1909-03-25

Mr. BURRELL asked:: 1.	What quantities, with values, and amount of duty collected, of apples, pears, plums, prunes, peaches and berries, respectively, were imported into British Columbia during 1908, from the United States points?
2.	Similarly, what into Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the rest of Canada?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1 and 2. The imports for consumption during the fiscal year 1908, were as follows:
Quantity.	Value.	Duty.Prunes and plums unpitted-	Lbs.	$	$ cts.Manitoba	1,743,980	72,855	17,439 80B. Columbia .. .	789,522	35,610	7,895 22Alberta	387,567	16.355	3,875 67Saskatchewan. .	95,545	4,959	955 45Rest of Canada . Green apples-	3,796,766 Brls.	172,492	37,967 66Manitoba	8,626	44,574	3,450 40B. Columbia.. .	,13,862	63,777	5,544 80Alberta	9,386	46,815	3,754 40Saskatchewan. .	1,118	4,647	447 20Rest of Canada .	4,107	22,335	1,642 80Blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries and strawberries-	Lbs.Manitoba	357,077	48,380	7,141 54B. Columbia.. ..	81,792	9,957	1,635 84Alberta	8,516	1,224	170 32


Saskatchewan .   ..@: 1,055	234	21 10Rest of Canada ..	1,247,675	121,723	24,953 50Peaches-	Manitoba	885,690	39,890	8,856 90B. Columbia.. ..	571,503	24,860	5,7.15 03Alberta	307,835	13,638	3,078 35


Saskatchewan .   ..@: 74,406	3,245	744 06Rest of Canada..	1,894,155	97,185	18,941 55Plums-	Bush.	$	$ cts.Manitoba	15,761	40,633	4,728 30B. Columbia.. ..	4,145	10,314	1,243 50Alberta	5,241	12,233	1,572 30


Saskatchewan .   ..@: 1,233	3,001	369 90Resit of Canada..	20,834	57,718	6,250 20Quinces, apricots	pears and nec-	tarines, n.o.p.-	Lbs.	Manitoba	594,873	25,643	2,974 37B. Columbia.. ..	423,606	17,276	2,118 04Alberta	221,370	9,134	1,106 86


Saskatchewan .   ..@: 42,785	1,507	213 93Rest of Canada..	2,461,981	96,766	12,309 94



ONTARIO POLLING BOOTHS.

Mr. ELSON asked:: Have all the persons in the province of Ontario from whom polling booths were rented for the purposes of the last federal election been paid their dues? If not, why not?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: There are several polling booths in Ontario for the rental of which funds have not yet been sent to the returning officers; in some cases because the accounts of the owners have not yet been supplied and in others because accounts in hand have not yet been finally disposed of.



MAIL CARRIAGE IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY.

Mr. ELSON asked:: 1.	Does the present contract for carrying the mails between Hyde Park post office, Ferguson, Lobo, Ivan, Coldstream, Poplar Hill and Komoka, in the county of Middlesex, expire on or before April 1, 1909?
2.	If so, has the contract been relet, commencing from April 1, and who is the contractor ?
3.	How long does the contract run, and what is the price per year?
4.	Was it let to the lowest tenderer?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Expires 31st March, 1909.
2.	Yes. Robert E. Morris.
3.	Four years from 1st April, 1909 at $745 per annum.
4.	Yes.



HOMESTEADS WEST OF LAKE WINNIPEG.

Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that a large percentage of the land homesteaded by Ruthenians, Polanders and Germans, west of Lake Winnipeg, is said to be poor land and not suitable for farming?
2.	Has the government inspectors or others reported these lands unfit for settlement? If so, when?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to allow these people who are located on reported bad lands to change for good lands in some other district? If so, when?
Mr. PATERSON


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	See answers to numbers 1 and 2. Without further information it is not possible for the government to arrive at a conclusion as to action to be taken.



MR. M. W. PLANK.

Mr. SAM. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Was M. W. Plank, V.S., of Uxbridge, in the employ of the government as special officer detailed to prevent the spread of the foot and mouth disease?
2.	If so, when did his engagement commence and when did it end?
3.	What salary did he receive, and what allowance for expenses?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Engagement commenced November 26, 1908. Engagement ended January 8, 1909-33 days.
3.	Salary, $5 per day-$165.00; expenses, $202.70.



MR. BUELL.

Mr. SAM. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Is Mr. Buell, of Brockville, barrister, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, how long has he been employed, what are the terms of his engagement, and what is his salary?
3.	Is part of his duties to present the claims of those having grievances to prefer before the Railway Commission?
4.	On whose suggestion or recommendation was he employed?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Mr. Shepley, K.C., and Mr. Buell have been instructed by the Minister of Justice to appear in the public interest before the Board of Railway Commissioners upon the applications of telephone companies and express companies for approval by the board of the companies' schedules of tolls and rates.
2.	Upon different occasions during the last two years. Mr. Buell is not paid a salary, but receives a fee of $30 per day for such work as he may do, and in addition his expenses out of pocket.
3.	His instructions from the Minister of Justice did not contemplate such duties, but under direction of the chairman of the board, the presentation of some of such complaints in connection with business of telephone or express companies has been undertaken by Mr. Buell.
4.	By the Minister of Justice, of his own motion, after a recommendation from the late chairman of the board that some counsel should be instructed in the matter.



MR. ACHILE LEBEL, CLAIM VS. INTER.


Mr. GAUVREAU asked:: 1.	Has the Department of Justice received a request for a petition of right from Mr. Achile LeBel, of Fraserville, or from his solicitor, for damage done to a valuable horse, then being carried in one of the cars of the Intercolonial Railway, at the Riviere du Loup station?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the department to grant it, and when ? If not, on what grounds does the department refuse it?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: [DOT]
1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is under consideration.



RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS.

Mr. GAUVREAU asked:: On what date did Messrs. Furois and Dorais, railway mail clerks on the Quebec postal division, and Mr. Henry Wathen, mail clerk, on the postal division of St. John, New Brunswick, pass their promotive examinations, respectively?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In 1897 the Civil Service promotion examinations foT railway mail clerks were abolished, and a Case examination substituted therefor, which Case examination Railway Mail Clerk Furois passed on March 23, 1898, and Railway Mail Clerk Dorais on December 22, 1899. Railway Mail Clerk Wathen passed the Civil Service promotion examination in 1889.



HOLLAND RIVER AND NEWMARKET CANAL.

Mr. LENNOX asked:: 1.	When were tenders first called for the construction of section 1 of the canal from Holland river and Newmarket?
2.	From whom were tenders received, what were the schedule rates in each and what was the amount in each case as moneyed out?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and when?
4.	Has the work been regularly proceeded with by these contractors during the working seasons since the contract was awarded?
5.	What amount has been paid these contractors under these contracts, and when was the last payment made?
6.	Is this contract still a subsisting contract, have the contractors thrown up the work or refused to complete their contract, and has the government agreed to rescind this contract?
7.	Did the government call for tenders for this section a second time? If so, when?
8.	What tenders were received upon this occasion, what were the schedule rates in each case, and what was the amount in each case moneyed out?
9.	To whom was the contract awarded in this case?
10.	If not awarded, what is the cause of delay ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The information to answer this question will be found in a return moved for on January 26, 1909, and laid on the table of the House on 4th March, instant.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the fact that the return called for by me on the 25th of January last in conec-tion with the dogfish reduction plant, has not yet been brought down.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I have just brought it down.


Robert Laird Borden: On the same day I moved for a return setting forth the rules in connection with the reclassification of the Civil Service. I do not know whether that information has been brought down. I asked also for a return of certain documents in connection with the French Treaty.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I think the correspondence was laid on the table, all there is in relation to that matter. If there be anything further, and the hon. gentleman will call my attention to it, I will supplement it.


Mr. STAPLES.: On the 17th of February I asked for certain information in reference to work done on the Assiniboine river. The government undertook to do a certain piece of work, and left it in such a condition that unless it is completed it is going to flood a great portion of country. I would like to have that order brought down as quickly as possible in order that we may see what is taking place.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I will have enquiries made at once.


Mr. STANFICLD.: I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when we may expect Prof. Prince's report on the shad fisheries in Nova Scotia?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The report was received a few days ago. I will lay it on the table as soon as it is printed.


Mr. CROCKET.: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to an order of the House which was passed on the 12th day of February for a return of all the papers, vouchers, &c., with reference to the survey of the St. John river between

Fredericton and Woodstock, and ask when we may expect the return.


William Pugsley: I will make enquiry. I am informed by my deputy that in the course of a few days a large number of returns which have been moved for will be brought down.
Mr. BRADBURY I desire to call the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that a return ordered by this House in the early part of the session, regarding the amount of money paid to the Logberg Printing Company of Winnipeg, has not been brought down.


Charles Murphy: I wili have enquiry made about that this afternoon.


Mr. BARNARD.: On the 17th of February an order of the House was made for a return of certain revenues received^ and particulars of those receipts, from the Kingston penitentiary. The matter was under discussion when the Solicitor General was passing the estimates of that department, and he stated that if a return was moved for it would be brought down at once. The return was moved, and it has not been received.


Hon. JACQUES BUREAU (Solicitor General).: I find on referring to the Votes and Proceedings that the return alluded to by my hon. friend was brought down the day before yesterday.



MANITOBA FISHERIES.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a matter of importance. This House created a select committee to investigate the fisheries of Canada. I expected to have had the matter of our Manitoba fisheries referred to this committee, but the minister informed me as a commission had been appointed this could not be done . I wrote the hon. minister on the 19th urging him to add to his commission an Icelander, one of the settlers who had suffered most by the depletion of Lake Winnipeg, as anything short of this would not be satisfactory.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not seen the letter myself. I suppose it has been handed over to the department.


George Henry Bradbury: The letter was addressed to the hon. gentleman himself.



POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AT DARTMOUTH.

Robert Laird Borden: I desire to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General, or of the Minister of Public Works, the fact that the accommodation in the post office in the town of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is Mr. CROCKET.
very insufficient. The postmaster and his assistants are said to be unable properly to perform their duties owing to lack of accommodation. I think the matter has been brought already to the attention of the Postmaster General. I have been asked to urge and I now urge upon him the necesity of immediate action.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I will refer the matter immediately to the superintendent and see what can be done.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC-COST OF PRAIRIE AND MOUNTAIN SECTIONS.

Robert Laird Borden: I desire to ask the attention of the Minister of Finance to the information which has been brought down in response to my request on Wednesday of last week. I observe that the amounts actually expended on the prairie section and the mountain section are given in the answer A-l as follows: Prairie section, $27,314,053.51; mountain section, $3,015,623.74. I would be glad if the Minister of Finance would furnish the committee, when we come to consider the resolution, with detailed statements of these expenditures. I ask that because I consider it is only reasonable, having regard to the very excessive amount of the total expenditures upon the prairie and mountain sections as compared with all the estimates that were presented to the House three or four years ago. The principal part of that information I think would be in possession of the government. I am informed it has been before the Committee on Public Accounts, but there is some distinction made which I confess I do not clearly understand, as to the expenditure which is made out of the proceeds of bonds guaranteed by the government, and the expenditure which is made out of the proceeds of bonds guaranteed by the; Grand Trunk Railway Company. I do not understand how that distinction can be made; apparently it has been raised in some way. But if it were a perfectly valid distinction before the Committee of Public Acounts, it does not seem to me to be a valid distinction so far as the particular proposal now submitted to the House is concerned, inasmuch as the question of expenditure is a very important one for the purpose of considering the proposed assistance.
I may say I am not criticising these answers as not being in accordance with what was requested, but I desire to point out that, perhaps, they do not exactly fulfil what was in my mind when I asked some of these questions noT furnish just the information I would like to have.
Question 15, page 3. That question related to the total fixed charges. If it be possible to get an estimate of the actual

amount of the fixed charges upon the road, I shall he glad to have it. There may be some difficulty in making an estimate that would be of value, but it will be desirable from our standpoint to have it, if the government can conveniently give it.
Question 16. Actual amount invested by the promoters of the undertaking. The amount stated, as to December 31, 1908, is $9,597,149.19. I do not know whether or not that includes the sum of $7,094,044.30 stated in answer to question 2 on page 1 to be an advance of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I would like to know exactly what this is and who has advanced it, and in what way it appears in the expenditure set forth in answer to question 2
Question 20, page 5. That relates to the matter I have already mentioned-the total amounts of the expenditure by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. I should like to know whether or not the books and vouchers of the company have been examined by Mr. Bell in respect of the expenditure of moneys derived from the bonds guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, as well as the expenditure of moneys derived from bonds guaranteed by the government. And I would like to have the result of his examinations which, according to this answer, have been transmitted by the Department of Railways and Canals to Collingwood Schreiner, C.M.G., government chief engineer of the western division of the Transcontinental Railway. I do>
not observe any other note, but later on I may mention one or two other matters to the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not happen to have a copy of tile paper before me, and so I have not been able to follow very closely the points that the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has raised. When his request was made some days ago I gave direction that the officials should at once go into the matter and make every effort to cover every inquiry on his memo. I think we have been fairly successful. I will see that * Hansard with the report of his remarks is taken up by the officials, so that any information in our possession in answer to his inquires may be produced.


Robert Laird Borden: One matter I forgot to mention: It appears from the agreement, a copy of which is to be found at pages 12 to 15 of the printed information, that a certain sum of money, $793,600, has been credited to a certain stock issue amounting to 9,920 shares, and that the balance, between $793,600 and the par value of the^ shares mentioned, has been paid in in cash. I do not know that the disposal of that sum of money appears anywhere m the information brought down. I should
be glad if the Minister of Finance would ask that this information also should be provided. I do not know that I make myself clear.


William Stevens Fielding: I will place the ' Hansard ' report of the hon. gentleman's remarks in the hands of the officials, with instructions to get everything that he refers to that is in our possession or under our control.


Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine).: I desire to ask for information to be supplied in connection with this debate. I would like to know where the guarantee of the Grand Trunk which is to be given in respect of this $10,000,000 loan ranks in relation to the other obligations which the Grand Trunk Railway has undertaken? Does it come after their loan capital and after other guarantees they have given? Will the minister please ascertain the facts as to this point?


William Stevens Fielding: I will have a precise statement prepared. It becomes an interior security; the other guarantees to which the hon. member (Mr. Ames) has referred have priority.
Mr, AMES. Will the hon. minister make a, list so that we may know exactly where it ranks


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


Herbert Brown Ames: -showing what other obligations would have to be satisfied before this will have any value?


William Stevens Fielding: I will see that the information is furnished.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. A. N. WORTHINGTON (Sherbrooke).: I desire to remind the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that several returns that have been asked for from his department have not yet been laid on the table. When may we expect this information?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).: I think at once.



SUPPLY-INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY FREIGHT CLERKS, HALIFAX AND ST. JOHN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["We will continue the supplementaries, beginning with the Minister of Railways and Canals. But we hope to clean up the whole of them to-morrow.\n' Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. Friday.", 'Friday, March 26, 1909.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether or not he has taken into consideration _ the report of the committee which investigated some matters in dispute between the management of the Intercolonial Railway and the freight clerks at Halifax and St. John. I observe some rather important statements in the report of the

committee which have, no doubt, been dTawn to the minister's attention and which perhaps he has considered. I quote from the report as brought down in a return to this House, page 4:-
Accordingly, and after full discussion, the following matters were agreed upon by all parties in the form as under:
Your committee are of opinion that it would make for greater harmony and better efficiency if a system of classification of clerks were introduced. Not only would the above results accrue, but there would then be an available scheme for promotion, which at the present time seems to be lacking, and which omission breeds discontent owing to the uncertainty of upward progress for efficient clerks who have by length of service and attention to the duties of their office earned the right to consideration in this regard. Just what system of classification should be introduced must neessarily be evolved by the offi-ials of the railway who are more intimately familiar with the details of the business of the Intercolonial than your committee can possibly be. The men involved must necessarily accept the classification determined upon, subject, of course, to the right which they possess of bringing to the attention of their superiors in office any improvement in such classification which to them may seem desirable in the best interests of the service.
Further on, at page 5, dealing with promotion, the report says:
Your committee are further strongly of the opinion that, outside of the rare cases that arise where an exceptionally able outsider is brought into the service to fill some particular position requiring special knowledge and training, the principle of promotion of those already in the service should obtain, having due regard, of course, to efficiency and the requirements of the service.
And further on, at page 7:
The committee further considered the question involved and now submit the following additional recommendations:	The committee
after its investigation, is of opinion that, in the matter of wages, the system that obtains of appointing from time to time, new men at higher pay over the heads of men long in the service and probably more capable of doing the work, is injurious to the service and unjust to the men. The remedy for this lies in reorganization, and the abolition of the existing system of appointment influenced by political patronage, which from the point of efficient working we find ample evidence to condemn as applied to the Intercolonial Railway.
I do not bring this up to-day for the purpose of making any animadversions upon or indulging in any criticism of the department, but merely for the purpose of inquiring whether the attention of the minister has been fully directed to this report, whether he has the recommendations under consideration, as I have no doubt he has, whether he has arrived. at


Robert Laird Borden: any conclusion as to what can be done and, if he is not able to give us his conclusions to-day, whether or not we may expect to hear them at a reasonably early date.


George Perry Graham: I may not be orthodox, but I cannot agree with any suggestion that makes length of service an absolute qualification for promotion.


Mr. FOSTER.: Not the only one.


George Perry Graham: To my mind ability to perform the duties is the supreme test. That, coupled with length of service ought to bring about the promotion of the individual. This report of the board was brought to my attention the other day by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) on going into Committee of Supply, I think, and if I remember correctly my reply was that action had not been taken as yet, one of the reasons being that the report implies the dismissal of several employees. In order to ascertain just how that report should be carried out, without doing injustice to an employee, I am having an investigation made into the whole situation as to length of service, ability and all that kind of necessary information with regard to each clerk in so far as I can get it. When that is done I intend to proceed along the lines of the report.


Mr. DANIEL.: With regard to the report just referred to, I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to the fact, that the other day, in speaking about the Intercolonial Railway, he stated that so far from the Intercolonial being overmanned it was not manned to the same extent as some other railways in Canada. If that is the case it would appear that the clerks in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax and St. John are not too numerous and consequently this report can hardly be correct in that respect. Either the minister is wrong or the report is wrong, so that it would appear to me that the course of the minister is absolutely clear; that is he has to put those men in these two cities, working for the Intercolonial Railway, on a proper basis as regards pay, and I think, judging from the report that has been read, it was quite allowed by the reporters that the men there are not paid sufficiently. The statement was also made that the road was overmanned, that there were more than sufficient to do the work and that the salaries paid in excess of the requirements should be divided amongst those who are retained. But, taking into consideration the statement that the minister himself made the other day with regard to the manning of the Intercolonial Railway that it was not manned to
the same extent as some other railways were, I would think that the case was rather plain for the granting of an increase in pay to the clerks at the railway 'terminal at Halifax and St. John.


Mr. CROSBY.: I would like to have had an opportunity of seeing this report but it has just come to my hand at this moment, I do not understand that this board of conciliation were appointed to deal with the question as to whether there were too many men on the Intercolonial Railway or whether there were not enough. I understand that this board were commissioned to ascertain whether the men on the Intercolonial Railway were properly paid or not. Therefore, I do not see what right they had to come and tell the Minister of Railways and Canals that his department was overmanned. I believe they overstepped the bounds in doing that, particularly as we had the Minister of Railways the other day stating distinctly that the Intercolonial was not manned to the extent of any other railway in the Dominion of Canada, a statement which was corroborated by statistics. Therefore, I think that settles the question and I do not think that this commision will be in a position to make a report that would be as definite as the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals himself. I think we can set aside altogether the question as to whether the Intercolonial Railway at St. John and Halifax is overmanned but, upon the question as to whether the men were in receipt of sufficient pay or not, the board reported distinctly that the men were not paid enough and recommended an increase to them. I am not going to deal with the matter of qualification and other questions touched upon in the report as I suppose we will have an opportunity of taking those questions up on some future occasion, but I really do think that whatever may be done in connection with this report the clerks who were willing to come under the conciliation clause of the Act known as the Lemieux Act and who have been willing to allow that board to be appointed, feeling that they would get fair play are entitled to be fairly dealt with in that respect. Whatever may be done with regard to the manning of the railway, if the minister should find upon investigation that such has occurred, I really think he should take this matter up himself because it is not a matter for the board to deal with. I am convinced from the statistics quoted here the other day, from the very exhaustive discussion that we had and from the elaborate references to the whole matter of railways in the Dominion of Canada that the intercolonial is not overmanned as compared with other railways. The clerks have made an appeal, in fact, I think they went out on strike almost, or threatened to go out,
they have accepted this board and they should have that which is due to them by the authority and report of the board.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Landing pier-St. Michel, Yamaska, $4,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this case the sum of $2,000 was voted and after the vote was exhausted the men were continued at work and further obligations incurred. What is the explanation of that?


