1903-05-01

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) respecting the St. Mary's River Railway Company-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 140) to incorporate the Cardiff Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 142) respecting the Elgin and Havelock Railway Company.-Mr. Fowler.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the government, and particularly the hon. Minister of Public Works, to the following item contained in the newspaper 'Le Soleil ' of the city of Quebec :



TRAVAUX IMPORTANTS DANS LE PORT DE QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
M. Etienne Dussault repoit le contrat pour la construction de nouveaux quais.
$200,000 seront depensfis cet ete.
Le public de QuSbec non seulement de la ville mais de toutes les rSgions apprendra avec plai-sir que M. Etienne Dussault, le grand entrepreneur de Lvis, a regu un telegramme, ce matin, du gouvernement, l'informant que le contrat lui 6tait accords pour les amSliorations projetees dans le port.
II recevra $200,000 pour construire de nouveaux quais dans le port durant le cours de 1'StS.
Ordre lui est donnS de commencer incessam-ment les travaux.
C'est une manne pour nos ouvriers. II n'y en aura pas un seul sans ouvrage d'ici k long-temps.
I will translate it for the information of the hon. gentleman :
The public of Quebec, and not only of Quebec, but all this region, will learn with pleasure that H. M. Dussault, the great contractor of Ldvis, received this morning a telegram from the government informing him that the contract had been awarded him for the projected improvements in the port. He will receive $200,000 for putting in new wharfs in this port during this summer. He has received an order from the government enjoining him to proceed with the works without delay.
I would ask the minister if this item is correct, if the contract has been granted, and, if so, were tenders called for ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: If the article which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) has read refers to the extension of the pier or wharf at Quebec, I may say that tenders were advertised for and quite a number were received. If I remember well, the name the hon. gentleman has read was one of those in the firm-Dussault & Lemieux- who were the lowest tenderers. I have no further information at the moment, but I have no doubt that the contract was awarded to them in the regular way. They may have been notified by this time of the contract being awarded to them. The commissioners have waited on myself and the officers of the department several times, and they and other representatives of Quebec have urged that this work was necessary. We have taken every means to facilitate it, and intend to get it done as quickly as possible, so that the public may have the benefit of it during the coming season.



DISASTER AT FRANK.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I would ask the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has received any further word with regard to the disaster at Frank. Now that the accredited officials of the government are on the ground, no doubt the government is aware of the actual extent of the disaster, both as to loss of life and loss of property ; and I think it would be satisfactory to every one to have whatever information the government may possess made public.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may inform my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) that we have received

further information from our officials on the spot, but I am sorry to say that that information is not exact. It is sufficient, however, to show that the damage is of an extensive character. They are proceeding with the excavation, but are not yet able to reporte exactly the damage done. I have two telegrams from Mr. Pearce. One of them is very long, and I need not read it all, as the information it contains is mainly covered by the other. The other telegram is as follows :
Frank, N.W.T., April 30, 1903.


Jas.   A.@: Smart,
Deputy Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa, Ont.
No Welshmen killed. Reported death of Welshmen incorrect. Canadian-American has all works excepting probably tunnel destroyed. All their machinery installed and new machinery not yet in place, tipple power house, stables with horses, Are houses and all works totally wiped out by rockslide. Whether tunnel 6,000 feet in length will be available for future operations remains to be seen, only damage to other mines being Lille Collieries, French Company, of Grassy Mountain, having one and one-half miles of railway knocked off. Space and site of same covered with rock to average depth of sixty feet.
(Sgd)	WM. PEARCE.
As I have said, it will not be necessary to read the other telegram, which is very long, but I can give some parts of it which may be material.
The following is probably more nearly a correct estimate of loss than any yet : Thirty-four men eight women, twenty children, killed; eleven injured, probably only two or three dangerously, have good attendance. Only two killed in or near mine. Ten dead recovered, remainder nearly all buried under many feet of rock, possibly a few near edge of slide may be recovered. Killed, miners, twenty-one, balance ranchers, merchants, liverymen, engineers, railway contractors, labourers. Six cottages totally destroyed by rock, swept away like feathers and broken into match wood. One partially ruined.
1 en habitations of ranchers and others outside Frank destroyed. All machinery installed and large amount of new machinery near tunnel mouth totally destroyed. Tipple scales, engine-house and all other plant destroyed. Uncertain whether or not tunnel materially injured, probably not.


Frank Oliver: Is It possible to give a list of those who have been killed ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no doubt it will be forwarded as soon as possible. So far I have received the name of one man only.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 13) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act-The Minister of Justice.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon Charles Fitzpatrick).: This Bill was under consideration some time ago, and the leader


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: of the opposition then suggested an amendment to the effect that when the application was made for a change in the place where the trial was to be held, the application, should be supported by affidavit. I have considered the suggestion, and now move to add, after the word ' or ' in the third line of the first subsection, the following words :
' Upon cause shown, supported by affidavit.'
Section as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed.



MILITIA PENSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 78) to amend the Militia Pension Act of 1901-The Minister of Militia and Defence.
The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Sir P. W. Borden).: When the House was in committee recently on this Bill, I endeavoured to explain the object of the Bill, and I discovered that the language of tlie proposed Bill did not correctly express my intentions. The committee rose and reported progress. Since then I have had the Bill redrafted, and it will now read as follows :
Section 3 of the Militia Pension Act, 1901, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :-
7. Time served in the civil service as constituted for the purpose of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which would be reckoned in computing his period of service for the purposes of that Act, may also be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this Act and in such case the yearly deduction to be made under said subsection 2 of section 5 shall be reduced by the average yearly deduction from his salary as an officer, clerk or employee in the civil service under and for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act or any amendment thereof.
The Bill simply provides that a civil servant who afterwards becomes an officer of the permanent force, or of the headquarters staff, and who has contributed to the civil service superannuation fund, shall get the benefit of the amount of his contribution if a pension is granted to him as an officer under the Militia Pension Act. That is the object of the Bill, and I believe that it is sufficiently met by the language of the proposed new clause.


Mr. SPROULE.: Do you propose to give a pension and superannuation both ?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Only one.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: I suppose the payment into the civil service fund is just the same as the deduction from his pay would be as a military man for the same time ?


Tiie MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Just the same.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.



MAT 1, 1903 CHINESE IMMIGRATION.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) respecting and restricting Cliinese immigration (The Prime Minister), was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: This section is exactly the same as in the existing law. I will indicate the sections in which there are alterations.
On section 5,


John Graham Haggart: Has the Prime Minister any objections to let this Bill_ stand ? We have not had an opportunity' of looking at it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public Works-Quebec, harbours and rivers- general repairs and improvements, $20,000.
["Perhaps this is why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrCfontaine) made the announcement in Maisonneuve. The newspapers in Montreal at that time described him as a prospective candidate for the portfolio of Public Works and not of Marine and Fisheries, and he felt that his importance would vanish if he did not get some of the public works to administer. He was referred to in no very complimentary terms by the Montreal ' Witness,' that great Liberal exponent in the province of Quebec, which is widely read in Ontario and throughout the Dominion. I have not under my hand any of the statements that were made by the Montreal 'Witness,' but they are matters of public notoriety, and I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on being so vigorous a fighter that he lias been able to break down all the opposition of the ' Witness' and bring himself to the front. When it was found that the hon. gentleman's nose was to come under the wire, so to speak, another opponent arose in the person of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and perhaps that may be another reason why the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here. It may be that he has gone away in order to cover up his disappointment and discomfiture at having to sit in the cabinet with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is well known that the Minister of Agriculture is one of the largest stock holders in the Montreal ' Herald ' company ; that is common report, and he has never denied it. It goes without saying that the Prime Minister must have a heavy task on his hands in reconciling these two warring elements in the cabinet. The Minister of Agriculture poses before the public as an exemplar of all that is good and proper, and yet through the col-ums of his own journal he assails the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the strongest terms. But the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to be congratulated on the fact that he prevailed on the Prime Minister to accept him despite all the violent attacks that had been made upon him by the journal owned and controlled to a great extent by the Minister of Agriculture. Reflections were made upon the hon. gentleman not only as a parliamentarian or as an old member of the House; but he was assailed by the Montreal ' Herald ' in terms so strong that I think he had fair ground for an action for libel against that journal. He was assailed while chief magistrate of the city of Mont-", "real as having always acted for his own private interest instead of for the interest of the city. And this is such a wonderful cabinet, that its members can war against each other outside, and can placard each other in this way before the world, and yet be bound together in happy union by the cement of salary. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a bonny fighter, and I congratulate him on having come to the front despite all these attacks. But he owes something to himself; he owes something first to his own self-respect, because he has made the statement publicly in the city of Montreal that while he was not to receive the Department of Public Works which had been assigned to the province of Quebec, I may say almost since confederation-\nAt six o'clock, Committee took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at Bight o'clock.\nCONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THiRD READINGS.\nBill (No. 30) to incorporate the Federal Oil Company.-Mr. Belcourt.\nBill (No. 40) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the International Railway Appliance Company.-Mr. Brock.\nBill (No. 56) to incorporate the Quebec, Saguenay and Gulf of St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.\nBill (No. 29) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geoff-rion.\nBill (No. 129) respecting the Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.\nBill (No. 132) to incorporate the Pere Marquette International Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan."]
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This is a general vote for repairs and improvements to harbours and rivers in Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was a request made when this item was up before that the hon. minister would furnish us with a list of the harbours owned by the government and those owned by private individuals upon which we are expending public money. Is that list ready yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have made inquiries two or three times in regard to it and I have just given instructions that further inquiry be made. We have gone into Committee of Supply sooner than I expected we would. I have telephoned over to the deputy to come and to bring among other things the list to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers. It ought to be ready to bring down now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was another request for the papers in regard to the Grande Vallee pier. I understand the hon. Minister of Public Works was to make inquiries as to whether there were any further statements or further correspondence in the department-first as to who made the application for the expenditure of this money, second as to the deed the government had of the harbour property, or any other papers.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I ordered the most careful inquiry to be made. There seems to have been no petition from the residents of that locality as I am informed by the officials that there is 71
no petition now in the department. Neither have they any record of any petition having been received. Therefore, there are no other papers to bring down. In regard to the deed, as has been stated, the land belonged to Lovell & Co.-I think the name is -and the company entered into an undertaking to give us the right of way over the property. The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice to be put in shape.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was no deed given at all then; so that what was said about there being a deed was not correct ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is an undertaking to furnish the deed which is practically the same thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has not been brought down.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it has not been brought down. It was referred to the Department of Justice to be carried out. There was a question as to whether the company had been dissolved or not. It is in the Department of Justice and it is clearly an undertaking to give us the right of way.


John Graham Haggart: Why is it that you will require $5,000 more than you asked last year for these general repairs and improvements ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have asked for an increased sum in the various provinces, because I found that for some years past there has been a deficit. There has not been sufficient money for carrying on these needed repairs throughout the country. The country is losing a great deal of money for the sake of a few dollars. Whether from storm or some other reason damage occurs to public works aud there is no money to repair it. This goes on from time to time till the whole work is seriously injured and then it costs many thousands of dollars to repair the work, whereas, if we had had $200 available at the time a great deal of expenditure afterwards would have been saved. I find from the reports of the officials that this is the case almost every year and I thought it would be better to increase the amount by a few thousand dollars, because I believe that in the end it will effect a great saving to the country.
Isle aux Cooidres-repairs to wharf, $1,800.


John Graham Haggart: Where is this and what will the work cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Charlevoix county. This money is required to make repairs to the wharf there which is reported to be in very bad condition. Horses cannot reach it at the present time owing to the condition in which it is.


John Graham Haggart: Wliat did this [DOT]svharf cost, where is Isle aux Coudres, what was the total amount expended and will this finish it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total expenditure was $17,522.


John Graham Haggart: Will this finish it?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is finished; this will repair it.
Lake St. John wharf-repairs, &c., $2,500.


John Graham Haggart: What is this for?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide for improvements and repairs to wharfs and piers on Lake St. John for which there is no special parliamentary appropriation.


John Graham Haggart: It seems an enormous sum for repairs to wharfs on a fresh water lake-$2,500 last year and $2,500 this year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are a great many works on that lake. The importance of the district is growing very much and industries are being established there. This appropriation is asked on the report of the local engineer of the department.


John Graham Haggart: Upon what principle do you give money for wharfs on lakes ? Any person might have a wharf on Lake Ontario or Lake Erie just as well as on Lake St. John.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This money is only expended on government works, not upon private wharfs. It is perfectly true, as discussion has shown during this session, that there are a number of wharfs in this country upon which public money has been spent for many years that are really owned by private individuals, or corporations. That does not apply in this case at all. These are works that were built by the Dominion, they are owned by the Dominion and must be maintained by the Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you erect public wharfs on a small lake like Lake St. John ?


