments, there was no change made at all. Now, in the case of Mr. Mackay, his appointment was but a temporary one, the committee did not think it necessary to insist upon his passing such an examination as is required from candidates who aspire to be appointed on the regular staff. As I just remarked, the committee was then in hopes that Mr. Beaulieu would soon recuperate his health, and that explains why a permanent appointment was out of question. Under such circumstances, we deemed it fair and reasonable, seeing that Mr. Mackay had been discharging the same duties and doing the same work as the other translators, to ask the House to grant him a similar salary.
Such are the explanations I wanted to give to the House, and I hope they will prove satisfactory to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). At all events, I may say that the members of the Debates Committee, after taking into consideration the facts I have just stated, have, without a dissentient voice, reached the conclusion that it was but fair and reasonable to make this recommendation to the House.


Mr. BOURASSA. (Translation).: I may venture to suggest that, unless I am mistaken, when Mr. Mackay was appointed last year, as temporary substitute on the staff of the translators of the Debates during Mr. Beaulieu's illness, there were other candidates to that position who had passed their examination and had secured a certificate of competency. What I complain of is this, that the committee should have selected a man to fill Mr. Beaulieu's place who had not stood the test of an examination. I would be the last man to cast any blame upon the Hansard Committee for rigidly enforcing that rule, should they enforce* it indiscriminately in every case. X
may add that, whenever the committee stand in need of extra help for the translating staff, they should make their appointments from the ranks of those who have passed their examination, instead of going out of their way to select men whose only recommendation is that they have some pull and political influence at their back.


Louis Napoléon Champagne: (Translation.) Let my hon. friend allow me to tell him that were the statement he has just made borne out by the actual facts, he would be fully justified in taking exception to such a condition of affairs, but the fact is that Mr. Mackay was engaged temporarily, before the committee had decided that any examinations should be held. In other words, Mr. Mackay was appointed on the translating staff temporarily, previous to the time when the examination was held. The examination only took place three or four weeks after Mr. Mackay had been appointed temporarily on the translating staff.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That after the Easter Recess to the end of the session, government Orders have precedence on Wednesdays, immediately after questions to he put by members.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: While there is not a very large list of items on the Public Bills and Orders, still there are some measures of considerable importance and as the government has taken Thursday so recently it is hardly necessary to take Wednesday at so early a date. I would suggest to the. Prime Minister that we should have one or two Wednesdays more, I would prefer two.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend would agree, I would be willing to give him one Wednesday, and the motion will then read * On and including Wednesday the 22nd inst.'


Robert Laird Borden: I have been considering the matter since I spoke to the hon. gentleman on the subject, and we would prefer to have two Wednesdays more.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well. If it be the wish of my hon. friend I will amend the motion so as to read ' On and including Wednesday the 29th inst.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Might I be permitted to say, that if nothing arises to make it inconvenient, I would expect the delivery of the budget speech to take place on the Thursday after the Easter recess.



EASTER RECESS.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 14th inst.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the members on both sides would like to know whether or not the usual practice will be followed of adjourning at G o'clock on Wednesday.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I suppose we had better.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 13) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.-The Minister of Justice.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This Bill was considered in committee before and it stood to enable the hon. leader of the opposition to look into it.


Robert Laird Borden: In one section of the present law the judges are empowered to extend the time of the trial of an election petition upon special grounds shown by affidavit. Possibly the first section cf this Bill would mean that, but I would prefer to have it made perfectly plain that the grounds should be disclosed to the judge on affidavit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have no objection to that. Perhaps if we added the words ' upon cause shown ' that would meet the case. The committee n\ight rise with the understanding that the amendment suggested by hon. friend would be made.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: The ordinary powers which a judge has are extended to enable him to detain a witness in custody until the time arrives for him to give evidence ; that is the only change the clause makes in the present law.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There may be a case in which such a proceeding is necessary. It appears that the necessity for such an amendment arose, because it was suggested to me by the chief justice of Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see any objection to it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I would invite the consideration of the Minister of Justice, as to whether it would not be desirable to have the witness placed at times in the custody of a jailer rather than held by the officer. It may be that there would be an adjournment, and in the meantime it would not be desirable that the officer should continue to have the party in charge.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Robert Laird Borden: It says ' or otherwise ' in the statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Upon the understanding that I shall have the Bill amended for the purpose of meeting the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, I would ask that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved second reading of Bill (No. 49) to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. He said :	This is a Bill
based upon resolutions which we considered in Committee some time ago. It deals with fractions of a year.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed,

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 78) to amend the Militia Pension Act, 1901 (Minister of Militia and Defence), read the second time and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1,
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DE-FNCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden). The object of this Bill is to make the pension law for the permanent force similar to the law passed last year for the North-west Mounted Police ; that is to say, to enable a civil servant who is entitled under the Civil Service Superannuation Act to a pension, to participate in the benefits of the Superannuation Act for the time that he has been a member of the Civil Service and to the extent of the money which he has paid into the superannuation fund. It will be noticed that at the end of this proposed subsection 7, there is a reference to subsection 2 of section 5 of the Militia Pension Act. By that subsection it is enacted that in case an officer has not served the full length of time to entitle him to full superannuation, that is, in case he has not paid into the pension fund for the full length of 2J years, he will receive his pension subject to a deduction of 5 per cent per annum for the time he has not paid. This Bill provides that in case he has been a civil servant, he shall get the benefit of the 2i or 3 per cent, or whatever the rate may be, that he has paid under the Superannuation Act for the time that he has been a member of the civil service. To illustrate : suppose a man has been a civil servant for ten years, and has paid into the superannuation fund regularly during that time his 2} or 3 per cent, and is then appointed an officer in the permanent force or on the staff,

wliere lie becomes entitled to a pension under tlie Militia Pension Act. This Act will enable him to receive the full benefit of that payment for the ten years that he has been in the civil service, but he will be charged the difference between the amount he has paid into the superannuation fund and the 5 per cent charged under the Pension Act. The House passed precisely the same legislation last session in connection with the Pension Act for the Northwest Mounted Police.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I understand that he does not get anything under the Civil Service Superannuation Act ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Nothing at all, and he would lose that but for this provision.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I did not clearly understand the hon. minister. Under the Civil Service Pension Act an official pays two and a half per cent per year. Under the military system he would have to pay five per cent per year. On retiring from the military service, he gets the benefit of his civil service and military service, provided he pays the difference between the two percentages.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is it.


John Graham Haggart: But the government loses the interest on the payments of the extra two and a half per cent during ten or fifteen years.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, the government has the money.


John Graham Haggart: At the end of the term, tlie official pays the difference between two and a Half and five per cent. But if he had been all the time in the military service, he would have paid five per cent per year. Therefore, when he pays it in a lump sum at the end of the term, tlie government loses the interest, which may be quite a large amount.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That may be.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand how the concluding words of this section. ' Subject to the provisions of subsection two of section five,' can apply.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Take two cases. Suppose an officer has served twenty-five years, fifteen of which were before there was any Pension Act. During those fifteen years he paid nothing, but he will get his pension for the twenty-five years less deduction made of the premiums during the fifteen years, when he did not pay anything. Take another case. An officer has paid during ten years two and a half per cent into the civil service superannuation fund. During the next fifteen years he has paid five per
cent into the military service pension fund. Under this Bill, the intention is only to charge him the two and a half per cent during those ten years instead of the five.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is this. Subsection two of section five of the present law provides for the case of an officer who in years gone by had no deduction whatever made from his pay. You strike an average of his pay and then make a deduction from his pension of five per cent on that average for every year during which he paid nothing. But how can you make this subsection apply to the present case, for you are not making a deduction of five per cent but only of two and a half per cent. You are applying a clause which deals specifically with one case to another and a different case.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I see the difficulty now, and will consider the matter. The five per cent is mentioned; and therefore, I think it would be desirable to draw up a clause long enough to state exactly what is intended.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be the safer course.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Graham Haggart: Before the Committee rises, I would like to understand the practical use of this amendment. I cau-not understand a civil servant who has been eight or ten years in the service getting an appointment on the staff or going into the permanent corps. Is it intended to have some ex post facto effect ? Is it to cover the case of some officer who has been in the department?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No. No particular case is aimed at, but I will give the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) a case such as would be covered by this. It is intended, in the near future, to transfer the stores branch of my department to the military side, making it an ordnance branch and putting it under military supervision. Now, we have in the stores branch civil servants who have been paying for years to the civil service fund. For instance, there is the head of that branch; and it would certainly be manifestly unfair to deprive him of the benefit of the money lie has paid into the superannuation fund.


Robert Laird Borden: What was passing through my mind was the question whether the converse will happen, and some officer will go from the permanent corps to the civil service ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Not likely. The Pension Act is very much better here.
Progress reported.
commons



SUPPLY-ACCOMMODATION FOR IMMIGRANTS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
["We dc not want to be responsible for leading hon gentlemen on the' other side of the House astray by late hours, and therefore I move that the Committee rise, report progress anc ask leave to sit again.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.", 'Wednesday, April 8, 1903.']
Mr. NATHANIEL BOYD (Macdonald).: 
Robert Laird Borden: And he goes on, further down on the same page :
Nothwithstanding the increased convenience and shelter for immigrants at the East Selkirk building, the demands upon the accommodation of the hall here are very great, and are almost continuous. Large numbers of people daily visit the office on all conceivable kinds of business, and innumerable inquiries upon a great variety of subjects are answered by the staff of officials.
In the succeeding report of the department, that of 1901-02, we find Mr. Smart, the deputy minister speaking of the anticipated immigration. This is the report made by him on his return from England. At page 40, he said :
I may say that from all I have been able to gather I feel satisfied that the present year will see a very largely increased number of people remove to Canada from Great Britain and Ireland.
And in that same report, at page 125, we have Mr. Smith reporting as follows :
With the very large increase in the number of people passing through the hands of the staff connected with this office the duties of each official have been very materially increased, and I am pleased to know that the work has been carried on efficiently. With the possibility of a much greater increase of work, I beg to recommend the immediate erection of much larger office premises, and improvements in the buildings at Winnipeg, which are required to enable us to carry on our work with accuracy and rapidity.
So, Mr. Speaker, as far back as two years ago the reports of the officers of the department showed that they anticipated this influx of people into Manitoba andl the Northwest. And yet, what do we find ? Were any improvements ordered or any preparations made to receive these people ? Was any vote put in the estimates to provide money for buildings for their accommodation ? Why, Sir, in the estimates voted last year you will find that for public buildings for Manitoba there is the sum of $5,000. Tiie votes for some of the other provinces are as follows :	Nova Scotia, $61,-
500; New Brunswick, $33,000; Quebec, $103,000; Ontario, $222,800. And just $5,000 for public buildings for Manitoba, notwithstanding that officers of the Crown who were passing from one part of the empire to the other inducing people to come here, and notwithstanding that that officer of the department told the government what might be expected and warned them of what would be required to accommodate the people. Here the influx is upon the government, and the new-comers have to lie upon the floors of the station in Winnipeg.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, who I have no doubt sympathize with these people, if you consider the government have done what they should do in this matter, if you think they have placed a sufficient sum in the estimates for public buildings in Manitoba, under those conditions. I think, Sir,

you will agree with me that the members of the government who are responsible for this, when they lie upon their downy beds sleeping the sleep of the just and the righteous-whatever opinion we may have of them on this side of the House-I think you will agree with me that they must feel some remorse when they think of these poor people whom they are inducing to come into that country, and whom we are anxious to see come there ; and that they should have made some provision for them instead of allowing them to lie on the floor. I think the government should have some regard for these men and for their wives and children, and have made some better provision for their accommodation in the estimates, instead of spending so many thousands in various parts of the Dominion, largely for political purposes. Now, I think I am justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the government. I look across the House and see the premier sitting there, who, I believe to be a conscientious man, and who, when it comes to a matter of his fellowman, can be depended upon; I believe I can appeal to him to see to it that whoever is responsible for this condition of affairs will immediately take steps to remedy them. People are coming into our midst by the thousands, and I think it would be well for the premier, or for the minister who is responsible for that department, to see that his officers do everything that is possible to make these immigrants comfortable, so that we who come from the west may not have to make such complaints. We are delighted to see so large a number of people coming there, and we are going to do all we possibly can to make it pleasant and profitable for them. But we do not think that the government, under the circumstances, have done what they should have done, and we now lay the case before them and make a demand that they should meet the emergency and treat these people as they deserve.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: The question that has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) is, I think, one of very great importance, and one that cannot be too strongly pressed upon the attention of the government. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and the members supporting the government, have taken a great deal of credit to themselves for their so-called vigorous immigration policy, and have endeavoured to leave the impression throughout the country that it is largely owing to some new features in their policy that we have had this large influx of people coming to our shores the last two or three years. Now, every intelligent man is aware of the fact that this influx is largely owing to the splendid crops with which Providence has blessed that country during the last few years, it is largely owing to the fact 36
that over one hundred million bushels of grain have been raised in that western country during the year 1902. These things have done more to give our country a world-wide reputation than all the immigration agents in the service of the government. If the government are so anxious to take to themselves the credit of these people coming into Canada, they must also bear whatever blame attaches to them if these people are not properly looked after and afforded proper accommodation for their necessities. As my hon. friend from Macdonald has pointed out, the influx of people coming to our shores was not unexpected, and therefore the neglect of making proper accommodation for them is inexcusable. My hon. friend has pointed out that the Deputy Minister of the Interior, in his report, one or two years ago, anticipated this large immigration to Canada; the minister himself in his speeches has declared that although we had been blessed with a large influx of population the last year, it was nothing compared to the population that would come in, not only from the United States but from the British Isles, during the coming year. The deputy minister has been visiting Great Britain during the past winter, and in interviews reported in the public press of this country, papers irrespective of politics, we have been led to believe that a very large population would flock into Canada during the present year. I say therefore there is no excuse for the government in neglecting to make ample provision for their accommodation. Already in the beginning of the season we see 5,000 per week going into that western country, and we who live in the west are aware that the hotel accommodation in the city of Winnipeg is entirely inadequate to meet the demands of the travelling public for the last year or two. People have been turned away night and day at the hotels and boarding houses, all places of accommodation have been more than filled; and now we find these people compelled to sleep in the waiting room of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) brought to the attention of the House the other day another matter of prime importance in connection with the accommodation afforded for these people in the railway cars in which they are travelling through western Canada. He did not blame the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for that condition, but he largely blamed the government of the day. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are, in this instance, deserving of every credit, no blame can be attached to them, they have done their utmost to accommodate their travellers. and have thrown open their public buildings. The blame therefore rests entirely on the Department of Immigration and the minister who is at the head of that department. Now, it is stated that we may expect this immigration to continue for



weeks and months. I understand that the deputy minister, who has just returned to Canada from England, states that passages have been booked for hundreds and thousands of immigrants for the next five or six weeks. It is evident that the government should have made some preparation for these people, but when we look at our estimates for the present year we find for the whole province of Manitoba a sum of only $5,000 for public buildings. Now we have had evidence of money being spent in other parts of the Dominion, thousands afd thousands of dollars are being voted for public buildings in every other province of the Dominion. We have seen L'Assomp-tion, a little village whose post office revenue is only $964, given a post office to cost $15,000; whereas in the whole province of Manitoba only $5,000 is voted for public buildings. This is something that should not be, especially in the important city of Winnipeg, the gateway of the west, the headquarters and distributing point of all these immigrants. Something should have been done to erect public buildings, especially immigration halls, where these people would have had proper accommodation. I noticed an article in a paper the other day which stated that the Winnipeg correspondent of the London ' Mail ' had sent over word that there was also a great congestion in the town of Saskatoon, in the Northwest Territories. While that has been denied by Mr. Preston, who was not on the ground and knows nothing whatever of the circumstances, still even if there were no truth in that report, there certainly is a congestion in Winnipeg, as evidenced in all the papers of that city irrespective of politics. We have been spending some half a million dollars for immigration purposes to attract people to our shores, and there is nothing that will leave a worse impression on the incoming immigrant than the treatment that is accorded to him on his arrival, and which has been mentioned by my hon. friend from Macdonald. I trust that action will be taken by the government in order to provide these people with proper accommodation, immediate action for the present year, as well as some provision in the supplementary estimates for providing public buildings for their accommodation in time to come.