William Pugsley: The engineer carried on the work up to a recent date because his opinion was that to leave the work as it was would lead to the danger of it being destroyed.


Herbert Brown Ames: After the $2,000 had been exhausted and expenditure to the extent of $4,000 more incurred before it was voted, were the men paid their wages?


William Pugsley: No, they were not paid and this vote is to pay them.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the government owe $4,000 for wages and materials during September, October, November and December? Have the men been waiting all this time to get their pay?


William Pugsley: That is quite correct but the men understood that if they continued work they would have to wait until parliament made an appropriation.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the minister commend such a practice as that?


William Pugsley: I do not and I would not justify it except in the most exceptional case. In this case the engineer in charge reported to the chief engineer on January 6, 1909.
The landing pier under construction at St. Francois du Lac in Yamaska is in danger of being damaged during winter or spring freshets unless the work is continued and completed this winter.


George Eulas Foster: When was the appropriation exhausted?


William Pugsley: Some time in the fall. He continues:
The urgent work yet to be done this winter is stone ballast, stringers, flooring, &c., requiring an additional use of $1,900, and for labour to complete the work, $2,300; total amount, $4,200. If work is continued persons working or supplying materials are willing to await payment until new appropriation is available.
The people understood that, but I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) that if possible this should never be done. In this case there were exceptional circumstances and the chief engineer allowed the resident engineer to proceed with the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: In case oi extreme urgency cannot the minister get an additional credit in a legal way?


William Pugsley: In cases of unforseen emergencies a Governor General's warrant could be obtained and probably this might come within that.


Mr AMES.: Is it not a fact that the system of issuing Governor General's warrants is to meet cases of emergency _ and that the law contemplated, in sanctioning Governor General's warrants, that the system would remove all possible excuse for such an irregularity as this. If this were a case of real urgency why did not the minister asli for a Governor General's warrant? It is entirely infra dig, for Canada to ask people to work and wait for payment. We hear from all parts of the country that people have been asked to do work by the Dominion of Canada and its officials and then have not been paid. We had such a case in Lakevale, Nova Scotia, in which the workmen have not been paid and have been writing beseeching letters to the department and to their members for a considerable time.


William Pugsley: In this particular case the chief engineer, perhaps because he was not fully impressed with the importance of it, did not call my attention to the matter until some time in February; he took the responsibility upon himself by reason of the peculiar circumstances of this case. I find that on the 15th of December he wrote to the resident engineer as follows:
Sir,-With regard to your stoppage of work at St. Francois du Lao and St. Michel, Yamaska, the department is informed that unless these works are continued and completed during this winter they are in danger of being damaged or carried away in the spring.
The appropriations for these works are, of course, exhausted, in fact are over expended, hut it is stated that labourers and parties supplying materials would be willing to await payment until the new appropriation required for completion is available.
Would you therefore give this matter your immediate attention and let me have a report stating whether it is urgent or not that these works should be continued until completed to prevent all chance of their being damaged, as above mentioned. You will also please let me know what amount is required to complete each of these works. As this is urgent, I would like to have a report without delay.
Mr. Belanger Teplied on the 6th of January by the letter I have quoted. In this particular case the explanation of the engineer is that the foreman allowed the work to go on for a short time after he had received notice not to exceed the appropriation, and then the chief engineer, having learned that it was necessary to proceed in order to prevent the works from being des-Mr. PUGSLEY.
troyed, wrote the resident engineer and received this reply.


Herbert Brown Ames: When did he get the notice that the appropriation was exhausted?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell exactly, but I presume some little time before December 15. My hon. friend speaks of this as if there were a number of cases. I venture to say my hon. friend has learned of every case there is. There have been only a very few cases, we do not allow this as a matter of practice.


George Eulas Foster: How many?


William Pugsley: Some two or three cases have come to my notice where there are comparatively small amounts, and two of these were cases in which the engineer had acted upon the printed estimates which were sent out and apparently the chief engineer had overlooked the making of a correction after the amount was reduced here in committee upon my motion. Those are two of the cases and this is the third case.
I do not know of any other case. We are very particular, I am particular in giving directions, and so is my chief engineer, that the resident engineers and the foremen all clearly understand what amount is available and that they must not exceed the appropriation. In this particular case there has been no hardship, because the men did this work which was apparently necessary in order to prevent the work that had been done from being destroyed, and it was clearly understood that they would have to wait for their pay until parliament made the appropriation. *


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the minister quite understands the gravity of the matter which has been disclosed in this one instance accidentally. The minister says that this sort of thing has not occurred more than three times, so far as he knows. We have to take the minister's word that so far as it has come to him there have not been more than three cases, but I invite the attention of the minister to what is involved in this. There is no other way under which appropriations of money belonging to the treasury of Canada can be expended except either by vote of this House or by the authority of a Governor General's warrant. The Governor General's warrant is an expedient which the ministers on urgent occasion may avail themselves of while the House is not in session and where there is no appropriation, in order to complete or do some work which is unexpected, unforeseen and absolutely urgent. When once parliament, by its legislation, makes no provision for the unexpected, the unforeseen and the urgent, that is the course that must be pursued by the minister; he is sworn to take that course. In this case what happen-^-ed? Your vote was given, it was overexpended, your accommodating foreman did

not stop the men from working when he should have-and I would be glad if the minister would bring the exact date on which the foreman exceeded his instructions. The $2,000 was expended and a little more and then the minister, because he is responsible, drew a cheque on the treasury of the Dominion for $4,000.


William Pugsley: No, my hon. friend is entirely wrong; that is just what we didn't do These men are not paid yet, and will never be paid unless this appropriation passes.


George Eulas Foster: I know exactly what I am saying, if the minister will allow me. I say the minister, having no vote, choosing not to go to council for a Governor General's warrant, drew a cheque on the treasury of the Dominion.


William Pugsley: That is just what the minister did not do; no cheque was drawn for this sum.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister will allow me I will show him what he has done. There is no means of getting this clearly into the head of the ministry unless you use language which is strong.


William Pugsley: But it is important it should be correct.


George Eulas Foster: The minister drew a cheque on the treasury which he had no right to draw. He did not sign it on a piece of paper but he authorized his men to employ the workmen and promised them their pay. That is what I mean by saying that what he did was equivalent to drawing a cheque on the treasury of the Dominion, promising these men that at a certain date they would get their money. Had the minister any right to do that ? He acknowledges himself that he had not. My language was figurative.


William Pugsley: Extremely figurative.


George Eulas Foster: I used it to make the minister understand the enormity of what he did. Would the minister, for instance, go into the bank and for a claim which was not due or for a work which was not authorized, authorize that bank to issue to him money payable on a certain date? Has he any right to do it? He knows he would not do it, he knows he could not rightfully do it and if he did attempt to do it, he would attempt to do what there was no law or reason for, and yet this is equivalent to that very same thing. My hon. friend behind me said that this was infra dig of the gov eminent. That is the smallest part of it, it is a system which is absolutely equivalent to drawing in advance from the treasury of the Dominion when you have no legal right or warrant. That is a very bad method of carrying on the business of the department. The minister gets out of these things easily. Yesterday we had a case in 103
which the minister and his predecessor expended $65,000 without any authority and against the express provision of the law by day's labour doing a work from year to year and never availing himself of the simple formality of going to the Governor in Council and getting an order in council to make his action legal. There is a statute specifying the course to be pursued by a minister in such a case and implicitly forbidding any other course. The minister has violated that statute over and over again. The St. John pipe line was not the first case in which it occurred, we had other cases a few days ago. How far are we going, how far is this parliament going to allow the minister to go in this arbitrary, illegal and unauthorized fashion? We pass a law in which we lay down the principle that these expenditures shall be made by tender and contract, but as a too rigid adherence to that principle would sometimes lead to trouble, we make an exception and provide that if. in the case of an expenditure up to $5,000, the minister has reason to believe the work could be better or moTe quickly done by day labour, he makes his request and gives his reasons to council, and if the council consents, the work is done in that way. But my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and his predecessor have spent $65,000 upon that Carle-ton and Partridge island work and had the work done by day labour.


William Pugsley: I thought we had passed that item.


George Eulas Foster: I am using it as an illustration. I know that it bears heavily on the hon. minister.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


George Eulas Foster: If he has a conscience which is not disturbed at all by such glaring violations of the law, and I take his word for it, I can understand how this does not affect him. But when there are violations after violations of the law, the question is whether parliament will give up its rights and leave such matters wholly to the discretion of an irresponsible minister. I do not think parliament wants to do that. It has few enough rights, and when it enacts a law, the minister should carry that law out; and a law regarding public expenditure is one of the most important we can pass. I place these matters before the minister as strongly as I can because they evidently do not disturb his conscience.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend took advantage of the right item on which to base his complaint. If he had condemned as forcibly yesterday the expenditure on the work at Partridge island as he has done t'o-day, his protest might have had some effect.


George Eulas Foster: I did deal with it.


William Pugsley: But the item under consideration now is not such an item as affords my hon. friend reason to dwell upon it so forcibly, and for this reason. Parliament last session authorized this work to be proceeded with.
' Mr. FOSTER. Authorized the minister to do the work for $2,000.


William Pugsley: After expending $2,000, it was found that unless the work was continued and this additional money expended, what had been done would be in danger of being washed away. That was brought to the attention of my chief engineer and he brought it to my notice, and the resident engineer was authorized to go on with the work so far as was necessary to prevent its being destroyed during the coming spring. All the chief engineer did was to tell the resident engineer that the men who did this work and supplied the material had to take their chances of the money being voted by parliament. Let me call attention to what took place over and over again when my hon. friend was Minister of Finance, just as it is taking place to-day and has taken place under all administrations. Suppose a public building has to be erected, and is estimated to cost $100,000. Parliament usually votes one-third of the amount as being the sum which is likely to be spent during the coming year, and the contractor goes ahead. It is provided in the contract that if he goes beyond the amount appropriated by parliament, he must do so at his own risk. He is supposed to stop when that appropriation is exhausted. By the 1st of October the contractor has done work on the building to the value of one-third its estimated cost and the parliamentary appropriation is exhausted. Does he stop? Did he stop when my hon. friend was minister? No, he goes on with the work. He may do work to the extent of $75,000. In such a case what did my hon. friend do? He put in the supplementaries an amount sufficient to pay the contractor for all the work done during the current year exceeding the appropriation. He did that over and over again. What is the difference between such a case and the present instance? My hon. friends say that in the present instance, the putting in of the supplementary vote is equivalent to drawing a cheque on the treasury for $4,000. But when my hon. friend gave his contractor to understand that an amount would be put in the supplementaries to cover what he did during the current year in excess of the parliamentary appropriation, was he drawing a cheque on the treasury to that amount? If his contention be right, then every time you put an item in the supplementaries, you are drawing a cheque on the _ treasury, and pledging the public credit, and all these votes in the supple-Mr. FOSTER.
mentary estimates, amounting to $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, should not be there. Why are they there? They represent wages due, amounts due for rents and supplies, amounts due to contractors on public buildings and wharfs all over this country, and which were not wholly provided for in the main estimates of last year. That is why we ask to-day for these supplementary votes. My hon. friend may, with his keen intellect and his keen discernment of right and wrong, be able to see the distinction between the two cases, but I am not. No doubt it is the duty of the foreman to stop the work when he gets notice that the appropriation is exhausted, and his permitting it to go on can only be justified under very exceptional circumstances. In the opinion of the engineer, the case in question was one in which it was justifiable to go ahead and make the necessary expenditure to save the work from destruction.


Mr. GERMAN.: The matter under discussion is one regarding which I have very particular knowledge. I know that all contractors are in the habit of doing work ahead of the appropriations. If the Department of Public Works or the Department of Railways and Canals, when they give out contracts, would notify the contractors that there was a certain amount to be appropriated and that after that appropriation was exhausted, the work for that year must stop, the contractors would tender on very different lines from those on which they do now. But under the late government, when my hon. friend from North Lanark was Minister of Railways, things were done in exactly the same way as at present. My hon. friend shakes his head, but I know they, were. If the contractors were told that after the appropriation was spent, they must cease their work, they would put in their tenders accordingly but the difficulty is that they put in their tenders expecting to go on and complete their work, after the appropriation is exhausted. They spend their money and they find they cannot get paid, and that is what causes the whole difficulty. T have called the attention of the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to this very matter. I believe the contractors who have spent their money under those conditions, should be paid interest, because they have to pay interest to the bank'- which are carrying them. I think it only fair that a contractor should be paid interest on the money due him from the date it is due until the date it is paid. If the department would notify them that they must work under certain conditions, then the contractors would put in higher prices, but they are not notified. I know sufficient about the whole situation to know that the proper thing to do is for the two

large spending departments of Public Works and Railways to inform the contractors that there's a certain amount to be expended, and when that is Bpent, they must stop the work. Or else tell them: Complete your work, and if we have not the money, we will pay interest on what you expend.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Let me show the distinction between the instance given by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) and the present instance. I will explain how we did it when we were running the government. Suppose we had a contract on the Canadian Pacific Railway the estimated expenditure on which was $5,000,000, but the amount to be expended during the year was $500,000, and that amount was asked for and voted. We entered into a contract for the $5,000,000, or for the $500,000, as the case might be. But the contractor knew, as every contractor for the government knows, that the only amount available during the year was the appropriation of parliament. He was notified when the appropriation ran out. But he relied upon the government to have a sum voted next year to carry on the work.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


William Pugsley: When he was in office did not he have supplementary estimates for the current year?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


William Pugsley: For what purpose?


John Graham Haggart: For the purpose of covering the work, just as the hon. gentle-(Mr. Pugsley) has done.


William Pugsley: Just so,-where parliament had not already supplied it.


John Graham Haggart: But, look at the difference between the two cases. Here is a vote for $2,000 to complete a work


William Pugsley: No, the hon. member is entirely in error; it was towards the work, not to complete it.


Mr. LENNOX.: Was there any intimation that more would be required?


John Graham Haggart: It must have been the full amount.


William Pugsley: No. no.


John Graham Haggart: If it was a work estimated to cost over $5,000, the minister had no right to do it by day's labour, but ought to have given it out by tender and contract. He did not do this. Why? For the simple reason that he thought $2,000 would complete the work. The House votes $2,000, and the minister goes on by day's 103i
work. After the appropriation runs out, the engineer, who is the judge of the emergency of this case, orders the work continued, and tells the men that they will be paid. So, the cases are entirely different. A contractor may have a contract for $5,000,000, the year's appropriation towards which may be only $150,000. If the contractor does $200,000 worth of work, it is quite legitimate to ask for $50,000 in the supplementary estimates to make up the difference.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. member allow me to ask him this question?: Does not that show that the minister approved of the contractor doing work to the extent of $50,000 beyond the amount voted?


John Graham Haggart: I am sure the minister understands the distinction. This work was to be completed for $2,000


William Pugsley: No, no.


John Graham Haggart: The fact that the minister violated the law in going on by day's labour, if the estimated cost was $6,000, shows that he did not expect to spend that amount. If it were a work of emergency, the minister's duty, when the $2,000 appropriation was expended, was to have an order in council passed in favour of going on with the work as an emergency work. But look at the position in which the great Dominion of Canada is placed- owing its men for days' wages for six or seven months, awaiting supplementary estimates in order to get the money to pay them. There is a silent contract between the minister and these men that they are simply to be allowed to go on with the work and will wait for their pay until the minister gets a supplementary estimate. That is not an enviable position in which to place the country, and, if I understand him aright, the minister knows it. He tries to excuse it all, but in a very lame fashion, -it is wrong to do it, and hopes that the same thing will not occur again.


George Eulas Foster: As the minister does not seem to understand it yet, I would like to add a word. The minister takes as one example a large contract. Let us take a concrete case :	We will say work going
on for dredging in the city and harbour of St. John. The estimates are laid on the table and when they come up in committee the minister is asked how much it will take to complete the work, and he gives the estimate.


William Pugsley: Suppose that the minister is not asked, and makes no statement?


George Eulas Foster: I can hardly conceive


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. member know that these Quebec items went

through and no one asked a single question?


Mr FOSTER.: But it is not the duty of the minister to slip through votes, even in hurried moments, without giving to the House at least the elementary information with regard to them. And if the minister had a vote for $2,000 for work which he knew could not be completed for that amount, he was not treating the House fairly if he did not tell the House, in all frankness, that it would cost more to complete the work. The minister's duty is clear, and I am sure no one sees it more clearly than he does. Here is a public work, the quantities and estimated cost of which are known. An appropriation is made for it. The minister makes a contract for the construction, which contract binds him to pay for the work so much on progress estimates as the work is done. Nobody can tell just how much will be done in one year. It will depend very much upon the circumstances that meet the contractor as he proceeds. But the contract is plain, if the contractor finishes that work he is to receive so much money. The contract is plain, because parliament has agreed to the expenditure of that large amount of money for that work, and it proposes to pay for it, and authorizes its minister to enter into a contract to get the work done. This case is entirely different. Here is a piece of work which is done by day's labour. The minister does not tell the House when he brings down his estimates and gets his $2,000, that it is to cost more. If he had told the House that it was to cost $6,000, he would then have been obliged to let it by tender and contract, or to have got the authority of council in order to allow the work to be done by day's work. But he did not tell the House that, it is $2,000, and that is all the minister has, and it is all he has a right to pledge. The cases are as different as they can be, and the minister sees it as clearly as any man in this House.


William Pugsley: I wish I had the ability of my hon. friend to make black appear white and white appear black, but I am not able to do that. If I understand my hon. _ friend, this would have been all right if, at the last session of parliament when I asked for the $2,000, I had stated that the work was likely to cost some $10,080; and then, if I had entered into a contract to have the work done, and the contractor had gone on and finished the work just as it is now being done, in that case I would have been quite right in coming to parliament and saying: Although I have only $2,000 of an appropriation, yet I have given the contract for $10,000, the contractor has gone on faster than we anticipated, he has finished up his work, and I must ask parliament for a vote of an ad-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ditional $4,000, or all that is required, to pay him. That would have been all right, according to my hon. friend, would it not?


George Eulas Foster: Go on and make your argument.


William Pugsley: I thought my hon. friend would not agree to that. The only difference is that here the country has got good value. These poor labouring men have gone ahead and have done this work under the direction of the engineer, done work which was absolutely necessary in order to save horn destruction what they had already done, and for which they were paid out of the $2,000, and now we are asking parliament to give us the money to pay these men for their labour, and pay for the materials which have been put into the work. I can see a technical difference between the two.


George Eulas Foster: Can you not see a legal difference?


William Pugsley: No, I am not able to see a legal difference, because in the case of a contractor he has to go on and take the risk of parliament voting his money. The contractor had no business legally to spend one dollar under his contract beyond the appropriation of parliament. What does the contractor do? The contract expressly provides that the minister is not bound to make a payment until and unless parliament makes a further appropriation. If parliament does not make the appropriation, the minister is under no obligation and the government is under no obligation. The contractor could not go into the Exchequer Court and recover a single dollar. It is entirely a voluntary matter on the part of parliament to vote in the supplementary estimates the requisite amount to cover the over-expenditure which the contractor has made during the current year. While I say this, I am also free to say that this is something which the engineer should not permit except under the most exceptional circumstances. I do not attempt to justify it as a practice which ought to be generally pursued. The engineer thought in this case that he was doing what was. in the public interest, he thought the work he was doing was necessary to save from destruction that which had been already done. He fully explained to these men that they would have to wait, he explained that they could not expect the money until parliament voted it. As I understand it, the distinction is merely a technical one. In each case the work has been done; in the one case the contractor, and in the other case the men, simply look to parliament to do what it is not bound to do. and it is for this committee now to consider whether this work having been done, it being a useful public work, and having been done in the public interest, it should provide money for

the purpose of paying these men for their labour and to pay for the material.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is an eminent lawyer, stands high in his profession; I am not a lawyer, but I am willing to put my common sense against the minister's law, and submit it to this committee. The minister came down to parliament, he proposed this work, he told parliament it would cost $10,000. Parliament gave an appropriation of $2,000 towards the completion of that work. That authorized the minister to enter into a contract for the work, he called for tenders and let the contract. With that authorization he entered into a contract with a man to perform that work, and upon the work being properly performed and certified to, that man would have a claim for $10,000. That is the one case fair and square.