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word upon this point. These wharfs were begun when I was in office. The Lake St. John district is One of the most important parts of this country now and lam only sorry that more attention has not been given to it in the past. I certainly think that more money should be voted for immigration purposes for that part of the country. It has been neglected in the past by the government. I take this opportunity of ventilating the very large grievance that I tried to have redressed in the past. This government has neglected that part of the country so far as immigra-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
tion is concerned. Now, I want my hon. friends on both sides of the House to understand the question thoroughly. This is one of the most important and one of the most fertile districts in the country. There has been a large immigration promoted by a colonization company which has been working without having help of anybody. They had received about $3,000 a year from this government and that is all. We are building wharfs in Manitoba, and in the maritime provinces to help trade and settlement, and these wharfs are being built for the same purposes in that district. The Lake St. John district is one of the most fertile parts of Canada, and I take this opportunity of urging on parliament the necessity of giving more attention to that part of Quebec, and to other parts of that province also. It is well to settle the west, and I for one am always ready to vote all the money that is legitimately required for the development of the west, but there are other parts of Canada that ought not be neglected.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Lake St. John is a very large lake. The government is dredging the mouth of the river to allow settlers to get in, and these wharfs which are around the lake are comparatively small, costing in the neighbourhood of only $1,000 each.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I have here the report of the Colonization Society to which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) refers and I see that they have been greatly helped by the Department of the Interior during the last year. In 1901 they brought in 2,108 settlers, and last year 2,891, an increase of 783 over the previous year. I fully concur In the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that this district should be well looked after by this government.


John Graham Haggart: How many wharfs are there on Lake St. John ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are six or seven.


John Graham Haggart: I have been down in that section of the country and I agree with the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) as to the fertile district that is being opened Up, and I would be glad to see done all necessary work for the purpose of developing that section. But when we were on that side of the House we were always asked by the Liberals, on what principle we made expenditures on wharfs in inland waters. We abandoned the principle altogether of building wharfs which were merely local in their utility. We know that from one end of the St. Lawrence to the other, along the great lakes and up as far as Port Arthur, there are some expenditures for harbours, but I am not aware of any expenditures for wharfs. On what principle is the minister going here ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know any principle except that it is for the general development of trade and commerce. What has been said with regard to this district is perfectly true. Lake St. John is at the head of a very important system of communication by water and railways. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is somewhat mistaken when he says that the Conservative government abandoned this principle, because these very works on Lake St. John were vigorously commenced in 1894 for the development of that part of the country. We are all pleased to know that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) can speak from personal knowledge of the resources of the Lake St. John region. It is not only becoming a first-class agricultural district, but large and important mills are being established there. The principle, so far as I know that would apply to this is, that it affords accommodation for shipping the produce of the farmers and the manufacturers of that district.


Mr. GIRARD.: Perhaps I could give some explanation as to the principle which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) refers to. If I remember well, the last budget which was submitted to this House by the Tory government, had included in it many items for the ljuilding of these wharfs. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who was a member of the then government probably knows more about the principle on which these items were based than I do. The principle pursued by the present government is probably the same principle that guided the late Conservative government. I may say that the local government has built a special boat for the navigation of Lake St. .John to help on colonization, but the local government has nothing to do with the building or amelioration of wharfs in these inland waters, and that is probably why the federal government came to the help of the local government in order to contribute its share to the development of colonization in that district. I hope that this explanation will be satisfactory to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be able to give us the principle upon which these expenditures are made. I remember that when I was in the government I was hauled over the coals for stating in the House that in a country where we made large expenditures for the building of canals and the Canadian Pacific Railway, particular sections of the country which were only very indirectly benefited by that expenditure required some balancing compensation as it were, from the Dominion treasury, and that small works which might be of importance only to a particular community had a right to a certain amount of consideration. However, I think that the time has passed for that. The Conservative government was of opinion that it had juris-71i
diction over these inland waters, but by the decision of the Privy Council the control over them is now relegated to the different provinces. I think we should now call a halt In the expenditure of large sums of money on works which are of parochial or municipal or at most, of provincial importance. Our expenditures in the future should be on works for the benefit of the Dominion at large. We should confine ourselves solely to expenditures of that class.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No more Tay canals, for instance.


John Graham Haggart: That was a work like the rendering navigable of the Napanee river, both leading to alleged mills, one owned by me, and one owned by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, but I had to pay for the work.
Lake Temiscamingue, improvements, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay for operating a dredging plant during the season of 1903-4.


Mr. INGRAM.: Is this to purchase the dredging plant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The dredge was built by the Depart-inent of Public Works, and this vote is for the maintenance and carrying on of the work.


Andrew B. Ingram: What amount of work has been done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No work has been done. The dredge has just been finished, and we are to put it in operation for the first time this year.


Mr. POPE.: Is this dredge being operated by contract or by day work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is owned by the department, and is being operated by the department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the minister know at what part of the lake *that dredging is going to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs, me that he has reported in favour of starting at Vilie Marie on the east side, and working around the public works. The next place of operation will be at the bar or delta formed by the River Blanche at the head of the lake.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I made a tour of inspection on Lake Temiscamingue last year. A good deal of attention has been paid to that part of the country, and I had very nearly come to the conclusion that it would be wise to dam the lake. My hon. friend will find, if he follows his wofk with care, as I am sure he will, that although a dredge

will be a useful implement there for small work, it will not answer all the purposes of the improvements that are required. During the fall months the water is very shallow, so shallow that the steamers which ply on the lake are obliged to anchor in the middle of the stream ten or twelve acres from the shore. The dredging which my hon. friend will carry on cannot remedy that state of affairs; no dredging will remedy it. It would not cost a large amount of money to dam the outlet of the lake, and this would afford a uniform depth of water at all seasons of the year. The Lake Temiscamingue district is one of the most important sections of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and by damming the outlet of the lake, the government would serve both provinces. There are very large settlements in both provinces, especially in the province of Ontario. The Blanche river district is being settled in a splendid way. It is one of the finest parts of this country. There are no better colonization lands than those around Lake Temiscamingue. They are very easy to settle and to clear, and the only trouble is that there is no depth of water in the lake iii the fall of the year, when it is necessary to have communication. I hope my hon. friend will kindly take note of my remarks. I have been on the spot myself on two occasions, the last time being last fall. I have given a great deal of attention to the question of the improvements to be carried out there, and I think my hon. friend will find in the department reports which he can use for his guidance. Although the small dredge that has been built will be useful for opening the mouths of the rivers and removing sand bars, it will not answer the purposes we should try to accomplish in view of the large settlements that are going into that part of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What depth of water will you get after the dredging is done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ten feet. I may say that this vote is for carrying out the policy of the department in regard to the dredging. With regard to the work vfhich my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has referred to, I certainly will give it my serious consideration, and look into the reports.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has there been any report made with regard to the construction of this dam ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I understand that there is a report in the department and that the view of the engineer is that this work will be beneficial to the district. I will ask for a report on the cost of the work between now and next session.


Rufus Henry Pope: Do you not think it would be wiser, if you are going to deepen the water by the construction of a dam, that you should proceed, first with the necessary Hon. Mr. TARTE.
work, which will give a greater depth of water and avoid the necessity of dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may be that the best policy would have been to have built the dam first. However, the other policy has been adopted, and even if the dam were built, considerable dredging would be required at places where shipping is done and at the mouths of the rivers. This dredge has been built for that district, and I believe will be of good service.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it the intention of the department to build the dam as well as to do the dredging ?


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


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may say that the information which I have had from a friend who was in that district last year is just in accord with what the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works says, that even if you do the dredging, the boats will not be able in the fall of the year to get near the wharfs. There is another question involved in the proposal to dam. What land would be submerged ? I am told that a great deal of valuable land would be submerged that otherwise would be useful for agricultural purposes. That would have to be taken into consideration also.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When I ask for a report on the cost of the work it will be necessary to ascertain what overflowing of that kind it would cause.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would like to ask the hon. minister what has been the development in that section-its quantity, volume and character ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am unable to give any particulars of the trade carried out in that district, but there is a considerable amount of trade done there.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the size of the lake ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Several hundred miles- an interior sea.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has the vote of last year been expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Laprairie-Ice piers and protection walls, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to be applied towards the completing of a section of crib work in connection with the retaining walls built in 1877-8. This is a breakwater and cribwork.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is the money spent on the report of the engineer of the department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it to lengthen the protection wall built in years gone by ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is only for repairs to the present work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has there been any accident caused by the ice ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the tota' amount expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Something like over $8,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is that to he built in concrete or in what ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is intended for repairs to the cribwork.
Mr. POrE. Is that all protection to crib-work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is all cribwork.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are we to have this expenditure each year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It appears so, judging by the experience of a great many years.


Rufus Henry Pope: I should recommend putting up something stronger, and avoiding that yearly expenditure.
Le Tableau-descente des femmes-Wharf on River Saguenay, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the work begun by day labour.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who is in charge of the work now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. J. C. Taehe.


John Graham Haggart: Why did you not let it by contract ? I see that the total sum is $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My predecessor began the work by day labour, and we are continuing it in the same way.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We have often discussed that question in the House. In certain parts of the country I think it is well to carry out the work by day labour. Provided you get good foremen it is all right, but otherwise there is trouble ahead. That work was begun by day labour, and has to be completed in the same way. In Mr. TacliS you have a very careful engineer. Who is in charge of the work now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The same man as before.


John Graham Haggart: I hope that the promise of the department will be carried out, and that all expenditure over $5,000 will be let by contract. It may be that in some cases, as the ex-Minister of Public
Works says, it would be more economical to do the work by day labour, but it is not the business of the minister to go against the instructions given by parliament, which are that all work involving an expenditure of over $5,COO should be let by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said distinctly, when the matter was under discussion, that there were some cases in which it would not be advisable to call for tenders. For instance, when serious damage has been done to a public work it is very difficult to prepare specifications and let the work by tender, and it is better to trust to the judgment of our engineers and foremen as the work goes on. Under other conditions, I am in favour of carrying out the policy of calling for tenders.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When the member representing the district wants to do the fair thing and does not look first to political patronage at any cost, there would not be any great objection to have public works done by day labour, but when he yields to the pressure of unworthy people, which is often the case, and the resident engineer has not the backbone to insist on the right thing being done, it is a dangerous system indeed. After six years of close experience-because I always endeavoured to follow my work closely-I have found that when the member representing the district is an honourable and good business man and does not want to use political patronage, the system of having work done by day labour is not a bad one ; but, of course, on every occasion, the minister must be very careful to stand by the resident engineer if he has confidence in him. If he has not, let him dismiss his engineer.


Mr. FOWLER.: We had a case brought before us the other evening illustrating what has been said by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). This was a case in British Columbia. You will remember, Mr. Chairman,' that the resident engineer had appointed a person as foreman of a work, a man who had done satisfactory work under him on a previous occasion. But the employment of labourers by the foreman, it seems, was not entirely in accord with the idea of the member for the district. Consequently we find the member writing to the foreman that he would see to it that the foreman had not the opportunity of hiring or discharging men inside twenty-four hours. So he telegraphed to the Minister of Public Works, and the minister speedily dismissed the foreman.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No. If my bon. friend (Mr. Fowler) will allow me, I will explain the : matter as it happened. This foreman had been appointed without permission being i asked of the department. Mr. Keefer, the i resident engineer, had appointed him be* cause, in the previous year, the man had

done good work. I understood from a telegram sent to me that the foreman had not taken the advice of the sitting member so far as the employment of labour was concerned, and the member had complained to the resident engineer. I simply referred the complaint of the member to the resident engineer, who then dismissed the foreman, and appointed another man. That is all. I never gave any order to dismiss that man, but he was dismissed under the circumstances I have explained.


George William Fowler: The fact that the man had been employed the previous year and had given satisfaction led the resident engineer to believe that the proper thing was for him to appoint the man again. Evidently, he thought it was not necessary to make these appointments from year to year, and, as a matter of fact I suppose they are not made from year to year. It seems an unfortunate practice and I trust the Minister of Public Works will he guided by the obvious public interest in these matters.