Mr. W. F. McCREARY (Selkirk).: I would like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche). I regret very much to have to criticise the action of the government which I am supposed to support : at the same time in this matter I believe they have been neglectful of their duty. What the hon. member for Macdonald has said is true enough, that this is not a new thing, it is not something that has come to the notice of the government for the first time. They have known that we were likely to have a hundred thousand Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
people coming into the west this year. The prediction was made four or five years ago that the increase in the population of that country would double from year to year, as it has done in the United States, until possibly we should receive each year two hundred and fifty thousand people. I made that prediction myself some four years ago, and I said that it would come to pass within ten years. I still adhere to the prediction that within ten years from the date of that prediction we will have not less than 250,000 immigrants every year coming into Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The United States got this year alone, nearly 800,000 people, showing that the prediction I made is justified. When this was called to the attention of the government, a sum should have been put in the estimates to see that better accommodation was provided for these people when they arrive. The citizens of Winnipeg and of the province of Manitoba have to undergo a great deal of expense in connection with immigration. I left Winnipeg last Saturday. On Friday afternoon I attended a meeting of the general hospital board in the city of Winnipeg, and I found that on that day there were thirteen applications for private wards and many applications for the general wards of the hospital, which could riot be granted, as there was not accommodation for the patients who desired admission. That institution is largely supported by private contributions by the people of Winnipeg and of Manitoba. The legislature of Manitoba a few days ago voted $25,000 for the purpose of erecting a new wing to the hospital, and the work will be commenced within the next few days. A large part of the immigration is of no great benefit to Manitoba ; it merely passes through to the Territories, and the people of Winnipeg should not be called upon to take care of these immigrants. In one children's ward there were six small cots. I found that five of the occupants of these cots were foreigners, Icelandic, German, Polish, Russian and Scandinavian, who had been in the country but a short time. The support and care of those who are taken ill at the city of Winnipeg are being provided for by the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba. It is the duty of this government not only to take those people there, but to care for them after they arrive. There is nothing that will so quickly put a stop to this movement of immigration into Canada as to have the people write back to England that when they arrived on our shores they could find no place to rest their weary bones when illness came upon them. We are likely to have in the near future a very large influx of people from the British Islands. Those people who come from England especially, in my opinion, make poor pioneers. They are first class settlers, but they are poor pioneers in a new country. They are accustomed to

the comforts of a settled country, you will find them very headstrong and slow to adapt themselves to the conditions that they will find on the prairie. It is expected that quite a large percentage of the immigrants who will arive will be English colonists, and we are anxious that their first impression shall be favourable. Poor accommodation has been provided for these people as far as hospitals are concerned ; in fact scarcely anything has been done by the government. It is true that although the government have somewhat neglected the matter, they are at the same time not entirely to blame. We know that as a matter of fact other institutions, other corporations and private individuals have not been equal to the emergency that has taken place. We know that there is scarcely a wholesale man in the city of Winnipeg who has accommodation for the transaction of the business which has come to him. I left Winnipeg last Saturday, and on Friday I looked around the city and I found a great many cellars being blasted out preparatory to the erection of warehouses. Such firms as Greenshields, Son & Company, of Montreal, Which had no confidence in the west in years gone by, are there to-day, and in order to get ready for business as quickly as possible, they are having new cellars taken out by dynamite, and they are facilitating the work in every way. These corporations admit that they are not ready for this great rush of immigration, and it is therefore no wonder if the government find themselves in this position. The railway companies have been doing all they could to cope with this immigration, but it has come upon them with more rapidity than they anticipated. If this debate will bring out ail the facts, it will have a good effect, and we will forgive the government if they have been guilty of some dereliction in the past. I think it is the duty of the right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to find out what steps have been taken by the officials of the Interior Department to care for these people after they have arrived, to see that there shall be no distress among them ; to see that the sick shall be properly looked after, to see that every one upon arriving will be able to write a letter back home saying that he has been well treated. The policy in the city of New York, in years past, was, that whenever a certain number of immigrants of a desirable class had arrived there a guard was put in charge of eight or ten, and as long as they remained in New York city they were well cared for, and they were immediately asked to sit down and write a letter home to the village they came from describing the treatment they had received on their arrival in New York. If some of the immigrants who have arrived at Winnipeg were to write back home twenty-four hours after their arrival, I do not think they would write very' cheerful or encouraging 364
letters or letters which would induce many immigrants to come out. This has been the condition of affairs, but it should not he allowed to continue. The movement is now upon us. There is a very large military hall in the city of Winnipeg, and I submit that the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) should be asked to give that hall, which will hold 400 immigrants, and which should have cots placed in it, and there should he a bus ready to convey immigrants from the depot to the hall. When I left there last Saturday I saw a large number of immigrants around the streets, who could not get work on account of the cold weather, as work had not begun, who could not get west, and who had no place to sleep. They went to the police station, they filled the wards of the station, and the Canadian Pacific Railway did what they never had to do before, they opened up their station and allowed them to sleep, not only in the ladies' and gentlemens' waiting rooms, but in the corridors, between the offices upstairs. I trust that the government, if they have not already done so, will take some steps to look after the 100,000 people which I expect will come to the west within the next four or five months. It is a very interesting calculation to know exactly the amount of rolling stock it is going to take to convey that number of people into that country within the next four or five months. If you will calculate the number of people to each car, say fifty to each, then calculate one carload of settlers effects for each family of five, then calculate that it requires from 7,000 to 10,000 feet of lumber to build each settler's house, then calculate the amount of food stuffs required for the year, as they will probably not raise food stuffs for the first year, you will find that they will require ns many cars to handle these people as have been necessary to haul out 35,000,000 bushels of wheat during the past five months, which means that the whole of the transportation facilities of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern in the west will be brought into requisition to transport .100,000 people within the next four or five months. So that the situation, if it is figured out in detail, becomes rather serious unless we get aid from some other quarters. I shall not say anything further at the present time upon the subject. Perhaps later on I shall go a little more fully into the figures, but in the meantime, 1 trust that the right hon. Prime Minister and the acting Minister of the Interior will give this subject their attention, and see if they cannot suggest some means of dealing with the situation as it has arisen.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what has been said by the three previous speakers during the debate. It is a week since I drew the attention of the government to the matter of the

transportation of immigrants, and since that time those who were then in transit have arrived at their destination. The conditions which prevailed at that time were not improved during any part of the journey. They continued right through. At the end of this week there comes a second large contingent, and I hope that the hon. acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir Wm. Muloek) will he able to inform us whether anything practical has been done, whether any engagements have been made on behalf of the railway company to remedy the matter so that it will not occur again In the transportation of these immigrants who are arriving at Halifax this week. I have before me a copy of the petition that has been forwarded to the hon. acting Minister of the Interior, the hon. Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and the Hon. Secretary of State (Hon. Senator Scott) from the hospital board of the city of Winnipeg, calling attention to the absolute urgency of getting some assistance from this government to enable them to take care of the patients. It states :
A large number of Its patients are from those who have recently arrived as immigrants in the province of Manitoba. Many of these come direct to the hospital from the immigration buildings in the city of Winnipeg.
2. For a long time the Dominion government made payments to the hospital in respect of immigrant patients on the basis of sixty cents per day for the time each patient was in the hospital and the government still requires the returns to be made out by the hospital in the same form but the grant that has been received for several years past is very much less than the amount so computed.
As a matter of fact, the amount paid by this government to the hospital per capita is growing less and less. Now, an appeal has been made for a substantial grant to help in the erection of a new building immediately. The case is urgent. There must be more hospital accommodation for these immigrants during the next few months, and as this petition has now been before the government for ten days or two weeks, I am in hopes that the acting Minister of the Interior will be able to tell us what conclusion has been come to in regard to it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Muloek).: The subject which has been brought to our attention now, is one of very great importance and is deserving of the best consideration of both the House and of the government. If I heard correctly the contents of the article which my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) read from a newspaper, it described the state of affairs at the Winnipeg station. That portion of it wherein It described the busy scene, the quantities of baggage, the number of immigrants inquiring for information ; all that is very gratifying. It is also gratifying to find that our country is so attractive today, but it is to be regretted that, as in many other instances, there is a fly in the Mr. PUTTEE.
ointment, that the service is perhaps not adequate to the requirements.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has referred to the state of the hospital accommodation, and also to the facilities for railway transportation between Halifax and the west. I may say that I only to-day received the petition with reference to the hospital. I did not receive it ten days ago, but only about noon time to-day, and it took considerable time to read it. I have only this moment therefore been able to inform myself as to the nature of the demand made in that petition. The petition, which is dated, I think, on Friday last, asks for a grant of $50,000 towards the immediate erection of, I suppose, additional building, and also for some additional per capita allowance for patients in the hospital. That subject will at once receive the attention'of the government.
The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) called attention a few days ago to the inadequate facilities afforded by the Canadian Pacific Railway for the transportation of the immigrants. I immediately put myself in communication with the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities, and I am bound to confess that there was very substantial foundation for many of the statements made; apologetic explanations have been offered, but they are not adequate. I am in hopes that, with the arrival of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Canada, all preventible oversights will disappear. At all events, after the Easter vacation, if there is any further ground of complaint, it will be my duty to make a frank statement to this House as to where any responsibility rests. I take no exception on this occasion that my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has called the attention of the House to the alleged shortcomings of this government. It is his duty, and he is performing a public service. But he thinks that because in former years it was stated in the report that a large influx of American immigrants was expected, that therefore facilities should be on hand to-day to meet that anticipation. I have been in this parliament for twenty years or more, and I can remember anticipations of immigration yearly held out to us that were not afterwards realized. I have more confidence in our own anticipations now, but perhaps even those will not be realized. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) anticipates 100,000 immigrants this year. I trust that his anticipations may be realized, but lie tells us that his prophesy was for a period of ten years ; and if so. how does he account for it having been realized five years in advance ?


William Forsythe McCreary: My prophesy was 250,000 immigrants within ten years, and it is coming to it each year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I see. It is very safe to prophesy what will happen

five years hence. As to the lack of foresight on the part of the government, I have this to say : All the gentlemen who have spoken pointed out that others besides the government have failed in foresight. We are told that the business people of Winnipeg have not the facilities for transacting the business that has been thrown upon them by this immense immigration ; that the hotels are inadequate ; that the boarding houses are inadequate ; and we know that the railways are inadequate. Well, perhaps some little allowance may be made if the government is not wiser than those people to whom my hon. friends have referred. I am not able to speak by the book, except it be the blue-book of the Public Works department. I am not able to speak in detail as to whether the department has or has not anticipated this immigration. I am not familiar with the details of the working of either the Public Works Department or the Interior Department, and so I can only offer my explanations from such material as is to hand at the moment, and such as it is I will venture to offer it to the House by way of extenuation at least, and to show that we have not been absolutely wholly indifferent. I have here the report of the Minister of Public Works, which shows an expenditure of $1,700 during the fiscal year on immigration buildings in Winnipeg ; the erection of an immigration building at Calgary ; the erection of an immigration building at Lethbridge costing $4,000, another item of $1,400 for the erection of an immigration building at Saskatoon, and $1,500 for the erection of an immigration building at Strathcona. I presume that these are buildings for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the increased immigration. Therefore, some thought has been given to the future by providing these necessary buildings. I entirely sympathize with my hon. friends who urge that immigrants shall be furnished with every possible reasonable accommodation for their comfort, so that they may, with the least inconvenience, be able to start well in their new venture in life. It is of the utmost importance that these immigrants should receive a good impression of the country, and that they should find that the country, and the government representing the people, are not indifferent to their needs, but are ready to welcome them with open arms and extend to them excellent treatment. That is the duty of the government so far as it is possible to achieve it, and that duty the government will endeavour to perform. Until the House met this afternoon I was not aware that my hon. friend would bring this matter up. He was good enough to tell me of it a few moments before he took the floor, but that did not enable me to make any inquiries in the department of the Interior as to what arrangements are being made at the present time for the proper carrying on of the immigrant
business. I shall make it my duty to at once take steps to inform myself on these points; and what is more, I shall endeavour in all possible way to see that the immigrants are properly cared for. I am sure the whole resources of the country will be cheerfully placed at our disposal by parliament to do whatever is necessary to meet this large demand upon us ; a demand which is perhaps more than was expected. Indeed, I saw it stated in the papers yesterday that during the last week not less than 8,000 immigrants had arrived in Winnipeg-is that correct ?


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is a very large number; it is over a thousand a day. Of course they are not going to stay in Winnipeg. An effort is made to distribute them. They come with more or less definite points of the country in view. They arrive at the sea ports; they perhaps rest there for a few hours, then they are carried by rail to the west. Some of them may get off by the way and become residents; but the great bulk are pushing on to the prairies. When they reach Winnipeg, the great mass of them, as the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) says, stop there only as transients, their ultimate object being to settle on the prairies. So that the facilities required at Winnipeg are only such as are necessary to meet the present occasion. It may be that the railways have not been able to carry the arriving streams of population as promptly as is desirable, and that this has caused a temporary congestion at Winnipeg, and possibly at other points. That isj incidental to our receiving such a large army of people as are now coming into the country. So that, while the government do not seek to avoid any* criticism, they expect that hon. gentlemen and the public generally will take a reasonable and fair view of the situation, and not give a black eye to the movement by overstating what may .be taking place. We are told that many of the immigrants who have arrived at Winnipeg have not been able to find beds, but have been obliged to sleep on the floor; and also that the hospital accommodation is inadequate. These are features of the situation to be regretted. Whilst I would not compare the hardships of the past with those of to-day, or suggest that these immigrants are having a softer time than our forefathers had, it is always well to bear in mind that there is always more or less discomfort connected with the movement of people from one country to another. I do not offer that as an apology for anything that is taking place, but as an explanation of these incidents which are more or less inseparable from the movements of people. Nevertheless, we must do all we can to afford reasonable shelter and comfort for these people, and reasonable facilities for them to get to their holdings ; and that I

pledge the House that the government will endeavour to do.


Mr. .TABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the Iron. Postmaster General has too much on his hands. He has to take charge of the Minister of Agriculture's Department-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Jabel Robinson: And several other departments, and he has too much to do. But I would like him, when immigrants are coming in so fast just now, to direct some of them to the province of Ontario. In that province the farmers have not sufficient men to help them to doi their work. The stream of immigration seems to he all directed towards Manitoba and the North-west. Some lion, gentlemen say that the city of Winnipeg will get no benefit from the people who are going to the Northwest. I think AVinnipeg will get benefit from every one of them. Therefore I do not think the people of Winnipeg ought to object to putting up temporary buildings for these people. But what I would like the minister to do would be to help the farmers of Ontario to get some of this immigration. From 50,000 to 100,000 agricultural labourers could find employment and comfortable homes with the farmers of Ontario. We have great respect for Manitoba and the North-west: but they are not the only places in the world, and we expect the government to do something for us in Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, of course there may be conditions in the present situation which the government could not very well foresee; but I have not been able to gather from the remarks of the lion. Postmaster General that the government have done anything at all to provide for the condition of affairs which is now apparent at Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman states that there may have been some misgivings in the mind of the government as to the immigration that would flow into that country this year. We know that a very large immigration went in last year; and the government have officers there, and must have reasonably anticipated that there would be an enormous immigration both from the Dnited States and from Europe during the current! year. Any one who is familiar with the conditions in the west knows that delegations of farmers from the United States were going all through the western country last year for the purpose of locating lands with the idea of immigrating to this country; and in view of the magnificent crops of the past two years, a very large immigration should have been anticipated. Now. what have the government done according to the statement of the lion. Postmaster General, to meet the probable congestion in the city of Winnipeg ? Have they done anything at all ? Have they Sir WILLIAM MULOCK,
exercised ordinary business foresight ? Take the people of any city where a large number) of people are expected because of any unusual event, such as a great fair; we find them making provision to accommodate the people who are expected to come. Have the government done anything of this kind at Winnipeg ? I do not gather anything from the statement of the hon. Postmaster General to indicate that they have. It seems to me that it would have been a very easy matter for the government to have anticipated some considerable congestion at Winnipeg, and to have made arrangements through their officers, so that people need not be lying in police cells, in railway stations, and around the streets, at a time of the year when, according to my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), the weather is very inclement, and these people must have suffered considerably. A great deal depends on the impressions that are made on people who are coming in such large numbers to the country. If these people write to their friends in the countries from which they have come and detail the discomfort, the inconvenience and the suffering which they have experienced, it will counteract a great deal of the work of the immigration agents, and a great deal of the splendid impression which has been made throughout the world as to the future of that country, by reason of the great crops of the past two or three years. I agree with my hon. friend the Postmaster General in regard to one thing, and that is that it is the urgent and imperative duty of the government to remedy this state of things at once; they should have done so before. While my hon. friend has been very frank in admitting the faulty of the corporations and people that he is not concerned with, I think I may, on behalf of the government, admit that they; are to a great extent responsible for the present condition of affairs. AA^hile it may be true, ns my hon. friend says, that the conditions faced by these people may not be so severe as the conditions which were faced by the pioneeps of this country a hundred years ago. that does not as an argument amount to very much at all. What we have to do is to compare the conditions which the immigrants of to-day have to face not with the conditions of one hundred years ago. but with the 'conditions in the United States, our great competitor. I am very glad the matter has been brought to the attention of the House. We have a magnificent opnortnnitv at the present time to people the North-west country with the best class of settlers, and it will be a most regrettable thing, in the interest not only of the west but of the east, if anything should happen in the slightest degree to pxit a temporary check on the immigration now flowing into that country.
Motion agreed to and House went Into Committee of Supply.