William Pugsley: Would he have a claim until parliament voted the money ?


George Eulas Foster: It makes no difference. The very moment you make a contract with a man by which he is to carry out that work, he is to receive on the completion of that work, $10,000. That is a hard and fast contract. My hon. friend said that if he went on and built it, it was a mere matter of grace, or favour, or good will for parliament to make an appropriation to pay him. Now I will put my common sense against his law, and I will say this: If the minister entered in that way into a contract with a man to perform a work upon the completion of which he should be paid by this country $10,000, if the man went on and performed the work, advanced his own money when the appropriation was run out, paid his own men, bought his own material and performed the work himself, and said, there is your work, put on your inspector, and the inspector goes on and says it is all right, that man can collect from this country his $10,000, unless the country is mean enough not to give him the fiat to go to court.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend omitted to state that in all these contracts it is expressly provided that if the contractor goes beyond the appropriation he does it at his own risk.


George Eulas Foster: Exactly, he does so at his own risk, and he pays his men, if he wanted to pay before the six months are over. You are not then in the deplorable condition of having John Smith, and Tom Brown, and a dozen others owed by the government six months for work, and the government not able to pay them, and this country held up in that sort of fashion. He can go on and say, ' I will complete this work, I have got the men and material here, I will provide my own money and complete it, and when it. is completed I will get my money from the government.'
There is no government in the world that could withhold that money from him. He takes his own risk, but the risk amounts to nothing. This is the difference. The minister in this case came for a $2,000 expenditure, if he had come for a $6,000 expenditure, he would have had to let it by tender and contract. He dit not do it, and he came for his $2,000 and got it, that is all he should have expended. His engineer did wrong, and he himself did wrong, in allowing his engineer to enter into any kind of an understanding with these men to go on and complete this work for $4,000 more, and promising that in four or five, or six months afterward this parliament would pay it. But there is no use in my hon. friend and myself showing our comparative excellence in law over these items, so I think we will stop.
Batiscan-dredging channel at month of river, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract to Randolph Macdonald, and' is to finish up the payments to him.


George Eulas Foster: How much has it cost?


William Pugsley: It has cost somewhere in the vicinity of $70,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done?


William Pugsley: This is for dredging at the mouth of the channel and improving the navigable river to a depth of six feet at low water, a distance of five miles up the river.


George Eulas Foster: What is the business on
the Batiscan river?


William Pugsley: There is considerable local traffic. Market boats call there. The Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company's boats call, and it is a great convenience to farmers to have steamers come in and give them a cheap means of getting their produce to market. The mail boats call there.


George Eulas Foster: The Batiscan flows into what river?


William Pugsley: Into the St. Lawrence. It is 21 miles below Three Rivers.


George Eulas Foster: What point are you dredging up to?


William Pugsley: Ste. Genevieve, five miles from the mouth.


George Eulas Foster: What is the population of Ste. Genevieve?


Mr. LAVERGNE.: 3,000, including the parish and town.


George Eulas Foster: If you take in a whole county you can easily get 3,000 and more. You might go right up to the height of land.


Louis Lavergne: The census will show you that my statement is correct.


William Pugsley: This work is being done at the very reasonable charge of 17 cents per cubic yard.


George Eulas Foster: If, in our time, we had undertaken to spend $70,000 in every little village and in every little river I think there would have been ructions in this parliament and in the country as well. Seventy thousand dollars is a tremendous amount of money to spend. What is the commercial equivalent that is to come from the expenditure of $70,000?


William Pugsley: First of all I want to correct a statement I made as to the contractor. It is not Mr. Randolph Macdonald, bult the contractors are Messrs. Du-fresne, Turcotte & Marchildon. My hon. friend says there would have been ructions. When-years ago?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, at any time when we had good sentiment in the House and in the country..


William Pugsley: There -was not as much revenue as we have now.


George Eulas Foster: And there was not as much call for revenue.


William Pugsley: That is probably because the country has about doubled in growth and importance and everything that contributes to the development of the nation.


George Eulas Foster: There were not as many taxes then as now.


William Pugsley: And not as much ability to pay them as now.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know about that.


William Pugsley: I think we had better discuss the item.


George Eulas Foster: Well, go on.


William Pugsley: Besides the town of Ste. Genevieve there are on the river, Batiscan, St. Prospere, St. Stanislas and St. Narcisse.


George Eulas Foster: Are these places below Ste. Genevieve?


William Pugsley: They are all accommodated by this steamship service.


George Eulas Foster: Is that so? The minister says they will be; will they be?


William Pugsley: That is my information. Apparently there was a petition presented in favour of this work. I have not the petition with me now because this was entered upon some few years ago, but the people of Batiscan, St. Prospere, St. Stanislas and St. Narcisse represented that it would be a great advantage to them to have steamers calling and to be thus enabled to send their products by water, it being much cheaper than by railway. I think we ought not to take too strpng a Mr. LAVERGNE.
stand against improving the waterways of the country. A reasonable expenditure in dredging out these rivers to enable the steamers to get to the various settlements of the country to enable the people to get their produce to market by water is a matter of a good deal of importance. Water transportation is very cheap as compared with railway transportation.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know about it being any cheaper when you have to do it at a cost of $70,000.


William Pugsley: It is cheaper for the people and while the initial cost may be larger when it is once done it is done for all time.


Mr. BLAIN.: What amount was voted last year for this work ?


William Pugsley: There was an appropriation of $15,000.


Richard Blain: Was it all expended ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: And how much more ?


William Pugsley: It takes $4,000 to finish the expenditure of the current year.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: They spent everything last year.


William Pugsley: This $66,000 has been running for a number of years. All we spent last year was $18,867 and we had $15,000 of an appropriation.


Herbert Brown Ames: What will it cost to finish it up to the railway bridge ?


William Pugsley: I have not the memorandum.


Robert Laird Borden: What depth of water will it give ?


William Pugsley: Six feet at low tide.


George Eulas Foster: Do the Richelieu steamers run up there ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Flat bottom boats ?


William Pugsley: A number of boats of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company; I do not say their biggest boats.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister explain how the Richelieu steamers are going to get up with six feet of water ?


William Pugsley: Their big steamers do not go there, but they have a boat which makes close connection with the mail steamers on the river.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, I was buoying myself up with the idea that these magnificent steamers went up there.


William Pugsley: The mail steamers do not go up the different rivers, I think the mail steamers connect with the boat which runs up the river.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it is a row boat.


George Eulas Foster: We would like to know what it will cost.


William Pugsley: It all depends on how much dredging we will do.


Louis Lavergne: This is in the county of Champlain. I am sorry the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) is not here because I know he would defend the work if he were present. There are large saw-mills located upon the river and boats go into the river to get lumber.


George Eulas Foster: Saw-mills at Ste. Genevieve?


Louis Lavergne: Yes there is one at Ste. Genevieve and one at the mouth of the river Batiscan.
Riviere Bonaventure-training pier, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is to make payment on a contract for work done during the year.


Herbert Brown Ames: We have already made our protest against that.


George Eulas Foster: What is the meaning of a * training ' pier ?


William Pugsley: It is to train the current so that it scours out the channel and directs the flow of the silt.


George Eulas Foster: Does it prove itself fairly amenable to training?


William Pugsley: It does as a rule.


George Eulas Foster: I thought that a current was rather obstinate, uncertain and difficult to train ?


William Pugsley: No, it is wonderful how you can direct it.


Robert Laird Borden: How much will it take to put this current into a good condition of training ?


George Eulas Foster: How much has been expended altogether ?


William Pugsley: It will "be about $27,-
000.


George Eulas Foster: When that amount is spent what will the minister have ?


William Pugsley: We will have a training pier 1,200 feet long, 22 feet wide on top, 14 feet high at the outer end and 5 feet above high water spring tides.


George Eulas Foster: The design is to keep the current out of the river.


William Pugsley: It is rather to concentrate the current into a narrower channel so that it will carry away the silt.


George Eulas Foster: And allow of better navigation ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the size of the city to which the navigation goes ?


William Pugsley: It is one of the largest shipping points upon all that coast.


George Eulas Foster: Does the lumber go out by water ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister sure of that?


William Pugsley: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: Is the lumber loaded on this pier?


William Pugsley: I do not know but I should think not.


Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. C. Marcil).: May I be allowed to say that the Bonaventure river is the largest river in the county of Bonaventure and probably the largest in the Gaspesian peninsula.


George Eulas Foster: What does that mean?


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is the outlet for the famous Robitaille timber limits which are known as the best timber limits in the province of Quebec. They were held by the late Lieutenant-Governor Robitaille and his family for 25 years and three years ago they were purchased by a syndicate headed by Senator Edwards of Ottawa, called the Cascapedia Trading Lumber Company. It was said at the time that $400,000 was paid for the limits which are now worked by this Canadian Company which has an agency in Buffalo. There is a large mill situated at the mouth of the river which formerly belonged to Mr. LeBlanc and which was purchased by this company. There are men living in Bonaventure county to-day who remember that 40 years ago three masted schooners used to enter the Bonaventure river and proceed to the basin in rear of the barrachois where there is a depth of 25 feet of water. When there limits commenced to be worked logs and stumps floated down the river and becoming embedded in the sand'they completely blocked up the channel. The parish of Bonaventure River, has a population of about 1,800 and is about the largest parish in the county. This lumber company has gone very extensively into the operation of these mills and means have to be found to enable them to carry on their business. I think there was a statement made to the department last year showing that from 60 to 75 steamers and sailing craft of all kinds had been loaded with lumber and railway ties at that point. ^ Mr. Crocket, my former opponent, who is the largest dealer in railway ties in the province of

Quebec, sent several hundred thousand from that point. These ties came down the Bonaventure river and were shipped to different parts of the United States, and even to Mexico and South America. These steamers and sailing vessels which took this freight had to anchor a mile or a mile and a half out in the open without any shelter from storms. The lumber and the ties had to be conveyed in scows and some of these were lost last year with their cargoes, and the lives of the crews endangered. Mr. LeBlanc, who was a large lumber operator there, made several requests on the government for facilities to carry on his industry. Mr. Breen, who was engineer of the district for twenty-five years, and who is still the engineer in charge of the district of Quebec, sent in one or two interesting reports showing that it was out of the question to build a wharf at Bonaventure river because it is flat land extending out into the bay, and the only way in which assistance could be given was to build a training pier which would serve to scour the channel of the river. This pier has been built at a cost of $27,000, and the idea is to dredge out the channel, the training pier being intended to prevent the south and west winds from filling up the river with sand and other accumulations. When some dredging is done, the vessels which now have to lie out in the bay will be able to enter the basin and load there under all conditions of weather. Anyone who has visited the locality will admit that this is a very useful work. The village of Bonaventure River itself is growing very rapidly. The Cascapedia Lumber Company has erected a large departmental store which is a new feature in the Gaspe country, and I think they employ 400 men during this winter. More lumbering is done at that one point than probably at any other point on the Gaspe peninsula.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Are there mills there?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes. Mr. LeBlanc's mill was purchased by the Edwards syndicate and it employs 150 men. It is a sawmill with all modern appliances and has been working day-and night. It is one of the attractions of the place to see it. The Bonaventure river has three mouths emptying into the Baie des Chaleurs, and it runs for 60 or 70 miles into the Gaspe peninsula. There is a peculiarity caused by the development of the lumber operations in that, while in all the rest of that country the settlements are on the front, there is on the Bonaventure river the parish of St. Alphonse de Caplan located some distance from the bay. I think there are settlements now up to the 12th range from the Baie des Chaleurs into the back country as a consequence of these lumbering operations.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 


George Eulas Foster: The river itself is not navigable, I suppose?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Not navigable. The fishermen go there, the salmon fishermen; it is navigable for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: And do they still load outside?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: They have to load out in the open, perhaps a mile and a-half out. Mr. Leblanc, the manager of the firm, informed me last year that the vessels have to anchor a mile or a mile and a-half out and the lumber is taken out to them in scows. Sometimes a change in the wind over night will delay operations or toss a scow over. They have no protection from the south and west, although they have protection from the east.


George Eulas Foster: The training pier, costing $27,000, has not benefited them so as to allow them to bring the vessels up and load inside.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The last report of the resident engineer is that the pier does not go far enough, it will have to go 150 feet further to reach the low water mark.


George Eulas Foster: Is it proposed to do that?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: An application has been made, but it has not been granted yet.


George Eulas Foster: It is no good.


William Pugsley: Please do not tell Mr. Speaker it is no good, he has been urging an extension of the pier, but it has not been agreed on.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Dredging will have to be done to give a proper channel to the mouth of the river.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there not a wide mud flat for a mile or so out from the Bonaventure river?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The bay all over is very shallow.


Herbert Brown Ames: The vessel could not get within a mile or a mile and a-half of the river?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I could not say that it is a mile; I am not a judge of distances on the water, but it is a long distance out.


Herbert Brown Ames: The pier would not be of use until a mile of dredging is done.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Dredging would have to be done.


Herbert Brown Ames: *1 can see where several millions could be spent before you can get a three-masted schooner to the mouth of the Bonaventure river.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not think so; my hon. friend frequently visits the Gaspe peninsula, he is a sportsman-


William Pugsley: I suppose he goes fishing there when he is not photographing?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: We have the finest salmon fishing in the world there. A large amount of business is done at the Bona-venture river and it is only fair that some assistance should be given to it.
_ Mr. AMES. If there is a chance of making a protected harbour and getting the requisite depth with a reasonable expense, it might properly be made, but as I understand, this river, like the little Pasbebiac, spreads out as soon as it reaches tide water and makes a wide mud flat. If this training pier is only a preliminary which must be followed by dredging operations, to form a channel for three-quarters of a mile or a mile from the mouth of the river out to deep water, it would seem that we are making a useless expenditure now or else this expense can only be made useful by an additional expenditure of many hundreds of thousands.


George Eulas Foster: We have secured some valuable information and it whets our appetite for more. We find, in the first place, that a training pier 1,200 feet in length, and costing $27,000, has already been built, and, in the second place, that the training pier has actually proved of no benefit at all to navigation, and the representative of the county says that the pier will never prove of any benefit to navigation unless it is made longer, at an added expense. How much longer must it be?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 150 feet.
Mr. FOSTkER. 150 feet has to be added before it will have a chance to be of any service towards deepening the channel. Even then it will be of no advantage until you dredge out a mud flat for a mile or a mile and a-half.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Sailing vessels always stay out a long distance in case of squalls.


George Eulas Foster: So we will have to lengthen the pier and then dredge out this mud flat forming a channel which, in a river like that, with its silt is likely to fill up within a year. $70,000 has already been spent in getting a six-foot channel at Batiscan for less, than three miles. For the ocean vessels that will come here you must have a depth of much more than six feet, I suppose from 20 to 30 feet, and I would like to know what the estimate of the amount of dredging required here is.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is greatly exaggerating and magnifying the probable cost even of doing the dredging.


George Eulas Foster: I have not named a sum.


William Pugsley: The report is that there will be 23,000 yards of dredging, mostly sand and mud. The Batiscan dredging cost 17 cents, and if you put this at 25 cents the cost would be only $5,000.


George Taylor: What depth will that give?


William Pugsley: Eight feet at low tide. The tide rises 8 feet so that will be 16 feet but when you get into the inner harbour or basin there will be 20 feet.


George Eulas Foster: But you have to get in there.


William Pugsley: You can get in at high tide. My hon. friend knows that in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there are many places which are dry at low tide, where a large lumber shipping business has been carried on.


George Eulas Foster: The channel is the vital thing.


William Pugsley: The vessels would go in and out at high tide. Many quite large vessels do not draw over 16 feet.


George Eulas Foster: How much do the vessels draw that do load there?


William Pugsley: Those that lay out in the St. Lawrence would draw more, but those that go into the inner harbour would be adapted for that trade.


George Taylor: Tranship outside?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: This is to provide for transhipment. Consequently you must have ocean vessels coming up.


William Pugsley: Many do not draw over 16 feet, and the larger number of vessels carrying lumber do not draw over 14 feet. Sailing vessels only draw 14 feet and many only 12, which take away very large cargoes of lumber.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are these steamers to which the minister refers?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Some are steamers. Two years ago, Messrs. Thos Crocket & Co., a well known lumbering firm, loaded the largest steamer that ever left the province of Quebec with railway ties for Mexico. It was a record shipment.


George Eulas Foster: How much would that vessel draw?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: From 16 to 18 feet. The town of Campbellton is at the head of the bay and the most prosperous town on the northern shore of New Brunswick, and the steamers which go there now cannot take on full cargoes. They take until they draw about 12 feet of water and then drop down the river and finish there. If steamers could go into the natural basin and take on one-half or three-quarters of their cargo, the remainder could be taken on further down.


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to doing anything reasonable for the country-

side, because the country districts have claims as well as the cities, but when we boil this down, we find that the $27,000 which has been spent and the balance that will be spent is all absolutely for the advantage of a rich syndicate which has very valuable limits and which is working these limits for its own profit. It would have been a small thing for a rich syndicate, in which Senator Edwards is represented, to have done something themselves towards this expenditure instead of loading it on to the country. All the more so because the Dominion government gets no revenue at all from it. The work no doubt helps the parish and the parish above, but it is very doubtful whether we should unduly load the revenues of this country in our hurry to do a work which a large and rich lumber company should do for themselves.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: I am very glad to learn that the lumber trade have enlisted the sympathies of the Minister of Public Works, and I presume this expenditure is intended to compensate that trade somewhat for the competition they have to meet through the free admission of American lumber. But I have been endeavouring, ever since I came here, to ascertain what is the policy of the government with regard to where they should place these wharfs and where they should not build them. I am led to believe from the discussion this afternoon that this $27,000 has been expended at this place because a lumber company, which bought the limits for about $400,000 and employs some 400 men, and a village of 1,800 population and a parish with a total population of some 3,000 are benefited by it. I would remind the Minister of Public Works that last year there was an appropriation of $2,000 for a wharf at a place somewhat similar but that wharf has never been gone on with. And at that particular point, limits were purchased by a company to the value of over a million dollars.


William Pugsley: What place is that?


George Gordon: It is a small place called Cache Bay on Lake Nipissing. This $2,000 was in the estimates last year but does not appear there this year. The limits purchased at that place are three or four times the value of those in connection with the particular item under discussion, and the men employed are three times more numerous than in this case.


George Taylor: That was in Ontario.


George Gordon: What I would like to find out is on what basis the government decides these things. In business tne test would be what we were going to get back in dollars and cents and what business was going on in the locality. If the government had any such policy, I would


George Eulas Foster: like to know why that particular vote of $2,000 is not in the estimates this year ?


William Pugsley: The work at Cache bay stands over, as do a great many others, in pursuance of the policy of retrenchment during the coming year.


George Taylor: They voted wrong the last election.


William Pugsley: That cannot be the reason because I have kept in a large vote for a dam at Latchford which is in that constituency. But this particular work did not seem urgent, and we thought it might stand over.
Rivihre du Loup (en haut)-dredging and other improvements at mouth, $6,100.


Richard Blain: Who has the contract ?


Mr. PUGSLEY W. J.@: Poupore and Company. It was given after public advertisement and tender.


Richard Blain: What amount will complete ?


William Pugsley: The expenditure was $31,219, and the appropriation $25,200. This is to pay the balance. This will not complete. It depends on how far along we may go. We have got to make a complete survey before we can tell the total cost of the work that may be required.


George Eulas Foster: How much has been spent so far altogether ?


William Pugsley: Since confederation $83,000.


George Eulas Foster: How much by this government ?


William Pugsley: I have not the figures here.


George Eulas Foster: How much more will be spent ?


William Pugsley: We have not undertaken to let any new contracts next yeaT.


George Eulas Foster: Was there no plan made?


William Pugsley: This is very necessary work. We could stop right now and have done good work in the way of improving the harbour, but there is. other work to be done if we choose to do it. We have not decided yet to do any further woTk.
Riviere Saguenay-wharf on northeast side of Riviere aux Vases, $800.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the hon. minister sure this is not for a municipal bridge ?


William Pugsley: I have no information that it is intended for a bridge. The proposed wharf will be 180 by 20, the outer block 30 by 30. Depth of water at low tide, seven feet. Total length, 210 feet. That does not sound much like a bridge, and I am sure my hon. friend need have no fears on the subject.


George Eulas Foster: What is there there?


William Pugsley: This is a small village, with two cheese factories and two stores. The only market is Chicoutimi, and the only communication is by water.


George Eulas Foster: How much will the wharf cost?


William Pugsley: About $7,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is it a navigable stream?


William Pugsley: The Saguenay?