Rufus Henry Pope: I regret that the new occupant of the position of Minister of Public Works is not willing to give us a better guarantee that, in the future, contracts will be let after tenders publicly called for. He has put in a qualification so large, so elastic, that it can cover any amount of money. In what he stated, he did not even limit himself to items of $5,000 more or less. He, has left himself quite open, if he finds any difficulty in preparing specifications, to spend the money voted by this House by day labour. Now, I have always taken strong ground against the expenditure of public money in this way : and, after having listened to the little story told us by the exminister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) I have not changed my view on the subject. I have not learned a lesson in this committee to-day that would in the slightest degree affect my opinion on the question. I still think that my judgment was absolutely sound, and that public money should be expended by public tender and in no other way. The ex-Minister of Public Works stated that if we could get a member of parliament representing the constituency who would close his eyes to the voters' list, and leave out of consideration any effect that it might have upon him when he sought re-election-in other words, if you could get a man so framed that lie would give up his chance of re-election, that is, a man from whose makeup human nature had been eliminated-it is possible that the system of day labour might be carried out. Still, the hon. gentleman intimated that, even under these circumstances. it would be a difficult task. I think that in view of the lesson thus taught us, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) might well be more explicit. In the public interest it would be well for him to say frankly that he is determined to spend money only under contract after Hon. Mr. TARTE.
tenders publicly called for. I know, as everybody knows who is doing business, that there may be inconveniences. But I agree with the hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that it would be better for us to bear those inconveniences even if they cost us something. It is better for the government of Canada, for the public life of Canada, for the reputation of Canada, and it would be far more satisfactory to the electors of Canada, to pay something if not, in order that we may be sure that the public money is being expended without injury to the public interest, and I know of no way except by public tender. I regret, therefore, that the minister, in entering upon his work as the head of this department, one of the largest spending departments of the government of Canada, has not seen fit to give us a more explicit statement. I trust that the hon. gentleman, for the sake of his reputation, and, I believe, to the great advantage and satisfaction of the country, will reconsider what he stated to us a few moments ago, and will say that he will, in the future, expend all public money by public contract. And I am sure, that, if there are any exceptions to these rules, through some unforeseen catastrophe or anything of that sort, parliament will always be prepared to stand by the minister in taking any special action that the special conditions may demand. But, outside of that, I do not think the hon. minister should assume the responsibility of any latitude whatever beyond the expenditure of public money by contract after tenders publicly called for. Not by letters written to favourites -I do not admit that the government should have any favourites in these matters. We have seen a great deal of that sort of thing since the hon. gentlemen opposite have come into power. We have known of letters written to favourites asking them to tender, and ministers speaking in this House defending such action on their part on the ground that these parties were their political friends, and declaring that when public money was to be expended they were justified in asking for tenders only from their friends. I repudiate that. Let tenders be publicly called for. and let the man who will do the work cheapest and will give the necessary guarantee that he will carry out his contract faithfully-let him and no other receive the contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) misunderstood my remark. I made the reservation I did, only so that if there was urgency which, in my judgment and in the judgment of the officers of the department, made it impossible to prepare specifications without sacrificing the public interests, I should be free to take the responsibility of ordering the work done without public tender. But I may explain that since I became Minister of Public Works no work has been done without contract after tenders pub-

licly called for. Of course, It is liard to have a theory or a law that will not work out disadvantageous^ in some cases. If we were obliged to accept the lowest tender in every case, we might be obliged to give contracts to irresponsible people, even at prices for which the officers of the department know the work could not be done. That entails great dissatisfaction and very often loss on the work. However, as long as the law exists as it is to-day, I intend to carry it out to the fullest possible extent.
Hon. Mr. HAGGAIiT. I am glad to hear the statement of the hon. Minister of Public Works, and I am sure he will carry it out.
I understand him to except only cases in which it would require a special Governor General's warrant for the expenditure, that is, cases like the breaking away of a canal bank where it is absolutely necessary that repairs should be done at once. Cases of that kind may occur to justify the government in proceeding at once, and there is provision in the statutes for an Order in Council in such cases. There is a provision that the Governor General may in cases of that kind authorize the expenditure of money. But except cases of that kind, I understand the minister to promise to this House that all expenditures over a certain amount shall be made under contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, if the lowest tenderer is found to be satisfactory and can perform the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBRIC WORKS.: There are cases where damages have occurred and specifications could not be made up until a part of the work had been torn off, which often uses up a good part of the expenditure. But, practically, I think the hon. gentlemaju agrees with me on the class of work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not know what the Auditor General thinks now. But, when I left office he had made up his mind that every piece of work would have to be let out by contract, because he claimed that he had legal advice on the point, and that the Order in Council, which was adopted ten or twelve years ago making it obligatory to call for tenders for works costing over So,000, was illegal, ultra vires, and he declined to abide by it. In point of fact, when I left office there were several works required for which he had declined to pay because he was under that impression. I would like to know how the matter stands at present. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Finance might tell me how the Auditor General views that question now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the Auditor General is behaving very well.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would like to know if the Auditor General is standing by his guns, or if he has becpme milder.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the short time I have been in office I have not done, apparently, anything wrong, because he has not censured me yet. Perhaps after I have had more experience,
I may do something contrary to law, and he will call me down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is not a clear answer. I would like to know from the hon. Minister of Finance, who follows these things closely, whether the Auditor General is still of the opinion that all work for which money has been voted has to be done by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not understand the hon. gentleman's question. The Auditor General did take that position and still holds it, and I believe he is endorsed by the opinion of the Department of Justice. It may be a question whether the House should be asked to pass legislation in regard to that matter before the session is over.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Then he wants every work, whatever it may cost, to be tendered for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He was within the law. The law had been violated for twenty years, and he determined to abide by it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, well, the violation of the law has not been as bad as they say.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear from the hon. Minister of Public Works a confirmation of my opinion as to what the law was. Some time ago I thought that the hon. Minister of Justice held a contrary view, but I am glad to hear now that he agrees with the Auditor General that all works for which the parliament of Canada lias voted a sum of money must be done by tender and contract, after open competition. I am sorry to hear from the Minister of Public Works and from the Minister of Justice that there is any intention of bringing in a Bill for the purpose of amending the law on that subject.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend does not understand the point. He himself has stated, even during the present session, that he thought the department ought to have power to expend the money without tender where the sums were less than $5,000.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, that is the Order in Council ; but the Act is strict in reference to the matter, that all sums of money which are voted by parliament for the purpose of doing any particular work must be expended by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I The hon. gentleman would not say that a

case in which the public interest required it, the department should not have the power to do what has been done for many years under that Order in Council, and to spend small sums of less than $5,000 at the discretion of the minister. I think that was the change X suggested. If the Auditor General, backed up by the Justice Department and by the action of my hon. friend when he was in the government, thought that the expenditure was ultra vires and that a former government were acting illegally, as well as the present government, then I say that it is better we should understand where we are, and if it is in the public interest, that we should ask for an amendment of the law. That is what I referred to.
Hon. Mr. ROSS, (Victoria, N.S.). I think the rule should be invariable that all new works for whatever amount should be let by tender and contract. That has been my own rule in every case, and it relieves members of parliament from being troubled. People come to them and say :	You give
this man work and he voted against you at the last election, and a lot of stuff like that. If you let out the work by tender and contract invariably, you relieve yourself from all trouble of that kind. But there are cases like repairing an old wharf where you do not know when you commence, what amount of work will actually require to be done. You may find that the covering is gone, and some of the logs have gone, and you find that you will require to expend a larger amount than you at first supposed. There are some exceptional cases of that kind where it is absolutely necessary to have the work done by day labour.


Joseph Israël Tarte: During my term of office, if I have not seen fifty members of parliament who have come to me and asked me not to award the contract to the lowest tenderer because he was a political opponent, I have not seen one. Now, I may just as well let out the truth. It is not a question of party, but it is a fact that members of parliament do not like to see public works going to their opponents, even when they are the lowest tenderers. On many occasions I have seen men who were thoroughly honest, but who were members of parliament-


Rufus Henry Pope: Human nature.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Human nature, as my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Pope) says, and he knows all about it. Of course, the lowest tender system is the only feasible one when you ask for public tenders. If you get away from that beaten road you do not know where you are at all. Human nature comes even into that.


Rufus Henry Pope: In asking for the lowest tender the guarantee of the man is a sufficient safeguard that he is a bona fide tenderer. I agree with the ex-Minister of Pub-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
lie Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and I rose to say that I am very much pleased to hear from the hon. Minister of Public Works that it is his intention, so far as it is possible, to carry out the law, and also to know that it is not his intention to have the law amended to such an extent


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, oh.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) should not laugh.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I beg your pardon.


Rufus Henry Pope: I will not do it again, but I have these serious moments in my life, and this is one of them. When I relapse into one of them I am entitled to respect and a sad reception, and I should not be laughed at. I askj for your protectin, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I right in understanding that the hon. Minister of Public Works has said that the Auditor General would allow no expenditure on public works, either repairs or original work, unless the work is let by contract ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Or purchase of any kind.


John Graham Haggart: That is the law.


The MINISTER OF PUBDIC WORKS.: I believe he says that is the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a very inconvenient law in my judgment, because there are many repairs in regard to which it would be a saving to the country if they were made by day work. I know that when you have to advertise for tenders for small repairs, there will be more money spent in advertising than would do the whole work. There is a great deal of delay as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) express that opinion. That is the position I have taken. It seems to be ridiculous and absurd to say that where a public work has been damaged to the extent of $30 or $300, and when the department has an appropriation for the purpose of repairing the damage, it cannot prevent much greater damage by spending that money under the direction of one of its engineers or other official of the department. It is held now that under the law this cannot be done. A break might occur in a public work, and perhaps two pounds of nails, if properly driven by a man, would preserve the work from great damage resulting. The Auditor General would not pay for the nails or for the day's labour required to do the work. The thing is absurd and after consideration as to what would be the best amendment to make, I have referred the question to the Department of Justice for an opinion, because this interpretation makes the department unwork-

able. It is ridiculous to say that the department cannot make an expenditure for $20 or $30 worth of work without advertising ih five or ten newspapers, costing far more than the work itself. There must be some limitation to this provision of the law. Generally speaking, I agree with my hon. friend, no matter what the defects may be, that the only way we know of is to advertise and let the work by public tender.


John Graham Haggart: What amendment do you propose to make to the Act ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have referred the matter to the Department of Justice, and I have asked them to consider it. If that is the law, we will have to have some amendment to it. I should say that an amendment on the lines the hon. gentleman spoke of would be quite sufficient ; that is, that this provision of the law should not apply to works costing less than $5,000.
L'tle d'Alma-removal of rooks, $1,500.


John Graham Haggart: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the removal of rocks at the discharge of Lake St. John, to prevent overflowing.


John Graham Haggart: Where is L'lle d'Alma 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is at the discharge of Lake St. John.


John Graham Haggart: Has it been fully decided to blast these rocks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer informs me that it has been decided to continue this work. The work has already been commenced.


John Graham Haggart: What is the cost of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work now proposed.
Lower St. Lawrence, removal of rocks, &c., $3,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC !tKS. This is for the removal of rocks and obstructions in different places along the St. Lawrence. Reports are coming in continually, so I am informed by the officers of the department, of the existence of rocks in harbours and other places.


Rufus Henry Pope: Where do these rocks come from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know ; they are brought down by the ice probably.


John Graham Haggart: Where is it that you intend to make the expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the various harbours along the River St. Lawrence, not at any particular place.


Andrew B. Ingram: This amount appears to be voted every year. Is it to be continued every year ? Is there any way of stopping it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe the experience of the engineer to be that this is a necessary vote from year to year.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Is the money expended every year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some years it is not fully expended. Last year there was only $422 expended up to the 31st of December.


Rufus Henry Pope: Where is the rest of the money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is perfectly safe in the treasury of the country, and will not be expended unless it is necessary.


John Graham Haggart: You expended $3,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was speaking of the current year. I spoke of the expenditure up to the 31st December last. There was only $2,082 spent last year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I really think the country can do very well without that vote. Of course, it is in the estimates, and I suppose it will have to go, but the department will be a great deal better off without it. During the last year or two I was very reluctant to put it in again. This is a vote that does not do much good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They will do something to earn the money.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not say that it would not be useful at times to remove rocks fof the fishermen, but we should not remove anything else but rocks. I would impress upon the hon. minister the necessity of supervising carefully the employment of that money. I had a good deal of trouble myself, and I think it is .iust as well that I should help the hon. gentleman with my experience. Let him give strict instructions to his resident engineer, and by the way, who is the resident engineer now in that part of the country ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Bertrand.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Do I understand that the engineer has been removed from his position ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. There was so much work going on in that district that Mr. Bertrand was put specially in charge, but Mr. Breen has not been removed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: \ Where is Mr. Breen located ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He has always been located at Quebec.

lion. Mr. TARTE. What district has he in charge at present ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me, the counties of Portneuf, Levis, Quebec and LotbiniSre.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has Mr. Bertrand's salary been increased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not ask the question because I make any complaint, but simply for information; he is a good employee.


Rufus Henry Pope: I thought the works on the lower St. Lawrence and the expenditure in connection with them, had been transferred to the gentleman who came from Montreal to take the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries. Under what system is this money expended now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been no change that I know of. The money is expended under the supervision of the chief engineer.


Rufus Henry Pope: Am I to understand that the crop of recks is increasing to such an extent that it is necessary to have a special engineer to take care of them. If we pav this extra man $1,800 a year out of the $3,000 voted, it will be one way of getting rid of the money that is supposed to be devoted to the rocks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is labouring under a little delusion. This is one of his serious days and we know that when he gets serious he sometimes labours under delusions. There is no new engineer appointed and no change in the organization whatever. As to the crop of rocks they seem to continue about the same from year to year, and have foT a great many years past. Obstructions form and these require to be removed, and it is only a very small incident in the work of the resident engineer to oversee the expenditure of that money.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says that the expenditure was only $2,000 last year. It would appear from the estimates that the whole $3,000 has been expended.