Margaree, N.S.-improvements, $800.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Mr. INGRAM.: I see in the Auditor General's Report, page Y-211 that a wharf was built at Margaree Island. Are those works close together ?
Mr. McLennan. They are twelve miles apart and separate works.
Meteghan Cove-restoration of breakwater, $2,300.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the proposed total expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Five thousand three hundred dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this be done by day's work or by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By day's work.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because it consists of general repairs, which can better be done by day's work.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How are the materials obtained ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By the foreman of the work under the superintendence of the engineer.


Mr. LENNOX.: Where is the resident engineer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The resident engineer is at Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: You have all through the system a conductor and a foreman. What does the conductor really do ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He buys the material and generally oversees the work.


Robert Laird Borden: He is down in the accounts for one hundred and fifty-nine days and the foreman is down for one hundred and twenty-two days. It would not take the^conductor one hundred and fifty-nine days to buy the materials.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I explained yesterday that the conductor bought the material and had charge of the whole work and kept the time, &c.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a new system ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, that has been the system ever since our present engineer has been in office. So the chief engineer tells me.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the chief engineer report that it is necessary to have
a conductor as well as a foreman ? To an ordinary layman it would not seem that they were both necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer thinks it necessary to have a practical man continually at the work.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the conductor doing all the time.
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. He is time-keeper, and he has to purchase materials. There are a great many different kinds of materials required in these repairs, and the purchase of these, with time keeping and general charge and superintendence of the work should keep him pretty busy. He makes his report to the local engineer, who holds him responsible for the general condition of the works.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think the foreman, the practical man, would be held responsible for the conduct of the work. So, outside of the purchase of the material,
1 should think the foreman would have nothing to do but smoke or engage in some light occupation of that kind. Possibly there may be something else he has to do, but the minister seems to be as much puzzled to tell us what it is as we are to conjecture.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Seriously speaking, I think that probably the man put in charge of the work is a practical man, probably a carpenter. He could not be away from the work for the necessary time looking after men, and also purchasing the various materials required for these repairs, and, also act as foreman. Of course, if the local engineer resides there, he could do this. But the man in charge of a work like this could hardly be the foreman, unless he had also a business capacity, and then the work would probably suffer by his absence when buying material. I have had no experience, but the chief engineer tells me that it has been the practice of the department for many years to conduct these works in this way. I shall be pleased to look into this matter. If two men are unnecessary, there is no reason why one should not be dispensed with.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is the representative of the constituency in which this, work is ? I am afraid the hon. gentleman has been taking some lessons in Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 think it is the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax).


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, no ; take that back.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: L beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Ingram's) pardon. This is in the constituency of the leader of the opposition. If that lion, gentleman has been taking lessons in Ontario, I hope they have done him good.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know wliat the hon. minister refers to: I have been talking about Meteghan for the last ten or fifteen minutes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was passed.


Robert Laird Borden: No, Mr. Chairman, you called ' passed ' just as I rose. You call 'passed' whenever there is an interval of five seconds, as it is your duty to do. But I have been reading from the Auditor General's Report about Meteghan, and that is what I have been discussing.
The MINISTER O# PUBLIC WORKS. There is a misunderstanding, then. In that case, I would say in answer to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that the work is in Digby county.


Andrew B. Ingram: The vote of last year Jf>3,000, and the vote of this year make a total of $5,300 for this work. According to the Auditor General's Report there is a conductor, 157 days at $2.50, and three foremen at $217.53 ; labourers, $1,437. No one will pretend to say that it requires three foremen and a conductor to carry on the work of that character.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt, our engineer at Halifax allowed some men ten, fifteen or twenty-five cents a day more than the ordinary workmen making them foremen. But if on investigation we find that men are paid for services which they do not render, it may be well for us to consider whether we should not get somebody else to look after the work. I have not the slightest doubt, however, that the men called foremen in the accounts are practical men and give a faithful day's work for every day's pay they receive.


Andrew B. Ingram: But we have an expenditure of over $2,000 say for foremen and labourers out of a total expenditure of $5,000. Will the hon. minister say that it requires that much 7


Mr. COPP.: There is no such thing as three foremen on this work. The representative of the county has nothing to do with tile payment of the foremen. The engineer fixed the charges and appointed the men. The representative of a county lias nothing to do with the wages. I have never interfered with the engineer. He fixes the wages and pays the foremen what they are entitled to. At Meteghan, there is only one foreman, Mr. Robichaud. There is also a Mr. Deveau on the work, and they give him a little extra pay and call him a foreman of the men on the work. But I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is entirely mistaken about three foremen.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. gentleman will refer to page V-213 of the Auditor General's Report he will see the figures. If there is Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
any fault, it is with the blue-books, not with us.


Robert Laird Borden: It is probable that one foreman was employed when the other was not.


Albert James Smith Copp: Oh, yes. There were two different men-one left and the other took his place.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this work in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Copp's) constituency ?


Albert James Smith Copp: Yes. This work has been going on for four or five years. It is .an immense breakwater. The former breakwater went to destruction in a storm.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman any idea when it will be completed 7


Albert James Smith Copp: I believe it will be completed next year. I think it will require only about $3,000 more to build the work-that is about $3,000 more than what there is this year.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not get the total sum in this year 7


Albert James Smith Copp: Because you could not spend it within a year. You can spend only about $3,500 or $4,000 on such a work as this within a year. You can only employ a certain number of men at one time.


Haughton Lennox: There has been an explanation as regards the number of overseers, the explanation being that different men were employed at different times. But there is a matter that has not yet been explained and it is this. At page V-213 of the Auditor General's Report, we find that there has been a total expenditure on this work of $3,199.93. Of that total expenditure, $610 is spent for overseeing, independently of anything paid to the engineer. Is tiiis a fair proportion having regard to the total expenditure, and having regard also to the amount expended on "material and the amount expended on labour 7 Does it not come back to this proposition which we had before, that works carried on by day labour under the superintendence of the department cost vastly /more than' they would if the requirements of the statute were carried out and the work was let by tender 7 I have heard the explanation more than once on this subject of repairs. The case may be just as stated, but I must admit that I am not at all impressed as yet, with the argument that it is impossible to let these works partaking of the nature of repairs by tender. And I do submit that, these matters cropping up from time to time, whatever the department may have thought before, it is time they took this, as we say, into their serious consideration to see whether the time has not arrived when they should reconsider their position and adopt the spirit as well as the language of the statute and let these works by public tender


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how many workmen are employed on this work ?


Albert James Smith Copp: I think about twenty or twenty-five men at one time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman state about how long they would be employed constantly ?


Albert James Smith Copp: They go to work as early as they can in the summer after the vote is passed, and work until about Christmas, or until cold weather. Twenty-five men are not working every day.


Mr. BELL.: I observe when I come to contrast the expenditure of overseeing and the labour with the cost of the material supplied, that the percentage of cost is enormously large in proportion to the amount of material used. The material for the breakwater cost $1,152.90, the overseeing and the labour cost $2,047.03. Now, as the work was all of the roughest possible character, handling cheap material in the cheapest fashion, it seems extraordinary that it cost $1.50 to use up a dollars worth of material. There is evidently something very far wrong.


Albert James Smith Copp: They had to tear down the old work before they could repair it. In some places they have to go down seven or eight feet in the mud in order to make a foundation. It costs as much, and in some cases more, to tear down the old work than to build up the new. That is the reason why the labour costs more than the material.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the length of this work ?


Albert James Smith Copp: It must be 1,200 or 1,400 feet long. I think they only tear down about eighty feet at a time. There is a tremendous tide there, and they can only take out a portion of the work at a time and build it up as fast as they take it out; otherwise they would lose all their work.
Necum Teuch-wharf, $3,000.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). Is this being done by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, by day labour.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you do it by day labour, contravening the statute ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see that it is contravening the statute.


John Graham Haggart: Does the Minister of Public Works not know that there is in an Act of parliament a provision that requires all works costing $5,000 or over to be tendered for ? And there must be an Order in Council to the same effect.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think my hon. friend, who ought to be well versed in the Act, is quoting it correctly. At the time this work was started there was a provision by Order in Council for expending amounts under $5,000.


John Graham Haggart: I understood the minister to say that he is asking for $5,000 for this year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Robert Laird Borden: The total is $5,000. There seems to be some new theory about the interpretation of the statute. Perhaps we might as well have it from the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I understand the law, I think there is a provision in it that if the officers of the department think a work can be more advantageously done by day labour than by tender, it can be done by day labour. The Order in Council to which I refer was, I think, in existence for eighteen or twenty years, but two or three months ago it was referred to the Justice Department and declared ultra vires. So we do not take advantage of that Order in Council any more. Perhaps if it is found in the public interest to have some provision made for expending small amounts, there will have to be some amendment made to the Act. There is a provision in the Act under which the technical officers of the department are to carry on works of considerable extent by day labour, so far as they can do so in the public interest.


John Graham Haggart: There is no such a tiling in the statute. The statute provides that in an extraordinary case, where, for instance, the banks of a canal burst away and it is impossible to let out work by tender, it may be done by day labour under the charge of the department, and the minister, on a report of council, may get authority from council to do the work by day labour in an exceptional case like that. But the statute and the Order in Council apply to all work costing over $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is a practical man, and no one in this House knows better than he does the difficulty of carrying on work similar to the one discussed a few minutes ago, a wharf 1,500 feet long, requiring two or three thousand dollars to repair it, where it has to be thrown down in order to find out what is wrong. That could not be done by contract.


John Graham Haggart: Why does the hon. gentleman argue contrary to the law ? Parliament in its wisdom passed a statute by which it is requisite that all sums over

a certain amount should be expended in a certain manner. That law must be obeyed until it is changed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We had better have that point settled by the Minister of Justice, so that we may not go on spending so much of the people's money without knowing what we are doing. It used to be generally understood when hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition, that the law required all sums over $5,000 to be expended by contract. Now that they are in control, there is an ' if ' about it. If there is an ' if ' about it, I think that we should have it understood before we go any further. To my mind it is absurd to say that you cannot get material by contract. You have a gentleman perambulating the country at a time when it is utterly impossible to get timber and material for repairing a dock at the price you could get it for if the work was let by contract, and in a season when the timber was available. That is what a business man would do in the section of the country where I live. But instead of that, as I understand the hon. gentleman, you have a gentleman running around the country buying material at a time of the year when it should be on the spot and when the work should be progressing. If it is necessary for you to get your timber by contract, the engineers must know pretty nearly what is required, and if the amount is not quite sufficient it is easy to procure the balance. But I am satisfied in my own mind that it is a wrong principle to have a man running round the country buying timber when the timber could be got out by contract and on the spot. Why has that change come about in the hon. gentleman's mind ? I see the Minister of Trade and Commerce sitting there complacently. He don't say a word. He used to be very loud in his denunciation of the way money was being expended without contract when he was on this side of the House. How things have changed ! He sits there complacently and sees the law violated without saying a word. His hand is not lifted with holy horror now, we hear none of those thunder-tones we used to hear when he was in opposition, everything now is lovely, although they are violating a statute just as flagrantly as they said the Conservatives used to do when a Conservative government was in power.
Neil's harbour-breakwater, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in the county of Victoria. The total cost of this breakwater is .$18,000. and this sum will complete the work. It is a new work, now under contract.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: The contractors belong to the city of Ottawa, Heney and Smith.


John Graham Haggart: 


Mr. BLAIN.: I find that this harbour was up last session and that $14,000 was voted for it. The hon. Minister of Public Works said it was then under contract for $14,000. What is the explanation of the further vote of $4,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There must be some mistake, because the amount of the contract was $16,600. It was made on the 29th November, 1901. There may have been a mistake in taking down the figures in ' Hansard.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria will tell us something about that work.


William Ross: Neil's Harbour is one of the most important fishing stations in my county. A large number of fishermen came over from Newfoundland and settled in that place, bringing a larger class of boats with them than our fishermen used to have. They have to go to deep water to get the cod-fish and the great trouble was that whop stormy weather would come on they would have to throw out their ballast, get all the men they could together to get their boats hauled up on shore and wait until the stormy weather would be over. This breakwater is not yet completed. I used to growl considerably because the contractors were not asked to complete the work within the time which was specified in the contract, but when completed it will be of immense value to a large number of fishermen in that locality. They will be able to moor their boats inside this breakwater during all seasons as safely as if they had been in the shelter which is in the Ottawa river. It will be of immense benefit to that class of people. I may say in connection with contracts that except in perhaps one or two instances where repairs have been made, I have insisted in every case that everything in my county should be put up to tender and contract. It is a great relief to myself and, I think, in the end more satisfactory to every one.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister give us the date of the contract and the amount ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The 29th November, 1901, is the date, and the amount of the contract'is $16,600.


Richard Blain: We get from that an explanation of how this money is expended. Last year the hon. minister came down and asked for $14,000. It appears that at that time he had already let a contract which was to cost $16,600. That is an explanation to the committee. The policy of the government seems to be that after they have let a contract for $16,600, they will come to the House and ask for $14,000. and the House expects naturally that that sum will complete the work ; yet, the government know that they have already let a contract that will cost $2,600 more than they asked



[Stage Direction]
the House to vote. Surely that Is not good policy. That accounts for these extra votes. We voted $14,000 last year and now the department comes forward and asks the committee for $4,000, when they knew last year what the contract price was.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has not been the policy of the government, and it will not be in future. It may be that the hon. minister explained when he was asking for the $14,000, that that was all he expected to spend during the fiscal year. There can be no reason why full Information should not have been given at that time in regard to this vote, because the contract was then made.


John Graham Haggart: We will have it out with the hon. Minister of Public Works in reference to the meaning of the statute as to his power to have work done by day labour :
The minister shall invite tenders, by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in case of pressing emergency-
Such as a canal being broken down.
-in which delay would be injurious'to the public interest, or in which, from the nature of the work, it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: That only applies to the staff you have on the work. Suppose the Lacliine canal staff were employed all winter for the purpose of making repairs on the ground that it could be more economically and expeditiously done; that would be in keeping with the application and the sole application of the statute. You have no right to employ for a work costing over $5,000 a staff outside of the department or to hire men for the purpose of doing it. That is in direct contravention to the statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where does my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) get the limit of $5,000 ?


John Graham Haggart: That is mentioned somewhere in the Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, it is not.


John Graham Haggart: The limitation is in the Order in Council.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Which was illegally passed.


John Graham Haggart: This statute applies to all work. It has no limitation at all. There is an Order in Council; I suppose that the hon. gentlemen at present governing the country have come to the conclusion that it is nlti'a vires, that it has no application at all, and not binding on the government.
However, this clause applies to all work, it has no limitation. The limitation of $5,000 was probably in the Order in Council but the application of the clause in the statute is general.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think after the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has read the Act, those who have listened to it will agree that I gave a very fair explanation of what the Act meant.
I still hold that the interpretation I put upon it is correct and that in doing work, such as most of those which have been under discussion, the day's labour plan is the only practical business way in which it can be done.