George Eulas Foster: This is not on the Saguenay. This is on the Riviere aux Vases.


William Pugsley: No, this is on the Saguenay.


George Eulas Foster: Is a depth of seven feet sufficient for the Saguenay boats?


William Pugsley: It is enough for the boats that ply on that part of the river, but not for the big boats.


George Eulas Foster: Is it above or below Chicoutimi?


William Pugsley: It is six miles above Ste. Anne village, and above Chicoutimi.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are these wharfs built on piles?


William Pugsley: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What are they made of?


William Pugsley: Cribwork.
Riviere St. Franpois-landing pier at St. Francois du Lac, on the west side of river, $8,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much was voted for this last parliament?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: The work was done by day's labour, was it, not?


William Pugsley: Yes. This, I think, is in almost exactly the same position as the other we were discussing.


Herbert Brown Ames: Twice as bad, for it cost double the amount.


William Pugsley: I was in hopes it was not half as bad.


Herbert Brown Ames: When did the appropriation run out?


William Pugsley: I will get that information and bring it down with the other.


Herbert Brown Ames: Strange, is it not, that all these cases occur in the county of Ya-maska? It is a very close constituency, and the majority to the credit of the Liberal candidate is small.


William Pugsley: Still, it is enough.


Herbert Brown Ames: These two wharfs may have had something to do with making it enough -just enough.


George Eulas Foster: Here is another case of the minister spending $5,000 by day's work. Did he get an order in council to authorize it?


William Pugsley: No. I did not think the expenditure would reach $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: But he knows it now; does he propose to get an order in council for the prosecution of the work?


William Pugsley: The work is about completed.


George Taylor: What made it so expensive? What was the estimate?


William Pugsley: It cost for wharf and right of way $10,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: From whom was the right of way purchased?


William Pugsley: A gentleman by the name of Cocher.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was it bought?


William Pugsley: August 26, 1908.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was Mr Cocher paid?


William Pugsley: I presume, about that time. The order in council was passed on the date I have given. The payment would be made through the Justice Department, and I have no memorandum of it.


George Eulas Foster: What is the law that guides the minister in this matter?


William Pugsley: I will send for the statutes.


George Eulas Foster: Let me put the question: When the expense is not over $5,000, the minister can have it done by day's labour, but, in order to do that, must have an order in council? And if it is over $5,000, does the law provide that he has no option but to do the work by tender and contract?


William Pugsley: I think thq hon. member is in error.


George Eulas Foster: The minister should have direct knowledge on that point to aid that conscience of his.


George Taylor: What is the penalty if the minister violates the law?


William Pugsley: One penalty is to get raked over the coals by hon. gentlemen opposite. And there is nothing much worse than that; it hurts me so much.


Herbert Brown Ames: This seems to be an aggravated case. The minister asks $2,000 for a public work, and spends the $2,000, and then spends $8,000 illegally after the other is exhausted. There seems to be something about public works in Yamaska which causes the minister to drop the usual precautions.


William Pugsley: While I am waiting for the statutes to be brought, perhaps we could go on with other items.
Riviere St. Jacques (Laprairie)-ice piers near mouth on River St. Lawrence, $260.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the price of the pier?


William Pugsley: This is a balance due. The contract was for $7,023.


George Eulas Foster: Is this the same kind of ice pier as Annapolis is to have to chain its ice down?


William Pugsley: Not exactly the same.


Richard Blain: No suggestion of a bridge in this item?


William Pugsley: No.
Ste. Anne des Monts-harbour improvements at mouth of Grand Riviere Ste. Anne, $1,100.


George Eulas Foster: What has been done there?


William Pugsley: This is for a combined dam, training pier and brush and stonework protection extending from one side of the river to a small rocky islet. Then there will be some new dredging to keep the channel open to a depth of about five feet at low water.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that for the purpose of directing the movement of the ice ?


William Pugsley: No, this is not an ice pier, this is to keep the channel open for the entrance and departure of small vessels. The total cost is $17,750.


Richard Blain: Why was this done by day labour instead of by contract ?


George Eulas Foster: Give us the law now.


William Pugsley: This was a class of work that could be better done by day labour, in the opinion of the engineer. The law will be found in the first Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 39:
36. Whenever any works are to he executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department should invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases,-
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or,
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or,
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the ministers in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.


John Graham Haggart: I think there is a provision defining the emergency, is there not ?


Herbert Brown Ames: 


William Pugsley: I am not aware of anything else in the statute bearing on that question. 1 may say to my hon. friend that my view has been that in cases where the work is important and likely to involve an expenditure of over $5,000, I have felt it my duty to go to council. But except in cases where, in the opinion of the engineer, the work is not likely to cost a great deal of money, and it can be done more expeditiously and more economically by day's work, in some cases I have not gone to council. In some cases we are not bound to go to council, but I have usually done so.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much of this $17,000 has gone into the construction of the approach to this wharf ?


William Pugsley: I have not got that separate from the rest.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like to know how much is being spent on land and building roads ?


William Pugsley: I trust my hon. friend does not understand that this total of $17,000 has been expended. That is the estimate of the total cost. I do not see any special expenditure for an approach, I do not think there will be any approach in this case.


Herbert Brown Ames: Last year the minister told us that the total expenditure from the start, including the approach, would be $17,750. What we would like to know is how much of that is Tor the approach ?


William Pugsley: I may have had in my memorandum last year a reference to the approach, I have none with me at present.
I do not see why I would have used the expression including the approach, because I do not see what approach there would be.


Herbert Brown Ames: Evidently the minister thought he had good reason for using that term last year. Would the minister make further inquiries ?-'because I would like to know what proportion has been expend- . ed in the approach that will be required for this work?


William Pugsley: I think I must have been misreported last year, or else I used the expression without warrant.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Mr. BENNETT.: What is the nature of the improvements P


William Pugsley: It is for the purpose of completing the improvements in course of construction. The works are a combined dam and training pier. Day labour. Total expenditure from the start, including the approach, $17,750.
This is from the ' Hansard ' of July 4, 1908, page 12042.


William Pugsley: That must have meant including protection work. There must have been some error on the part of the reporter, because I do not see why I should have mentioned an approach. I may have said protection work.
Sorel-deepwater wharf, $34,000.


William Pugsley: This is the new work which I explained a short time ago. It is to replace the wharf that collapsed.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much property has actually been lost through the collapse ? I think there were two collapses.


William Pugsley: I do not know what the old wharf cost, but a considerable portion was destroyed some three years ago, and recently another part was destroyed.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the estimated cost of replacing the old portion destroyed three years ago and the portion destroyed last year?


William Pugsley: This $125,000 is to replace what was destroyed three years ago and also what was destroyed last year. The engineer was anticipating that that would probably be destroyed also, and it is intended to replace it under the new contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that the slipping away of the old wharf is equivalent to a loss of $125,000, inasmuch as it costs that amount to put it back in a good condition again. What did the minister discover to be the reason for the loss of the wharf at Sorel?


William Pugsley: The reason was the peculiarity of the soil in the river bed. There is a good deal of quicksand, and the wharf as originally constructed was not designed apparently to withstand the shifting of the quicksand. I think the first wharf was built upon piles and evidently the soil slipped from the bank. There was a landslide and it carried the pile wharf into the river. We have changed the design. We have excavated a foundation for the wharf and put in a large quantity of stone as a lower foundation and upon that we are building crib work. The engineers believe that the present design, which has been studied very carefully, will do for a wharf which will be permanent in character.


Herbert Brown Ames: How long had the wharf which slipped away been constructed?


William Pugsley: About two years before the first accident happened.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who was the contractor?


William Pugsley: It was the McAuliffe Company, either McAuliffe, Poupore and Company or Poupore, McAuliffe and Company-I do not remember which.


Herbert Brown Ames: Had the plans been approved by the departmental engineer?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: How does the minister account for the total collapse of the wharf?


William Pugsley: Because of the nature of the soil which is down under the water, conditions which were not foreseen occurred.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it a fact that there was considerable dredging undertaken near the site of the wharf?


William Pugsley: I do not think that the dredging would account for that. It is just one of those extraordinary things that you find along the banks of these rivers, such as the landslide that occurred upon the Lievre.


John Allister Currie: I understand that the plans for this wharf were incubated in the office up here without any consideration-


William Pugsley: What dreadful thing happened to the plans?


John Allister Currie: The plans were incubated up here by men who had never seen that part of the country at all and did not know where the wharf was to be built. It is just the same as those cottages at Kingston; they were designed to have cellars because it was thought that it would only be necessary to excavate in soft soil and they did not know that it would be necessary to quarry out limestone. But, they had to dig out the limestone and that is what increased the cost so greatly. These wharfs were designed by engineers who had no knowledge of the situation. I understand that there is a great loss to the government every year by reason of these wharfs being swept away along the St. Lawrence. Has it occurred to the department that it would be better and cheaper to carve slips into the river bank than to extend the docks out where they will be caught and carried away by the ice? In other countries, I understand, they cut slips in the banks of the rivers instead of sticking wharfs out into the water where in the spring they are carried away by the ice. I may say that I have that statement from an engineer.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman has been misinformed. The plans for the work were designed by the resident engineer.


John Allister Currie: Who was the resident engineer?


William Pugsley: I do not now recall to mind who was in charge. Mr. Michaud is
now in charge.


John Allister Currie: Who is the resident engineer, because I understand from some

engineering authorities that it was bad engineering that cost this country $125,000. It would be well to put the blame where it belongs.


William Pugsley: There are always plenty of people to criticise engineers alter an accident occurs. I remember that in St. John it was proposed to build a wharf on the western side of the harbour at the Sand Point slip; it was constructed after plans drawn by an engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the work was started by the city, and when it was pretty well along, all at once, there occurred a landslide and the whole of the piling slid into the Sand Point slip. They had to change the design entirely and build on crib work. I would assume, -until I had some evidence to the contrary beyond mere hearsay, that the resident engineer who was responsible for the designing of the plan, was familiar with the local conditions, and that circumstances arose which were not anticipated.


John Allister Currie: We would like to have the name of the engineer who drew the plan. It would not take the hon. gentleman more than two minutes to get it.


William Pugsley: I could not tell without going to the office. I will get the information.


Adam Brown Crosby: The Minister of Public Works must know the name of the engineer who made the plan which brought about an expenditure of $127,000.


William Pugsley: These plans were made and this work was done quite a number of years ago. Of course, I would hold the chief engineer responsible. I presume these plans were drawn six years ago. I cannot Tecall who the resident engineer was, but I would be glad to get the information.


Adam Brown Crosby: Would not the deputy minister know?


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: How long has he been in the department?


William Pugsley: Several years. I can get the name of the engineer.


Adam Brown Crosby: It seems very strange that you should not have the name.
Yamaska River-dredging, $8,100.


Herbert Brown Ames: Here is another over-expenditure on the Yamaska river. Would the minister kindly give an explanation of this item?


William Pugsley: There has been dredging done during the year as follows:	From
July 15 to the end of October, 147,118 cubic yards of clay and sand were dredged, the channel having been cleared 3,354 feet down stream. From the outlet of the Cheval D'Or the dredging amounted to 26,732-82 cubic yards. There was also the removal Mr. CURRIE.
of 11,907 cubic yards by the department's dredge ' St. Louis.' The appropriation was $20,000, and it requires $8,878.81.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was it let by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, so much per cubic yard.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the appropriation was exhausted the dredge was kept right on?


William Pugsley: For a short time.


Herbert Brown Ames: Until it incurred an expenditure of $8,000?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was the expropriation exhausted in connection with that dredge?


William Pugsley: I have not the exact date.


Herbert Brown Ames: You told us a moment ago that it was about the end of October, some time after the 26th.


William Pugsley: It must have been a slip if I said that.
Mr. i^MES. There were a great many urgent and illegal expenditures in the county of Yamaska at that time.


William Pugsley: You know the weather gets bad early in November and the dredges stop work.
Blind River wharf dredging, $13,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This is under contract.


Richard Blain: What good purpose does it serve?


William Pugsley: There is a government wharf there.


Richard Blain: Will this complete it?


William Pugsley: I do not think so; it is all we intend to do at present.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Is the Minister of Public Works considering the question of dredging the mouth of the Au Sable river? Ten years ago the government expended about $17,000 in building a wharf at the mouth of that river and since then they have made an added expenditure to the extent of about $25,000. Vessels of a reasonable size are not able to approach the wharf and in summer time the mouth of the river is completely closed. The wharf is of very little use owing to the fact that the aproaches are not owned by the government and people going there are continually being warned off. I trust the minister will investigate and see if it is not possible to arrange that dredging be done there this summer and that the approaches be put in first-class order so that the wharf can be used. This is a thickly settled district;

there is no railway within 12 or 14 miles, and in the summer time there are 2,000 people in the town of Grand Bend.
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. I quite appreciate the importance of the town of Grand Bend, and it was with a view to accommodating the increasing business that the wharf was built. There was some trouble about the right of way to the approaches and we are taking steps to expropriate. I can tell my hon. friend that there will be as little delay as possible in completing the approaches. In view of the large reduction in the vote for dredging this year I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. friend that dredging will be done at present.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The wharf is of very little use unless the dredging is done and when the wharf was built it was promised it should be done.


William Pugsley: I will keep the matter in mind.


Mr. SMYTH.: I had the honour to present to the minister a short time ago a petition asking that certain repairs should be done on the wharf at Blind river. Is it the intention of the minister to have these repairs made?
Mr. PUGSLEy. I have no appropriation for the purpose at present, but I have directed that a report be made as to the repairs, if they are needed. When I get the report I will decide whether they can be attended to during the present year. The wharf is quite new and can hardly need any extensive repairs.


William Ross Smyth: The petition asks for the re-flooring of the wharf.


William Pugsley: I will have the matter looked into.


Richard Blain: What qualification is required on the part of foremen who have charge of works of that kind?


William Pugsley: The policy of the department is to employ only those who are thoroughly reliable and believed to be thoroughly honest and competent to perform their duties.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation are they appointed?


William Pugsley: The member for the county is asked to recommend a competent man whose name is then submitted to the resident engineer who is instructed not to employ the man unless he is thoroughly competent and experienced.


Richard Blain: Is it the member or the engineer who is the highest court of appeal?


William Pugsley: The engineer.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Collingwood harbour-to pay Contractor Joseph Battle interest accrued at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, on delayed payments for works performed by him in connection with his contract of August 25, 1905, for the construction of an addition to the town wharf, $474.02.


William Pugsley: This is interest on an amount due to Mr. Battle. The payment was delayed ever since the contract was made on August 25, 1905. A dispute arose a3 to a claim rendered for additional work which the contractor claimed was not included in the original contract. After investigation it was finally decided by the minister to allow interest from October 25, 1906, on the final estimate of $15,240 at 5 per cent for 192 days and on several smaller amounts for different periods.


Richard Blain: Is this a final settlement?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Allister Currie: The minister knows the circumstances in connection with this wharf. Shortly after its construction the concrete split and the face of the wharf was ready to fall into the water. Have the department taken precautions to make the contractor responsible in case it should collapse?


William Pugsley: After an investigation the engineering department concluded that the splitting was not the fault of the contractor. I think the diver found that a dredge had interfered with the under-pinning.
Collingwood harbour-improvements, $10,800.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payments on the contract work done during the past year.


George Taylor: An over-expenditure?


William Pugsley: Yes. He exceeded the appropriation a little.


John Allister Currie: The work there is hardly completed yet. There is supposed to be 20 feet of water coming into the harbour, yet last August a vessel drawing 17 feet stuck in the middle of the channel. That channel ought to be swept and there are several corners where the 500 foot vessels cannot manoeuvre into the wharf. In order to make the channel thoroughly satisfactory some work should be done. I know that this committee has not the power to increase an appropriation but I would suggest that the minister, in allotting his general vote for dredging, should consider the advisability of making these improvements in the Collingwood channel.
COMMON a


William Pugsley: I recognize the importance of Collingwood harbour. The business there has increased rapidly and there is no doubt that further improvements are very much needed; but it must be borne in mind that we have already expended in a comparatively few years pretty close to $1,000,000 in Collingwood and we have made it a good harbour. But at the same time we must recognize that the business is congested and that there is necessity for further improvements. The channel needs straightening, there are some edges of rock to be taken off and some deepening to be done. The matter is engaging my careful attention. I do not know just what we can do this year, we have many demands from a great many sections of the country and my general dredging vote is very small, I am sorry to say.


John Allister Currie: In this connection I would point out the importance of the question of lake transportation. I notice that in the estimates the knife has been put very deeply into the works appertaining to transportation, especially on the great lakes. I mentioned to the House once before this session that the works at Fort William and Port Arthur were being carried out in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Transportation. There is one weak link ini the chain, the points on the lower end of the lakes. I do not think the government recognize that the increase in the number of steamers and barges in our lake fleet will necessitate the construction of fully half a mile of new dock accommodation at the lower end of the lakes every year. Each of these ships is from 300 to 500 feet long, and they must have discharging accommodation. We should consider the advisability of making ample provision at the various ports on the lakes, for their accommodation. It will be only ten or fifteen years until we will not have enough harbours for that traffic. I find in the statistical report of lake commerce given by Col. Davis of the corps of engineers of the United States navy and also in the report by the American section of the International Waterways Commission, that the number of Canadian steel steamers in that trade in 1907 was 108. The number has now increased by about 8 or 10, making 115. The registered tonnage in 1907 was 92,224 tons and the value of this tonnage was $7,648,000. The average cost of carriage from the head of the lakes per ton mile to the lower end was -08 cents. I am giving these figures with a view to showing just what advantage the public are deriving from the work carried on by this government and the necessity for these improvements. The total tonnage carried, according to the American statistics, was 2,747,750 tons. About an equal amount is carried from Port Ar-Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
thur and Fort William in American bottoms, making a tonnage of nearly 5,000,000 tons a year from the head of the lakes to American and Canadian ports. The average trip to the American ports would be about 827 miles, but many of the Canadian ships go as far as Montreal, and the average trip will be about 1,000 miles, and at an average cost of transportation of -06 cents per ton mile. The saving on the thousand mile trip over rail transportation will be 31 i cents per ton.
Take that saving on 5,000,000 tons a year, and you will find that the farmers of our Northwest actually save $1,775,000 per annum on the cost of transport of their products to Montreal by water, as compared with what they would have to pay for haulage by rail. Within the last two or three years Montreal has been getting the bulk of the grain traffic for Europe, which is due to our good harbours and deep waterways. Taking up to-day's newspaper I find that the Americans are endeavouring to take the grain trade away from Canada through American ports and are taking steps to cut the through rates on the American trunk lines. With this end in view they have cut about a cent a bushel on grain to the sea-board all around. It is up to us to see that we do not lose the advantage we have gained after many years of struggle and the expenditure of enormous amounts of public money. The fact that on the other side of the line they are endeavouring to take the trade away from us should make us all the more determined to keep it and if necessary spend a little more money for that purpose. Such money will be well spent because the expenditure will accrue to the benefit ol the Northwest, not only as regards the people there now but the millions who will be there ten or fifteen years hence. It is estimated that the canals at Sault Ste. Marie will not be able inside of ten years to accommodate the amount of traffic requiring to go through them. I know that many hon. members really cannot realize the enormous amount of traffic which comes down through that country, and by which the ports of Montreal, St. John and Halifax are benefited. But if that tonnage goes through Buffalo and Erie, the earnings on the lower end of the tonnage, which now benefits the people of eastern Canada, will be lost to Canada. What that means can be realized when the saving of 31 cents a ton amounts to nearly $2,000,000. I feel satisfied that the minister recognizes the importance of this, but I wish to impress it upon the House, and more especially on his colleagues, who are not in touch with the transportation problems of this country. Tne hon. Minister of Railways and Canals knows the tremendous growth of this trade. I can remember when you could count all the ships en-

gaged in it in Canada on the fingers of your hands, but to-day we have over 100 steel vessels carrying that traffic. I trust the government will see fit to increase the expenditure this year on those lower lake terminals. I know that the question of expenditure on the port of Montreal will come up, but as a Canadian, living far from Montreal, I would be satisfied to vote in favour of making Montreal and St. John free harbours. That is the only way in which we can keep our supremacy. This year the estimates for the province of Ontario on the upper lakes has been cut down over $1,000,000 in the case of harbours and other improvements to navigation. I know that the government left the door possibly a little too wide open in its policy last year on account of the elections, but after all the cut,
I think, is a little too deep, especially in view of the fact that other departments of the government have not been quite so economical. We all recognize that the Minister of Public Works has great difficulties to meet, we all know that he has to try and disarm with his pleasant, sunny smile those who are urging expenditures on him, but I think he should rather exercise his diplomatic arts on his colleagues and make them give a little more money in order that these works may be carried out and that the spout be not too small at any particular end. The port of Montreal should be looked after, the whole chain of transportation should be looked after. It is that chain which has given us the supremacy. Instead of spending money on visionary projects for diverting the traffic from Montreal and these other ports to Hudson bay and elsewhere, we should rather spend our means on practical objects, and then, if we have anything more to spend, use it on these future possibilities.