Tlie MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: The Auditor General's Report shows that the expenditure of last year was $2,093.22; the balance lapsed:


John Graham Haggart: Then the department intends to expend the money up to the 30th of June next. There was a vote of $3,000 last year, no revote is asked for, and the minister intends to spend that $3,000 up to the 30th of June next. This $3,000 is for next year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: This item of $3,000 has been in the estimates since confederation, and has been voted each year. Some years the amount is not spent at all, and I would be much surprised if the Auditor General's Report would show that more than five or six hundred dollars was spent last year out of this item. This money is usually spent in the counties of Rimouski, Bo'naventure, and Gasp6. The object of the vote is to remove obstructions which form in these small harbours which are utilized by the fishermen. It is a very useful vote indeed for the fishermen, because this part of the coast has no protection whatever and wheu the entrances to the rivers or creeks are blocked these obstructions are removed at a small expenditure of $100 or $200. This vote has always been spent with a great deal of caution during the last few years. I have myself refused to recommend the spending of any part of this amount whenever it was not really required.


Mr. BLAIN.: This is an item that may very well engage the attention of the minister, because the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) suggests that it should be struck out of the estimates.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not quite.


Richard Blain: We have the further explanation from the hon. gentleman from Gasp 6 (Mr. Lemieux) that he himself has refused to recommend the expenditure of this money.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When it was not necessary.


Richard Blain: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. I understood him to say that he had refused to recommend the expenditure of money. It looks as if these items were given for the support of the representatives of the people in the different counties along there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, no.


Richard Blain: I am just taking my hon. friend's own words.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You misunderstood me.


Richard Blain: Then what did the hon. gentleman say ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said that I myself had refused to recommend to the minister the spending of any money out of this vote when it was not required. I say that for a few years the money has been spent in a straightforward and honest way. It would be a sad thing indeed if the fishermen along the coasts of Rimouski, Gasp6 and Bonaven-ture were deprived of the opportunity, when the entrances to their harbours were obstructed, of having some of this money used to remove the obstructions. This is the only money that could be used for that purpose.


Joseph Israël Tarte: On many occasions, as my hon. friend knows very well, most

preposterous applications have been made to the department for the expenditure of this money. Unless the resident engineer receives most positive orders to spend the money only for the removal of rocks, there will be trouble in the future, as there has been in the past. On one occasion especially money was spent in an improper manner without my knowledge, and from that point of view this is a dangerous item. But if the resident engineer is a firm man, and does not allow money to be spent right and left without reason, it will be all right. I know that my hon. friend is right when he points out that sometimes, after a storm, for instance, a small fishing harbour may be closed. In such a case some of this money should be immediately used to remove the obstruction. But I had so much trouble and misery about this item that I had nearly made up my mind not to apply for it again. But if my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works gives his attention to the expenditure of that money, I am sure it will be spent properly. All the officers of the department who are cognizant of the facts will tell my hon. friend that he has to be careful, because people in that part of the country do not always understand what the removal of rocks means. They may understand it to mean the building of a road or something of that kind, and they will apply for the expenditure of some of this money for the purpose. May I ask if Mr. Bertrand is the only engineer for that district, or has he an assistant under him ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he is the only engineer.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has he charge of the Magdalen Islands as well ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: The remarks of the exMinister of Public Works bear out what I have said. All the representatives may not be as honourable as the hon. member for Gaspe in regard to items of this kind. If we have a resident engineer, he should perform his duties, irrespective of any recommendation made by any representative or by any defeated candidate. The Conservative party, when in power, no doubt had the same experience to some extent; but I know from my own personal knowledge that they refused to be guided by representatives supporting the government and relied on the officers of the department. I think no representative should have anything to say about the expenditure under an item of this kind, but it should be left solely to the officers of the department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would suggest, for the safety of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, that no money be spent without the sanction of the chief engineer of the department. That is the only safe way of doing the right thing. I know the pressure that is brought to bear on the resident engineer, and my hon. friend from Gaspfi will share my views, I am sure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may say, in answer to the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that I do not claim to be more honest than himself or any other member of this House; but I say that in the past as at present the representatives of the people have been obliged to correspond with their electors. I receive many more letters about the county of Gaspe, and my hon. friend receives many more letters about his county, than the department or the officials of the department receive; and the member is obliged to go to the department and make the demand or present the petition. In this particular case several petitions were sent to me during the last five or six years, and I could not take it upon myself to order the expenditure of the money. I appealed sometimes to Mr. Breen, who was the resident engineer, that is to -say, on paper, because his residence was in the city of Quebec; but invariably Mr. Breen received his orders from the Minister of Public Works, or during the ministers absence, from the acting chief engineer, Mr. Lafleur; and I repeat again, never in my life would I think of myself giving permission to any of my constituents to spend the people's money without an order of the Department of Public Works. Really, I know more than that.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the resident engineer wanted to perform work there, and the hon. gentleman took it into his head to say, * no, you will not do it,' would he be Justified ? If the engineer's attention had been drawn to some rocks in the river, and he felt disposed to remove them, surely the hon. gentleman would not undertake to say that he should not do it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank the hon. gentleman for his lesson; but surely he does not think that I would take such a position. When the resident engineer recommends a certain work, what have I to say ? He has no orders to receive from me. He receives his orders from the department. But, I repeat again, the member of parliament sometimes receives letters or petitions from his constituents, and he is obliged to communicate them to the department. That is liow the member of parliament comes in.


Andrew B. Ingram: I believe the member of parliament is doing his duty then, but when he does that his duty ceases. The moment he steps beyond that and interferes with the officer of the department, he goes beyond his right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who says that the member of parliament interferes with the resident engineer ? From what does the hon. gentleman infer that ? Does he find interference in the county of Gaspf or anywhere else ? I think my hon. friend is at sea.


Andrew B. Ingram: The bon. gentleman made the statement In this House that he had refused to recommend certain expenditures.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, which were asked by some people, but which were not recommended because they were not wanted.


Andrew B. Ingram: By what right or authority does the hon. gentleman take upon himself- to refuse to recommend any expenditures ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I received information from interested parties and it happens sometimes, as the hon. member for Compton says, that expenditures are requested which should not be made.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I wish to point out is that when an hon. member receives such communications he should turn them over to the department and have the departmental officer investigate and make his recommendation, and the department would be held responsible. Otherwise the department may be misled by representatives supporting the government. Misrepresentations of that kind have been made to departments before, and votes have been passed which if, the minister fully understood the details, he would never have allowed to pass.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the hon. minister will tell the committee in what counties the money was spent last year and under whose recommendation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The money is only expended on the report of the departmental engineer. There is no law or custom against any hon. member of this House, either Liberal or Conservative or any other citizen, making representations to the department, as to what work they consider should be done, but the money is only expended on the report of the resident engineer, approved by the chief engineer of the department. If it should be found that any resident engineer has reported iu favour of an expenditure which should not be made, then the only thing the minister can do is to dismiss him. There has been only expended some $400 during the present year, which shows that the resident engineer only recommended expenditures which are in the public interest.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would invite my hon. friend to call for the records for the past year on this expenditure before spending any more money. These will teach him to be careful. I must say that the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) never recommended to me, when I was Minister of Public Works anything wrong, but there has been a good deal of trouble connected with the expenditure and there will be more in the future, unless great care is exercised. The riding is a very large one and its representatives cannot possibly know all the details and may just as| well be imposed upon ns any one residing 300 or 400 miles from the rid-


Rodolphe Lemieux: ing. The only safe way of spending public money is to have an examination by the resident engineer and have his report sent here to Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will do that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This debate has brought out the fact that there is a misappropriation of public moneys.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That there was.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it is now being continued. According to the hon. member representing that riding, a portion of this money is used for the purpose of opening up small streams.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, to remove obstruction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In these streams, but not in the St. Lawrence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Flowing into the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but not the St. Lawrence, and this is an appropriation for removing rocks from the lower St. Lawrence. Therefore there has been an improper expenditure. Certainly the explanation given by the ex-Sfinister of Public Works and the member of the county is to the effect that applications at least have been made for improper expenditure, and there is a good deal in the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works that the item should be struck out. It may be said that there has not been any improper expenditure, but the fact that there have been applications for such expenditure and that they were "refused, would imply that there have been improper expenditures from time to time, and it would be better not to vote the money.
Magdalen Islands-breakwater and piers,
$20,000. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are four different places where this money is to be expended.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman cannot expect to complete the works at these places with the money he is asking. Does he propose to ask another vote in the sup-plementaries ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My chief engineer says that this is the full amount that can be expended on those works during this year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much will be the expenditure at each place?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At Grindstone the estimate is a little over $8,000. At Pointe a Elie, $4,000, and at Grande Entr6e a little less than $1,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What is the length of the work which is being built at Grindstone ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the work nearly completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer thinks that the appropriation out of this will complete the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Altogether 365 feet.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the object of the work ?


The MINISTER OF POBLIC WORKS.: This is for piers at the various places.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they to be built at towns or ports of any size ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The population of the Magdalen Islands is about 6,500. Before 1896, there was no wharf, pier or breakwater.


Rufus Henry Pope: Were there any people before that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, a great many. The late government had spent about $80,000 for a pier at a place called Etang du Nord, but it was carried away in a storm. The various works that h%ve been made within the last few years have been very useful to navigators and fishermen. The Magdalen Islands, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, are the first land passed by the vessels coming from Europe. Those vessels will now find here ample protection from storms.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the Etang du Nord work altogether gone ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The engineer informs me that it is completely gone.


Rufus Henry Pope: Are the people scattered over the islands, or do they live at one centre ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are five islauds, all inhabited.
Maria-Pier, $21,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract, and the present vote is to complete it.


Rufus Henry Pope: How much has it cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract is for $24,700. The total cost is estimated at $26,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Bonaventure county.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is this a very large place ? Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure). According to the last census the population of the parish of Maria is 2,460. It is the second largest parish in the county.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is there any other pier accommodation ?


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: None whatever.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is this the first they have had ?


Charles Marcil: Yes.


Rufus Henry Pope: How have they got along hitherto ?


Charles Marcil: They ran the risk of losing their lives and their goods landing on the open coast, as they do generally on the Gaspd coast. They are a hardy race of people, as the hon. gentleman knows. Still, lives are often lost. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) would visit Gasp6 and Bonaventure, not only during the fine season of the summer, but early in the spring or late in the fall, he would see the great disadvantages these people have to overcome and the dangers they have to face.


Rufus Henry Pope: I would rather go in the middle of summer.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the hon. minister intend to continue the work to the shore or will he leave this as it is, an isolated block ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is an application before us to continue the work to the shore. But there is not enough money in this vote for that purpose.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the minister a report as to the cost of the extension to the shore ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Rufus Henry Pope: How far would the extension be of this pier or block ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About one thousand feet.
Murray Bay-Increasing height of wharf and extending same, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a revote of the appropriation of last year, and is to make provision for the carrying out of projected improvements on the upper south-west side of the west block of the Murray Bay wharf.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Was any work done last fall on this wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this work owned by the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Rufus Henry Pope: Why was not the money expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is now being commenced, and probably, about half this amount has been spent.


Rufus Henry Pope: There must have been some urgency for this work last year, the money having been voted. Why were not the repairs made then ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: As I know the place, perhaps the hon. minister will allow me to say that the reason why the money was not expended probably is that when the House rose after last session the passenger traffic was on and it would have interfered with the passenger traffic to carry out the work then. As my hon. friend (Mr. Pope) knows this is a summer resort, and the passenger traffic is heavy.


Mr. AVERY.: What was the amount of wharfage received last season 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is in control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Melzar Avery: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) is present, and perhaps he can tell us.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand the hon. Minister of Mariae and Fisheries has not the returns here. We can furnish the particulars if the hon. members desire it.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that this should be brought down. With the minister and the ex-minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries present, we ought to be able to get this information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) will refer to the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, he will find the returns of this and other similar works, and these figures will be more reliable than any given from memory by the minister.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries acts in a sort of double capacity, according to the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister. He is a sort of deputy assistant Minister of Public Works, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. Therefore, I think, we are justified m asking this information from him, and it should be given us before the vote Is passed, so that we may judge whether this appropriation for the Murray Bay wharf is a commendable one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My j?on- friend (Mr. Fowler) will excuse me . * *-p!1 him that that information was furnished him before the estimates were brought down. It is rather unreasonable to complain of information not being given when the information was placed in his hands before the vote was asked for.


George William Fowler: But the minister is supposed to be there to answer questions We have not the public accounts before us.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine.) According Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
to the Auditor General's Report the receipts for 1901-2 were $163.69. Further details are to be found in the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


George William Fowler: Can the hon. minister tell us what the receipts were the year before, so that we may be able to strike an average ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I doubt very much whether the amount now asked for is sufficient. Of course, the chief engineer must have looked into the matter. But I would call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to the importance of equipping this harbour well. There are several thousand tourists summering there, many of them Americans, and some of them are from Toronto and the province of Ontario. It is becoming quite a large town, and it is important to encourage that summer trade. I would advise him to keep the harbour in good shape so as to give accommodation to the large travelling public who summer there.	*


George William Fowler: As the minister was not able to inform the committee how much the earnings were for a year, I may say that according to the Auditor General's Report they were $217. That was a considerable falling off from the previous year. I would like to have an explanation of that.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was a loss of traffic, I suppose.


Mr. BENNETT.: Since we are on the question of docks, may I ask what amount is derived from the government docks at Midland, Ontario, and the storehouses thereon, and how many applications, if any, have been made for the use of the buildings ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman will wait until I come to my estimates, I will give him all the information I can. I am not in a position to give it now.