John Graham Haggart: We are not arguing that part of it. We are arguing the meaning of the statute.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend takes one view and other hon. gentlemen take another view.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to know the other hon. gentlemen, in addition to myself, who take that view. Does the hon. Minister of Justice agree with it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of Justice agrees with me. What I want to point out to the hon. gentleman is that when people differ as to the interpretation of an Act of parliament they must depend on the highest court of appeal and the hon. gentleman will find that the Auditor General takes that view and we will have to abide by his decision. If he comes to the decision that my hon. friend puts the proper interpretation on the_statute we will then have to have legislation.


Haughton Lennox: I think if the hon. Minister of Public Works will look at the overrulings of the treasury report in the Auditor General's Report, he will find that the Auditor General does not take that view.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Auditor General was acting on an ultra vires Order in Council.
New Campbellton-ballast wharf, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote. The coal company owns a wharf there which is in a very bad state of repair and it was represented that the department should repair that wharf. The department would not spend money on the property unless it was transferred to the Crown, and as that question was not settled no expenditure was made. I understand that now the manager of the company is willing to transfer the old wharf to the Crown if we will take charge of it.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the total expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer estimates that to put the old wharf in good shape it will cost $11,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for the work ?


William Ross: This is a large coal shipping station and the practice of vessels coming there has been to throw out their ballast in places where it was calculated to injure the harbour. This ballast wharf will not only give deeper water but it will afford a good deal of shelter and will enable vessels to put their ballast in the pier. Something of that kind was done at North Sydney a year or two ago.


Robert Laird Borden: It would seem rather to be an expensive way of preventing vessels throwing out ballast in improper places. In most ports, vessels in discharging their ballast, are subject to a harbour by-law and are punished for violating that law. Is there a real necessity for this work for the purpose of shelter.


William Ross: As a rule this is a fair harbour, but in south-east and southerly winds this pier will afford shelter to a small class of vessels which would be on the inside.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there coal mines near there ?


William Ross: There are coal mines there in active operation and they have been shipipng for years.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this work being done by tender and contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No action has been taken yet, but it will be done by tender.
New Harbour-breakwater repairs, protection slopes, &c., $1,500.


Mr. BENNETT.: It is hardly to be expected that the minister can supervise every expenditure in a large department like that of Public Works, but the Auditor General's report shows that this is a case that out Herod's Herod, and one that is calculated to make the members of the Ontario government feel ill at ease in thinking that other people can surpass them in this kind of thing. The Auditor General tells us that there was an expenditure last year of $3,700, and that it cost $308 for overseers and timekeepers to supervise an expenditure of $1,200 in wages. There were about a dozen workmen on the job. We first had Mr. Patterson engaged for 47 days at $3 a day, to overlook these dozen men, and as if Mr. Patterson was not enough, a gentleman named Gillis was appointed to help him as overseer. One would think that these two could look after the dozen workmen, but it would seem that the department wanted a third man to superintend the other two superintendents, and so a gentleman named Sangster was brought in as book-keeper.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: But that is not all. There was a small quantity of material to be purchased, and a gentleman named Kirk was commissioned to do that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) will look into that account he will probably find that these gentlemen were not all occupied at the same time.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Auditor General's report shows that Mr. Patterson is a foreman and that Mr. Gillis is a sub-foreman, so that there could be no conflict of authority between the two, and one gets paid for 47 days and the other for 44 days. Mr. Sangster was also occupied for 44 days, so that the evidence is that the three were occupied at the same time. The whole thing seems to have been carried out on a scale that would do credit to a Tammany ring. There was a foreman, a sub-foreman, and a time-keeper to watch twelve workmen, and as if these three men could not find time to buy the materials, Mr. Kirk got a commission of 5 per cent to do so. In what riding is this? Who represents it? Who is this Jack the Ripper or Dick Turpin of Canadian politics who is making such raids on the public exchequer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The criticism of my hon. friend is hardly fair. I am willing to admit that probably it is difficult to explain the items as they are given in the Auditor General's report. If any such state of affairs existed in the carrying on of these works as the hon. gentleman describes, it is time we had a change in the men who had charge of this department. I am satisfied that it is quite a mistake. The work is in the county of Guys-borough.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: The only gentleman who came to the rescue last year in connection with this vote was the hon. member from Guysborough. Here is what the Minister of Public Works said on this matter then, and it is interesting:
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. We had some little doubt about this place a couple of years ago. I must admit it was difficult for us that night to put our finger on the very point where New Harbour was located. The coast of Nova Scotia is very wide and long and my colleague and myself had some trouble before we could lay our finger on that spot, but we found it easily after the money was voted and spent.


William Humphrey Bennett: There ought be some explanation of this. There is no doubt that from the Auditor General's Report the two foremen and the time keeper were employed at the same time and practically during the same number of days. Here we have a cost of $7 a day for superintending the expenditure of $20 a day in wages. Surely one of these men might have been

spared to go and purchase $1.80 worth of galvanized buckets or five kegs of nails and spikes: yet the department employed this man ICirk specially to make these little purchases. 1 think the minister should tell us that he intends to keep both eyes on this riding of Guysborough this year. It was only two years ago that an expenditure was to be made in this same riding, and they were unable to find the place; and you have the fact staring the House in the face today that about as many men are employed to look after the employees as the men employed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will see that there was a good carpenter employed at $2 a day, though he is called a sub-foreman.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the policy of the department to pay five per cent on these purchases ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No commissions are allowed.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister will find, at page 214 of the Auditor General's Report, that commissions have been paid.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would not be an unreasonable rate of commission if this man was employed to purchase something for the department and turn it in at cost price. But certainly that is not the general policy of the department.
Mi-. BENNETT. It does not appear that this.is the case at all. I assume that the prices for the things purchased were fair and reasonable. I do not know who this Mr. Kirk is; but his purchases extend from buckets to cement and spruce, so that if he deals in all these things he must be engaged in a large way in business. The inference is that he purchased them and was allowed five per cent commission on them.


Mr. FRASER.: I will explain the matter. Mr. Kirk lives in the county of Antigonish, about sixty miles from the place where the articles were to be delivered, and it is difficult to get them delivered at this poiut, which is on the sea coast. I have no doubt the department got this man to make the purchases, that they were made at as low a rate as they could be got at, and that they allowed him a commission of five per cent.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that what took place was that certain articles were purchased from Mr. Kirk, and that he purchased a number of articles which he had not in stock, and was allowed five per cent upon them. I know that what my hon. friend says is correct, that Antigonish is at a considerable distance from this point.
Ogden's Pond-to complete channel protection work, $650.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Petit de Grat-reconstruction of protection work and dredging, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this complete the work, and is it let by tender or contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have just advertised for tenders for this work; it will be done by contract. The estimated cost is $6,600.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it-a work to make the harbour more efficient and more sheltered ?
The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, it is a new channel to be opened up, protected by cribwork, instead of the present channel. It is a protection harbour, principally for fishing boats.
Poirierville-wharf, $3,500.


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is now under contract. The amount of the contract is $4,388. This vote will complete the work. It is to provide a safe harbour for a thickly-settled district.
Port George-breakwater, $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a new work ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not a new' work. It is an extension of the pier and breakwater. It is done by day labour.
Port Hastings-wharf, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote. No site has been procured yet. The question of a site has been under negotiation. The work will be done by tender and contract.
Port Hawkesbury-wharf, $8,200.


Robert Laird Borden: As to both of these wharfs, the one that has just been passed and this one, I would like the minister to state why it is necessary for the government to build these wharfs.


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This harbour is open very much longer in the year than any others on that side of Cape Breton. It is frequented during the season by seventy-nine sailing vessels on an average, averaging 80 tons each.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there not private wharfs at both these ports ?


Sir. MCLENNAN.: There are no private wharfs at Port Hastings. I may say that that is the only point where large steamers along the eastern Nova Scotia coast can at all seasons secure bunker coal. A case in point is that of the steamship ' Bruce ' on the Newfoundland and Sydney route, which was obliged to come all the

way around eastern Cape Breton, leaving the Sydneys and Louisburg, and come to Port Hastings in order to secure bunker coal at the Inverness Railway Company's terminus. At such a port the public would naturally seek wharf accommodation. There was but an old government wharf there, built by the government of Nova Scotia before confederation. The Dominion government took this wharf over, but when the Inverness Coal and Railway Company was building its terminals at this point, it very largely covered over this wharf, and practically rendered it useless to the public. This rendered imperative either the extension of this old wharf or the construction of a new one. Hence the present vote. With regard to Port Hawkesbury, this is also a most important port. It is frequented by a large amount of shipping, both foreign and domestic, being a most capacious harbour. There are private wharfs at Port Hawkesbury, but very large steamers frequent the port, such as the Plant Dine, which cannot properly be accommodated at any of the private wharfs now available. The public, therefore, have urged upon me to impress upon the government the necessity of building a public wharf, which would not only accommodate the public, but also this very important line of steamers which make Port Hawkesbury their only port of call from the time they leave Halifax until they reach Charlottetown, P.E.I., and further I believe that the revenue to be realized from that wharf would more than repay the government for the interest on the cost.


Richard Blain: What would be the probable revenue from the wharf ?


Angus McLennan: Between $700 and $800 a year. There would be $500 from that line of steamers alone.


Richard Blain: How much revenue was there last year ?


Angus McLennan: The wharf is not built yet.


Richard Blain: I understood from the hon. gentleman that one of these wharfs was owned by the government and that it was taken possession of and covered up by a railway company. Is that correct ?


Angus McLennan: Very largely.


Richard Blain: Did the government collect from the company anything for the filling up of that wharf ?


Angus McLennan: No doubt the Department of Railways and Canals will see to that matter.


Richard Blain: Have they already done so? Did the government allow a railway company simply to come in and cover up a government wharf without any arrangement having been previously come to between that company and the government, or if any Mr. McLennan.
amount was paid to the government, when was it paid and how much?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no information with regard to any claim against the company. Probably this wharf had not been kept in repair and was not very valuable.


Richard Blain: I understand that the government purchased a wharf, and expended a very large amount of money on it and then, after some years had elapsed, simply allowed a railway company to come and take possession of it and fill it up. The hon. member for Inverness made that statement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend said that the province of Nova Scotia, previous to confederation, had a wharf there. I did not understand him to say that this government had ?


Richard Blain: I understood him to say that the Dominion government took the wharf over.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall have an inquiry made into the matter and bring down all the particulars.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the hon. member for Inverness will repeat what he did say.


Angus McLennan: I said that the government of Nova Scotia had built this wharf before confederation, and that the Dominion goverment took it over, and 'that subsequently Messers Mackenzie and Mann built their railway and terminals over and across the wharf, and thus rendered it useless to the public.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this in the hon. gentleman's constituency ?


Angus McLennan: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. gentleman draw the attention of the department to what this railway has done ?


Angus McLennan: I considered that the Department of Railways and Canals would no doubt see to that matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the hon. gentleman did complain to the department ?


Angus McLennan: I did not say that I complained to any department, because I did not, but I said that I had no doubt the Railway Department had entered into some negotiations with this railway company.


Richard Blain: Then the railway company went in and took possession of government property without any arrangement at all between it and the government, and after that had been done, the hon. member representing the county drew the attention of the government to the fact. Is that what happened ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has said that he has no doubt the department will make the railway company pay for the damage they have done to this wharf, but he says he did not report the matter to the department. How then can he say he has no doubt as to what the department will do ?


Angus McLennan: The Department of Railways had steam communication between Mulgrave and that wharf, and in fact had this wharf as one of the terminals of the Intercolonial Railway until the Inverness and Richmond Railway was built, and I have no doubt that before the Department of Railways allowed this wharf to go to any private corporation some consideration was secured.
Sandy Cove-breakwater, $13,200.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract. The amount of the contract is $13,000 and the contractors are Hayden & Oliver, Digby. It is estimated that the work will cost $14,300.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for this work ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: These are piers for the benefit of the fishing people of the district. It is well known that this is one of the best fishing districts in the province, and there are many men with a large fleet of boats engaged in this industry. The bait freezer has been erected at this place recently.
Short Beach-breakwater, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Yarmouth county. The work is under contract for $8,095. The total cost is $9,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this for the purpose of creating a harbour of shelter ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. A harbour of shelter for fishermen.
South Ingonish-wharf, $1,800.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract for $2,485. The total estimated cost of the work is $2,800.
Three Fathom harbour-restoration of beach protection works, $1,200.


Robert Laird Borden: What county is this in 7


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: Will this complete the work 7


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: It is estimated that this will complete it.
Tiverton-breakwater, $17,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the lowest tenderer accepted in this case ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this was let to the lowest tenderer.
Washabuck Centre-wharf, $5,500.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a new wharf. The amount of the contract is $5,860 and $6,500, it is estimated, will complete the work.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for the expenditure ?


William Ross: This wharf is built for the convenience of a large class of farmers on the Bras d'Or lakes. The steamer passes up and down in front of this place three times a week, from Why-cocomagh and Baddeck to the Sydneys. This will enable the farmers to hare a port of call there for the steamer, to ship their produce and receive the goods that they get in. This has been promised them for many years, but I happened to be the one who was able to bring the promise into effect.
West Baccaro-boat harbour protection and channel, $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this for 7


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: For the protection of shipping.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the channel ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to have a depth of three feet.


Robert Laird Borden: What does it connect with ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It connects with the Atlantic Ocean.


Robert Laird Borden: I know; but what does it connect the Atlantic Ocean with 7


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid my knowledge of the locality is somewhat limited, I shall have to ask the member for the riding to explain.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: All along that coast there are small ponds shut off by beaches from the sea, and by making channels you are able to let the fishermen take in their boats and so assure them of protection during the storms. This is a fishing settlement a short distance from port Latour. The whole district is a fishing district. It is some years since I was there, and the young men pointed out the disadvantage they laboured under owing to the destruction of their boats during the storms. For a small sum of money, you can give them protection for their fishing boats.


Robert Laird Borden: Has any investigation been made as to the depth of the pond with which the channel is to connect ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I presume that the engineers must have a report.


Mr. HACKETT.: Is this a local work Intended for the protection of local boats ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, fishing boats.


Edward Hackett: Why not apply the same principle all over the maritime provinces and build local works for the protection of local boats wherever required ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Wherever any case of that kind


Edward Hackett: I made out some very good cases in this House. And I contend that where you build a harbour for the protection of local fishermen in the province of Nova Scotia, you ought to do the same in the province of Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick.


Mr. LEMIETJX.: Or Quebec.


Edward Hackett: Yes, or Ontario or any other province. The case I have made out in this parliament was of ponds or lakes around the coast of Prince Edward Island that would afford accommodation not only to the fishermen of the locality, but also the fishermen of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick plying their avocation on those shores. But I think it strange that a sum of money should be voted by parliament for the purpose simply of making a harbour for local fishermen.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree that there should be no sectionalism in the matter. If this is a sound policy in any place, it is equally sound in any other. There is nothing new in the case. We are doing here a work such as has been done in Nova Scotia for many years, and it is a most useful class of work, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen may say to the contrary. In no way can you render more useful service to the fishermen along the Atlantic coast than by providing them with harbours for their boats. If we neglect this these men will be driven away from the coast and will be unable to carry on their operations. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) who represents a great fishing county, understands the matter well, and I am sure he will agree with me. Of course, if there is any other portion of the coast under similar conditions in any other province, it has the same claim and the same right to consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: There seems to be varied requirements in the maritime provinces. As I understand it, in the province of Nova Scotia, if a pond is adjoining the ocean it is deemed advisable to make a strait or canal to connect the two so that it may be made a harbour of refuge. When you come to the adjoining province of Prince Edward Island we find directly the reverse, because we find at Cascumpec harbour that an opening through the beach is closed. It would seem that in Prince
Edward Island there was a pond inside, but there was the wild raging ocean outside, so the department are going to close up the breach so that the rough tide cannot get into the still waters.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Both these cases are eminently proper. In the one case a break in the beach would do great harm, and you close the beach in the interest of the protection of the people who are engaged in fishing. In the other case, owing to the storms, you need to cut the channel to allow boats to have access to shelter. Both cases are right and reasonable.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is one case, Port Bruce, where they have asked for the same favour and were refused.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have never heard of such an application ; of course it would not come before me. All I can say is that in my judgment there should be no sectionalism. If there is a case of a similar kind in any part of Canada where we can protect our fishermen and keep them at home, these improvements should be made in their interest. If these small expenditures will help to make their lives easy and help them in their business, I am in favour of making them.