Mr. D. A. GORDON (East Kent).: The hon. gentleman apparently has fallen into the impression that our harbours in the Georgian Bay district are insufficient to take care of the traffic. I would remind him that one dock, 500 feet in length, capable of accommodating an ordinary steamer, can handle at least 10,000 tons a day. In fact boats carrying ten thousand tons are frequently unloaded in less than seven hours time.


John Allister Currie: What kind of freight?


David Alexander Gordon: Ore.


John Allister Currie: There is no ore coming from the west.


David Alexander Gordon: It will unload ten thousand tons of grain in six or seven hours and on that basis twenty docks would handle 50,000,000 tons during the eight months of navigation.


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend should take a trip and find out whether he could handle 10,000 tons of package freight in seven hours at any of these ports. If he can do that, he ought to take out a patent, and he would make a fortune. That freight is all handled by hand, and to handle ten thousand tons by hand is slow work.


David Alexander Gordon: I was not aware that package freight comes from the west.
I was referring to the grain trade.


Mr. SPROULE.: There happens to be an immense quantity of package freight for the west and from the west. I would endorse every word of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I have lived on the Georgian bay for some fifty years, and watching the development from year to year, I know the growing importance of these works and the urgent need for the expenditure of money. No doubt in the future all these ports will be overtaxed. Although the accommodation there is moderately fair to-day, in the future it will not be sufficient for the needs. With the increasing number of railways reaching the Georgian bay, it becomes absolutely necessary to have these harbours made suitable for handling freight. You may unload a boat very rapidly with grain, but there are times when it is a very slow process. At Owen Sound frequently you will see the place crowded, and I presume it is the same in Collingwood and Midland and in all these ports on the Georgian bay.


William Pugsley: I do not object to my hon. friends pointing out what they think ought to be done in the future, but it would be a graceful thing if they would recognize what we have done in the very recent past.


John Allister Currie: We do.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear it. I think that this government is entitled to the greatest possible credit for its recognition of the transportation needs of the country and more especially of the great opportunities which exist for the development of trade between the western shores of Lake Superior and the ports' of eastern Canada by way of the great lakes. We have done a great deal in the past. We have done all that the government could be expected to do. Just consider what has been done at Port Arthur. We are engaged in deepening the harbour, we have al-readv deepened it to 22 feet, and our plan provides for 25 feet so as to give accommodation to the largest lake steamers, which can go to any port on the western shores of Lake Superior, whether American or Canadian ports.
We are building a great breakwater, which, ultimately, will be made two or three miles in extent, so as to afford not only a
revised edition

safe harbour but one in which the shipping will be moved with the greatest economy and convenience. At Fort William, in addition to the terminals of the Canadian Pacific, we are engaged in a large scheme of deepening and widening the Mission and Kaministiquia rivers. Here also we are providing a depth of twenty-five feet. We are making a turning) basin with an area of thirty-two acres, with a view to giving every possible facility for the handling of vessels. We are also building a long revetment wall which will be of great benefit to the shipping in the harbour. Of course the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Canadian Northern are doing their part, but the government is co-operating with these railways to the utmost extent. I think my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) ought to realize that the government and the country is dealing in a broad spirit with these harbours when it is providing, notwithstanding the present conditon of the revenues, $600,000 for improvements at these ports on the western shore of Lake Superior during the coming season. That is a large sum to spend and it will be spent to the best advantage. The result will be that, before long, there will be terminal facilities at the western end of Lake Superior which will not be surpassed by any port in the world. I have seen the plans of these railway companies, and I know what our plans are. The terminals are being made on a broad and comprehensive scale. We are working to a definite plan and with the determination to make these ports all they ought to be. Our aim is to provide that any lake vessel which can enter the harbour of Duluth or Chicago shall be able to enters the harbours of Fort William and Port Arthur. What we want is that our harbours shall be equal if not superior to those on the United States side of the line. We realize that for many years, the grain traffic of the west has been going to the port of Buffalo and the Atlantic ports of the United States. It is much to be regretted that as much as 18,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain passed through the port of Buffalo last year and was lost to the eastern Canadian ports. We are seeking to remedy that. That is our aim, and we hope that, before long, the whole grain trade of the west, as well as the other trade of that country, will pass through Canadian channels and through Canadian seaports to the markets of the old country. I believe we shall succeed. Now come to the eastern shores of the Georgian bay. The hon. member says that we ought to pay more attention to the development there than we have done. We have spent money in the improvement of the harbours of Parry Sound, Collingwood-and I may say right here that, at Collingwood, Mr. PUGSLEY.
we have spent about $1,000,000. The gentleman who represented that riding before my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) was persistent in putting forward the claims of Collingwood and he got great recognition of those claims.


Mr. HENDERSON.: He made a lot of sacrifices to get it.


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say that the country made any sacrifice. I am not prepared to say that the expenditure was not a wise one. It has greatly increased the facilities for carrying the trade on the great lakes.


John Allister Currie: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) is aware that the work was undertaken virtually in partnership with the town-the town paid its share ?


William Pugsley: It is always well when the municipal authorities show their faith m the future sufficiently to put their money ln. it-it is good evidence that they have faith in the town. And, no doubt, it made it easier for the gentleman who represented the constituency to win the recognition he did of Collingwood's claims. We have improved the harbours of Owen Sound, Midland, Southampton, Goderich, Sarnia, Mea-ford, Penetanguishene and Depot Harbour -all ports on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron, and all giving signs of being capable of doing large business with our Canadian west. Take Goderich, for example" it is perfectly wonderful how the trade of that port has increased. From only two or three millions of bushels of grain which came there a few years ago, the trade increased so that, last season, 10,000,000 bushels of Canadian grain were brought into Goderich harbour. Goderich bids fair to become a great distributing point for the grain trade of the west. We have spent a good deal of money there and are asked to spend more. We hope we shall be able to spend more. Our attention was called to what seemed to open up a greater possibility than ever before of developing trade through Canadian ports by means of the railways, and these new harbours of Tiffin and Victoria. What will it mean when these railways are constructed? It will mean that one locomotive will haul forty cars of grain in a trainload, instead of fifteen or twenty cars as at present, thus reducing the cost of hauling grain by fifty per cent. I mention these things to show that we have not been dealing in a niggardly way in the expenditures we have made in the development of transportation between the east and west.


John Allister Currie: I know that a very strong effort is being made by the two transportation companies to have all the money spent at Tiffin and Victoria harbour. But I want to point out that fully forty per cent of the grain that comes from the northwest

is ground in mills in Ontario and through this adjacent country. I will warrant that fully fifty per cent of the grain that came through the elevator at Goderich was absorbed before it reached Montreal, or, at the very least, before it reached the maritime provinces. When we consider the enormous quantity of grain coming down from the west, it is evident that the portion that goes into local consumption will afford business for other harbours than Tiffin and Victoria. For that reason, I do not see why making terminals at these two points for the through traffic should prevent a little money being spent at other places that have given evidences of their good faith and their belief in themselves and in their public woTks. And, after all said and done, after the work at Tiffin and Victoria harbour is all finished, the same trouble will exist as before-there will not be sufficient dockage. The hon. gentleman who quoted figures about the vast quantity of tonnage that can be got from the hold of a vessel in a short time, had in mind the work at the docks of Cleveland and Lorraine, where they will run fourteen buckets holding ten tons each into the hold of a vessel to be loaded at once with iron ore. These vessels that traverse the lakes spend fully fifty per cent of their time loading and unloading. Sometimes they have to wait three days for their cargo at the head of the lakes, and sometimes four or five days at the south end of the lake to have their cargo discharged. The minister has told us how $600,000 is to be spent by the government in the development of Fort William and Port Arthur:	But the railway companies
and elevator companies, I understand, are spending $2,000,000 in improving their grain handling facilities there. The only reason why I dwell on the importance of Georgian bay ports in this:	If you turn to the minister's own report you will find an extract from an American authority showing that the vessels the Americans are employing are vessels 500 and 600 feet long and carrying 10,000 to 12,000 tons at a load. It is important for us to keep our seaports going in the winter time, and for that reason we should have large storage elevators at this side of the lake as well as large terminals at the other, so that grain can be hurried down in the winter months through the natural channels, for instance, to St. John. A large quantity now goes to Portland that should go to St. John, or Halifax, or other ports on the eastern shores of Canada. There is no reason why one pound of this tonnage should go out of this country except through Canadian ports.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister thought he was doing a good deal at the head of Lake Superior in making these harbours suitable for ingress and egress of the largest boats from the east or from the west. But 1041
I want to draw his attention to the fact that the same boats go to the south shore of the Georgian bay. Boats carrying 250,000 bushels of grain, and that is about the ordinary cargoes, come down the Georgian bay, and the harbours must be equally as deep and as good on the Georgian bay as they are at Port Arthur and Fort William, though they may not require as much space. They want just as great a depth of water and equally good facilities for loading and unloading. The minister says he thinks they have done very well in providing and spending $600,000 on these harbours at Fort William, Port Arthur and other harbours. But does he think, when they are spending over a million dollars on that Newmarket ditch, what that sum of money would do for these very harbours we are speaking of, and that whereas, in the one instance, the money is absolutely thrown away, in the other instance it is very much needed. Tf there is a shrinkage in the revenue and it becomes necessary to curtail expenditure, we would expect a wise government to curtail expenditure on useless proposals, and use all the money available in places where it is very much needed, like these harbours on the Georgian bay. The money is verv much needed at Port Arthur and Foit William. A large share of that grain, as my hon. friend from Sim-coe (Mr. J. A. Currie) says, is hoisted into elevators on the south shore of the Georgian bay, and in the winter it is distributed to the mills that grind all the time. Consequently these improvements are required in these harbours. _ Meaford is a fairly good harbour, but it is not equal to the needs. There is only room for one boat to go in at a time. Owen Sound is a better haTbour than Meaford, but in neither is there anything like the depth of water that is sometimes needed. Then Collmg-wood has a fairly good harbour compared with what it was years ago; but the grain growing trade of the country will outstrip its conveniences in the near future, So all these harbours call for constantly m-creasing expenditure to keep them up _ to the development of the trade that is going on from year to year.
Little Current-improvements of Northern channel ih Georgian bay, $82,000.


William Pugsley: That is to pay the balance' due on the contract for the current year. The work is being done on what is called the inside channel of Little Current, between Manitoulin island and the mainland. It is dredging and blasting rock.
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $5,500.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I desire to call attention to a matter which I think I may pro->erl" mention under this item. Some days ago I put a question on the Order Paper in reference to the Wolfe Island canal, and I was informed that the Department of

Public Works could not get any information in reference to that matter. Now Mr. Chairman, this Wolfe Island canal was constructed over 50 years ago, and therefore there may be an excuse for the department not being able to find information in reference to it. It was in use up to about 20 years ago, since which time it has not been in use. I want to draw the minister's attention to the following circumstances. There is a bridge across that canal which is necessary to the people living on Wolfe island. That bridge has got to be .reconstructed or repaired, I think a new bridge will have to be built, and naturally the people of Wolfe island would like to get assistance in rebuilding it. They have applied to the department for assistance, and have been refused. They have also asked to be allowed to shorten the spans of that bridge, and have been told that they must not fill in on either side of the canal. Now, it does seem to me, and I think it must seem to this committee, that it is a hardship that those people can neither shorten the span of the bridge, nor can they get any assistance to rebuild it, nor can they make any use whatever of the canal, which, as I said, has not been used for over 20 years. I want to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will either grant some assistance to the people of Wolfe island in rebuilding that bridge, if he desires that the span of the bridge shall not be shortened, or that he will leave it to the council of that municipality to exercise their own judgment in filling in and shortening the span as they think proper. I am only asking what is reasonable, namely, that he will either permit the council of Wolfe island to exercise their option in shortening up the span and construct a shorter bridge, or if he desires that the bridge be not shortened, that he will grant some assistance to the people of that municipality in building a bridge of the same length as the old one.


William Pugsley: Who constructed the bridge in the first place ?


William Cameron Edwards: That is a question I asked the Minister of Public Works some time ago, and he was unable to answer me.
I am sure that the municipalities through which it. runs contributed by way of bonus to the construction of that canal, but I cannot say how much. I am also under the impression that the Dominion government, or the provincial government, gave some assistance, although I am not sure as to that. I have been told by residents of the island that the Dominion government claims jurisdiction over the canal, claims authority to say that the islanders shall not shorten the span of the bridge. If they do claim that jurisdiction, it seems to me they .ought to help in constructing a new bridge across the canal.


William Cameron Edwards: 


William Pugsley: I am sure my hon. friend would not ask me to build a bridge at Wolfe island, which is wholly within the province of Ontario; I do not see upon what ground I could ask parliament for authority to do that. But, with regard to giving permission to the municipality to shorten the span, as at present advised, I do not see any objection to doing that. If the public have not been using it for the purpose of navigation for a number of years past I do not see any objection to making the span narrower. I think I am quite safe in saying that if the municipality will send the plans to my department, showing the span which they would like to have shortened, their request will receive favourable consideration. The matter has not come before me, but I shall certainly give to any such request my most favourable consideration because I recognize that anything that can be done, without interfering with navigation or interfering with the public interest, which would reduce to the municipality the cost of repairing the bridge, ought to be done.


William Cameron Edwards: Of course, the hon. gentleman says that this canal is entirely within the province of Ontario. I do not know that it differs very materially in that respect from the Rideau canal or the Newmarket canal. If this canal was constructed by the government originally and if the government of to-day claim jurisdiction over it, I do not see any reason why the government should not construct the bridge across that canal as well as eonstruct a bridge across the Rideau canal.


William Pugsley: The government, as far as I am aware, does not claim any jurisdiction over the canal. If it were used for the purpose of navigation we would have the same control as we do over any navigable water. It would only be in that respect that we would have jurisdiction over it. But we have never claimed any jurisdiction or ownership over it. As far as I can learn the canal was built long before confederation, but concerning the question as to who built it there seems to be no definite information.


Mr. HARTY.: It was built by private parties.


George Taylor: The Dominion government sent a dredge there to deepen it not many years ago.


William Pugsley: Perhaps so.


George Taylor: When we were discussing wharfs in Quebec last night or the night before, I referred to the fact that in the townships of Wolfe Island and Howe Island they have several wharfs there that have been built by private parties and that they have no other means of getting a market than by steamer. I know that the people of Wolfe island can only get to King-

ston or Gananoque by steamer and that the wharfs were constructed on Wolfe island and Howe island by private parties. I think that when the government is building wharfs all over the country the townships of Howe Island and Wolfe Island should also have some assistance from the government.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The Public Works Department build wharfs on the property of private parties.


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I think I can give an instance to the minister.


William Pugsley: No


John Dowsley Reid: On the St. Lawrence river below Cornwall.


Mr PUGSLEY.: I know the island you mean.


John Dowsley Reid: There is an island owned entirely by a private party.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says that the government had built a wharf there on private property. It is not the case. Adjoining the government property there is private property, but the wharf is built on government property.


John Dowsley Reid: The wharf is built on property there that belongs to a private individual.


William Pugsley: The land adjoining the wharf belongs to a private individual.


John Dowsley Reid: But the whole island belongs to a private party. I do not suppose that the government bought the land upon which the wharf is.


William Pugsley: Yes, they did. Would the hon. gentleman expect the government to buy the whole island?


John Dowsley Reid: No, but I want to say to the minister that they simply built that wharf there for the convenience of a private individual. It was built entirely for his purposes.


William Pugsley: No, it was built as a harbour of refuge for the boats plying on the river.


John Dowsley Reid: It is simply a pleasure resort owned by a private individual.


William Pugsley: Another case of misinformation.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows well enough that that was an island owned by a private individual who had a wharf there before and the government rebuilt it for him. In this case that my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) is speaking about, I remember that last year or the year before a deputation came down and wanted assistance of the kind to
which my hon. friend has referred. I know the place well. The government practically-took possession of the canal, and the fact that they had been dredging and improving it made it necessary to provide a more expensive bridge. It also made it necessary to have a swing bridge that will cost much more than would be required if it were simply a stationary bridge. If the canal were dredged out there is no doubt that the route would be a great deal shorter between Kingston and Cape Vincent than going around by the upper part of the island as they have to do at present.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty). if I understood him correctly a minute ago, interjected a remark that this canal was built entirely by private parties.


William Harty: I always understood so.


William Cameron Edwards: My information is not the same as that of the hon. member for Kingston. He may be right but I do not think he is. While a company constructed the canal I think I am quite correct in saying that the municipality of Wolfe Island contributed by way of a bonus to the building of the canal.


William Harty: They may have.


William Cameron Edwards: And I think the county of Frontenac also contributed something. Here was a canal which was constructed, we will say, by a private company which the municipality of Wolfe Island contributed to and which has been out of use for something like twenty years, a canal from which the municipality, is getting no benefit whatever, has not for a great many years, and I think it is most unfair that this useless canal should be the means of imposing extra expense on that municipality. I think I am quite within my rights and that the people there are quite within their rights in asking a contribution from the government towards the construction of that bridge or that it may be left to them to shorten the span as they may see fit. I think the facts are that this company failed to carry on the canal and that the canal passed into the hands of the government. I am rather confirmed in that idea because of the fact that the government within the last twenty-five years, at all events, expended money in dredging that canal. I maintain that if the government claim ownership over this canal they should construct the bridge entirely.


William Pugsley: My department does not claim any ownership over it.


William Cameron Edwards: Whether you claim ownership or not I think the government is the owner of the canal.


William Pugsley: I do not see how this government can be the owner of it.


William Cameron Edwards: If you were not the owner why did you spend money on it? Why was dredging done upon it?


William Pugsley: We spend money on many rivers simply because we are requested by the people to do so to improve navigation. We do not own the bed of the river; we have no title and no jurisdiction over the foreshore so far as I know. If anything was done by the provincial government before confederation which gave us title to this canal, the bed of it and the soil of it would all be owned by the Ontario government because it would not pass at confederation to the control of the federal government All that the Federal government has is control of navigation on navigable waters.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume that in exercising that right over navigable waters the federal government would not allow the municipalities of Wolfe Island to shorten the span of the bridge?


William Pugsley: That would be the reason; if it is not useful for navigation that reason would not exist.


William Cameron Edwards: The claims of the municipalities there should receive the consideration of the government. There is a large amount of trade passing to and from these islands to Kingston and across the line, and as it seems to be the policy of the government to build wharfs and dredge harbours, the older settled parts of the country should receive consideration as well as the newly settled districts. ,


Mr. GERALD WHITE.: Two sessions ago I brought to the notice of the government the urgent necessity for some improvements being made 'to the dock at Petewawa, and an item was put in last year's estimates to provide for that work. I regret to say that the appropriation has disappeared from the estimates this year, and I cannot too strongly urge on the Minister of Public Works the great necessity for these improvements. At a meeting of the Pembroke Navigation Company held recently, and at which I was present, the directors of that company asked me to bring to the attention of the government the present state of that dock. The minister knows that when that dock was constructed a few years ago, there was some defect in the plans and at low water it is almost impossible to get to the dock, there being a reef at one side which is very dangerous to navigation. Although there was an item in the estimates last year no work was done on the dock. We are not particular as to whether the government will improve the existing Mr. EDWARDS.
dock or build a new one in front of the military camp. Petewawa, since the establishment of the military camp there, has become a very important place, and it is absolutely necessary that some means should be provided to reach it by water. I would strongly impress on the minister the advisability of taking this matter into consideration and putting an item in the estimates for this work.


William Pugsley: I will give it consideration.
Lake Nipissing-improvement of navigation through Narrows between upper and lower reaches of West bay and up to Monetteville, $2,000.


Mr. ARTHURS.: What is this item for?


William Pugsley: The obiect of this is to give communication between the upper and lower reaches of West bay to Monetteville, which is quite a new settlement, but a very important one. There are a large number of farmers in there who produce a good deal of produce, chiefly hay. By doing this work, which will not cost more than $6,300, it will give them eighteen or twenty miles of navigation and enable them to get their produce to market at less expense than if they had to haul it by road. A delegation of farmers from that district waited on me some time ago and made out such an exceedingly strong case that I thought an appropriation should be provided.