Richard Blain: I notice that a sum of $6,000 was voted last year for Murray Bay, and one hon. gentleman suggested that some of this money was spent in connection with the Richelieu Navigation Company. Would the hon. gentleman say whether this property belongs to the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government own the property. The province of Quebec owned it before confederation, and it cost them $50,000 or $60,000. Since confederation $40,000 or $50,000 more have been spent on it. It is a very important point, and is owned by the Dominion. So far as I know, none of this money has been expended for the benefit of the Richelieu Navigation Company. Of course, their I boats stop there daily and use the property, j Otherwise, I do not think that there is any-| thing irregular in the expenditure of this

amount. It is simply to complete the improvements and repairs that are going on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may add that this county is deprived of railway communication, and this is the only means of communication they have in summer. The Richelieu Company, which is controlled by the friend of my hon. friends, give, I may say, a very good service, which is a credit to the St. Lawrence river. I may also add that Murray Bay is the great summer resort of the lower St. Lawrence, and is mostly inhabited during the summer by some of our good people from Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that the item for this purpose last year was $0,000. Evidently $2,000 of that has been spent, or will be, at the end of the current year, because $4,000 of this is a revote. The item says :
' Increasing the height of the wharf and extending the same.' What kind of work have you going on there that only requires an expenditure of $2,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is an extension of the wareroom, and provides for increased accommodation for handling! the freight. There has been a great increase of passenger traffic at Murray Bay, and there is a great deal of baggage, as well as the freight that comes for other people.


George William Fowler: The Deputy Minister of Public Works reports that the traffic at Murray Bay is falling off, hence there is a loss of revenue, not only in the last year, but the year before. Now, the Minister of Public Works states that the reason why this money is required is for the purpose of extending facilities for the increase in the traffic. How does the department settle this question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The traffic might increase without affecting the revenues of the Marine department.


George William Fowler: It certainly should not fall off.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not fair to say there is any inconsistency. Every member knows that there have been great improvements, and since that splendid hotel was built, which is a credit to Canada, a large number of tourists go there, and the passenger trade has considerably increased.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the ex-Minister of Public Works left that department and the present minister assumed the position it was reported throughout this country that the department was divided, and that a portion of the duties were transferred to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Would the hon. gentleman tell us what portion of the duties of the Public Works department is under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, so that we may know to whom we should address our questions ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no division of the duties.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the statement in the public press was not correct, and the department is under the administration of the hon. gentleman the same as it was under the ex-Minister of Public Works. Is that correct 1


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think this is outside the question before the Chair.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not think it is, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing the items for the province of Quebec. The rumour went abroad that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had control over certain works in the province of Quebec in connection with harbours and rivers, and I think it is quite in order for us to inquire whether that is the case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think I gave the hon. gentleman a very definite answer.


George William Fowler: These statements with respect to the division of the office were supposed to have emanated from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself. As he is here, we would like to hear from him as to whether there is any foundation for these reports in the papers. And would he tell us whether he made any such statements anywhere in the province of Quebec about the time he was elevated to the cabinet ?


Peter Macdonald: The minister said there was no division of the duties, and the hon. gentleman is bound to accept his statement.


George William Fowler: I think a similar statement was made by the Prime Minister himself, and I am sure I read in the press that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries also had made that statement. It was remarked at the time that there was some little disappointment throughout the province of Quebec on account of him losing the cabinet position of Minister of Public Works, which had been held in that province for a great many years.


Peter Macdonald: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) is out of order.


George William Fowler: I beg pardon.


Peter Macdonald: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, with all deference, I do not see how the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) are out of order.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What reference have they to the subject ?


Robert Laird Borden: They have this reference to the subject; we have the right to know whether or not particular items which the committee is asked to vote are to be expended under the direction of the hon. Minister of Public Works or under the direc-

tioii of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That has been answered.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The information has been given.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it has been answered, but we are pointing out that other things have been said on the subject by the hon. gentleman which are somewhat inconsistent-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 know the difference between a statute and a few loose remarks.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. Postmaster General desires to apply to the observations of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the term ' a few loose remarks ' I have no objection, although I would not be prepared to apply an expression of that kind to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am ready to give his remarks a little more weight than that. Every one knows, indeed, it has been generally stated in the province of Quebec, in the public press, and there is no repudiation toy the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries so far as I know, that lie announced to the people of that province that a considerable portion of that which previously was under the jurisdiction of the hon. Minister of Public Works is to be under his jurisdiction as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It was announced during his election campaign- I saw it over and over again in the public press of the province of Quebec, and 1 have a perfect right to ask how it is that the hon. Minister of Public Works makes a statement now that is absolutely inconsistent with the statement made by his colleague in the province of Quebec at the time he was running his election. It is due to the committee, that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries should state his understanding of the situation in view of the observations which have been made by the hon. Minister of Public Works to-day, or that he should state to the committee that the announcement credited to him in the public press was credited to him improperly and without authority from himself.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the item be adopted ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, it shall not be adopted until we get more information upon this subject.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is the information which the hon. gentleman desires ? I understand him to say that the committee have a right to know whether this item, which is now presented, is to be expended by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the hon. Minister of Public Works ? That is a perfectly proper Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
question, and it has been answered. There has been no division of the departments. If there is to be a division of either of these two departments legislation will be brought down for that purpose, and then, and not till then, will the House have a right to criticise such a proceeding.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the hon. Minister ofi Marine and Fisheries have the authority of the government to make the announcement which he did at that time that there was to be a change in the policy of this government ? That such an announcement was made by a member of the government in that province is beyond doubt. Did the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries have the right without authority from this government to make that announcement to the people of the province of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Whether he had or whether he had not may be properly the subject of a question put before the House after notice in the proper way, but I do not admit that the hon. gentleman has any right to level a question across the floor of the House and demand an answer categorically-yes or no. The policy of the government in this matter will be indicated by legislation proposed in this House, and then, and not till then, will the hon. gentleman have the right to criticise it.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, that means, if it means anything, that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had no authority from the government to make the announcement which he did. I agree with the hon. Minister of Finance, that it would be proper that any policy of this government in regard to the matter should be first announced to this House when this House is in session. But that is not the case which we have before us. We have had the important announcement made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries during his election campaign in the province of Quebec, we have had this House in session for more than six weeks, and we have not had one single word from the government about it. The hon. Minister of Finance takes the ground that the government want notice about a matter which was announced two months ago by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. We want to know if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries had the sanction of his colleagues for this statement, or if he had not. It seems to me a very proper question for me to ask across the floor of this House, whether or not the hon. gentleman in making that announcement to the people of the province of Quebec had the authority or sanction of his colleagues.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman has the right to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries in proper

and regular form whether he made that announcement, but he has not the right to assume that such an announcement has been made, or to require an answer in +he manner in which he has brought the matter before the Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I have made my statement in what I supposed to be a courteous way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not questioning the courtesy of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 have stated two or three times that I, myself, have seen this announcement in the public press credited to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I have also said that I have seen no repudiation by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries of this statement so attributed to him. Then, I heard from the hon. Minister of Public Works something which I regard as somewhat inconsistent with this announcement so made. The hon. Minister of Finance takes refuge in this that he says the policy of the government should be announced to the House. I agree that it should be announced to the House, but, if the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries acted properly and with the sanction of his colleagues, why was not this policy announced to the House long ago ? This House has been in session for six weeks. Surely, the House, after the announcement which was made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is entitled as a matter of courtesy, if for no other reason, to hear what the policy of the government is in regard to this matter. Surely the hon. Minister of Finance sees the position in which his colleague is placed. That was an announcement made to the people of the province of Quebec in an election in which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries sought the suffrages of his constituents in that province, and whose confidence was somewhat shaken. It was publicly stated that there was some disappointment among the followers of the government there, that an important department like the Public Works Department had been allotted to a gentleman from another province. It was not only in the public press, but privately as well, that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries made these statements. Surely it is not asking too much to know at this stage, six weeks after the session has begun, and two or three months after the announcement was made, whether or not this is the policy of the government, or whether the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in making the statement he did make, acted entirely without consultation with his colleagues, and entirely without their sanction. I regard it as a very important thing whether or not the Department of Public Works is to be cut up in the way in which the hon.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries announced it is to he cut up. It is a matter that concerns very much the public interest of this country to know whether this announcement is true, and I do not think we are departing at all from our rights as an opposition in this House in asking that this information should be given to the people as to the policy of the government in regard to this question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to say that I think the proper time for giving this information was when the ministerial changes were announced to the House. Since it was not given then, it cannot be out of place for any member of this House to make an inquiry, especially as the two departments have been so intermixed, if we can believe what we have seen in the press. I have no doubt that the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) gave that information to his constituents so as to get their endorsation. Now, as to the item, the Minister of Public Works tells us that it is for erecting some kind of a shelter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For the extension of buildings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the item is improperly described, for it would read as if it were for extending a wharf and not a building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is right. It does extend the wharf, but, it is also for the building of a freight shed on the wharf.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know this place very well. The wharf is too low and when there is a strong wind the spray comes over the wharf and inconveniences the passenger trade at this place which is a summer resort. The wharf is to be made higher and wider and the shed is to be improved. Am I venturing too far in asking whether this item will be spent under the Department of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no doubt whatever that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) stated during his election campaign that the Department of Public Works would be divided. I could never understand what portion of that department would be divided. Of course this is not the time to discuss the policy of the government on that point, but as having contributed to the best of my ability to organize the Department of Public Works as it is now, I would be very sorry indeed to see it divided. I suppose we will have the pleasure of hearing the policy of the government announced very soon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Auditor General does his duty he will allow this money to be expended only for the purposes set forth i in this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a small extension of the wharf which gives more space, and the criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is right that the words in the estimates are somewhat misleading.


Andrew B. Ingram: The reorganization of the department was mentioned in the speech from the Throne, and on that account I thought it perfectly right to mention the matter now.


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


Robert Laird Borden: While it may not be a desirable time to discuss the question of policy, I do not see why the government should not be in a position to make some announcement to the House as to its policy on this matter, it now being six weeks after the opening of the session and two or three months after the announcement was made by the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. PrCfontaine) ; an announcement which in many parts of the country at least is regarded as largely affecting the public interest. I would like to know from the First Minister when he will make an announcement as to the policy of the government on this matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) agrees that this is not a convenient time to announce the policy of the government, but I have no objection to state that it will be announced at an early date.


Robert Laird Borden: That will mean Monday I suppose ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, no.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: It has been announced in the speech from the Throne that this division would take place.


Rufus Henry Pope: Oh, yes, it was announced in a far more important place than the speech from the Throne ; it was announced during the Maisonneuve election for a special purpose.
Mr. BORDEN Halifax). And many more details were given during the Maisonneuve campaign than my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) will find in the speech from the Throne. We are anxious to know whether the details given by the minister (Hon. Mr. Pr6fontaine) during his election campaign represent the policy which the government has decided on.


George William Fowler: In justice to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prfifon-taine)-


William Humphrey Bennett: Who has fled.


George William Fowler: Who has gone out of the chamber, I should say that he appeared very willing to give us the information, but for some reason or other the hon. gentleman who at the time was leading the Mr. SPROULE.
House declined to allow him. We do not know why this was.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We do.


George William Fowler: I suppose the Minister of Justice does know. Perhaps they were a little afraid of the discretion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that he might say too much.