Andrew B. Ingram: The fishermen at Port Bruce are paying a license to the department, and when they asked for this improvement the Public Works Department tell them, ' No, go to the Marine Department.' It is not a benefit for the accommodation of the fisTiermen only.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister say whether there has been any investigation made to ascertain the depth of the pond ? Of course it would be of no use to cut a channel to this pond unless you know something about the depth of the water.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A memorandum furnished me says there are three feet of water.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Three feet of water will carry fishing boats easily.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that at high tide or low tide ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At low tide.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems pretty small but I suppose it may be of some little service.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I agree with the Minister of Finance regarding expenditures of this kind. Along the shores of Nova Scotia particularly, there are places of this sort where expenditures like this are needed for the protection of boats. I know that along the shore of Halifax county with which


William Stevens Fielding: I am familiar, as well as in my own county and the adjoining county, there are places of this sort.


Edward Hackett: With regard to Cas-eumpee harbour, I wish to say that it is the resort of shipping from all parts of the gulf of St. Lawrence and from the Atlantic ocean. It is a deep water harbour. This channel opening through a sand hill was made by freshets and high tides, and the engineer no doubt felt it his duty to have this closing filled up in order that a gi eater volume of water might flow through the main channel. Cascumpec harbour is one of the most important harbours on the north shore of Prince Edward Island. It does not accommodate merely the people of the locality, but as I say, is a resort for shipping from all parts of Canada and the world.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Belfast pier-dredging, $1,750.


Edward Hackett: This is a revote. May I ask the hon. minister why this amount was not expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The reason this work was not done was that there was no dredge available. There is one small dredge which the department hcis for that purpose, but it was working in another part of the island, I understand, all last season. We hope we may be able to go on with this work.


Edward Hackett: Will the dredge be placed there next year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know whether I will be able to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) a definite promise, but I hope to be able to arrange for the work going on during next year.
Cascumpec harbour-closing opening through beach, $1,500.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask the hon. minister what has been done in that connection within the last year, or what is going on now in regard to the closing of the outlet from the main harbour to the ocean.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is now going on, the materials have been procured and it is proposed that, this work shall be completed before the 30th June next.


Edward Hackett: Is it being done by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is being done by day labour.


Edward Hackett: Who is the foreman of the work going on now and what is the 37
quantity of material which has been placed there-how many loads of brush and stone ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the name of the foreman, but I shall be very pleased to bring down a statement showing who the foreman is who is in charge of this work.


Haughton Lennox: I think this is an item which does not come under the class of work described as repairs. The hon. minister ought to be in a position to explaiu to the committee why it is that this cannot be let by tender. It looks to me as if it could be very well let by tender.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are two openings here, and it is desirable to close one of them. The hon. member for Prince West (Mr. Hackett) will know the locality and the reasons for this expenditure better than I do myself. I have the report of the engineer of the department and it shows that this work is necessary to provide better harbour accommodation.


Haughton Lennox: Is this the total estimated expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This finishes the work. It is all to be completed, we hope, before the 30th of June next.


Edward Hackett: We have had the same statement for some years aud yet the thing is going on. I suppose the hon. minister is quite sincere in his statement now that this will conclude the work, and that before an election takes place there will be nothing going on in this direction. My experience has been that around election time we will find work of this kind going on. We have the money voted year after year, there is nothing done until just about election time when the money is placed in the hands of parties who will carry out the desires of the government. I think this is wrong especially in the province of Prince Edward Island where these works are of a very important character. They should be attended to without party spirit or party influence of any kind. I trust the hon. minister will see that this work at Cascumpec that has been hanging on for so many years will be completed in a short time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may be possible that governments are [DOT]guilty on some occasions, but I do not think on this particular occasion they are guilty of using this work for political purposes. That appropriation, I think, was made for the first time after the election in my hon. friend's county so that it could not have been to purchase his support there. I am speaking from the report of the engineer of the department. The material has been purchased, the work will be proceeded with and the greater part of it will he completed, I have no doubt. I have no reason to believe that statement is not correct.


Edward Hackett: This matter has been under consideration for a number of years. We have discussed it here before. This opening through the sandhills from Cascum-pec harbour occurred some years ago and an estimate was made for closing up the channel. Year after year we have been discussing the necessity of closing this channel and I trust now that the hon. minister will see that the matter will be concluded and that we will have no more of this difficulty.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will try to see that the work is proceeded with quickly.
Cove head harbour-improvement of entrance channel, $4,000.


Edward Hackett: What is the meaning of that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote of $4,000 of the previous vote and with the amount to be expended before the 30th of June it will make the total cost $7,300. This work is now under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: When was this contract let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was let on the 13th of March last.


Andrew B. Ingram: This is an entirely new work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Creosoted timber for piers and breakwaters, $2,000.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask the hon. minister where these piles are purchased, what they cost and who provides them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a general vote for creosoted wood required for piles throughout the province of Prince Edward Island. The wood is purchased at Norfolk, Virginia.


Andrew B. Ingram: What amount was purchased last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no creosoted timber purchased for Prince Edward Island last year.
Gaspereaux-harbour for fishermen in Graham's Pond, $500?


Edward Hackett: What is the meaning of* this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for necessary repairs to the harbour during the year.


Edward Hackett: What kind of a harbour is it ? It is for local fishermen ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it seems to be for the use of fishermen particularly.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Edward Hackett: What is the value of the improvements made there ? Have you improved the harbour very much by the expenditure provided by this parliament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does my hon. friend mean the public expenditure to date, or the amount that we require now ? This $500 is all that we are asking for


Edward Hackett: Did you not spend an amount there before ? There was money spent there before.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that $500 was spent there during the past year and this $500 completes the work.


Edward Hackett: What is the improvement made by this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is to protect the channel opened from the sea to Graham's pond, to permit the fishing boats to enter the pond at all times of tide.


Haughton Lennox: The total expenditure cn this work will be, I understand, $1,000. I submit that this is not the class of work that this parliament should engage in. When a work is of such trifling character as only to amount to $1,000 it cannot be within the province of this parliament to expend that money.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You must not expend anything as small as $1,000.


Haughton Lennox: Probably not, and I will explain it from my point of view, which may not be that of the Postmaster General. I submit I will have the judgment of the majority of the people of this country; the people who ought to be our masters; the people who contribute the money for us to expend, when I say that a trifling work like this, is a matter for the municipality, or at most, for the province, if it is a public work at all. Where is the line to be drawn ? If we are to pick out here and there through Canada trifling little works in which any man of enterprise would engage as a private venture upon his own capital, where are we going to draw the line, in asking the parliament of Canada to vote for such works If this be the rule, then there are thousands, nay, there are hundreds of thousands of spots in this Dominion which are entitled to the expenditure of public money, and it would be better, far better because it would be far more honest if the federal government would in that case take upon itself the entire expenditure of all the moneys that are required by the people of this country. Surely there is some line of demarcation between what is the duty of the provincial legislature and what is the duty of the federal administration, fl'liat is the point I want to make notwithstanding the interjection of the Postmaster General.

These small works, if they are of a public nature at all, must be within the expenditure of the local municipality or within the expenditure of the province. I do not mean that federal works must permeate every part of the Dominion, but they must be, to some extent, of that large national character, as distinguished from a local character, before they can be entitled to draw contribution from the people of this entire Dominion. Notwithstanding the jocular interjection of the Postmaster General, I submit that such an expenditure as this is not justifiable. When this matter comes to be considered as it will be considered; when it comes to be discussed as it will be discussed on the hustings, it will be the almost universal voice of the people of Canada regardless of political affinities that that is the true basis upon which we must proceed as trustees of the money of the people of this country.


Edward Hackett: This pond is one of great importance I believe to the fishermen. About the year 1900 operations commenced there for the opening of the harbour, and at the same time the operations commenced at Skinner's pond in Prince county a month before the election, and a large number of men were employed. The Skinners pond work has been dropped because the people there voted against the government. I now ask the minister is it his intention to continue the work at Skinner's pond in Prince county, the same as at Gaspereaux, in King's county, or is it the intention of the government to let it lie until the election approaches ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Skinner's pond has not been brought to my attention and evidently there was no work done there previous to the election. I can hardly agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) about these small works, because they must be of great importance to the community or else representations would not be made by the people and their representatives in these districts to have these works carried out. It is not fair to say that they are private works because as a matter of fact they are for the benefit of the fishing community who are engaged in an important industry in this country. If my hon. friend were to visit the maritime provinces I am quite sure he would change his views. I am not prepared to say that because we spend .$100,000 or $200,000 on a pier to accommodate extensive shipping, that the fishing industry of Canada should not be provided with facilities to carry on its business. It is necessary to afford shelter along the shores of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and it is tire province of this parliament to provide for that.


Haughton Lennox: Let me point out the fallacy of that argument. The revenue of tile'fisheries has been given to the provinces by decision of the Privy Council. No doubt 371
the minister is perfectly correct in saying that this work is of great importance to the fishermen in that locality, but where is there a public work of which it cannot be said that it is of special importance to a particular class of the people. It would be of great importance to a large section of the people of Toronto if a pier was built there, and I am told there is no government pier in Toronto. Now, I would argue against doing such a work in Toronto in the same way, if it could not be shown that the influence of that expenditure extended beyond the city of Toronto. The moneys which this parliament administers are to be administered in the interests of Canada as a whole, and when yon talk of a work being of vast interest to a particular body of fishermen, you are speaking only of a number of people in a small locality. When you talk of this being of advantage to a body of fishermen, you speak of a work for a small locality just as you would speak of a work for a township or a county. I submit that if the benefit of an expenditure does not extend beyond the radius of a small community, even though it is somewhat densly settled, there is no justification for it. Go to the city of Hamilton or the town of Barrie or the village of Bradford, which is represented by the hon. Postmaster General. There are many people in the village of Bradford and in the locality of Lake Sim-coe who would be vastly benefited by the dredging of the Holland river. They would tell you that it would serve a large number of farmers on either side of the lake, and that it would increase the commerce of the thriving village of Bradford. We have not had any request for such an expenditure. Whether we shall, on the eve of an election, God only knows ; but we have not had it yet, and I submit that an expenditure would be as justifiable in the one case as in the other. I will not trouble the committee any more on this question for the present; but I have endeavoured to point out that there is a broad distinction between an expenditure which may be said to be in the general interests of the people we represent, and those purely local concerns which should be aided and assisted, if at all, by the local government.


Edward Hackett: What is the distinction between Skinner's pond and Graham's pond ? In the year 1900 there was a vote for improvements at Graham's pond, and in the same year certain improvements were made at Skinner's pond without any appropriation, but after the election nothing more was done. Now, I find that the government are prosecuting the improvement of Graham's pond while leaving Skinner's pond without any appropriation at all. What is the reason of this ? Is it because the people in the neighbourhood of Skinner's pond returned an opponent of the goTernment. while the people in the neighbourhood of Graham's pond supported a man to uphold the government ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We would not do anything like that.


Edward Hackett: I am sure you did. The work was commenced about a month before the election of 1900. When I found In going through the country that the work was commenced, I was astonished, because there was no appropriation for it by this parliament; but I wastoldi that the money was taken from the general appropriation for public works. I had to light against that. The government purchased many votes by this work. But after the election, the work was dropped, and no work lias gone on since at Skinner's pond. I ask, in the name of the people of Prince county, that the government will prosecute the work at Skinner's pond just as they are doing at Graham's pond.
Higgin's shore pier-works of reconstruction and repair, $1,000.


Edward Hackett: May I ask the hon. minister to explain this item ?


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote. It is for the purpose of repairing the wharf.


Edward Hackett: Why was the money not expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were some representations made in regard to the change of site, but the engineer thought it best that the old pier should be repaired. That is the cause of the delay.


Edward Hackett: I want to say in all seriousness that the expenditure of $1,000 on the old pier would be simply a waste of money. A new pier should be built about 100 yards east of the old pier, and I would ask the hon. minister if, in addition to this vote, he will place an appropriation in the supplementary estimates to build a completely new pier.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the report of the engineer it is estimated that this $1,000 will put the work in good shape. We have a detailed estimate of what is required. But, in view of the representation made by the hon. gentleman, I will ask the engineer to make a further report on the work.


Edward Hackett: Has the hon. minister received a petition from that part of Prince county on this subject ? If he wants to give satisfaction to the people of the locality he will build a new pier.
Lower Montague-Altken's wharf, $2,800.
Mr-. HACKETT. What is being done there ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORj^S. This is for completing the work. The total estimated cost is $4,500.


Edward Hackett: New London-repairs to breakwater, &e., $500.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to draw the minister's attention to page Y-225, which states that the contract here is completed. If so, what do you want this money for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend will see that this vote is for repairs required during the next year. In reply to the hon. gentleman I beg to say that the engineer estimates $500 will be required for the repairs of this pier and that is why we are asking the money. Every hon. gentleman must know that these piers are liable to injury through storms and ice and so on, and require considerable repairs to keep them from going to pieces.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year this breakwater appears to have been thoroughly repaired and there would seem to be some particular cause for this new expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some $446 were spent on repairs on this wharf last year, and the engineer reports $500 are required to keep it in repair for the coming year.


Andrew B. Ingram: There were spent last year $5,701.61 for completing the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was for building the breakwater.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, for repairs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That must be a misprint.


Edward Hackett: If the work were built last year why should it require repairs this year 7 That appears to be too quick altogether. It may be that the expenditure last year was for repairs, as the structure was standing some years, but if we built a new work last year we should not be called on to repair it this year.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I desire to point out that this work last year was all repairs, as the hon. minister will see by referring to V-225 of the Auditor General's Report. It is headed ' repairs to breakwater, &c.' and Includes $5,493 paid T. B. Cullen to complete contract, but that was a contract, not for building but for repairs. Then there are payments to the inspector of work and for advertising, &c., and the total is carried to page Y-7 under the heading ' repairs to breakwater, New London.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will look on page 62 of the report of the Public Works Department, he will find a full explanation of this work. This $500 is for repairs necessary owing to damages done to the pier by storms since the reconstruction was completed.
Repairs to piers and breakwaters, Prince Edward Island, $6,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will tlie lion, minister give us some idea of these repairs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the annual vote for general repairs. It has been the practice of parliament for many years to vote $6,000 for general re-jiairs to piers and breakwaters in Trince Edward Island, not provided for by special vote. Up to the first of March, 1903, we spent $1,240 of last year's vote. This money of course is not expended unless absolutely required to keep the piers and wharfs in repair, which are not otherwise provided for by special vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Auditor General's Report shows that last year there was spent out of the $6,000, $1,554.63. This year the [DOT]hon. minister tells us that $1,240 has been silent so far. That would leave the difference between $1,240 and $6,000 to be stili expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That $4,760 lapses on the 30th June if not expended.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps the members from Prince Edward Island may ask for works in the meantime to be done, which will absorb this money.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, l'ou cannot expend this money except for the purposes for which it is appropriated, and the department will not expend it unless it be really necessary for repairs to piers and breakwaters.