James Arthurs: Is it not a fact that $5,000 has been already expended on this work and that its object simply is to provide a small canal to .connect a small inland lake with Monetteville and Lake Nipissing?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is nearly right; $4,800 has been expended and this is to pay for the work. The work had to be done this winter if it is to be of use next summer.


James Arthurs: I call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a small inland lake three miles in extent, and that it has no connection, or very little connection with Lake Nipissing except during high water. The fact is that a man friendly to the government erected a small sawmill with a capacity of 8,000 or 10,000 feet a day at the wrong end of the lake and unfortunately for him and he had to scow his lumber to the end of the lake so as to get dt across to Lake Nipissing. In order to facilitate him in getting out his lumber the government undertook this work, which I am informed was commenced shortly before the election and carried on for a short time. It will be of no use to anybody except to the man who owns the sawmill. This is a long way from Monetteville and I hardly think there is any danger of it ever getting to that village.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend certainly is misinformed. My information is that there is a population of over 1,000 within the settlement that will be to a very considerable extent benefited by this improvement. It will give navigation for about 18 miles. The three gentlemen who waited on me did not come before the election. Mr. Monet was one of the gentlemen but I do not remember the others. So interested were they that they came all the way to Ottawa to urge this work. They made out a very strong case indeed. They showed there was a very large settlement in there, that vast quantities of hay were raised in that vicinity and that this would give navigation of about 15 miles. Mr. Corriveau the engineer of my department in charge of work in that locality confirmed their statement as to the necessity for this work.


James Arthurs: Is this work under contract or not, and was it commenced before the election ?


William Pugsley: Almost everything dates from the election. It is like the burning of Rome, the great fire in St. John and many other things that aTe important. My hon. friend has the date of the election as the one burning subject which he thinks of by day and dreams of by night. There was a report on October 8, 1908, from Mr. Corriveau making a recommendation as to opening this channel 275 feet long and 30 feet wide and also doing some rock cutting, and the work was authorized. There was an appropriation of $3,000 for it made at the last session of parliament and it was quite proper that the work should be gone on with.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: When was the work started ?


William Pugsley: In October. Then the delegation I referred to came down after the election. The work had been gone on with as far as the appropriation allowed and the deputation said to me that it was very important to finish the work this winter. A gentleman named Levesque who is doing quite a laTge business up there said that if these men were permitted to finish the work under the direction of the engineer he would pay the men and if parliament made the appropriation well and good, he would take the risk of that. That shows how anxious they were to have the work done. I said:	* If you do so I shall
bring the matter before my colleagues and if they agree I will put a sum in the estimates to complete the work.' That is why we are asking this additional amount.


George Taylor: I understand that this channel, in place of opening 15 miles of navigation, will open three miles; the lake is three or four miles long.


William Pugsley: No, about 15 miles long.


George Taylor: The lake is about three miles long and they would have to go around it three or four times to measure 15 miles.


William Pugsley: Oh, no. There is a short distance that has to be dredged and it is 15 miles from there to the head of
navigation.


George Taylor: People acquainted with the country say not, and that there will be only two or three months in the year during which you will have water to get into the ditch.


William Pugsley: I believe Mr. Monet is an intelligent man, a man of high reputation and he said it would be about 15 miles of navigation.


George Taylor: What is the length of the lake ?


James Arthurs: About three miles.


William Pugsley: How far is it from the channel to the head of the lake?


James Arthurs: The channel is between Lake Nipissing and the small lake.


William Pugsley: What is the distance between Lake Nipissing and Shanty lake?


James Arthurs: Some few hundred yards only.


William Pugsley: I am sure the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


George Gordon: That happens to be in the district that I have the honour to represent and I think that perhaps I would not be doing my duty if I did not say that, although I have not actually been over the ground, if Mr. Monet and the other people from that locality gave that information to the minister they were abusing his confidence. I have been in past there and while I do not actually know whether the lake is three or four miles long, I think I am safe in saying it is not more than four, and I think this has been a case I am sorry to say, of misplaced confidence. I am sorry to have to say it, because I like to see improvements going on in my own district where they are needed.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman disapprove of this expenditure?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes, yes.


William Pugsley: Wait a moment and allow the hon. member to answer.


George Taylor: You cannot undo it now because the money is spent.


George Gordon: I will tell you. A gentleman named McKee had a small mill at that lake as the hon. member (Mr. Arthurs) has said. He built the mill in the wrong place, at the head of this little lake

and he found he had to place his lumber upon scows, bring them down to the little portage, draw the lumber over the portage and then put it on boats again to bring it to Sturgeon Falls. Just when the election was approaching, men were set to work to do a little digging in anticipation, I suppose, of having to handle a good deal of lumber over there this year, but unfortunately the little mill has not been running this year, not a log has been taken out, so there will be no lumber to be transported there. There are a few farmers there but not a great many. They have misinformed the minister when they say there are 1,000 people, there is nothing like that at all. It will be a little benefit to these people because small craft can go in and out and it will help them to bring out a little hay, but at the same time there is a road parallel to this and for my part I would much prefer seeing that expenditure made in several other places I might point out where it is more required, as at Latchford or New Liskeard. If you investigate this I think you will find I have represented the case to you exactly as it is.


George Taylor: Does it open up 15 miles of navigation?


George Gordon: No.


William Pugsley: Would this be possible? I was told certainly it would save fifteen miles of haul over the road for the farmers' produce. What does the hon. gentleman say with regard to the distance saved as compared with the water route?


George Gordon: About four miles.


William Pugsley: Fifteen was stated to me and I will make inquiries.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the minister told the deputation to go home and spend the money and he would see that it would be returned?


William Pugsley: I think we will let this item stand.


Richard Blain: Has the money been expended?


William Pugsley: Under this assurance.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the minister told the deputation to spend the money and he would recommend a repayment by the government?


William Pugsley: What took place was this. They were very anxious that the matter should be proceeded with.


George Taylor: That was during the election.


William Pugsley: No, it was after the election. There was a gentleman with the deputation, who was a man of considerable Mr. GEO. GORDON.
means, and he said the matter was so important he would advance the money to these people. I said that I did not know whether parliament would vote it or not.


Richard Blain: How much?


William Pugsley: We are asking $2,000. I have put in the item upon the representation that the work would open up this extent of navigation which I stated. If I have been deceived, I would not ask the committee to pass the item.
- Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. The hon. minister should pay it out of his own pocket if he has put this in on false representations.


William Pugsley: I would sooner do that than ask parliament to vote it, after what the hon. member for Nipissing has said.


Richard Blain: Did the hon. minister allow these gentlemen to go on and spend the money and then put an item in the estimates for parliament to vote, without sending an engineer there?


William Pugsley: There was an engineer there.


Richard Blain: Did he get a report from an engineer on which he based this estimate?


William Pugsley: An engineer made a report, Mr. Corriveau. He is not here now. But upon the statement made by the hon. member from Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) I will allow the item to stand.


George Taylor: I understood the minister to say that the engineer stated it would give fifteen miles navigation?


William Pugsley: No, these gentlemen said that.


George Taylor: What was the gentleman's name who offered to disburse this large amount himself?


William Pugsley: Mr. Levesque.


George Gordon: There has been some $2,300 spent on this, and I hope that the government will go on with the work and finish it as otherwise that money would be absolutely lost. I stated awhile ago that this would be of some little use to those few farmers, but the statement made by those men who came here that there would be a saving of fifteen miles was not correct. I do not think there would be that saving. It would be absolutely wrong to spend the money if the work had not been begun, but now that part of it is done we ought to complete it.


William Pugsley: Upon that admission, we had better carry the item.


William Cameron Edwards: I am informed there is a bridge down near Cardinal for which the Minister of Railways has no particular

use. It has been lying there for four or five years. Would he take into his serious consideration the sending of that bridge down to Wolfe Island and putting it across the canal?


George Perry Graham: The council of Edwards-burg want to buy it.


William Cameron Edwards: Have you placed a
price on it?


George Perry Graham: I am not sure.


William Cameron Edwards: I suppose you will
consider an offer from Wolfe Island?


George Perry Graham: We will be glad to get the most we can for it.


John Dowsley Reid: The township of Ed-wardsburg do not require the bridge, they have built another one.


William Pugsley: This discussion must be out of order when we are considering Public Works estimates.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I hope hon. gentlemen will not too long keep away from the item under consideration.
Meaford-harbour improvements, $400.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: What is this item for?


William Pugsley: This will complete. The contract was for $34,742.87. Then there was dredging in addition. The total expenditure to 15th February was $44,086.64, and the appropriation for the same year was $43,700, leaving $386.64 due.


William Sora Middlebro: Has there been any plan adopted for the improvement of this harbour-any definite permanent plan?


William Pugsley: Yes, but I do not know whether I can say that it is unalterable, like the laws of the Medes and Persians. There was a good deal of discussion as to the best plan, and we adopted one on which we are proceeding. I have here the particulars of the work done during the past year. The contract was, first for an extension 50 feet in an easterly direction at the inner end of the breakwater, which was then 430 feet long and 30 feet wide, with a view of affording additional protection from the northerly gales to vessels lying loading at the elevators in the harbour and those wintering there. Then to build a revetment wall of pile work and concrete, 300 feet in length. Also put down close sheet piling 135 feet in length and dredging to 30 feet below the low water level.


William Sora Middlebro: We had a severe storm there last fall, and it was a great disappointment to the people to find that after spending all that money, tne harbour was still in such a state that the boats were torn from their moorings and a number driven against the bridge and their upper works destroyed, and quite a number had to be brought to Owen Sound to make them reasonably safe for the winter. My object is not to criticise but to see if 1 cannot impress on the minister the advisability of changing the plan he has adopted. When, after spending $43,000, we find that the harbour does not afford sufficient protection to vessels, some change should be made. That is why the other day I impressed on the hon. minister the advisability of putting something in the supplemen-taries. Unless something be done now, there will be further injuries this year. This is a case which would justify the minister in placing in the estimates an amount for the purpose of remedying as far as possible the defects proven to exist in that harbour. Meaford is one of the harbours on the south shore of Georgian bay, which it is the policy of the hon. gentleman to deepen and improve, for the accommodation of large vessels unloading grain, and I would urge on him to do something this year to preserve the work already done.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to have the matter looked into in view of what my hon. friend has said. He speaks of putting an amount in the supplementaries, but I have not yet been advised by the Minister of Finance that we are going to have any, so that I am unable to say whether or not it will be possible to make any provision this year.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) got a memorial sent to him by the town of Meaford?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Does he remember what it recited?


William Pugsley: No, but it will be looked into very carefully.


Mr. OWEN.: When does the minister expect to begin building the wharf at Brighton village? I hope that soon he will be asking for tenders.


William Pugsley: No.


Charles Lewis Owen: Did not the minister promise a wharf last election?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Charles Lewis Owen: That was the understanding in the riding.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Owen) convey that message to the electors?


Charles Lewis Owen: No, not I. It came from Ottawa headquarters, and the minister did not send it through me. Somebody else delivered it.


William Pugsley: I will have to make inquiries.


Charles Lewis Owen: There was a post office promised for Campbellford, too. It was promised right from the platform on nomination day.


William Pugsley: I am glad the hon. gentleman has mentioned Campbellford, for it gives me an opportunity to say that I have seen a letter from the gentleman to whom he refers, and that gentleman denies, in the most positive terms, that he made any promise of a public building for the town of Campbellford.


Charles Lewis Owen: When did he deny that?


William Pugsley: In a letter I have seen.


Charles Lewis Owen: I never said he made the promise.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: The statement was made in this House.


Charles Lewis Owen: Not by me. What is the name of the gentleman charged with making that promise?


William Pugsley: Some hon. member of the House made the charge. I will look up the letter from the gentleman who wa.s the candidate.


Charles Lewis Owen: I did not say that the candidate made the promise.


William Pugsley: If my memory serves me right, some hon. member of the House made that statement.


Charles Lewis Owen: I am more convinced than ever now that the promise was made from Ottawa.


George Taylor: Will the minister bring down the report of the engineer with reference to the item of $2,000 for Lake Nipissing before concurrence takes place?


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to.
Owen Sound harbour-dredging and pile protection work, $15,700.


William Sora Middlebro: Who has the contract? Is this money to finish the work?


William Pugsley: This money has been expended, or will be before the close of the fiscal year.


William Sora Middlebro: Who has the contract, and how is the work being done?


Mr. PUGSLEY A. F.@: Bowman, Southampton.


William Sora Middlebro: What was the total contract?


William Pugsley: This is dredge work, and is paid for by the yard, $2.75 for rock and 25 cents for other material.


William Sora Middlebro: How much rock has he excavated?


William Pugsley: No rock.


William Sora Middlebro: Was this let by tender?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Yes, Mr. Bowman was the lowest tenderer.


William Sora Middlebro: Who were the tenderers?


William Pugsley: I have not that information before me. I think it has all been submitted to the House and will be found in the returns or in 'Hansard' of last session.


William Sora Middlebro: I was not here and I would like to have that information.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to get it for my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro).


William Sora Middlebro: Were there disputes between the contractors and the department as to the work done in the harbour?


William Pugsley: There was some slight dispute as to the work done in a dredging slip. The matter was not brought to my attention. There was some question as to whether the contractor was to be paid for certain work.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister give a statement as to the amount in dispute? Was there any dispute as to the work on the revetment?


William Pugsley: I will find out.


William Sora Middlebro: What amount has been expended on the harbour of Owen Sound to date?


William Pugsley: I think $453,000, since 1874.


William Sora Middlebro: Who is the inspector who certifies to the quantity of earth removed ?


William Pugsley: I could not say, but I will get that information also.


William Sora Middlebro: I will postpone further discussion until we have the facts. I suppose the item stands ?


William Pugsley: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) will not ask to have the item stand. These are our supplementary estimates for the current year and these votes are to close up business. When we come for the full amount in the estimates of 1909-1910, the matter can be discussed. Will this be satisfactory?


William Sora Middlebro: Yes, especially as the money is expended.


John Allister Currie: I would like the minister when he comes to the general vote for harbours to let me have the number of cubic yards of material excavated at Col-ingwood for each year for the last fifteen years, showing whether it is rock, hard pan or clay. I think the department has the facts.


William Pugsley: Yes, we have the returns year by year.
Sault Ste. Marie wharf-dredging approaches, $57,700.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is this by contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the work finished ?


William Pugsley: Not quite.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Who has the contract ?


William Pugsley: The Great Lakes Dredging Company.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What rates do
they get ?


William Pugsley: For rock and boulders they get $2.45 a yard.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What about clay ?


William Pugsley: There is none; it is all rock and boulders.
Silver Centre-wharf on west side of Lake Temiskaming-further amount, $500.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the original amount?


William Pugsley: Last year, the House voted $4,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does this complete it ?


William Pugsley: This will complete the block, but not a substantial approach to the land. Something further will have to be done later on.
Southampton-extension of and repairs to town dock, $16,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract, and the vote is to complete payments for the current year.


George Taylor: How about the town dock ?


William Pugsley: It is called the town dock, but it is a public dock.


George Taylor: What was the revenue from it last year ?


William Pugsley: That would be in the Department of Marine, and I would not have that information.
Toronto harbour-improvements, $75,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete payments for the present year under contract.
, Mr. MACDONELL. What work is this ?


William Pugsley: The western channel.


Mr. MACDONELL.: What is the total amount of the contract ?


William Pugsley: The total amount of the contract is $495,000. Then there is other work going on at Toronto. There is a concrete superstructure on the northern part of the substructure of the western pier of
the eastern entrance. That is costing something over $50,000.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Who are the contractors for that?


William Pugsley: Miller & Cumming. Then there is other work being done for the protection of the island.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I want to get the details of that contract, when it will be completed. and the amount appropriated for it.


William Pugsley: What we want this vote for is shown by the following figures: There was an appropriation in 1908-9 of $120,000.
To the 1st of January of the present year, we expended $126,969.49.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Can you give us the details?


William Pugsley: It was paid to the contractors. Messrs. Weddell have one contract, and Miller & Cumming have the other, namely, for the island breakwater extension. That made an overdraft of $6,969.49. There is now due to the Messrs. Weddell on that contract for the new western entrance, to the 1st of March, $40,120.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Would the minister kindly give us the particulars of these three contracts so far as he has them?


William Pugsley: I could give some of them. The most important contract is the one for the western channel, that is the Weddell contract, and is $495,000. That is to be completed on the 15th of May, 1912.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What work has been done?


William Pugsley: Somewhere in the vicinity of $100,000.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Can the minister give information about the breakwater?


William Pugsley: That contract was given to Miller & Cumming on the 8th of June, 1908, for $39,000, and is to be completed on the 8th of June, 1909. That is the construction of the extension of the Toronto island breakwater according to the amended design. There are to be six groins of crib work and concrete, 60 by 12 feet, and 163 feet of tongued and grooved 10-inch sheet piling with stone protection.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I understand there are three separate contracts?


William Pugsley: There are only two contracts, we are doing the other work ourselves. We are repairing the eastern breakwater by day's work, that is, putting in stone and protection work.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What is being done by day's work?


William Pugsley: Repairing the breakwater at the eastern gap. That consists of the restoration of the stone talus, protection of the slope with large blocks of stone.

That is under the direction of Mr. Sing, the resident engineer of Toronto.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is there any work being done to deepen the eastern entrance?


William Pugsley: There was some dredging done last year. There is no contract for dredging work there.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What is the intention of the government with regard to it?


William Pugsley: There is no present intention one way or the other. My information is that there is sufficient water now for the purpose of navigation, and it does not seem to be necessary to do any more dredging at the eastern entrance at present.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is there any appropriation for that? That entrance fills up every season, every season it becomes almost blocked, and requires dredging in order to make it navigable in the spring.


William Pugsley: There is no special appropriation for that. We took one vote for it, improvements at Toronto harbour, quite a large vote. Of course we can do any work out of that which might be regarded as necessary for the improvement of the harbour. But with regard to the eastern entrance, I may say that until quite recently the dredging has never been properly done. We think we have now done it thoroughly we have deepened it to give sufficient depth! and we do not expect it will fill in in the very near future.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What appropriation has the minister made for the protection of the island breakwater?


William Pugsley: We have no separate appropriation for that, it is a general vote The contract is for $39,000. Out of this general vote we pay on progress estimates, and also for the work which is being done by the day. That work is to be completed in June of this year.


Angus Claude Macdonell: When is the work on the piers to the eastern entrance to be completed?


William Pugsley: That is being done by day's work. There is no contract. I stated at least three times, but perhaps there is such a noise that my hon. friend could not hear me, there is no time fixed for the completion of it.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What appropriation is there for the present year in addition to this $75,000?


William Pugsley: 


Angus Claude Macdonell: And this $75,000?


William Pugsley: Yes. This $75,000 is to close up the accounts of the current year.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That has been spent?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: It has not been spent, but the work has been done for which this is to pay.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Then there is $120,000 for the approaching year?


William Pugsley: No, the $120,000 is for this year. Then, we have a vote in the main estimates for the next year to continue the work.	'


Angus Claude Macdonell: What is that?


William Pugsley: I do not remember at this moment. My hon. friend will see it in his copy of the estimates if he will look it up.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the policy of the minister for the coming year as to these estimates which are now being voted for dredging in different places in Ontario and Quebec? Is it the intention to advertise for tenders for the contracts or just to give the work out to those who had the contracts last year without calling for tenders?


William Pugsley: I have not quite decided yet. Last year I was over-persuaded to call for new tenders and it cost the country about $200,000. I do not want to repeat that. If my chief engineer reports that the work of last season has been satisfactorily performed and that the prices are fair and reasonable and I am satisfied of it I would be rather inclined to continue the contracts for the work which is necessary during the coming year.


George Gordon: Referring to the matter of the Latchford dam and the correspondence which the minister has just handed to me, I would just- like to say that in looking [DOT] through this correspondence it appears to me that the gentleman who has been negotiating with the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission has not been treating the minister exactly fairly, nor has he been treating fairly the chairman of the commission. I find in the correspondence here from Mr. Davis to the minister the following :
Mr. Davis endeavoured to ascertain what * upset price ' meant, but states in his report to the minister: ' The terms upon which these lots will be turned over to the government is not made clear/ Thus far my inquiry for further particulars has not been answered by the commission. I am to-day supplying information with the hope of getting further particulars in this respect.
I have here a letter written by the commission, dated Toronto, August 28, 1908.


William Pugsley: Addressed to whom ?