Rufus Henry Pope: He has been doing that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps this is why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrCfontaine) made the announcement in Maisonneuve. The newspapers in Montreal at that time described him as a prospective candidate for the portfolio of Public Works and not of Marine and Fisheries, and he felt that his importance would vanish if he did not get some of the public works to administer. He was referred to in no very complimentary terms by the Montreal ' Witness,' that great Liberal exponent in the province of Quebec, which is widely read in Ontario and throughout the Dominion. I have not under my hand any of the statements that were made by the Montreal 'Witness,' but they are matters of public notoriety, and I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on being so vigorous a fighter that he lias been able to break down all the opposition of the ' Witness' and bring himself to the front. When it was found that the hon. gentleman's nose was to come under the wire, so to speak, another opponent arose in the person of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and perhaps that may be another reason why the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here. It may be that he has gone away in order to cover up his disappointment and discomfiture at having to sit in the cabinet with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is well known that the Minister of Agriculture is one of the largest stock holders in the Montreal ' Herald ' company ; that is common report, and he has never denied it. It goes without saying that the Prime Minister must have a heavy task on his hands in reconciling these two warring elements in the cabinet. The Minister of Agriculture poses before the public as an exemplar of all that is good and proper, and yet through the col-ums of his own journal he assails the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the strongest terms. But the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to be congratulated on the fact that he prevailed on the Prime Minister to accept him despite all the violent attacks that had been made upon him by the journal owned and controlled to a great extent by the Minister of Agriculture. Reflections were made upon the hon. gentleman not only as a parliamentarian or as an old member of the House; but he was assailed by the Montreal ' Herald ' in terms so strong that I think he had fair ground for an action for libel against that journal. He was assailed while chief magistrate of the city of Mont-

real as having always acted for his own private interest instead of for the interest of the city. And this is such a wonderful cabinet, that its members can war against each other outside, and can placard each other in this way before the world, and yet be bound together in happy union by the cement of salary. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a bonny fighter, and I congratulate him on having come to the front despite all these attacks. But he owes something to himself; he owes something first to his own self-respect, because he has made the statement publicly in the city of Montreal that while he was not to receive the Department of Public Works which had been assigned to the province of Quebec, I may say almost since confederation-
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Bight o'clock.
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THiRD READINGS.
Bill (No. 30) to incorporate the Federal Oil Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 40) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the International Railway Appliance Company.-Mr. Brock.
Bill (No. 56) to incorporate the Quebec, Saguenay and Gulf of St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geoff-rion.
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 132) to incorporate the Pere Marquette International Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
['I think we shall probably continue the supply for the first day. If we get through with other business on Monday, we will go on with the Public Works estimates, and if there is to be any change for Tuesday, the hon. gentleman will have an intimation of it on Monday.']
William Humphrey Bennett: When you left the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I was making some remaks with reference to the statements made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) as to the division of the work of the Public Works Department. But as that hon. gentleman is not in his place, I do not propose to discuss the matter further. I may perhaps do so on some future occasion.
Newport breakwater-extension, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is to provide for the completion of a breakwater on the west side of the entrance of Newport river, and extending the cribwork 200 feet to a depth of 15 feet at low water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a revote. Why was the work not gone on with ?
72i


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They could not prepare the timber. A portion of the work was done in 1901. For the extension, it is proposed to call for tenders and let the work by contract.
Nicolet River-dredging, &c., $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to cover the expense of riprapping and repairing the jetty built at the mouth of the Nicolet river at Lake St. Peter. The dredging is to secure a depth of 8 feet at low water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is not all for dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend will notice, he will see that it is for ' dredging, &c.' The estimate of the engineer is $8,000 for dredging and $4,000 for riprapping and other work.
Pointe aux Esquimaux, wharf-headblock, $5,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister say what the department paid for this in the first place ? I see 1 Lavoie, Elie, interest due on purchase price of his wharf,' appears in the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work was built by the department in the first place at a cost of a little over $10,900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the extension of the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might ask a general question, the answer to which may obviate the necessity of repeating the question on each vote. I understand the minister to say that in future the department will let these works by tender.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the clear intention on all works in which that can be done. I have mentioned, with regard to the last vote, that though in the past part of that work has been done by day's labour, we have changed the system and are letting it by contract.
Pointe St. Pierre-'breakwater, $22,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is now under contract.


Richard Blain: What is the amount of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is $22,000. The estimated total cost of the breakwater is $24,000.


Richard Blain: I notice that last year when there was an item up for this breakwater, the minister stated that the total cost would be $14,000, and that it was let by contract at that time for the sum of $14,000.

22a0


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That must have been a mistake, because I find on reference to the papers of the department that the contract was let on the 4th of September, 1902, for the sum of $22,000.


Richard Blain: It is reported in ' Hansard ' that the Minister of Public Works said, ' $14,000 is the estimate, and it is let by contract.' Would the minister state whether the engineer recommended the increased amount, or why the statement was made last year that $14,000 would complete the work, and now such a large increase is required.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot account for the statement. It must either have been made under a misapprehension, or else misreported. Because the report of the engineers was that it would cost over $20,000, and the work could not have been under contract then, because it was only let last fall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You spent on this work last year $2,000. Did you commence the expenditure before you let the contract ? I see that of the $10,000 voted last year you spent $2,000, and you have revoted the $8,000. That will make the whole work cost $24,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The estimate is that $2,000 will be spent before the 30th of June next, and we re vote $8,000 of last year's vote.
RiviSre aux Renards-breakwater, pier, $14,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the purpose of extending the pier to a point on the east side of the harbour at the north of Fox river. It is now 300 feet long, and is to be extended to a length of 600 feet and to reach a depth of eighteen feet at low water. The total estimated cost of this work is $48,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it an old work or a new work ?


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


Rodolphe Lemieux: Tenders are being called for now.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Some time ago this work was started by day labour and 300 feet of it was built. The intention is to extend that, and tenders have been asked for.


George William Fowler: What county is this in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Gaspe. The whole work is to cost $48,000. The contract is not yet let for the balance of the work. But tenders have been advertised for.


Robert Laird Borden: We have not much information as to the necessity of the work.


Richard Blain: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may tell my hon. friend that this is the only harbour of refuge on that coast. The county of GaspS is a very large county, with 250 miles of shore. Boats and schooners coming from the Labrador coast on the north shore, and from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, find there the only refuge on the Gaspe coast. It is the most important of all the works now being carried on on that coast.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the size of the place where this is built ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The population of Fox river is about 1,000. There is considerable shipping there.


Rufus Henry Pope: It is principally a place of refuge, I suppose ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
RiviSre Batiscan-To continue dredging of channel at outlet of river, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in Champlain county. It is to continue the navigable channel at the mouth of the river Batiscan to a depth of five feet at low water. This work is being done by contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the government no dredges down there of their own ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at present.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the advantage of this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that large milling operations are carried on there.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The International Paper Company have an establishment there.


Rufus Henry Pope: What mills have they there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mills for pulp wood. The Price Bros, have very large limits on the Batiscan river. Formerly they had their mills up at a place called Ste. Genevieve, and they used to manufacture their logs into lumber at that point and then float the lumber down the river and load their ships' off the Batiscan river. But recently they have found it more convenient to bring their logs down to the entrance of the river and have abandoned their place at Ste. Genevieve. The result is that they now bring their vessels into the Batiscan river as far as possible in order to load near the mills.
Riviere Chateauguay-dredging, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to c&ntinue the channel dredging commenced in 1898 at the mouth of the Chateauguay river.


Rufus Henry Pope: What does this serve ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to improve the general navigation of the Chateauguay river.


Rufus Henry Pope: 1 would like to know something of the advantage to be obtained by expending this money. I am not very familiar with the district although X know something of it. I do not know of anything that could warrant us in making such an expenditure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know that I am able to give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) any statistics as to the amount of trade done there. The department has been doing the work for a great many years of improving the navigation of that river. There is a sandy bottom and the river bed fills up often. I am informed although I have no personal knowledge, that there is quite a little shipping.


Rufus Henry Pope: Can the hon. minister give us any idea from his engineer what amount of money has been previously expended at this place ? It seems to be new to me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will be very pleased to have a statement made up.


Rufus Henry Pope: We will let this item stand, until the information is obtained.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
Riviere du Loup-wharf, improvements and repairs, $3,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to cover the cost of building a new slip on the east side of the head lock of the Riviere du Loup pier.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity of a new slip on the east side of the head lock of the Riviere du Loup pier ? I think the business of the House and particularly the consideration of items in regard to public works would be expedited, if, upon placing an item before the committee, the hon. Minister of Public Works would in the first instance give us some reasonable amount of information to avoid the necessity of asking so many questions. I would suggest that he might always tell the committee when the particular work is to be undertaken, where it is, why it is necessary\_when and why the work has been commenced, what are the objects and advantages of the work, when it is to be finished, whether it is being done by contract, the amount already expended, the total estimate of what it will cost and the population to be benefited. Information of this kind, I think, if given, would expedite the work of the committee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition is quite a proper one. Even if I have information on hand it would perhaps not be given so fully in regard to a place like this as almost every hon. member is familiar with the locality and perhaps in regard to these main estimates the great
majority of the items deal with the continuation of works that the House was committed to not only last session but during previous sessions.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, that may be true, but we cannot be expected to carry these facts in our minds in the same way as the hon. minister does.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with the suggestion which the hon. gentleman has made. In regard to the Riviere du Loup wharf I think we are all familiar with the locality. I suppose that it is not necessary for me to take up the time of the House in referring to the importance of Rivi6re dfl Loup as a shipping point. The chief engineer informs me that the fixed slip there has been of no service on account of the movable tides and it is proposed to build a new movable slip.
River *St. Francis-ice piers at Richmond


Rufus Henry Pope: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a vote of $11,000 to provide for the completion of the projected four ice breaking piers to be built under contract in the River St. Francis a short distance below Richmond, the object being to prevent as far as practicable, the recurrence of the destruction that is caused by ice jams in the narrows between the town and the Grand Trunk railway bridge, about a mile and a quarter below. This work is under contract. The amount of the contract is $11,317 and the total estimate of the cost of- the work is $12,000.


Rufus Henry Pope: When we are expending $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 in this country perhaps it is inopportune for me to criticise the expenditure of $11,000 as this item has reference to my own immediate section of the country. I suppose that the people in the eastern townships should congratulate themselves that the government have recognized that St. Francis river is worthy of their attention. There is no shipping on the St. Francis river. It is not navigable. This is entirely beyond what I think even the mqpt elastic sort of kindly dispensation on the' part of the government would consider within the realm of financial assistance from the central government. I am surprised and it only indicates, Mr. Chairman, that we are running extremely wild in the direction of offering assistance when we look at this item. It is quite true that the raising of the water in that section, as in many small rivers in all parts of Canada, occasionally takes away a bridge here and there which the municipalities have more or less borne the burden of replacing. Such was the case in Richmond, such was the case just above Richmond at the town of Brampton where they lost a bridge. We have had such an experience in the com-

munity where I live but we hare never thought of coming to the Dominion government to construct piers to guard these peculiar flows of water and ice in extraordinary seasons in these small streams and I must say that if this item is voted it is a precedent without limit, because, we could not consider any loss by water anywhere on any stream in the Dominion of Canada that would not result in a demand on this parliament to vote assistance for preventing the recurrence of such mishaps. I am perfectly astonished at seeing this item here and I cannot conceive that the hon. minister has been put in possession of all the facts of the case. He has been asked to do what is purely a municipal work and if* not a municipal work, if it is to receive the slightest aid from any other direction than the municipality, it must come from a provincial source. I can scarcely believe that the Dom-ion government could consider this work for the general benefit of Canada. I think the minister must have been misled. I do not believe that if he knew the circumstances he would ever have established such a precedent because it leaves him open to all sorts of demands whenever trouble arises on any small unnavigable stream in Canada. If we were in the local legislature and this imposed an extraordinary burden upon the municipality, there might be some ground for considering it under unusual circumstances but to come to the Dominion parliament to ask money for such a purpose is really absurd. It is a dangerous precedent and should not be sanctioned by this House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman must remember that parliament committed itself to this expenditure last session. There may be a good deal in the statement that he has made, but I assume that a full explanation was given a year ago as to why the money was appropriated.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has the work been done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is under contract and parliament is pledged to carry it out. I must he frank in saying that I have not gone into the details as to why parliament uHdertook this work in the first place.


Rufus Henry Pope: There does not seem to be any way of condemning the department for an expenditure like this. Although the minister is a new Minister of Public Works he is not a new member of the cabinet and he has to share responsibility with his colleagues for this kind of thing. I am surprised that the present minister, or the exminister, or no minister at all should have sanctioned a thing like this. In fact an ordinary member of parliament drawing the magnificent salary of $1,500 a year would have been more careful before entering into such an expenditure. If this item should Mr. POPE.
pass every municipality in the country would be justified in presenting bills to the Dominion government in connection with the improvement of small rivers. That is a fact, Mr. Minister, and whether it is you or your predecessor who is responsible, or both of you combined, you are pledged for all time to bear burdens which ought to be borne by the municipalities interested. I wish to enter my protest against this. I suppose it is not necessary that I should move that this item be struck out in order to emphasize my protest, because 'Hansard' is here and it will be known in future that I have protested. I here and now enter my protest. I am pleased and displeased at this. I am pleased because I know the locality and can speak with knowledge when I protest against this vote, and I am displeased that such an expenditure of Dominion public money should be made in that district upon works that are absolutely and purely municipal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is a dangerous precedent and we cannot too soon protest against it. You might as well go down to the Rideau river here and help the municipality to build the bridge which has been swept away two or three times. As the hon. member (Mr. Pope) has well said, this item is for a purely municipal work and if the burden is too heavy for the municipality then the provincial government and not the Dominion government should come to its assistance. It turns out now that this river is not navigable, and that this bridge is just for the convenience of the travelling public.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Pope) is mistaken ; this is a navigable river.


Rufus Henry Pope: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No part of it ?


Rufus Henry Pope: No navigation on it whatever, except perhaps at the mouth.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are many navigable rivers on which they have no boats running, but I am told this river is navigable. As I have explained, this vote is not for a bridge but for an ice breaking pier. The engineer of the department informs me that representations were made that a great deal of valuable land was flooded at times. Of course, as a member of the government I have to assume responsibility, but we are all responsible to a certain extent for commencing this work because it has been approved by parliament.


Rufus Henry Pope: As the minister knows, I have never had the extreme honour of being a member of a government, and I would like to know how it could come about that such an expenditure as this would be considered by a Dominion cabinet sitting to consider

national affairs. What have they to do with municipal matters ? Who petitioned for this expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The information in the department is that there was a petition from the town council of Richmond to the Minister of Public Works and he no doubt recommended it to council and council was responsible for recommending it to parliament.


Rufus Henry Pope: I suppose some official was sent to report as to whether or not this work was of national importance.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that the only report asked for was as to the effect this work would have on the flooding of these lands, and the cost of the work.