Edward Hackett: I may say that this money which was voted last year should be all expended because those piers belonging to the government are falling into disrepair. Hon. gentlemen may think it is a great thing to vote $6,000 and expend only $1,200 out of that vote, but the piers and wharfs along the shores of Prince Edward Island which belong to the government, are falling into disrepair because money is not expended on them to keep them in good order. I have every confidence in Mr. Hogan, the engineer down there, but no doubt his instructions are to save every dollar he can for the government. But the government are in this respect too saving. They vote the money and make the peoifie believe that they are spending it, but instead they spend it in some other part of Canada and the island has its piers and breakwaters falling to pieces. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he intends spending the whole of this vote of $6,000 this year on the wharfs and breakwaters in Prince Edward Island.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS As I have explained, this money is spent upon the report of the engineer. I am pleased to know that we have an economical man, but sorry to hear that he would allow these works to go to pieces when the
money is voted to keep them in repair. It is not likely that the engineer who represents the department in Prince Edward Island .would allow the state of affairs to exist which my hon. friend represents, especially when he knows that the money lias been voted to make the repairs required. If we only spent $1,600 the year before and $1,240 so far this year, it was not because the department was not willing to spend the money but because no reports came to us from the engineer that the work was necessary. The money voted for this purpose could not be spent in any other part of the island or of Canada for any other purpose. It simply lapses and is not spent at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: But suppose the hon. gentleman from West Prince (Mr. Hackett) went to the department and asked to have this work done, the hon. minister might say there was no money for the purpose. But when we find that there is an unexpended balance of $6,000 that would be hardly a fair statement of facts. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would say whether he applied to the department and was told there was no money for the purpose.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think so.
Souris, Knight's Point - strengthening of breakwater, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the placing of large stones on the seaward side of the breakwater at Knight's Point, filling in with ordinary sized ballast, depressions in the body of the crib-work, and making general repairs, &c. There will be needed two thousand cubic yards of large stone, and one thousand cubic feet of ordinary ballast. The general repairs to the cribwork will cost over $1,000; in all $10,000.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Is this under contract, awarded after calling for tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: What is the contract price?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Seventy-four cents per cubic yard. The contractor is J. Lanigan.
Tignish-rebuilding northern breakwater, $700.


Edward Hackett: Will the hon. gentleman explain the meaning of this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to be applied to the building up of a block on the breakwater which has settled about three feet.


Edward Hackett: This Tignish breakwater has been but lately completed, and why are we now asked to spend this amount ? And is it the intention of the government

to call for tenders, or will this be done by day's work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose that this work being in the hou. gentleman's own constituency, he would be familiar with the conditions. A report was received from the engineer, of whom I have no personal knowledge, but whom I understand to be a very good man. I have already explained what is to be done with the money. If this work is not done the block will be very seriously affected in a short time.


Edward Hackett: What kind of work is intended ?


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: As I understand, this is for rebuilding the superstructure of the cribwork, which originally cost $4,500.


Edward Hackett: Is it the intention to drive piles around the breakwaters ?
The MIlAsTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. No, stone.


Edward Hackett: Before leaving the Prince Edward Island items, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works what is being done in Summerside with regard to the works prosecuted there some years ago, and on which operations were being carried on up to a very late date ? And have the contractors been paid off ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be obliged to look into that matter. There is no vote here for Summerside, and I have no particulars at hand. I would rather bring down full particulars for my hon. friend than attempt to speak from memory. I believe there is some difficulty about the matter, for I remember the subject being brought to my attention some time ago. I will have a memorandum made of the particulars and bring it down for the information of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett).


Edward Hackett: About what time may we expect that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman may have it when the supplementary estimates are under discussion or during next week.
New Brunswick-Anderson's Hollow-improvements and repairs to wharf, $1,800.


Haughton Lennox: What about this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was an appropriation of $6,500 for this work. The work is now under way and nearing completeness. We are asking a revote of $1,000 on the former vote and the new vote of $800 to complete the work.


George Taylor: Was it not let by tender ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Was there not an estimate of cost for this work of $2,500 for last year 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not likely, because there was a vote of $6,500 last session.


Andrew B. Ingram: But when that vote was asked for the minister said :
This vote is applied for to make provision for repairing the present pier, the estimated cost of which is $2,500 and also putting in a groin to overcome an accumulation of sand and gravel, estimated to cost $4,000.
So, the former estimate does not complete the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was short by $800.
Bay du Vin-to complete reconstruction of wharf, $500.


Mr. WILMOT.: What is the total cost of that work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total is $12,847.64. This $500 will complete the work.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Was that done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Campbellton wharf-extension and repairs, $18,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister if this work has been commenced, and have tenders been asked for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that the late government had spent a sum of money on this property. It is private property, and belongs to Mr. Shives. It has been thought best by the department to purchase the property, the right of way, and have full control of this wharf. It is an important point, a great deal of shipping comes there, and it is necessary to maintain the wharf. There has been public money spent on this property previously, but I do not know how much.


Andrew B. Ingram: When ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A sum of $31,000 has been spent on this property previous to 1896, I cannot say now in what years it was spent. No money has been spent since 1896. Thej work now requires extension and improvements, and it is thought better to take the whole property over and have it vested in the Crown.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I find in the Auditor General's Report, page D-229, that $2,251 was spent on this work last year, apparently it was spent for odds and ends in the shape of labour, machines, pieces of timber and so forth. Now I think we ought to know whether a contract is going to be let, and whether this whole $18,000 is going to be spent in the same slipshod manner.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend does not understand me. I said that an extension or addition had been biiilt to this wharf at considerable cost. The amount expended since 1896 has been for keeping the wharf In repair, that part belonging to the government. It is very unsatisfactory to have the adjoining property belonging to a private individual, and we propose to acquire that property.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is hel going to do with the $18,000, how is it going to be handled ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $15,000 of this will be devoted to purchasing the property belonging to Mr. Shives, the wharf and approaches belong to him. The $3,500 is for repairs.	-


Haughton Lennox: Has the property been acquired from this man yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there have been negotiations about the purchase, but we cannot make the purchase until we have the money voted. If the gentleman who owns the property will not transfer it to the Crown, of course the money will not be spent. The engineer thinks there is no binding contract, but there have been negotiations with the owner.


Andrew B. Ingram: In what constituency is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the county of Itestigouche.


Jabel Robinson: Will there be any revenue derived from this expenditure?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be considerable revenue, but we are not depending so much on the revenue as on the advantage this wharf will be to the public.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us what this land is worth, and how much, if any, Mr. Shives himself has expended on it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are negotiating for the purchase of that portion of the wharf that belongs to him.


Andrew B. Ingram: We can get very little information about this whole transaction. There is no doubt the government have expended money on this property, and now they are buying it and paying a larger sum for it by reason of having expended money on it themselves. The property has been made more valuable by reason of the government money expended on it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Whether the previous government made a good or a bad expenditure of money on this wharf, I believe it is good policy now to keep the work.in repair, and to purchase the property if we can get it at a reasonable price.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the minister tell us what certificate or what evidence he has that the price is a reasonable one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The department have certificates from their officers and reports as to the value of this property and the public necessity for it. We are certainly not buying it blindly. We are not asking for a vote for the purpose of buying it because it is not in the public interest.	It is because part of the wharf
belongs to the Crown and part to Mr. Shives-and it is desirable that this should be made public property. That is the object In negotiating for the purchase.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman stated that the last government expended money on this property though the government did not own it. I inferred that from the hon. gentleman's remarks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: And now this government intends making an expenditure of money on this approach, and they intend to buy it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not on the approach, but on the part that has been previously built by the government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much land altogether is to be purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The land is only the approach to the wharf.


George Taylor: What quantity of land is in the approach ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The wharf is built in front of a street in the town. It is not the land that we are purchasing; it is the wharf. The wharf was built by private enterprise, and it is owned by Mr. Shives. What we want to do is to secure the approach to the government wharf; that is to the wharf owned by the government previously. The hon. gentleman will see that the government having built an extension of the private wharf they cannot get over to their own property without going over the property of Mr. Shives.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it absolutely true that the late government paid money out to improve Mr. Shives' property without having any control over it, or is it not the fact that the last government expended money on the property that belongs to the Crown, and not on the approach ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORIvS. There is no object in keeping anything back about this matter. There is no object in misrepresenting it. I did not tell the hon. gentleman that they spent it on the wharf that Mr. Shives had already built. I said that they had built an extension. I am only

speaking from the information given to me by the officers of the department, and I explained to the hon. gentleman that they had built an extension of this wharf at an expense of $31,000, and that the approach to this part of the wharf Mr. Shives owned and it still belongs to him. We want to purchase that and have the whole property vested in the Crown and make the repairs for which we are asking $3,100.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman a plan of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, in the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman have any objection to laying it on the Table V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very pleased to bring down the plan.


Haughton Lennox: I think we understand it as far as the facts are concerned. There is a wharf built by the government. Between that and the land there is an approach owned by a private individual.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A wharf.


Haughton Lennox: There is an approach in which a private individual is interested. Does this Mr. Shives own the whole of the approach or only a portion of it ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, lie owns it all.


Haughton Lennox: Now, I think it is very easy for the minister to tell us what land is covered by that approach ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be pleased to bring down the plan to show the extent.


Haughton Lennox: Cannot the hon. minister at present give us practically the dimensions of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps the engineer has some information. The structure is 201 feet in length, 24 feet in width and there are 114 feet of water at low water.


Haughton Lennox: Is the portion that belongs to Mr. Shives 294 feet in length and 24 feet in width and for which there is asked tne sum of $15,000 ? I have not made it up myself, but I am told that that is less than one-fifth of an acre of land. Is this a large city, or a town ? What kind of a place is it ? Do you know the population ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is quite an important place. I have tried to explain that we are not buying land, but the wharf-the structure.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know what the hon. minister means, when he makes a distinction between buying land and buying the Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
structure, that the structure, which is called the approach, was an expensive structure to build, blit I would say that when we hear of $15,000 for a work for which up to the present time we have had no claim made by Mr. Shives, it does suggest pretty strongly that this is a matter, at all events, requiring a good deal of looking into. We have had some trouble in dealing with the Expropriation Act and I think that the hon. minister ought to take very careful means of investigating this before he decides to put $15,000 into it and be very sure as to tlie title of Mr. Shives.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say as to the title, that that goes through the Department of Justice. I find that they are pretty strict about having a complete title.


Haughton Lennox: I am told that the population is 2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to the value, I may say that in our experience in the past we have found, if we could make a fair arrangement according to the valuation put on property by our own officials, from the best information they could gather, that it has been preferable to going to the court and instituting expropriation proceedings. The experience of the Public Works Department is that by the time we pay the award, the lawyers fees and all the costs it would have paid us two or three times over to take the value put on the property by the officers of the department. The officers of the department have no object in the world in over-valuing these properties. They have no object in procuring them except in the public interest. If we think that a property is valued too high we can proceed under the Expropriation Act and refer it to the court. Unless we get property at the valuation put upon it by our own officials, appointed to value it, we generally apply to the court under expropriation proceedings.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: How much has this property been estimated at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifteen thousand dollars.
I-Ion. Mr. TARTE. Have you the valuation there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The reports are in the department.


George Taylor: If I understand the hon. minister correctly this pier or wharf is beside the water, so that there is no land to be acquired at all, and Mr. Shives now owns the piece of the wharf extending out into the ocean. At the end of his wharf the late government, I understand from the hon. minister, built an extension. Are we to assume that the late government went on and expended a lot of money building an ex-

tension to a wharf owned by a private individual ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, it did.


George Taylor: This is a matter which requires investigation. Did Mr. Shives own this property when the late government made the extension.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was formerly owned by Mr. Ferguson, then by Mr. Mowatt and now by Mr. Shives, who I think has owned it for 20 years or more.


George Taylor: WTho was the owner when the late government made the extension ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would have to bring down a return to show all these dates. I have merely the facts given me by the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister allow this item to stand until we get the plan of the wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection at all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I visited this place and I know something about it. There was an existing wharf belonging to a private owner and the late government built a cross wharf at the end of that, but unfortunately they forgot to make arrangements with the owner of the wharf, so that in order to reach the government wharf you have to cross on private property.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They complain they are charged exliorbi-tant rates.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, I tried several times to settle it and my recollection is that when I left office there was a report to council in favour of arbitration.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 understand that is the least price they will accept, and it is a question as to whether we should expropriate and pay perhaps a higher price and all the costs. We know from past experience what that means.


Hon.   S@: Yes, I know it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 should think that after the explanation given the House will see that it is in the public interest that we should secure this property. The people complain that they have to pay exkorbitant rates to get to the government wharf and as there is a great deal of shipping done at this port it is desirable that this work should become the property of the Crown. None of this money will be paid until we have secured a proper title.


George Taylor: I would certainly like to see the plans of the dock, because I can hardly imagine that the late government *made an expenditure there without having
some arrangement with the then owner of the property that the people should have a right to use it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have investigated that point and I can assure my hon. friend that there was no arrangement made at the time. However, as to the price let me say that I think that it is pretty high.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think so too.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is pretty high. The wharf belongs to Mr. Shives now who bought it some five or six years ago, and we are at his mercy to a large extent because our wharf cannot be used without passing on his property. For a time I contemplated building a wharf elsewhere but l found it would have cost more and so I resolved to go to arbitration. It was the last act I did on that question.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Hon.
I Mr Tarte) throws some light on this subject which confirms my opinion and bears out what I have heard. Mr. Shives acquired this property some five or six years ago. I am creditably informed that Mr. Shives is a strong supporter of the hon. gentlemen opposite and the ex-minister says that he thinks that it is a very big price to pay Mr. Shives. I think so too. This $15,000 will build an extension from the dock erected by the late government into the street, and he will have nothing to pay to Mr. Shives. I have a strong suspicion that the late government made an arrangement with the then owner of this property or they would not have been so foolish as to spend this money. It is said that in order to reach this government wharf the people have to pay toll. There is nothing extraordinary in that, for it is the case in connection with almost every wharf in Ontario. In my own town of Gananoque, if we want to ship anything we have to pay the Rath-bun Company to get on their wharfs to do our shipping. Why should the government to give free wharfs in one place and make the people pay for their wharf accommodation in another. Why, the revenues of some of these wharfs in the lower provinces is not sufficient to pay the salary of the wharfinger. In some cases we do not get $2 a year from wharfs which cost us thousands of dollars. Before this item ] insses I want to see the plan of the property, and who was the owner at the time the late government made this expenditure.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am perfectly sure that no arrangement was made by the late government. As to that there is no possible doubt. A mistake was made. I am of the opinion that this wharf should be acquired by the government because the wharf we have built is of no use unless we make some arrangement with Mr. Shives. But 1 am at the same time of the opinion that $15,000 is a very high price indeed. I know

1171
the value of the work, I have been there, and I have declined to pay It myself.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would an arbitration declare that price to be unreasonable ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That I do not know. We are at the mercy of Mr. Skives. Before I left office I made a report suggesting that expropriation proceedings be taken. If we are compelled to pay $15,000, I suppose we shall have to pay it. In arbitration cases, the government usually does not get the best of it. All the same, I think an expropriation would be the safest course. Of course, my bon. friend may have new information since I left office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the matter stands very much as my bon. friend left it. As my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) did not seem to think the information I gave was correct, I will say that I have no personal knowledge of the matter myself. I have had no personal interview with the owner and do not know him. The only information I have is what has been furnished to me by the department. It only came to me as a departmental matter. The information given to me by the department is that in 1880-90 a wharf 140 x 35 feet by some 35 feet in height was built at a distance of about 110 feet from the eastern end of the return at the outer end of Mowat's (formerly Ferguson's) wharf, the outer or channel faces of the said wharfs being kept in one and the same line ; the main object being to provide a place where vessels frequenting the Restigouehe river could conveniently deposit their ballast instead of throwing it into the river to the detriment of the harbour of Campbellton. In 1892-93 the ballast wharf, which is now about filled up, was connected by the Dominion government with Ferguson's or Mowat's (now Skives') wharf, by building up the gap between the two with cribwork, thus effecting a junction with the shore and the Intercolonial Railway, a branch line of which extends to Mowat's wharf. In the petition transmitted by Mr. McAllister, a supporter of the government at that time, on February 16th, 1896, the citizens of Campbellton represent that it is impossible to use the government ballast wharf as a landing pier without passing over Mowat's wharf, and that the charges for using the latter add considerably to the expense of the port, and they therefore ask the government to purchase the Mowat wharf and make it public property. That is a very concise and clear statement of the whole affair I as furnished by the department. I agree | with my hon. friend that it is in the public interest that we should purchase that pro-I perty. As to the price, when the matter came before me, I could not do anything about it until authorized by parliament. The sum named is the lowest price the owner would put on the property, and it is for the department to consider whether Hon. Mr. TARTE.
they will enter into an arrangement to take the property at that price, or expropriate it. I may say that our experience teaches us that if our own officials and experts in the valuation of properties consider that the price asked is not too high, I would prefer to purchase by agreement rather than go to court, because the probability Is that we would have a larger amount to pay and a great deal of costs. However, that may be, the passage of this vote does not at all preclude us from the right to arbitrate or expropriate if we think the price too high.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Skives and myself had several interviews. The reason Mr. Shives is asking so much is because he says he derives a yearly revenue of about $1,000 from his wharf. The wharf itself is not worth $15,000. I believe it is not worth more than perhaps $6,000 or $8,000. There is a valuation in the department by some of our officers to the effect that the work is not worth more than that and perhaps less. Mr. Shewen made a statement which was lower than that, but which I thought was too low. The fact remains that Mr. Shives is the owner of this piece of property, and is deriving a revenue of $1,000 from it every year, and he says, ' I do not see why I should be obliged to give you my property when lam getting so much out of it.' That is the real position of the matter.