George Gordon: Addressed to Mr. Davis, and Mr. Davis has evidently not sent a copy to you. I am told by Mr. MARCH 25, 1909
Englehart that this is the last letter written by him to Mr. Davis.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman kindly state whether this forms part of the papers on file that we have ?


George Gordon: No, Mr. Davis does not give you copies of any letters from the commission to himself.


William Pugsley: That will be a copy
that the hon. gentleman has received from the commissioners, I suppose ?


George Gordon: Yes, I got a copy from Mr. Englehart. That is why I think that Mr. Davis was not treating you quite fairly. I will read this letter which Mr. Englehart states is his last letter and to which he has not received any reply from Mr. Davis:
Toronto, Aug. 28, 1908.
J. S. Davis, Esq.,
Barrister, &c.,
Latchford, Ont.
Dear Sir,-
Re Latchford Dam.
I am duly in receipt of yours of the 20th in reply to mine of the 19th with which you enclose copies of letters of the 30th July to the chairman. I assure you this is the first we have seen of these.
As you are aware, there were some thirty lots on which building requirements had not been made, hut for which purchase money had been received. Under date June 1, I wrote to each of the owners as follows:-
I am instructed by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Commission to notify you that on account of your failure to construct building, as required by your agreement of day of	for purchase by you
of lots	in townsite of Latchford,
said agreement is liable to cancellation, and unless you take steps forthwith to comply with the agreement we shall cancel same and refund to you the amount that has been paid for said lots. We register this letter and require your acknowledgement on or before the 10th day of June, 1908.
They have notified these people that unless they build forthwith their claims will be cancelled and they will refund them the money. That would place an exact pi ice on the value of these lots.
We have refunded purchase price to

Three different names are given here.
The following say they have given options to you.
That is to Mr. Davis.


Robert Laird Borden: There were more than three lots sold?


George Gordon: Yes, several lots.
The following letters have been returned by the post office authorities-parties not having been located.
Five names and seven lots are included in the list.


Mr. PUGSLEY W. J.@: Holmes, owner of lot 171 writes me that he sold the above lot to Mr. Wm. O'Brien, of Sault Ste. Marie. The above wili leave eight lots about which we have not heard. The owners of the lots and the numbers are as follows:-
It gives the numbers and names, which I need not read.
With regard to the unsold Latchford lots, average price of which is $165 each; before these lots were put on the market the upset price was arranged on each lot.


William Pugsley: The upset price on better situated lots was $70 and $80 and they wanted this government to pay $160.


George Gordon: 
William Pugsley: I think August 13 is Mr. Davis' last letter to the department. Is it not there?


George Gordon: No, there is a letter addressed to Mr. Hunter and signed by M. Davis under date of February 14.


William Pugsley: What year?


George Gordon: 1908.
. Mr. PUGSLEY. You will find a letter in August on the file, or rather an extract from a letter.


George Gordon: No, it is not on the file.


William Pugsley: I think so.


George Gordon: It would appear from looking over the file that you did not have any letter such as this before you.


William Pugsley: I would like to see it.


George Gordon: I hope the minister will pardon me for being so persistent, but I do not think he realizes that there are thousands of people at the head of the Montreal river who will be unable to get

in a sufficient quantity of supplies to carry them over the summer if this work is not done, and may therefore be exposed to great suffering. Mr. Englehart has assured me he will do everything in his power to have this trifling question about the land adiusted. and I "hope the minister will go on with the work.


William Pugsley: The commissioners own this land and if they choose to put an exorbitant price on the lots it is their own
business.	.


George Gordon: There are only ten lots owned by the Ontario government.


William Pugsley: They asked us to pay $160 each for lots which during the boom at Latchford they were unable to sell, while they sold lots far superior to these at an unset nrice of $70 or $80 each. It is not that the $1,600 is so veTy large but if we pay $160 each for the very worst lots on the town site it would mean that this government would be mulcted in very heavy damages if we had to pay a relatively high price to the private owners of better lots. What I complain of is, that when this government proposes to do a thing for the benefit of that section of the country, and for the benefit of the people there, and for developing property which is owned by the Ontario government, and out of which the Ontario government will get large sums for royalties, they should hold us up for the very last dollar and even double the value of these lots on us. I do not propose to engage upon the construction of this dam unless I can see where we stand with regard to the land damages. If we are going to me mulcted in thousands of dollars of damages for flooding lands I must stay my hand and not proceed with this work. Mr. Englehart in this letter says that if there is any way in which he can be of assistance to expedite the matter he would only be too happy, and I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) that if he wants to be of assistance he can get the Ontario government to give us a quit claim deed of the land. If that were done, I can assure my hon. friend that it would go a long way to' help us forward towards the construction of this very necessary public work.


George Gordon: At the time of the sale at Latchford there were no buildings erected, but now it is quite a little town and the lots are more valuable than they were then.


William Pugsley: But they have not been able to sell them.


George Gordon: They have been treating with the government here and they would not want to sell them to any one else in the meantime. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to consider that the Ontario government has built that railway without one cent of subsidy being re-Mr. GEO. GORDON.
ceived from the Dominion government, and I think it is the only Tailway in Canada which stands in that position.


William Pugsley: And they say it is paying very handsome returns.


George Gordon: I think it is doing very well, but at the same time the majority of the people of Ontario hold that the Dominion government owes to the people of Ontario $6,400 per mile for every mile of that Tailroad. In view of that, and of the great urgency of this undertaking, I hope the Minister of Public Works will not let a few paltry dollars stand in the way, particularly when the money will go into the hands of people who will take good care of it.


William Pugsley: It is nut'a question of the amount of money we might pay for these lots, but if we pay $160 for each of these worthless lots for which they have been unable to obtain purchasers it will become the basis for the claims of private owners who have much better lots. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) that if the Ontario government will cut the amount m two I will close with them to-morrow.


George Gordon: On these ten lots ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and then they can give us a quit claim deed on the other lots and let us deal with the purchasers.


George Gordon: That is, if they give you these ten lots for $80 each ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and then let them convey to us the other lots upon which other people have claims and upon which they apparently have no claim except the right to receive some purchase money.


George Gordon: That is the other 30 lots ?	.


William Pugsley: Yes, so that we will be able to deal with the purchasers and take up the whole thing and bring it to a head and get it settled and go on with the work at once.


George Gordon: I will see about that.
River Sydenham-clearing east branch of sunken logs, snags, &C-, $300.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any navigation here ?


William Pugsley: Oh, yes.


David Alexander Gordon: Just 36 feet of water to Wallaceburg.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What kind of craft ply on that river?


David Alexander Gordon: Anything that floats.
Spanish River improvement, $12,700.


William Pugsley: This is dredging work?

^ Mr. W. R. SMYTH. Why is there $12,700 in the supplementaries? The appropriation was $6,000. You have exceeded that by $12,700. When was the work ' commenced and was it done by contract?


William Pugsley: It was done by contract let on September 5, 1905. We were pressed very strongly to do this work at the mouth of the Spanish river, in fact we had been pressed for it for some time. The outlay during the year just closing was for the removal of 66,738 cubic yards of quicksand and clay sand by the dredge 'Meade' from September 21 to November 14, from two long sand bars, 6,000 yards up stream from the mouth of the Spanish river to secure a depth of 12 feet at low water. The expenditure for that was $16,708. In addition there was material and labour for the building of a pile and concrete pier at Massey 15 miles above the mouth of the river, which cost $1,861.


William Ross Smyth: Who had the contract for the dredging and was it let by tender?


William Pugsley: The C. S. Boone Dredging & Construction Company of Toronto. The contract was let on September 5, and the price was 25 cents per cubic yard.


William Ross Smyth: What was the necessity for the work and why was it so urgent?


William Pugsley: There is a company there called, I think, the Spanish River Navigation Company. They are navigating the Spanish river and they urged this work very strongly. The hon. gentleman who formerly represented the constituency also urged it. We had very strong requests for this work.


William Ross Smyth: The minister perhaps is aware that an appropriation has been made for this work several times. As far back as 10 or 12 years ago there was an appropriation of $10,000 in the estimates for this particular work. That did beautifully during the election of that year. Then it was dropped out of sight. Four years afterwards, an item appears in large type in the local newspapers favourable to my late opponent stating that the government had revoted $10,000 for the Spanish river improvements. That was lost sight of immediately after the elections. This last time there was $6,000 of an appropriation for this work.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman sees I did not lose sight of it.


William Ross Smyth: It became very urgent indeed last fall that this work should be done for reasons of which the hon. minister is no doubt aware. Why was
$12,700 more than the appropriation for this work expended? Was it not as necessary ten, eight, six or four years ago as it was last fall? Why the urgency for doing- the work at the particular period at which it was done?


William Pugsley: That is a very proper question.


William Ross Smyth: And a question I am afraid the minister would have a hard time answering to the satisfaction of the people of the district of Algoma.


William Pugsley: You just try me now.


William Ross Smyth: I know he is an expert, but notwithstanding all that the people of the district of Algoma know full well why the work was done when it was done, and during a period of the year when dredges are usually being laid up in winter quarters.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend think the expenditure was absolutely necessary in the interests of navigation?


William Ross Smyth: If it was really necessary, it was necessary 10 or 8 years ago.


William Pugsley: Is it necessary?


William Ross Smyth: It is no more necessary now than it was then.


William Pugsley: Was it not necessary last fall?	[DOT]


Mr. W. R. SMITH.: It was done purely and simply for political purposes' " '


William Pugsley: I am interested to hear my hon. friend say that.	*


William Ross Smyth: I am never afraid to tell the truth.


William Pugsley: I am sure my hon. friend would not be, because I have great respect for him.


William Ross Smyth: And I have great respect for my word.


William Pugsley: I cannot see how, if the dredging was necessary and it has now been done and some 66,000 cubic yards removed from these two large sand bars, the expense has been wasted. This dredging is to give a depth of 12 feet.


William Ross Smyth: Does it give it?


William Pugsley: You have to dredge out from time to time to keep down to the 12 feet. We have now taken out 66,000 cubic yards, but if it is not deep enough we will have to dredge deeper.


William Ross Smyth: Has the minister anything in the main estimates for the continuation of that work?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware
of.


William Ross Smyth: The work the minister has done is absolutely wasted unless he continues to dredge the river much further up than he has done.


William Pugsley: That is a different thing. What my hon. friend means now is that we must go further and spend more money.


William Ross Smyth: If it is necessary to do it at all it is necessary to do it right.


William Pugsley: With regard to the work not being done some years ago my hon. friend is quite Tight in calling attention to it; the difficulty was to get a dredge. It happened that last fall it was possible to get a dredge. The dredge of the C. S. Boone Company had got through with its work on the Blind river, and we were able to have it moved down to do this work at the mouth of the Spanish river.


William Ross Smyth: That dredge almost got there by lightning.


William Pugsley: Of course, because it got through with the other work and the sooner it would get to work on the Spanish river the sooner the owners would make some money, but in the busy spring or summer this yeaT it might have been impossible to get a dredge there as has happened in other years. I may say frankly that Mr. Dyment found a great deal of fault with me and my department because we had not put the dredge to work before. I explained that there was no dredge available, but just as soon as this dredge was available she was put to work on the Spanish river. We have done the amount of dredging I have mentioned, and if it is necessary to go to a greater depth I would hope that before very long we would be able to continue the work so as to effect what I think my hon. friend would say is a very much needed public improvement.


William Ross Smyth: It may be needed, but the money expended was simply thrown away, in the way the wont was done and during the season in which it was done.


William Pugsley: I cannot see that. It was done at so much a cubic yard.


William Ross Smyth: Yes, but the same number of cubic yards is in that same channel today. You cannot take a boat through the channel you dredged last fall. I am doubtful if the money was spent which we are asked to vote. 'The dredge was there only a very short time. During the election campaign, my opponent made the boast on the public platform that he had ordered the department to send that dredge to the mouth of the Spanish river, and that it would be there in a few days and sure enough it was. But it took ten years to get that dredge there, according to the minister, because there was an appropriation made ten years ago for that purpose
and also four years ago. Yet he now says that the work was so urgent last fall, the dredge had to be sent there during the election. But if the work was so urgent last fall, why is there not this year a sum in the estimates to complete it and make that channel navigable for the coming summer? If the work is to be of any benefit and if the boats are to be enabled to reach that dock which the government built up the Spanish river some twelve or fourteen miles, the minister will have to do a good deal more dredging. They built the dock before there was water enough for a boat to get there.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is mistaken. The vessels of the Spanish River Navigation Company weie running up to the place where this dock was built. I recognize that it may be desirable to do further dredging. My hon. friend has asked why there is not an amount in the main estimates for this purpose.


George Taylor: Because there is no election.


William Pugsley: No, but it is in accordance with the policy of economy which we have been obliged to adopt.


George Taylor: There is no economy when you spent $12,700 more than was appropriated last year.


William Pugsley: That is done and my hon. friend is asking about next year. I cannot say whether we shall be able to do further dredging next year or not. I shall have to give the matter further consideration.


William Ross Smyth: Is the hon. minister aware that the dredge in question employed 23 American citizens doing the work?


William Pugsley: I was not aware of that.


William Ross Smyth: I am informed on reliable authority that there were 23 American citizens on the dredge at the mouth of the Spanish river doing that work.


Richard Blain: How much was in the estimates last year for harbours and rivers in Ontario and how much this year?


William Pugsley: I have not got the main estimates here. The hon. gentleman will find the amount in those estimates.


Richard Blain: I want to see how far the policy of economy is applied to Ontario in respect of these items.


William Pugsley: It is applied to Ontario to no greater extent than to any other province in Canada.


George Taylor: The estimates were $1,619,780 last year and $795,250 this year.


William Ross Smyth: When did that dredge stop doing work on the Spanish river ?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: On the 14th of November.


John Dowsley Reid: When did it begin ?


William Pugsley: The contract was let the 5th of September and it began the 21st.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there anything in the estimates last year for that work ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the price paid?


William Pugsley: Twenty-five cents per cubic yard, scow measurement.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he proposes to do any dredging at Port Credit this year. For several years his predecessors promised that a certain amount of dredging would be done there. The excuse always given for not doing it was that no dredge was available, hut that excuse can hardly be advanced now since the appropriations are somewhat smaller for Ontario than in former years, and consequently the dredges will not be so busy. There is always some work going on at Hamilton and Toronto, and Port Credit harbour lies between the two and is very close to either of them. In the appropriation we have this year, may we expect the government to carry out the promise that some work would be done at this important point?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of any promise by my predecessors and none was certainly made by me. I am not in a position to say whether any dredging will be done there the coming season or not. We have no sum in the estimates for it, and I do not see how it is possible for me to do all the absolutely urgent work the coming year out of the general dredging vote. With regard to Port Credit, there is another difficulty, and that is that it is owned by a company. Many years ago, before confederation, the Ontario government was in the habit of handing over certain harbours to private corporations, and Port Credit unfortunately is in that position. I do not know if that would be an effectual bar to our dredging there, but the most I can say is that I will think the matter over, but I cannot hold out any strong hope.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has never expended any money at that point but there was some expended there some years ago. My hon. friend has not given any promise, but two of his predecessors gave promises on the floor of the House which I quoted in a discussion two years ago. If my hon. friend will look over the history of his department, he will find that two of his predecesors promised they would spend some money at that important point. I never could understand why they did not do it. My hon. friend is very careful of 105
course in not promising, but I hope he will look into the matter and see that some money is expended there. It is a very important centre and should be kept open in the public interest. There _ is a good deal of traffic on Lake Ontario between Hamilton and Toronto. Indeed, it is a harbour of refuge in many times of storm. I think the minister should send his engineer to examine and should give this matter rather serious consideration. I may expect that from the minister, I suppose, this year ?


William Pugsley: I will make a note of it and think it over.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister can hardly give as a reason for not spending money on the Port Credit harbour the fact that it is owned by a private corporation, because the Dominion has expended money on harbours similarly owned.


William Pugsley: Where?


John Waterhouse Daniel: In Nova Scotia, Glace bay-I think that is the harbour-is owned by a coal company, and the Dominion has spent a great deal of money there; it practically made the harbour.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. There is no parallel in Canada with this harbour of Port Credit. I am sure Glace bay is not a parallel. The foreshore may be owned, but not the harbour, not the water.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not insist on the name, but certainly one of these harbours is owned by the coal company.


Richard Blain: Does the minister say that the government does not spend money on [DOT]harbours owned by private parties in any part of Canada?


William Pugsley: I do not say that, because I think there has been some such expenditure, but I say it creates a difficulty, as, I am sure, the hon. gentleman will recognize.


William Ross Smyth: As the minister has expended $18,000 on the Spanish river, I would urge upon him the necessity of continuing the work. For two reasons: the first is ftiat the work has been done improperly, I say advisedly, but with all due respect to the engineers and those who did the work. There is a great deal of shifting sand, and I do not think it was dredged wide enough to prevent the sand going back into the same ground. That is one reason-the minister ought to try to save the work that has been done by doing more. Another is that, as' he is dredging at one end of the river and has a dock at the other with no means of getting to his dock with any satisfaction with any steamboat of any size, he might better continue improving the river all the way between



the dock and where the improvements have been already made. No doubt, he is aware that there is a good deal of conten-the lumbermen. Money could well be spent tion between the steamboat company and by assisting both the lumbermen and steamboat company in connection with the chan-uel. But as the minister was so anxious to spend the money last fall, and spend it lavishly, I hope he will find reason to continue the work this year and save the work already done. We will see what can be done.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Has the minister given Port Bruce any more thought?


William Pugsley: I have been thinking Port Bruce over.


David Marshall: May I ask if the minister has been thinking favourably of it?


William Pugsley: Well, I hear very good reports of Port Bruce.


David Marshall: The minister would not like to make me a promise to-night?


William Pugsley: Not to-night.


David Marshall: I do not want very much.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is modest, I know; and I really will think it over. But I would sooner give the hon. gentleman the dredging than give him the promise.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I desire to draw attention to the condition of affairs with regard to minor wharfs that are being built on inland waters. I find that an agent is being appointed by the government in some instances and in others not. In these latter cases, apparently nobody is in charge of the wharf after it is built. Instances come to my mind of wharfs being simply appropriated, sometimes to the detriment of the public. But, if an accident happens, a plank gets out of place, there is nobody to look after it. I made inquiry, last year and was told that the wharfs where I live were under control of an engineer at Toronto, 145 miles away. How are these matters managed after the wharfs are built?


William Pugsley: The proper, the regular course, would be to transfer the wharf to the Department of Marine and Fisfieries. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries appoints a wharfinger and gives him a percentage of the wharfage tolls received. In that way, there is somebody to take care of the wliarf and see to it that the necessary repairs are made. But sometimes, as the collection of tolls would be quite burdensome, especially to the farmers who are using the wharf in a small way, my department has been asked not to make the transfer to the Marine and Fisheries Department. In the majority of cases, I am sorry to say, both under the old government Mr. SMYTH.
and under this government, that request has been acceded to, and the transfer has not been made, no wharfinger has been appointed and no tolls collected. An arrangement may be made with a steamship company so that they may use the wharf, but that is unsatisfactory. I recognize the importance of the question that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) raises. The Minister of Marine and_ Fisheries has been considering the question how to deal with these small wharfs, and he thought it might not be inadvisable to lease them, to the steamboat companies, or charge them so much for the right to come to the wharf, or, perhaps, to lease the wharf to the municipal council and so do away with the necessity of charging a farmer a toll for getting a barrel of flour or ten pounds of sugar delivered on the wharf. That is a very obnoxious tax to impose upon the people, and we are endeavouring to do away with it.


Mr. McGALL.: While the) minister seems to be in a generous mood in granting wharfs and harbour improvements, I would like to ask if his attention has been called to the necessity of a landing pier at St. Williams, in the county of Nonfolk, on the north shore of Lake Erie. Would he say whether he has received an application, or some representation as to the necessity of such a work?


William Pugsley: My attention has not been called to St. Williams, or to the. necessity of a wharf there. If I were to accede to all the requests made from the other side my estimates would roll up tremendously.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Work was commenced last year to rebuild a wharf at the village of Lakefield. The work is not yet completed, and I think the department has been requested to increase the appropriation by a few thousand dollars, in order to extend that work properly. It is a . good time now to do this, seeing that the work is still incomplete. Is it the intention of the government to grant further aid?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman who represents West Peterboro (Mr. Stratton) has brought that matter forcibly to my attention. Although my department obtained the appropriation for the money, we transferred the work to the Department of Railways, and it is being done under that department. The question of providing for an extension during the coming year is now under consideration.
Manitoba-River Assiniboine-improvements near Portage la Prairie, $250.