Rufus Henry Pope: Am I to understand that the construction of these piers is going to stop the flooding of that river ?


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


Rufus Henry Pope: I can understand the petition of the municipality, and I am very sorry I had not known before of the parental character of this government, because I know of many instances in which they could have had petitions for local works from municipalities in the part of the country where I live. It would relieve us of a great deal of taxation. We have laboured under the misapprehension that the moneys of Canada were for the special work of Canada ; but we are now face to face with the fact that this government is not only Dominion in its character, but that it has even gone beyond the bounds of the provinces, and has become a municipal organization. That is a kindly disposition and an encouragement to men to live in Canada. We can say to the municipalities that they need not be too careful in their expenditures, for in adversity they can come to the Dominion government for relief. I am pleased to get this much information, for we live in a mountainous region where the currents run swiftly and the waters rise rapidly, and where we have to contend every year more or less with floods, and I shall be pleased in the future to recommend to the municipalities in my section that they need not further consider extraordinary expenditures, for they have a right to appeal to this government. Every river in our section is as navigable as this River St. Francis. In August or September you could not take a boat up the St. Francis river unless it had a flat bottom. It is not a navigable river at all. I do not believe the members of the council ever considered this item, and I am astonished that the Dominion parliament should be spending its time voting money for municipal purposes. It is an absolute and positive disgrace.
Riviere St. Maurice, between Grandes Piles and La Tuque, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for operating the government dredge on this river.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year, out of a vote of $8,000, something like $5,955 was expended. Do you propose to perform the same work again this year ?


Mr. BUREAU.: It is estimated that 3,000,000 logs will be floated down that river this season. This dredging is to remove the sand bars which have formed, and which would otherwise prevent the logs being floated down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many yards is that dredge.supposed to take out in a day, and -what is the estimated cost of operating it ? That will give us an approximate idea of the difference between dredging by government and dredging by contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am told by the engineer that it will take out about 300 yards a day, and its maintenance will cost about $25 per day.
Riviere St. Maurice-dredging eastern channel,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide for further dredging in the eastern channel.
Rivi6re Touladie-improvement of, $2,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What kind of work is the department carrying out there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for the improvement of the navigation of the upper reaches of the river by the construction of a flat dam.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much of the work was done last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None was done last year. There was a survey.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much will this work cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer says he has not had time yet to estimate the total cost of this work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think it. will cost a pretty large amount of money. It is an important river in a section of the country where considerable settlement is going in.


Rufus Henry Pope: Is there any water in the river ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not know the depth of the water. I have not the report under my hand, and I do not think the survey was in when I left office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are petitions from the settlers for this improvement. Unless it is found that this money can be expended to the advantage of the district, in accordance with the

petitions of the settlers, and without incurring too heavy an expenditure, I should not feel bound to expend the money at all. If, on the other hand, the vote of $2,000, which was given last year, will give navigation for the benefit of the district, there should be no objection to making these improvements.


Mr. CARGILL.: What is the object of making them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To overcome the rapids that exist.


Henry Cargill: Is the stream navigable?
. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes, for small boats.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Settlers are going into that district. I am stating what is represented by the petitions which are in the department. This is in the riding of Ternis-couata, about fifty or sixty miles from Fraserville. It is a very fertile district, and there are important groups of settlers in it. They made representations that it would be useful to them to have the river made clear for navigation. When the item was put in the estimates last year, we had no information, but we ordered a survey and the report should be in now. We were told that the river could be improved a distance of forty or fifty miles by wing dams, removal of rocks and so on.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty seems to be that the hon. minister has not the slightest idea what the work will cost when completed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That seemed to be the position when the vote was taken. I have said that if an expenditure of $2,000 will remove the obstructions and make this stream navigable even one-half the distance represented, instead of forty or fifty miles, it would be a very desirable expenditure. On the con-tray, if the report shows that this expenditure will not be of any service and that it would cost a large sum to make this stream navigable, I would feel pledged not to spend the money.


Henry Cargill: I would infer from the discussion that it is apparently the policy of the government to improve small streams running through any section of the coun-. try, whether these streams be navigable or not, in order to accommodate settlers and enable saw mill owners to run their logs down them. If that be the case, we have several small streams in the province of Ontario, in which some of my constituents are very much interested, and where the expenditure of public money for the purpose of improving them would be very desirable. If it is the policy of the government to do this work in the province of Quebc, we would like to have it turn its attention to the province of Ontario. I have been lum-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: bering on a stream for thirty-one years and have built my own dams in order to run my logs down that stream. The provincial government of Ontario sold the lands there, thirty-one years ago, at ten times the price which they receive for the best agricultural lands in that section. They have received the money for those lands, and a stream runs through them, down which I have been floating my logs. It is not a navigable stream but may be called navigable for the purpose of running logs. It is certainly not navigable for boats or steamers for the transportation of agricultural products. A requisition has been made by the residents in two of the municipalities to the provincial government for a grant to enable them to remove the obstructions from the stream and to enable the farmers to drain their land. Requisitions and petitions have been presented from the municipalities and the councils of the different municipalities, but apparently we have not approached the proper authorities. I have received notice to attend a meeting next Wednesday to interview the premier of Ontario, and I expect the corporations of two or three municipalities to be present. If we do not succeed in bringing sufficient influence to bear on the provincial premier to make us a liberal grant, I shall certainly advise the municipality to apply to this government.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is another side to the story. On several occasions I was induced to promise large improvements on rivers like the one under discussion. It was represented to me that the improvement would help settlement in these districts. We are spending a large amount in bringing out foreign immigration, especially to the west. The older provinces do not get much to help them in their immigration policy. It was represented to me in this case that by improving the river, we would give means of communication to a number of new settlers. It is a part of the country which is now being settled step by step. Is the federal government justified in carrying out improvements on rivers in such cases ? I believe we are.


Rufus Henry Pope: It is very doubtful.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know it is a debate-able question, but we are spending a large amount of money in order to send the settlers to the west


Rufus Henry Pope: Canada.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Touladie is also Canada. Suppose we spend a few thousand dollars and the result will be to have 500 settlers there, that will be money well invested. Of course, I am speaking now in a general way. The question is worth debating and it is a very interesting one. I fully grant that on many occasions we are led into making expenditures, that, perhaps we should not make. But I call the atten-

tion of the Committee to this other side of the question. When the government, by improving the rivers or building wharfs around the lakes, as in the case of lake St. John, can help in settling the country, I think the expenditure is justified.
St. Alexis Baie des Ha Ha-pier, $4,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is that under contract?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work, so far has been done by day labour. It will require $8,000 according to the estimates of the engineer to complete the work. The amount expended is $20,000.


Rufus Henry Pope: That has been spent by day labour ? Is that to be continued ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it will be better, if practicable, that we should let that by contract.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work when completed will cost $22,000, of which $20,000 has already been spent, the work being done by day labour. If, on looking into conditions, I find that it is practicable, I would prefer to let the balance by contract.


Rufus Henry Pope: How much was done last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Work to the value of $3,994.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Auditor General's Report says that over $4,000 was spent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the amount spent last fiscal year. I was giving what was spent up to the 31st of December last, which was $3,994.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Building a wharf.


Rufus Henry Pope: And does the hon. minister mean to say the department has been five or six years; in building a wharf at a cost of $32,000 ? It seems to me that if the community for whose use this wharf is intended did not want it any sooner than that, they did not need it at all.


Richard Blain: The attempt is sometimes made to justify such an expenditure as this by saying that settlers are coming into the district. Are these settlers coming in from another country or only from another part of the province ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: So far as that part of the province is concerned, I am glad to say that most of the settlers are coming from the United States-some of them, of course, from other parts of this country. But there is a good stream of immigration from the United States going in just now. The Quebec Colonization Company is doing a very good work indeed. I quite grant that it may
seem surprising that works of this kind have been started by day labour. Let me say that, right or wrong, I have been induced, on several occasions, to carry out such work by day labour, to help the settlement of some parts of the country. I am sure that when you can find a good local engineer and foreman, you can carry on works as well by day labour as by contract. Of course, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has made up his mind to have such works carried on by contract. I do not blame him, for that will relieve him of a great deal of trouble.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I agree with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that, under some circumstances, you can get good value by day labour. But, where a work covers a period of five or six years, the cost of overseeing, etc., is so high that I think it is better to let the work by contract.


Rufus Henry Pope: I can not understand what they were doing if they occupied five or six years in spending $32,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am sure that if the hon. minister looks into it, he will see that it was not intended to take so much time as that I fully expected it would be completed within two years. It takes one year to prepare and bring out the material-


Rufus Henry Pope: And another year to put it together. That is enough, if the work is necessary, and if it is not, it would be better to abandon it.


Melzar Avery: It seems to me that if the timbers were got out six or seven years before being used, they would be rotten, and it would be necessary to get out another set.
St. Andre de Kamouraska-to complete repairs to earth approach to pier, &c., $750.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the repairs. The earth embankment or approach to the wharf was commenced in 1892-3. These repairs were begun last year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: This is an old wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but these repairs were begun last year.
St. Francois-pier on south shore of Isle of Orleans, $0,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide for building a government pier to be constructed under contract on the south shore of the Island of Orleans.


Rufus Henry Pope: When was this begun, and how much is it to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract was made on the 7th February last, for $11,800. The total estimated cost is $13,000.

St. Irgnee wharf-construction of headbloek and repairs, $3,600.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract, made on the 24th January last for $10,399. The total estimated cost of the work is $12,900.
St. Jerome (Lake St. John) wharf, $2,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the extension of the wharf under construction. The object is to reach a depth of six feet at the lowest water of Lake St. John.


Rufus Henry Pope: When was the wharf on Lake St. John built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1889. There is three feet of water, and the idea is to have six feet of water for a distance of 170 feet. This has all been done by day labour.
Sorel, deep water wharf, $47,000.


Rufus Henry Pope: What is this, Mr. Minister ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the payment on the contract for building this work at Sorel. The contract was $255,632.43. The contractors are Poupore & Malone. The estimated cost of the work is $273,500. This $47,000 will complete the payment of the present contract.


Rufus Henry Pope: This is a very large amount of money for a place like Sorel, and I think it is worthy of the consideration of this Committee. Of course, I am willing to admit that perhaps I come in a little late in criticising this item, since this expenditure has been going on for a year or two. I know the town of Sorel somewhat.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The city of Sorel.


Rufus Henry Pope: I am much surprised to find we are spending this amount of money there. I would like that item to stand over until we can have the fullest possible information with regard to it, if the minister has no objection. Some of the information we require might take a little time to get. I don't think we should be called upon to pass this item without knowing ail the conditions and circumstances connected with so large an expenditure of money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What conditions and circumstances does my hon. friend refer to ?


Rufus Henry Pope: In the first place, I would like to know the business to be done at this wharf, I would like to know what is going to take that business away from there, because it is not an expenditure that the town of Sorel needs in particular. This is one of the few things that is not colonization. Nearly all the time this afternoon we have been expending money on behalf of the poor settlers, who are always taken up as Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
]
an escape valve by any government who want to get out of difficulty, because they can pawn it off on the back of the poor settler. I don't know of anything that comes more readily to the hand of Ministers of the Crown when they want an excuse, than to plead that the poor settler demands it. We have been poor-settling all the afternoon up and down the valley of the St. Lawrence. We have put them in where there are rocks, where the poor settler can never get a living In this world. We have provided ways for them to get in and ways for them to get out, because they will want to get out some day. We have been expending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the poor settlers down along the Gaspfi coast.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are hard on the poor fishermen.


Rufus Henry Pope: No, I am not, in fact my heart goes forth unto the fishermen, and to my hon. friend who has to represent them. I sympathize with him also, because it is fortunate for him that his county is 250 miles long, or we would have had it piered all round. In fact I think he has no peer in this House in getting piers. But, Sir, this town of Sorel is an old settled place in which I would really like to know the amount of business that is being done, the tonnage, and all those particulars, before I think we can proceed with this matter.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand an explanation was given at the time this large vote was made. Perhaps the tonnage at the present time is not very large, but a new railroad is being built, and then the building of this wharf to get a deep draught will create a large trade.


Rufus Henry Pope: What railroad is this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The United Counties railway.


Rufus Henry Pope: Has it been running all this winter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it is running daily.


Rufus Henry Pope: No, nor weekly either.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am responsible for the presence of this item in the estimates. My colleagues are just as much responsible as I am, because it is not a departmental question by any means. The question was considered with every possible care. It was represented to the government that there would be a large trade for that town if that deep water wharf was built. Dr. Seward Webb and his associates were often in the country in those days. They had large schemes.


Rufus Henry Pope: And private cars.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They are not the only ones who have private cars. However, it

was represented that it would be a good thing if they had deep water communication. The question was discussed last year, and I stated the facts which I am stating now. Unfortunately, all these promises have not materialized. The South Shore railway is running occasionally.