Haughton Lennox: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is giving a revenue of 1,000 and over and if we go to arbitration we will probably be stuck for a good deal more than we would be by an agreement because the courts as a, rule base the value on the revenue.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister should bring down a plan before this item is voted.	'


Joseph Israël Tarte: If my hon. friend would agree to have an expropriation proceeding, the House might let the item go.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Is there any way of getting at the originators who built the wharf without getting the property ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have been punished.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Shives asked $15,000 and the Minister of Public Works of that day, being a conscientious, honest man, refused to pay it. Now the government want a title to this property. Would it not be better at once to face the music and expropriate the property at once and be done with it ?


Andrew B. Ingram: We will see later on.
Item allowed to stand.
Caraquet wharf, $55,000.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: This is a large sum. Has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this work is under contract. The contract was let in March, 1902.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Has any work been done and any money expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The committee would like to know for what purpose this is required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt parliament, when it authorized the vote, took full information and considered the matter fully. It is rather late now, after the money has been voted and the contract entered into, and the work under way and $10,000 already paid out, to stop the work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When was the land purchased ? Last year we had the statement of the ex-Minister of Public Works that the land was not purchased and the site not finally located.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not find that we have to pay anything for the site.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was the site given free ? There was trouble last year with regard to where the land was to be got and what we were going to pay for it, and the ex-Minister of Public Works said that before the contract was awarded he would see that the deed for the land was in his hands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was signed the 1st of March, 1902, long before that session was over.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: For the purchase of the land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The property belongs to the Dominion. I do not see that there was any land to be purchased. $20 was the .cost of the right of way from the shore to the highway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Last year Mr. Gan-ong asked the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) who owned the land on which he was spending this money, and the answer was that it belonged to James Blackball. Does Mr. Blackball own the land or do we own it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not fmd anything in the memorandum of the department regarding the land except $20 for the right of way. That must be the land referred to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The then Minister of Public Works said distinctly that Mr. James Blackball was the owner of the land.
The MINISTER OF , PUBLIC WORKS. He was merely referring to the right of way from the shore to the highway. That was conveyed to the Crown.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the right of way, but that is not where we are spending our money.


Andrew B. Ingram: This parliament is entitled to a businesslike statement before we undertake work of this character. Here is an expenditure of $55,000 and if any hon. gentleman wants to know why it is being expended, there is nothing to show the reason. It is time that the department, when asking for money for any particular purpose, should come down in a businesslike way and state what public purpose the work is supposed to serve, what amount of money will be spent on it this year, and how much is the estimated cost. But we cannot get this information, and when we go out to the country we are told that we are to blame because we did not properly criticise these items. I know that the hon. the minister is new to the department and I am not hold-

ing him strictly responsible for this, but in the case of any new work a proper estimate should be brought down, and it is the duty of the opposition to refuse to allow any vote to go through uutil a full explanation is given.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No new work has been voted this session regarding which I have not given the fullest Information. As far as this work is concerned, it is now under contract. I am satisfied that no vote has gone through this session concerning which I have not given every detail. I think that parliament is entitled to this information, and I would not ask the House to vote any money unless I were prepared to give it. I think that is one principle that ought to be adhered to. Whatever tlje work is, it is the duty of parliament to make inquiries before committing itself to it. Parliament did commit itself to tliis work by giving a grant of money, and I suppose they received the information necessary at that time. The total estimated cost is $65,000.


George Taylor: This is under contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the present contract price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is $59,990.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why, then, does not the minister ask for the total cost of the work $05,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is exactly what I am doing-$05,000 asked for this year, and $10,000 of last year's appropriation expended.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who will own the wharf after it is built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Dominion of Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: There must be something on the file which the minister has before him to prove who owns the land. Does Mr. Blackball own it or does the Dominion government own it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already explained that the government own it.


William Humphrey Bennett: From whom did they purchase it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They purchased the right of way for $20. That is all the land we had to purchase, according to the information I have from the officers of the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: Last year, when the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was asked: 'who owns the land?' he answered: 'Mr. James Blackball.' Surely nothing could be plainer than that.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On the information given me by the officer of the department I believe that refers to the right of way which, I have explained, we bought.	[DOT]


Joseph Israël Tarte: I may explain the circumstances. Of course the work is completed from the shore. But between the shore and the highway there is a small piece of land, and it is for that piece of land, 1 stated last year, $20 had to be paid. It is the right of way. No other property was purchased, it was not necessary to acquire any for the work itself, but only to acquire means of communication with the main road.


John William Bell: What is the size of the right of way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not at hand the description of the right of way. It is a small piece of land.


Mr. TURGEON.: It goes through a piece of land of about an acre.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the piece of land been acquired by deed ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Oh, oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) seems in a jocular mood Is he satisfied that the government lias the deed of the land ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Most decidedly. The hon. gentleman might as well ask if the deed is signed or if there is a seal to it. The government own the foreshore, and all they needed was a piece of land from the street to the wharf. The minister says that the money was paid and the deed got and that the government own the land.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the hon. gentleman (Air. Fraser) hear that ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Certainly I did.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister say that now ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: He has said it.


Andrew B. Ingram: AVill he say it now ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. minister as I understood him-


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Just wait. Hon. gentlemen are like a jack in the box jumping up every minute. The hon. minister, as I understood him, stated that the Dominion government owned the place where the wharf was built that they needed a right of way from the street, and they bought it and got a deed of it. Is not that plain ? The deed specified the number of feet in the right of way and what difference does it make whether it is twenty or thirty feet ? I am bound to assume that they got the regular right of way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister tell us whether he has it or not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am iuformed by the officials that we have.
Ij have given strict instructions that where we are doing work on property, the deed must be acquired, and, of course, I assume that the officials of the department will see to it that, in such a case as this, a proper right of way is acquired before the money is expended.
Great Salmon river-Groyne and breakwater combined, $4,300.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Where is this point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move to strike out this item.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman state why the item was put in the estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made that this was a necessary work, and I believe it is. But the property is reported by the department to be private property. I do not intend to ask for the money until this is arranged. If it is arranged, I can bring down a supplementary estimate. .


Andrew B. Ingram: In what constituency is it?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
St. John.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lord's Cove (Deer Island)-completion of [DOT]wharf, $500.
Robert Duncan Wilmot: What amount has been expended on this wharf ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	"\yORKS.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Does the government own the approach to the wharf ?
The	MINISTER	OF	PUBLIC	WORKS.
Yes. This completes the work.
Richibucto, to complete protection and extension of north pier, &c., $2,500.


Andrew B. Ingram: How long is this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is 703 feet in length. The amount of the contract was $22,900. Previous to this there has been spent on that work $155,000.
River St. John, including tributaries, $16,000. Mr.	WILMOT.	Will the minister give
some explanation of that vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been customary to vote $16,000 for work on the St. John river. Last year $6,000 was spent, and this is a revote of $10,000 to make up the usual vote.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: There is a great necessity for work being done there in the way of dredging, in order to facilitate navigation.
The traffic is very heavy and increasing, and the public suffers a good deal of inconvenience. I would especially direct attention to Oromocto Shoals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will see that everything is done there which we have means of doing.
River St. John and tributaries-to provide for contribution to local government, not to exceed one-half the first cost of wharfs built by them in tidal waters, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the amount claimed by the provincial government under some old arrangement. The matter has been adjusted, but the Auditor General was not satisfied with the conditions on which the money was voted. This vote is asked for in order that we may pay the local government the sum due under the agreement made with them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I had some trouble about sums of money previously placed in the estimates. The provincial government had built some small wharfs and then sent us the bill, asking us to pay half the cost.
I was never able to find out what kind of an agreement had taken place in former years ; but I remember that in 1899 or 1900 I wrote to the provincial Minister of Public Works telling him that unless the plans were submitted to the department previously to building their wharfs, we would not entertain the payment of that work. New Brunswick is the only province in which this government pays for work of that kind. I do not object, but I do not think it is a very good principle. I do not see why we should be obliged to help the provincial governments in building wharfs of that kind.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister explain on what principle it is that the Dominion government in this Instance is to provide one-half the cost and the local government to provide the other half ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: And we do not own the work.


Haughton Lennox: Would the minister explain the peculiar circumstances which make it right for the Dominion government to pay one-half the cost of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An arrangement was made by the late government at the instance of the Hon. Mr. Foster, and agreed to by parliament, to vote one-half the cost of the work undertaken by the provincial government, on a certificate from the resident engineer that this work had been done at a fair price. As my hon. friend the ex-minister has explained, we took exception to this method. However, a vote of $5,000 was taken, but the Auditor General would not pay the money to New Brunswick, taking exception to the way the money was voted. This vote is asked for to carry out the obligation assumed

under that agreement. Since my hon. friend took exception to the method in which the account was rendered and the work was done, they have furnished us satisfactory evidence of the expenditure of the money on a certificate of the engineers, to the satisfaction of the department as well as of the Auditor General. We have to ask the revote of this money, and we do it in this way, so that it may be paid to the proper parties.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I really think we should not go on with such a practice. I took exception to it and the House will take exception to it with me, I am sure. X have seen these wharfs, they are very small wharfs, costing $300, $400 or $500. They are for local purposes and these works are very near to one another. I took exception to that kind of work. The record is there and it will show. I told them that in future I should not recommend to my colleagues the payment of one single dollar unless the plans of these wharfs were submitted to us. I suppose accounts that have been incurred in the past must be paid but I would suggest to my hon. friend not to allow that practice to be continued.


Mr. BROOK.: I must say that I am rather surprised with the argument made by the hon. Minister of Public Works that the practice should prevail with the present government because the Finance Minister of the government some seven years ago made certain arrangements. When so many arrangements made by the government have been completely upset why carry on this particular arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Can the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) point out any obligation of the old government that this government has not carried out ?


William Rees Brock: Yes, I think I can remember some appointments to the Senate that were made by the late government that this government upset. What about the steamship service ? There is another point. The government of the Dominion are expending large amounts of money in the various provinces and, to keep to the items in the province of New Brunswick, there is an immense expenditure in that province for wharfs. I think we should go into the building of wharfs from a business point of view. I do not suppose the government build wharfs merely for political purposes but I take it for granted they are built because the business of the country requires it and if the business requires it the expenditure should have some kind of proportion to the amount that is earned by these wharfs. They should not spend money if it costs more to collect the tolls than the tolls amount to.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In these cases we do not collect any tolls because these wharfs are not our own property. We simply con- I


Robert Franklin Sutherland: tribute the money towards these wharfs which is worse.


William Rees Brock: All the more reason why we should be careful in our expenditure of money, but even if we do get a revenue from it we should not expend $65,000 upon a wharf that probably will not bring in $500 a year of net revenue. Therefore, I contend this whole thing is wrong and I do not think anybody is more convinced of it than the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the members of the government themselves, but they keep on and the reason given by the hon. Minister of Public Works is that this was a practice commenced by Mv. Foster the late minister of finance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I never said that.


William Rees Brock: I understood the hon. minister to say that this was an arrangement made by Mr. Foster.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was speaking of this particular arrangement with the provincial government which was made on the recommendation of Mr. Foster. It was adopted by the government of that day, approved of by parliament and the government in good faith expended this money. That is the reason I am asking parliament to pay it.


William Rees Brock: This government should not consider themselves bound to carry out any bad arrangement no matter by whom it is made. This is a very immoral and unbusinesslike arangement and it should be put a stop to at once.


Hon.   S@: A stop has been put to it. I- put a stop to it myself.


William Rees Brock: Why do we find it here still V


Hon.   S@: Because the amount that is placed in the estimates is to pay an old debt. This amount, I am sure, upon investigation, it will be proved is to pay debts that have been accumulating for four years. But, Sir. Foster never made any permanent arrangement so that in the future we are perfectly free.


The SIINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is hardly fair for the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Sir. Brock) to suggest that Sir. Foster made this arrangement for political purposes. I want to be fair to my predecessor in office and to defend him against this attack made upon him from the other side of the House.


William Rees Brock: I do not think the hon. gentleman is sincere.


Sir. GIBSON.: Sir. Chairman, I do not see why the hon. gentlemen opposite should get their backs up because $3,000 is to be expended on the St. John river. The provin-

cial government have agreed to pay half of this expense, bnt I do not think they would be awfully put out if this government paid the whole of it. We have not had all the expenditure that we have asked for dredging and for wharfs in New Brunswick. I think the government should pay for some of this work and I think the hon. gentlemen opposite should be a little more lenient in their criticisms of items of this kind.


Haughton Lennox: There is another point that we want to have cleared up before we carry this item. It is a matter that arises out of what the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said. The hon. gentleman gives us to understand that this is for the payment of an old debt, that is overdue some years, that it is not for something in the future, and therefore, if that is the case, I should like to have that explicit statement from the present hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for an old debt for work already completed.
River St. John-wharf at Oromocto, $6,000.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I would like to know whether that work will be proceeded with at once '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is the intention of the department to proceed with this work at once. Tenders have been advertised for and the work will be commenced at once.
St. John harbour-Negro Point breakwater, $20,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the explanation of this V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote of $20,000 is to make good serious damage done to Negro Point breakwater ky storms, chiefly those of the 9th and 10th of November, 1900, the object being to save the lighthouse at the outer end of the breakwater which will certainly be destroyed if no steps are taken to rebuild its foundations in a more permanent manner with large blocks of granite and concrete. I may say to the Committee that I had an important deputation from the city of St. John making representations in reference to this breakwater. It seems from the representations of the leading citizens of that city that the harbour is almost useless without this breakwater and they are urging the expenditure of a very large sum for the purpose of extending it. There is some difference of opinion between the engineers as to how best to go on with this work. The total expenditure upon this breakwater up to the 30th of June last was $601,173. It is situated in a very bad place and the storms wash away the wood work frame. The work we are doing now is to
maintain the wharf and to protect the light house; it is of concrete and granite and will bo more durable.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will this expenditure prevent the wharf from being washed away 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Judging by the discussion I have had with the engineers and the deputation which waited on me, I am afraid I cannot guarantee that. The whole thing is a big work and will have to be considered most carefully.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did the deputation suggest any kind of work that would be permanent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was left an open question. They wanted the engineers to have a consultation and I have asked for a report.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is it proposed to replace all the wood with concrete ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report in the department shows that it would cost at least $200,000 for a revetment of concrete to protect this work in a permanent way. It is estimated that it would cost $500,000 to carry out the work asked by the deputation which was to carry the breakwater clear across to Partridge Island. Some of the shipping people have taken objection to that and the matter will have to be gone into more carefully and a report made before I will recommend it to the House. This is for the maintenance of the existing work.


James Clancy: Is it to be done by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be Impossible to do this work in any other way than day labour.


James Clancy: It seems to me that this concrete work is usually done under contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is repairing work and I do not think it would be possible for any engineer to make an estimate or specification. It is done under the direct supervision of Mr. Shewen, the engineer who has his headquarters in St. John. We would rather do it by contract if we could, because the present system takes up the time of our engineer and gives the department a great deal of trouble.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Do I understand that the minister is considering the advisability of closing up the western channel and extending the breakwater.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has been suggested.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: What will be the total cost of that work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I Nearly $500,000.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: I know that a great many people in St. John are in favour of that being done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And a great many objections are taken to it also.
St. John harbour-repairs and extension of protection work at base of Fort Dufferin, $3,500.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Last year the Minister of Public Works told us that a large dredge would this year be in operation in the harbour of St. John. There is now a great deal of difficulty experienced at the entrance of the harbour near the Beacon. Several delegations have awaited on the government urging the necessity of this work. What has become of the dredge that was promised ? Will it be at work this spring ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was in good faith when he expected this dredge to be ready, but I cannot give any promise at the present time much as I regret it, seeing that there is such pressing work to be done. The dredge will not certainly be ready this season but we will take steps to have it completed as soon as possible.


Robert Duncan Wilmot: Now that St. John harbour is becoming one of the great winter ports of the Dominion, it is urgent that that work should be done as soon as possible. Has the minister's attention been directed to dredging Grimross Canal, St. John river? This is an important work, and would not entail any great cost. I would strongly urge this work being carried out.
Shippegan harbour-repairs to protection work, &c., $1,100.


James Clancy: Was the money voted for this last year expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to make provision in connection with a wharf 990 feet long reaching a depth of 31 feet 4 inches at low water. It is being built under contract. The amount of the contract is $12,000 and the total estimated cost $14,350. This will complete the work.


James Clancy: Is there a large amount of shipping at this place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a very important fishing centre in Gloucester county, New Brunswick.


James Clancy: Do anything but small boats go there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Boats of 14 and 15 tons.


James Clancy: I understood the minister to say that the depth of water was 14 feet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The depth of water there is not necessary Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
for the shipping, but the work being done in deep water it makes it more expensive.


James Clancy: Why has the hon. gentleman provided for a class of ships that do not go there ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: At this very wharf large ships have been coming since last fall, as well as a number of fishing boats. There are from $5,000 or $6,000 paid in bounties to fishermen in that locality, and there are large business firms curing and bringing fish and bringing ships from the ocean to carry out the products of the fishermen. Last fall, during the month of October, three large ships came there to load fish to take away to the European markets. These ships generally come late in the season.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. gentleman's observation throws some light on the subject. One of the reasons he gives is rather novel, that is, that a large sum is paid out in fishing bounties. I was not aware before that it was necessary to build wharfs to pay out these fishing bounties. I thought that as soon as the bounties were earned, there would be no difficulty in finding the earners of them.
* Mr. TURGEON. The large amount of the fishing bounties paid in the locality is an evidence of the large extent of the fishing industry there.


Andrew B. Ingram: How far is Shippegan harbour from Shippegan wharf ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: About five miles. Shippegan harbour, or Shippegan gully connects the Gulf of St. Lawrence with the Baie des Chaleurs. A few years ago Shippegan harbour, by the special works which have been carried on, was dredged to a sufficient depth to enable the Caraquet fleet, consisting of some 200 or 300 vessels, going to the fishing banks, to pass that way, instead of going around Mascou Island, and thus to save some fifty miles. This is a great saving of time and hardship to our fishermen in carrying on their most patriotic industry, and the amount of money spent is nothing compared with the advantage it confers. I think this parliament never votes any money of greater public advantage than the money voted for the improvement of our coasts in the maritime provinces.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did I understand the minister to say that the contract for this wopk is $13,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract price is $12,000. The total cost of the work is estimated to be $14,350, the sum over the contract being for superintendence and contingencies.
Upper Salmon river-Alma pier, $4,000 .


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract. The total cost is $5,750. We only expect to pay out during

the present fiscal year $1,750, so we are asking a revote of $4,000. The contract was let on the 6th August, 1902.
Harbours and rivers. Maritime provinces generally-generally repairs and improvements, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that the usual vote of $15,000 for the maritime provinces is too small as it has obliged men to go without pay and accounts to be carried over to the next year. I think it is better to ask for the amount really required, and for that reason I ask that the vote be increased by $5,000.


James Clancy: What class of work is intended to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for emergency repairs on the report of the engineers, caused principally by damage from storms-unforeseen accidents of one kind and another, which my bon. friend will know are very general in those waters.
Harbours and rivers, Ontario-Amherstburg- dredging, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote, for the same reason that exists in some other cases, that we had no available dredge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where is this dredging done ?	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has not been done because we had no dredge to do the work. This year we hope to have a dredge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where in the Detroit river do you propose to do the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From the main channel into the wharf at Amherstburg.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And it is a work of great importance.


James Clancy: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that this is a revote, because the department has not been able to get a dredge to do the work. But there is a very good dredge which could be had and which did work last year and the year before for the Department of Public Works. The Chatham Dredging Company have a dredge which did good work at the mouth of the Thames and also at Rondeau harbour, and I think there is little doubt that it can perform the work satisfactorily. And the company are prepared to do it cheaper than the department can have it done for by its own dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pleased to have that information. We will have the matter inquired into and ascertain whether the dredge which the hon. gentleman refers to is capable of doing the work.


James Clancy: This same dredging company did work very satisfactorily at Rondeau and at the mouth of the Thames.
I appeal to the ex-Minister of Public Works whether that was not the case.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No doubt the dredge referred to did good work, but I am not quite sure that it would be capable of doing the work at Amherstburg. I think that the bottom there is very hard. The American government are carrying out large dredging work in the river just opposite Amherstburg. I may say that Amherstburg has lost a very important coal trade because the depth of the water is not sufficient, and I would urge upon my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works the great importance of having this dredging done. There are American dredges available, but when the government employ American dredges reproaches are levelled against it. I think, however, that when a work is urgent we would be justified in employing foreign dredges and admitting them in bond. Of course the work to be carried out at Amherstburg would cost a larger amount of money than the $5,000 in the estimates. I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to give his special attention to this Amherstburg work. I have visited the place and know the facts well.


James Clancy: I would like the Minister of Public Works, in view of what the exMinister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has said, whether he has a report of the engineer as to the character of the soil or the material to be removed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS..: Clay, hard-pan, boulders and rock. This work my hon. friend says will cost $25,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think that $14,000 or $15,000 would dredge the channel along the wharfs and be sufficient for the needs of the moment, but to complete the work and make it a good job, it would be necessary to spend $2o,000 to $30,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has anything been done to remove the boulders spoken of last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.
Barrie, Ont.-construction of wharf, $3,000.


Haughton Lennox: This is an item which has been in the estimates for a number of years. I am not going at all to discuss the policy, but I wish to call the hon. minister's attention to this fact. The town of Barrie is not in the riding I represent, and I see that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is not present, but I have what appears to me good and sufficient reasons for calling not only the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works, but incidentally the attention of the ex-Minister of Public Works to this item. About a year ago there



was a good deal of correspondence between the mayor of tbe town of Barrie and the hon. member for North Simcoe on this question. I do not mean to say that many letters passed between them, but such letters as did pass and were published in the press were long and moderately warm, and the position was this. Each one was blaming the other for the delay that had occurred. I think I am entitled to rise to a question of privilege upon this matter, because I was dragged into it also. In my innocence of parliamentary procedure, having an office in the town of Barrie and having been a ratepayer in the north riding of Simcoe for many years, and having been asked frequently by a number of residents in the town, with reference to this wharf, I ventured to write to the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) asking him to have it built in the near future. In that hot and fiery correspondence which passed between the mayor of Barrie and the hon. member for North Simcoe, I noticed that the hon. gentleman considered that I should not have taken the course I did of asking when we might expect this wharf to be built. But I consider it my duty to say now, in the absence of the hon. member for North Simcoe, to the Minister of Public Works that I think it is certainly time, if that work is to be done at all, that it should be carried through. A difficulty appears to have arisen as to the point at which the wharf should be constructed-whether at Bayfield street, or at the foot of Metcalfe street. Whether that be the only difficulty or not, I do not know, but it was also suggested that there is a difficulty about the title to the land. I know as a matter of fact that the council of the town of Barrie wrote the department saying they were ready to vest the title in the government if it was not already vested. And I can say, speaking from current report in the town of Barrie, that the almost uni-1 versal feeling in the town is that the wharf should be constructed at the foot of Bayfield street. That is not the unanimous
at the foot of Bayfield street to the Crown. When that is done, the wharf will be built without delay.
air. LENNOX. Does the hon. minister understand that that has not been done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am so informed.
air. LENNOX. I certainly understood from the mayor of Barrie and also from what I heard some months ago, that that transfer had been made. At all events, it is understood by the department is it not, that they are quite ready to make the transfer ?
The ailNISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I understood that a resolution of the council had been passed. But I stated some time ago that the principle on which I wished to proceed is that we must have the title of the land before we start spending the money. We will start to-morrow if they will confer the title.
Bayfield-extension of southern pier, $5,000.


James Clancy: Why has not that work been done ? There is a revote here of $1,-COO. What condition is the work in, that it has not been gone on with ? This is not dredging, is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the cribbing is completed, but the superstructure is not yet completed. The total contract is for $6,440. This vote is expected to complete the work.


James Clancy: Is there much business done at that wharf or is this one of the skeletons that we are keeping alive ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The work is nearly completed.


James Clancy: But it will be pretty near dead before it is completed, will it not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Which ?
opinion. But the current of opinion is very strong in that direction. This is borne out by several resolutions that have been carried in the town council. I am not sure whether resolutions have been carried in the board of trade. Copies of the resolutions, I understand, have been sent to the department. So without at all receding from the position I have taken with regard to these local public works. I submit to the government, that, if this work is going to be carried out at all, it should not be left until another general election. I believe it figured in the last general election, and I do not know whether it figured in the one before that or not. But. if it is going to be carried out, it should be carried out now.


James Clancy: The wharf and the business.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) committed himself to the vote one or two sessions ago. That was the time to criticise.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the department any idea of doing dredging there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not provided for in this vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no boat of any depth that could pass there-not even a fishing boat. This is another case of resurrecting works for which there is no real demand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: The difficulty in carrying out this work, so far as I know, is that we are waiting for the municipality to transfer the property Mr. LENNOX.


James Clancy: Has there been a report as to the work on this pier not being completed without dredging being done ? Has the hon. minister some comprehensive plan

with regard to the harbour to justify the expenditure of this money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBEIC WORKS.: The work is under contract and is nearly completed. I did not go into the details myself personally, and the matter was in this state when I entered the department.


James Clancy: Has there not been a report as to the depth of the water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There ought to have been at the time it was asked for. The officers of the department inform me that they have a full report and surveys.


James Clancy: What would be the cost of dredging to make the pier more valuable ? There is no use in building the pier, unless there is water to enable the vessels to come in.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot understand the object of building a wharf where there are no vessels. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of the matter. But I shall be pleased to bring down the report regarding it, made before the work was undertaken.


James Clancy: The opinion I have is that this money is being expended on a pier on which there is not water for even a small draught vessel to get in. And, even if the work is completed, no captain would think of bringing a vessel there. If that be true, surely the hon. minister is not warranted in asking this House to spend a single dollar until some solution of that difficulty has been found.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The money has been spent. And I see by the report that the work is going on in sixteen feet of water. So, thefe appears to be some mistake in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clancy's) information. I speak on the information before me. Parliament voted this appropriation, and the work is under contract and almost completed.


Andrew B. Ingram: That sixteen feet was when the original pier was being built.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the present work. Of course, I will not undertake to say that there is sixteen feet of water there.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I have left the Chair, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Campbell) to give information in this matter. I do not live In this riding, but in the next. But I know Bayfield as well as I know my own home. Some years ago there were very good wharfs there, but, unfortunately a storm carried most of them away. A few years ago, Mr. McMillan, who represented the riding, urged upon the government to build a wharf. This is quite a fishing centre of Lake Huron. Owing to the storms the opening was filled up with a sand bar; and this pier was com-38i
menced two or three years ago and partly constructed, and sunk to about fourteen feet of water. When this is completed the dredging of the sand bar which now prevents the fishing boats from coming in will make it possible for fishermen to reach the dock. I think it is a work very much in the interest of the fishermen. Sometimes a schooner comes in but hardly any large vessels come in there. This is quite a fishing centre, but, if the fishermen have no place to shelter their boats in a storm, it would be impossible to carry on that industry.


James Clancy: Then, according to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Deputy Speaker's) statement, we have a pier intended for the fishermen, yet the fishermen cannot get at it until the bar is dredged. But there is no money for dredging purposes.


Peter Macdonald: I understood the minister to say that the dredging would take place as soon as the wharf was finished.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I was not asked that. However, we have a general dredging appropriation, and now that the pier is there the dredging can be done.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. minister is going to build wharfs and do dredging for the fishermen of Bayfield, I can draw his attention to Port Bruce which is quite as important. We have just as many fishermen at Port Bruce as they have, and I question if we have not more, and the revenue is probably larger.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is always calm weather at Port Bruce.


James Clancy: We all know that a good many works of this kind were commenced under very different conditions from those which prevail now, at a time when there was a considerable shipping business at these points. We must recognize that many of those works have fallen into disuse, and 1 think no more money should be spent on them. I acknowledge that both parties have offended in that respect. But this is a notable case, and I appeal to the hon. gentleman whether we should enter upon a course of that kind in view of the increasing demands from all quarters of Canada for public works far more necessary. It is a question whether we should spend any more money in keeping up breakwaters and docks that were built many years ago, when the original need of constructing those works has entirely ceased to exist. Of course there will always be a pressure to keep them up, and there will always be these recurring accidents of the harbours filling up with sand, and small fishing vessels may still require to come into those harbours. But I submit that we have reached the period when we might consider on both sides of the House whether it is

wise in tlie interest of the country, to continue to build works of that sort. I suppose the hon. gentleman will be prepared to tell the House what it will take to dredge out that pier and make it of some use. What sum will be required in addition to the sum already spent in the construction of this pier ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will ask for a report in regard to the dredging of the river.


James Clancy: Had not the hon. gentleman better let this stand ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Wliat is the use of allowing' it to stand ? When you make an appropriation and enter into a solemn contract with a man, and he has done the work, you must pay him for It.


James Clancy: It would be better to pay him incidental damages then to commit the country to finish that work and the additional work that will be necessary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The incidental damages would be a good deal more than the $16,000 that we are now asking to complete.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood last year that the object of spending this money was to extend the pier so as to accommodate the fishermen, and that the dredging would not be necessary.
Belle Rivi6re-repairs to sheet piling, $1,400.


Robert Laird Borden: How far do you intend to go V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let us finish this vote for Ontario.


Mr. CLARKE.: We will establish a bad rule if we sit later than eleven o'clock.


James Clancy: I think we have made very good progress. It would be unreasonable to expect these items to pass without some information in regard to them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I desire to furnish all the information it is possible to get. The next vote is a vote which is under contract; the total amount is $9,310.75. This is simply a balance.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the necessity for Belle Rivi6reY


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think last session a full explanation was given of the necessity for this work. It is a very serviceable work. The contract has been let and the work is nearly completed.


James Clancy: We can scarcely be ex-Ijected to carry in our minds just what was said last year. No doubt the hon. gentleman satisfied the House last year that the work was justifiable; but he is asking for an additional sum this year for this work.


James Clancy: It may be entirely meritorious. But the hon. gentleman should be patient and give the information that he is asked for, instead of saying:	Well, the vote was taken last
year, and that should be an end to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 never said that. I did say that an appropriation was made by parliament, that a contract had been entered into, and the work was almost completed, and under those circumstances we were unable now as a parliament to go back on that work. There may be a difference of opinion as to the expediency of undertaking this work in the beginning, but after the work is done it must be paid for. Of course the Committee is entitled to all the information, and 1 am ready to supply all the information at hand.


Andrew B. Ingram: We are not complaining of the courtesy of the hon. gentleman n1 all. But last session several of these items passed without any discussion or question, the Committee, so to speak, gulped a lo1 of these items down without any explanation, but I do not think that we ought to dc so at this stage of the present session. We ought to get information about this Belle Rivi6re business, I think we are quite within our rights in asking for more information about it.


George Taylor: Blind river.


Andrew B. Ingram: Bell river.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS No, Blind river.


Andrew B. Ingram: I must confess that I dc not know whether there is very much ne cessity for doing this work or not.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS It is Blind river.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We dc not want to be responsible for leading hon gentlemen on the' other side of the House astray by late hours, and therefore I move that the Committee rise, report progress anc ask leave to sit again.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Wednesday, April 8, 1903.