Rufus Henry Pope: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The United Counties railway has been closed. I do not know what the future of these two railways will be. But there were strong influences behind the project, and the government thought it was a reasonable thing to do. The Prime Minister from his seat last year defended the item from the standpoint of the general development of trade. The work is under contract. I hope that things will be better in the future than they have been during the last year or so, because these two roads are in a bad shape indeed, to the great detriment of the people in that part of the country.


Rufus Henry Pope: Well, Mr. Chairman, we do not seem to elicit-well, not tremendous applause from the ministers who are representing this department at the present time. I have listened to the minister who draws the salary and I have also listened to the minister who did draw the salary, and when I combine the voices of both of them I do not see that cheerful prospect for the future of a great trade for the great town of Sorel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sorel is a city.


Rufus Henry Pope: I apologize-the great city of Sorel, and the great United Counties railroad that runs now and again from one point to another when it has a carload of stuff to take. Such items as these, I suppose, are legacies which have come down to the present hon. minister. I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for the hon. ex-minister, because I do not think that the hon. ex-minister, or the present minister, is responsible. I think we will have to go to the government themselves and I think we will have to proceed further to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the man.


Rufus Henry Pope: And I think we will have to proceed to the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) of St. Hyacinthe in which place there is a bank. I wonder where that hon. minister is. There is a bank at St. Hyacinthe that is seriously involved in this railway. They have put a good deal of the money of this bank into this railway, that is the railway that does not run with any time table, that does not run anywhere at any particular time and that has never been known to get anywhere at any time you wanted to get there. In the great city of Sorel we are spending $200,000 to build a wharf to provide for the traffic to be expected from the railway that never runs anywhere at any particular time. I think
this committee on this occasion should feel sad. I do. I think it is really a committee of mourning.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was yesterday.


Rufus Henry Pope: It is to-day. It is said too that in order to save the bank and in order to save a member of the government, the government should feel that they are warranted in spending $200,000 upon a city that cannot get its railway to run once a week. That railway has been shut up pretty nearly all winter. I do not know whether it is open yet or not. I do not believe that hon. members are aware of the conditions, or the small amount of tonnage handled. I am anxious to get that information. The hon. minister has not given it to me. If he has listened to the hon. gentleman who preceded me I think he ought to see that we should have this tonnage. I think we ought to get all the information in regard to this matter, and of course, if this committee has to swallow the pill, if it is necessary, in order that the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue and other members of the government should be happy to vote this money, if these bon. gentlemen will confess that there is no business for this wharf, that there is no business to maintain the railway, that it is not a legitimate expenditure, but that it is to save their credit, I suppose this committee will accept it, but this committee cannot accept it as a business proposition. No. we must have the information. If the hon. Minister of Public Works asks us to accept of this expenditure on a business basis, on the ground that there is sufficient trade to warrant the construction of the wharf and that the roads that run from that wharf to the centres of the world carry a trade which warrants us in the construction of the work, I say that I cannot accept such a justification for the expenditure and I ask for the information as I have a right to ask for it. But, if the hon. minister says that we are doing this out of the kindness of our hearts in order to save some of our colleagues, or save some of our banks, we will have to take into consideration that view of the question. I must either consider it from the business point of view, or I must believe that these hon. gentlemen have some other motive than a business motive in proceeding with that work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid I have not much more information to give the hon. gentleman than that which I have already given him. The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) recommended this work. My hon. friend (Mr. Pope) asked me for information in regard to the trade connected with this wharf. Up to the present I am sorry to say that it has not grown as fast as the ex-Minister of Public Works expected in connection with the building of this road

and other enterprises in that locality. The people may have been disappointed in the expectations which they formed at the time. When parliament committed itself to this expenditure three years ago, at whicll time the cost was known, and especially last session when $170,000 was voted to carry on the work, my hon. friends would have perhaps been more timely than they are now. I hope the picture is not quite so dark as be has painted it. While this has been a somewhat expensive work, this is an important district and there is a good deal of trade still to be done. The vote now under consideration, $47,000, is to complete the payments for work that was done some years ago under contract.


Rufus Henry Pope: In so far as my not making serious objection last year to this work is concerned, I have the same plea to make as the hon. gentleman offered. I was not criticising last year. He avoids responsibility for that vote last year and for the organization of the work by saying that he was not the minister then.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I say that I assumed my responsibility with the hon. gentleman and with other hon. gentlemen in regard to this work.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. Minister of Public Works charges the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) with the inauguration of this work. I differ from the hon. gentleman. The ex-Minister of Public Works was away at the time this money was first granted for this work. There was $25,000 granted for it during the absence of the ex-Minister of Public Works. He is not responsible for it any more than the present hon. Minister of Public Works is responsible, but the gentleman who really assumed the responsibility of making this an ocean port, was the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Last session he said that they proposed what was entirely a new work in 1899 or 1900 when they voted $25,000 for this work, and that they had surveys and estimates showing that it would cost to complete the work, something like $175,000 in order to make this an ocean port. That was the statement made by the'right lion. Prime Minister. Therefore, that being true, it would appear that the government as a whole undertook this work of making an ocean port at this place.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have no intention of disclaiming the responsibility that is incumbent upon me. I am responsible for every item of expenditure that appears in the estimates of last year. I am perfectly prepared to take my share of it, but I think the hon. Minister of Public Works might have avoided saying that I inaugurated that work. I am responsible just the same as my former colleagues are. If there is any blame I will stand the blame manfully, but I have no more personal responsibility than the hon.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: gentleman has. I know he did not mean to put it in that way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say so. I distinctly on several occasions assumed responsibility for the work. It is not right to say that I said so, because I neither insinuated it nor stated it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am responsible for that work, but the question was considered by the government as a whole. My colleagues who discussed the situation with mo will remember that the whole thing was carefully considered. I am responsible just as much as any other member of the government. We expected that things would turn out better than they have done. Strong representations were made to us and we yielded to these. Perhaps I was not here when the first amount was placed on the estimates, but that fact does not relieve me in any way. I am fully responsible and I do not disclaim that responsibility, but I do not want to be singled out as the one person responsible any more than any other member of the administration.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no reason to doubt what the hon. gentleman says, although I was not a member of the government at that time. A full explanation was given to the House as to what the cost of the work would be. If that work had been undertaken without giving the information to the House it would have been a different matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The responsibility is of course with the government. It is not with an individual member of the cabinet even as at present constituted, and much less is the responsibility with the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hori. Mr. Tarte), who has ceased to be a member of the cabinet. I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Public Works that as the Minister of Finance wants to put through three items which are rather urgent, we might let this vote stand for the present.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection at all, but as we have spent several sittings on this one resolution,
I would like as a compromise suggestion to put the remaining items through and let this one stand with another which already stands, on the understanding that they can be discussed if necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us see what the other items are.
Three Rivers harbour-additional deep water wharfs, $100,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote of $100,000 is to make provision for carrying on during the fiscal year 1903-4 the works let by contract with a view of affording the additional deep water wharf accommodation called for by the Three Rivers Harbour Commission. This wharf

gives accommodation for handling coal, sulphur, and other bulky materials which are brought in for the use of railways and manufacturing establishments in the city and surrounding country. The amount of the contract was $280,500, and the contingencies will make the estimated total cost about $300,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How much of that work has been carried out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that very little of this work has been done, and not much has been paid on account. The contract was let on the 10th of June, 1902. The engineer of the department informs me that the contractors were not able to procure the timber and materials in time to get much work done last year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When does the hon. minister expect that the work will be completed ? Is there any hope that the contractors will now go on with the work with some vigour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract provides that the work is to be completed on the 10th of June, 1904, and the chief engineer informs me that they have started now. I have no personal knowledge about it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who is the engineer in charge ?


Jacques Bureau: Mr Lefebvre is the local engineer in charge of the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that this wharf will be used for importing coal and sulphur. What kind of industry do they intend to start there ?


Jacques Bureau: There is more than that in it. Twenty-one miles north of Three Rivers is situated the manufacturing centre of Shawenegan Falls. There is the Belgo-Canadian Pulp Company, which manufactures pulp and paper ; and the carbide works, manufacturing aluminium and carbide of calcium. Eight miles further north, and twenty-nine miles from Three Rivers, is the Laurentide Pulp Company. To show you the increase of traffic in this locality, I may say that in 1898-9 there were taken down the river one and a half million pieces of timber, and in 1901-2 there were 3,272,261 pieces of timber which were manufactured in these localities. The trade is not all done through Three Rivers now because we have not the dock facilities, but it will be when the dock is built. As I have said before in this House, I do not think that money could be better expended, because I do not believe there is a more ideal spot in the whole Dominion of Canada for a national harbour than is Three Rivers. We have all these industries north of the town that I have mentioned, and we have also important industries in the city of Three Rivers. All these manufactured products,
and all the deals made from these logs are shipped across the ocean, and we have also the raw materials :	Brimstone, coal, clay
for the manufacture of aluminum, coming through Three Rivers. In past years we have not been able to take care of more than 20 per cent of the traffic which is within twenty-one miles of this deep water dock, because we did not have wharf facilities. This work will give us 2,020 feet additional of new dock. It will help transportation in the way, that now you have to haul from or to Quebec, and the only railway that goes through Shawenegan and Grand'M&re is the Great Northern, and they have the worst piece of track between Shawenegan and Grand'Mgre and Quebec that there is. When we are able to use this dock it will shorten the haul to twenty-one miles in lieu of a hundred miles. I may say also that when these docks are completed they will not be even then ample to accommodate all the traffic that is necessary for the country within a radius of twenty miles from Three Rivers.


Rufus Henry Pope: I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) on having something to ship from this wharf.


Jacques Bureau: Thank you.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is refreshing to know that we are expending money where there is trade to be done. There is no desire on this side of the House to object to any expenditure where there is justification for it, but what we do object to is making large expenditures in places where there is no trade and no necessity for expenditure.


Jacques Bureau: Last year we loaded ninety-six ocean steamers at Three Rivers.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Montreal, Three Rivers, and Quebec should be equipped without delay.
Valleyfield-dredging, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for keeping open the channel in Valleyfield bay. There has been some $15,000 spent there, and I am informed by the engineer that this will complete the work.


George William Fowler: There is some dredging going on by the dredge ' St. Pierre ' which is paid $7 an hour. This Valleyfield dredge gets $8 an hour. What is the cause of the difference ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that this dredge has been improved, and has reached the standard of dredges that get $8 an hour.


George William Fowler: What is the name of the dredge used in Valleyfield ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no name that we have in the department. It is a dredge owned by the Canadian Construction Company of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Before the Committee rises, perhaps X may be allowed to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he has read in ' Le Soleil ' of Quebec a despatch from Ottawa to the effect that the contract for the Quebec harbour works had been awarded to a gentleman named Dussault. As no new tenders have been asked, I was very much surprised to read the telegram.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know why my hon. friend should be surprised. This work was advertised several weeks ago, and, as Dussault & Lemieux were the lowest tenderers, I have no doubt they were notified by the department that their tender would be accepted.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What work is that ? Is it the same -work that was advertised last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Part of the same work-the same location. It is an extension of the wharf for about 500 feet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But not the same plans.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand not the same plans.
Immigration-further amount required, $100,-
000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In this sheet of supplementary estimates, which perhaps is not in the possession of all the members, though it was distributed some days ago, there are three items, and, if the Committee will permit me, I will speak of them all together. The items are :	Further amount required for immigration, $100,000 ; further amount required for services of North-west Mounted Police in the Yukon Territory, $150,000; and miscellaneous expenses in connection with the Alaska boundary tribunal, $50,000. After consultation with the hon. leader of the opposition, I am asking the Committee to agree to vote to-night the items for immigration and the Alaska boundary tribunal, with the understanding that both these matters will be open to discussion on other items which are still to come before the House. If the Prime Minister were in his seat, I would ask also that the item of $150,000 for the North-west Mounted Police be voted ; but that may stand until he is present. The items for immigration and for the Alaska boundary tribunal are urgent. That for immigration is required in consequence of the very large amount of work being done this season, the evidence of which we have in the great influx of people into the North-west Territories. For the expenses of the Alaska boundary tribunal $10,000 was taken by Governor General's warrant to start the proceedings, but that will only go a short distance, as there are heavy expenses connected with the employment of counsel and other matters in the


Robert Franklin Sutherland: preparation of the case. I should be very glad if the Committee will vote these two items to-night with the understanding that at a later stage the whole matter will come up for discussion under other items.
Mi-. SPROULE. With regard to immigration, I think it is not indicative of very good business management that the government come down and ask for such a large item to close the financial year, in view of the fact that we gave them last year $445,000 or $450,000, which was the largest vote for immigration in a great many years. We were assured that there would be a great influx of immigrants this year, but you would think those who had the business in charge would be able to make a closer estimate than one which leaves them one dollar out in every four. It is not evidence that they are men of great business foresight or judgment. With regard to the class of immigrants which are coming in, while it is pleasing to note that the great mass of them are of the most desirable class, it is a fact that cannot be overlooked that there are a great many coming in Who are not the most desirable people.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the next government business to be taken up, whether on Monday or Tuesday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think we shall probably continue the supply for the first day. If we get through with other business on Monday, we will go on with the Public Works estimates, and if there is to be any change for Tuesday, the hon. gentleman will have an intimation of it on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 4, 1903.