William D. Staples: I desire this item to stand until the return which I moved for on the 17th of February, is brought down. The minister knows that I called his attention to it before the orders of the day

were called this afternoon, and told him that this Teturn had not been brought down. It is in reference to this particular piece of work, and we wish to get some facts before we can intelligently dispose of this item.


William Pugsley: I want to appeal to the good judgment of my hon. friend and ask him not to press that request, for the reason that these are the supplementary estimates for the current year, and it is important that they should be got through so as to close up the accounts before the 31st of March. But I will say to my hon. friend that the return will be brought down right away, and when we are considering the main estimates he shall have an opportunity of discussing it.


William D. Staples: That is the reason why I do not want this item to go through, because the information I am seeking is in reference to the current year.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can discuss that on the main estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see why this item should go through to-night; we have another week before us to the end -of the month.


William Pugsley: When we come to the main estimates my hon. friend will have the same opportunity of discussing it-I will undertake that-as if we were to discuss it to-night.


George Taylor: I think the main estimates for Manitoba have gone through. Perhaps the minister will bring down the information before concurrence.


William Pugsley: Yes, I will do that.


George Taylor: There has been an arrangement made between the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the Minister of Finance that these supplement-aries shall be disposed of before the end of the month.


John Dowsley Reid: Possibly the information we get in these returns will be such that we shall want to strike out the item.


William Pugsley: I will make another suggestioon to my hon. friend for Macdonald (Mr. Staples). If he will be good enough to call over to the office of the deputy minister to-morrow morning, we will show him all the papers, and then this can be discussed on concurrence.


William D. Staples: I would be glad to accede to the hon. gentleman's wishes, but I am not the only member from the province of Manitoba. The member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has been following this matter up as well as myself. I would like a little time to investigate. There has been a large expenditure 1051
there, a very foolish expenditure, in my opinion, which was made for the purpose of securing votes at that particular time. There are many things in connection with that expenditure that we want to unearth and bring to light; then we will be in a position to take up this item intelligently.


William Pugsley: I will have my messenger bring the papers here to-morrow to the hon. gentleman.


William D. Staples: Can we have an opportunity of discussing this to-morrow?


William Pugsley: On concurrence.


William D. Staples: I have had some experience in the last four years, and I know how difficult it is to discuss an item_ on concurrence. Not much attention is paid to items of this nature on concurrence.


William Pugsley: Yes, there will be.


William D. Staples: I do not think I am asking too much. It is very necessary that the work which has been done there should be completed. Take it also further down the Assinaboine river; there was public money expended on lot 160 and, according to the advice that I have had from the council of St. Franqois Xavier, a large part of this country is going to be flooded if the werk is going to be left in the condition in which it is to-day. I could go to the office and look over the papers, but my hon. _ friend from Portage La Prairie (Mr. Meighen), who is not here to-night, wants to get this information also, as well as other members from that province.


William Pugsley: The work for which this item is asked is to close up the balance due on the channel at Portage La Prairie for the purpose of relieving the flooding, and we do intend to do some more work next year with respect to _ these improvements which we believe will have the effect of preventing the flooding of the country. We are approaching very closely to the 31st March; it is desirable to have the supplementaries through and it is understood that this can be discussed upon concurrence. If my hon. friend will telephone my deputy where he will be in the morning, I will have a clerk in my office bring over all the papers and show them to my hon. friend, and to any other hon. gentlemen from Manitoba who desire to see them, and I can assure my hon. friend that he will have the fullest opportunity of discussing this matter upon concurrence. I should think that would be very much better, if he wishes to get his views before his constituents, than to discuss the question tonight. Let us get through with the items.


William D. Staples: On that understanding we can let the item go. I will take the op
0.3.35

portunity of bringing it up some day upon the orders of the day.


William Pugsley: Quite right; that is a good idea.


William D. Staples: I have a -letter from a councillor who represents a ward in the municipality of St. Francois Xavier and he tells me that certain work that has been done by this government on lot 160 has been left in such a condition that unless steps are taken to secure it in some way the country will be flooded.


William Pugsley: What description of work is that?


William D. Staples: I believe the banks are subsiding and that it is necessary to do some piling. The information I get from there is that the government promised to do the piling last fall. It has not been done. I am not clear as to what the nature of the work is, I must confess, and I would like to get some information as to that myself.


William Pugsley: That would have nothing to do with this item.


William D. Staples: No, it is further down the river. Now that we are on the supply estimates, I consider that I am quite in order in asking if it is the intention of the government to do anything at St. Laurent? Four years ago there was great activity at that place. A dredge was bought a few days before the election, it was put to work, a number of men were employed, and it was said that they were going to build a wharf for the convenience of the people of that particular constituency of Macdonald. But, on the day following the election the dredge was taken away and we have not heard anything of it since. Last October they promised to bring the dredge back. They were very sorry that they could not get the dredge at that particular time but the assurance was given to the people there that if they would vote for the Liberal candidate there would be no doubt but that this work would be completed. The people of that portion of the municipality of Macdonald accepted the promise of the government candidate to a certain extent, or at least, an adverse majority was given against me there. I hope the Minister will not deceive them but that he will go on and make good the promise which was presented to these people by my opponent. The work is practically useless as it stands. It is about half done, the people cannot get near it, and it is necessary to do certain work down across the lagoon before it is of any value whatever. I hope the minister will take the trouble to inquire into this Mr. STAPLES.
matter and make good the promise presented to the people on the public platform last October.


William Pugsley: I will have the matter looked into.


Mr. HERRON.: If I may be permitted to speak on the item I would like to mention a question which affects my own riding. In some way or other I missed the discussion of the public works items dealing with wharfs and bridges in the province of Alberta. I have been informed by the deputy clerk that these items are through although I do not understand how they could have got through without my knowledge. There was in the estimates of the last two years an appropriation of about $8,000 for protecting the banks of the Old Man river at the town of McLeod. I have already spoken to the minister on this subject privately and he gave me a good deal of encouragement to hope that there would probably be an item m the Supply estimates this year, but I am sorry to say that I do not find such an item. I think we have a very strong claim upon the government to undertake and carry out this work and it does seem to me like penalizing the people of that district because they sent a Conservative at the last election. That work was promised at the time by the department here and it was held up before the people of the constituency as one of the works that was going to be carried out. Immediately after the election is over I find that the item is withdrawn. I think we have an'especially strong claim to have a small amount of work done for more reasons than one. I find that the minister is very generous in granting money for works of this description in other parts of the country, but that he has done very little work of this nature in the province of Alberta. I think that in the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta there is only about $52,000 in this, year's estimates, which I think is a very'small amount compared with the appropriations for works in other parts of the country. I think that we have even a stronger claim than that which I have just mentioned and that is that the government own the land, the rivers and streams; in fact, they own things above and under the water. Another reason is that the town of McLeod, that I am asking this appropriation for, in order to protect the banks of the river, occupies what was a government townsite, a townsite that this government made a great deal of money out of in the past. Another is that there is a government building oil the banks of the river which will be one of the first properties to be destroyed in the event of the banks falling away. There is very great danger that the banks might be undermined to such an extent that the government building might fall down. I

would like to know from the minister, if he is not going to have anything in the estimates this year, if he will pledge his word that the estimates for next year will contain a vote for this very necessary work.


William Pugsley: It is quite true that my hon. friend did call to see me and that he pressed upon my attention the necessity of doing this work at Fort McLeod. The fact that it was regarded by the government as being a necessary work would be evidenced by its having been placed in the estimates last year.


John Herron: For two years.


William Pugsley: For two years. But I have been obliged to leave it out of the main estimates this year for the reason I have already stated to the committee. We have been obliged to postpone a great many necessary public works. Probably owing to the decline of the revenue I have had occasion to consider very carefully this question among others of protecting the banks of rivers in the various provinces. We have done work of this character to a certain extent in the past when our revenues were more buoyant. On the Fraser river we divided the cost of such work between the British Columbia government and the 'federal government but in my judgment it is work that can hardly be regarded as federal work. It is not for the improvement of navigation; it is for the protection of property of private owners or property of municipalities and is purely local in its character. If we were to do work of this kind in the various provinces I do not know where the claims upon the federal treasury would end. Only the other day my hon. friend from Chicoutimi called my attention to the danger of a landslide on the St. Lawrence river which if it occurred would destroy property and possibly cause loss 'of life and he urged me to take steps to guard against it; last year the Minister of the Interior urged me to do similar work on the North Saskatchewan at Edmonton, but I felt that this was work for the provincial ot municipal authorities. That is the difficulty with regard to this work at Fort Macleod. It is intended to protect the property of the people of that town. The only ground upon which I thought we might interfere was that if the bank slid away the Dominion public building would likely be the first property to be injured and that appealed to the selfish side of the department. If in order to protect government property it is necessary to do work of this character it might possibly be done, but all I can say to my horn friend now is that it will receive careful consideration.


John Herron: If this is a work that should not be undertaken by the federal government why was a vote placed in the estimates for it' two years in succession?


William Pugsley: When we begin to get short of money we have to consider these things very carefully.


John Herron: It seems to me the elections had more to do with it than anything else.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


John Herron: The minister seems to forget that this was formerly a government townsite and although part of the unsold lots have recently been turned over to the town, yet the government made a great deal of money out of the sale of some of those town lots in days gone by.
Dredging vessels, repairs, further amount required, $100,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will this make the total amount for repairs in the year?


William Pugsley: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: Were these repairs all done in government yards?


William Pugsley: Some in government yards and some in private yards all over the country.


James Arthurs: What is the average cost per annum of operating a dredge in Ontario?


William Pugsley: It depends on the size of the dredge, its capacity, its crew, and other considerations. The cost to operate runs from $5,000 to $35,000.


James Arthurs: At Tiffin and other places, privately owned dredges earn from $40,000 to $60,000 per year. If the government can operate a dredge for from S5,000 to $35,000 then you ought to have more government dredges.


William Pugsley: There is a great deal to be said in favour of that. On the other hand the private contractor seems to be able to get more out of their dredges than the government does.


James Arthurs: In money?


William Pugsley: No, in work. They seem to be able to get their men to work more diligently. It has always been so, I am sorry to say, and possibly it may be so in the future. Of course there is interest on the first cost, and repairs, and so on and it is not all profit. I know a number of people who have been in the dredging business and have found it anything but profitable. Some of them have become bankrupt.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know one.


William Pugsley: Go to Montreal and you will find them.


James Arthurs: Is it the intention to keep that dredge working?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Pugsley: If there is work to be done, we will try to keep it there.


James Arthurs: There is work to be done, but there is not much in the estimates for this year.


William Pugsley: The vote is small, but we hope to be able to keep the government dredges working.
Dredging, maritime provinces, $225,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister give the names of the people to whom this money is to be paid?


William Pugsley: The first item is to cover expenditures incurred in operating the department dredging plant in the maritime provinces from November, 1908, until March, 1909, according to the returns received by the chief accountant up to March 10, $72,598.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why was the estimate $72,000 out?


William Pugsley: The vote was not for as much as the work has cost. Some of the dredges have been kept going later than had been expected; for instance, the 'Fielding' at St. John has been working right up to a few days ago. Very often they are laid up in the fall.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the wharfage the 'Fielding' pays come out of this vote?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Why is it that the 'Fielding' is laid up at a private wharf when there is a government wharf available to lay her up at?


William Pugsley: I do not know that. There is a government wharf there owned by the Intercolonial Railway which is required for the use of the Intercolonial Railway and I presume the Intercolonial Railway would not allow us to lay up a dredge there as it would interfere with the use of the Intercolonial Railway wharf by vessels coming there in the ordinary course of business.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was application made for the use of the wharf?


William Pugsley: It never occurred to me to make such a request, as it would interfere with the business of the wharf.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister will find there is nearly always a vacant place .there where the 'Fielding' could lie.


William Pugsley: The railway wharf is built for commercial purposes and it would seriously interfere with its operation to have a dredge lie there permanently.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There is generally a place on the northern face of the wharf where it could rest. You often see pilot boats there.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: They can move out quickly. Then the Intercolonial Railway would charge wharfage too.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not so much.


William Pugsley: Proceeding with the items, the second is for contract dredging in Nova Scotia, as follows: At Moser river, Beazley Bros., $8,539. At Yarmouth, Dominion Dredging Company, $59,903, and at Mabou, Dominion Dredging Company, $13,183, a total of $73,086. Then in Mahone bay there is a payment to the Poupore Company $31,052, and at McKinnon harbour payment to the same company, $4,095, a total of $35,147. In New Brunswick, at Grassy island, on the St. John river, there is a payment to S. James Gregory, $4,892, and at Gaspereau to the Maritime Dredging Company of $20,269. There is another payment for work at Mira-michi bay to the Poupore Company of $3,549, and at Dalhousie a payment to A. & H. Loggie of $7,061. That makes a total supplementary requirement to be covered by this vote of $225,143.36.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the rate paid to the Maritime Dredging Company at
Gaspereau ?


William Pugsley: 90 cents.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Were tenders called by public advertisement ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the Grassy island rate ?


William Pugsley: I am not quite sure, but I think it was 50 cents.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To what depth was the dredging done at Gaspereau ?


William Pugsley: I do not know, the work was not finished there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What did the specifications call for ?


William Pugsley: I have not the particulars here, that would be given in connection with the main estimates. It is a very exposed and difficult place to dredge, it is up at Port Elgin.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister state what tenders were received in addition to that of the Maritime Dredging Company ?


William Pugsley: Only the one tender.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the depth of the Gaspereau river dredging and what length of arm would the dredge require ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell that tonight. It was to give accommodation to quite large steamers that go there to carry away lumber.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there much rise and fall of the tide ?


William Pugsley: There is some tide and it is a very exposed place for dredging. In fact I think they lost one scow right at the beginning.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How far have the scows to go out ?


William Pugsley: Out to deep water of course. I have not the exact distance.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the Maritime Dredging Company been fully paid for the dredging at Indian Point ?


William Pugsley: Yes they have been fully paid there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In answer to a question which I asked the other day the minister said that the contract for dredging there was let to the Maritime Dredging Company at 50 cents, that the dredging was to be to a depth of 7 feet, and that before dredging the depth of water at that point was about three feet. What does the minister think about that as a price for dredging in such water ? The other night it was stated that the department was having dredging done,
I think at Port Arthur to a depth of 22 feet for 9 cents. It has been a matter of considerable comment, in New Brunswick that the Maritime Dredging Company, in which the minister's friend John E. Moore is the moving spirit, has been able to get a contract at this point for 7 foot dredging at 50 cents a cubic yard, the same price as was paid to Mayes under his contract for dredging to a depth of 32 feet in the harbour of St. John at low water, and 41 cents more per yard than the department has been paying for dredging at Fort William to a depth of 22 feet. I do not know what the minister may think, but it must impress hon. members as a most extraordinary price to pay for the dredging in the St. John river, the easiest kind of dredging, to a depth of seven feet, where the depth before dredging was but three feet. I would like to know what was the purpose of this dredging.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend says that this was the subject of a good deal of comment in New Brunswick. He is evidently under the impression that when he thinks about a matter the whole public are thinking about it. The comments no doubt were limited to the hon. gentleman and his immediate party friends. It is impossible to say off-hand whether a price is unreasonable or not. We cannot very well compare the cost of dredging in one place with that of dredging in another. If my hon. friend will take up the expense per cubic yard of dredging by government dredges, he will see remarkable differences in the cost per day, depending not so much on the depth of water as on the character of the soil. You may be able to do deep dredging in many places cheaper than shallow dredging in other places. You may dredge
silt, sand or soft clay much more easily to a depth of 22 feet than harder material to a depth of seven feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the character of dredging at Indian point?


William Pugsley: It would be clay. My hon. friend must bear in mind that public tenders were called for the work at Indian point. It was advertised in the daily papers at St. John, and the only tender received was that of the Maritime Dredging Company. There is another thing to be considered. If there is a large quantity of dredging to be done, extending over a period of years, such as at Fort William, you can get it done much cheaper than you can a comparatively small quantity. The dredges do not require to be moved and towed, and you can afford to invest a larger amount of capital and get more powerful dredges. At Fort William, the material is very much softer than at Indian Head. Unless you knew the exact character of the material in each place, you could not at all compare the prices. My hon. friend is in error with regard to the Maritime Dredging Company getting the same rate as Mr. Mayes. Mr. Mayes never get so low as 50 cents.	The lowest he got
was 55 cents per cubic yard, and for the greater part of the work he did at St. John he got 90 cents, and he got that after public tender. Up and down the St. Lawrence, in some cases 50, in some cases 60, and in others 70 and 75 where the dredging might not be any more difficult than at Indian point. It depends a good deal on the character of the soil. At all events, the work was let after public competition and advertisement to the Maritime Ddedgrng Company, which was the only tenderer, and on the certificate of the chief engineer that the price was veTy reasonable.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister spoke about Mr. Mayes not doing any dredging as low as 50 cents. But Mr. Mayes put in a tender to do dredging at 49 cents, and it was not accepted.


William Pugsley: It was an irregular tender, not complying with the specifications.
Mr.' DANIEL. It was irregular simply with regard to having registered or unregistered dredge, and not with regard to the price. Then with regard to the Dominion Dredging Company, that work was not put up to public tender.


William Pugsley: Yes it was.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not when the Dominion Dredging Company did it.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is mistaken. It was put up to public tender and Mr. Mayes tendered at 90 cents and was the

lowest. Then the Dominion Dredging Company were allowed to do part of the work at the same price.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They were put to work without offering any tender at all.


William Pugsley: But at the same price as the other.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At the same time they had a very profitable contract, as the minister knows.


William Pugsley: The minister does not know whether it was profitable or not. They got the same figure as the lowest tenderer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They got the same figure for easy work as Mr. Mayes got for difficult
work.


William Pugsley: It was work exactly of the same character.


John Waterhouse Daniel: My information is that it was not. It was easier, soiter and much more profitable. They did not put in a tender but simply were given the work at the figure put in before by Mr. Mayes.


William Pugsley: What I said was this. Public tenders were called for the work upon the northern side of Sand Point slip. The notice was advertised in the various newspapers, tenders were received, and Mr. Mayes was the lowest, at 90 cents per cubic yard.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was he the only tenderer?


William Pugsley: I do not know. It was felt that he could not proceed as rapidly with the work as. public interest required and there were strong demands from the port of St. John to hasten the work. Yielding to that request, the then acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fisher), gave part of the work to the Dominion Dredging Company and they went on. Mr. Mayes doing a part and they the other, and both were getting 90 cents per cubic yard. Then when I became minister, I divided the work of the extension of the 400 feet extension equally. . I gave the Dominion Dredging Company the work on one side and Mr. Mayes the work on the other. The one was not any harder than the other.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I might remind the minister that Mr. Mayes found that he had to request a higher price than he was getting from his original tender because he struck a very difficult piece of dredging-a strip full of large, heavy boulders. But that strip did not extend up to the part that the Dominion Dredging Company did.


William Pugsley: Boulders seem to breed there. After Mr. Mayes got through, we found a large number of boulders in. the vicinity of the work he had carried on. I do not know whether they breed-like the gondolas in New York.


William Pugsley: .


John Waterhouse Daniel: I happened to see a plan of these boulders lying right up against the wharf, not only in the part Mr. Mayes had dredged, but where the Dominion Company had dredged as well.


William Pugsley: He was allowed $18.60 per yard for these boulders, though I do not think he had harder work than the Dominion Dredging Company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have listened to the minister's interesting statement concerning the difficulties of dredging at Indian point.
and I feel sure that that statement, when heard by the people of the community who know the facts, will be very amusing to them.


William Pugsley: I said it was a clay soil.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister was endeavouring to justify these manifestly excessive prices paid to Mr. Moore for the dredging, on the ground that it was more difficult than at Fort William or St. John. The fact that the denth of water before dredging was three feet and that the dredging was done to a depth of seven feet will show how much reliance is to be placed in the minister's contention. As to the prices, the contract was awarded to the Dominion Dredging Company on the basis of $17 for rock or boulders exceeding two cubic yards, and 50* cents per cubic yard for all other material. The price to Mr. Mayes was $8.60 per yard for rock in the harbour of St. John, and 55 cents for other material, 5 cents of which went to the minister's friend, Mr. McAvity.


William Pugsley: That was the first. What was the second?


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the contract that was made with Mr. Mayes.


William Pugsley: His second contract, let at public tender, gave $19.60.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The one in connection with which he made the agreement with the minister's friend, Mr. Geo. McAvity, whereby he agreed to pay 5 cents to Mr. McAvity for every cubic yard over 50 cents. He was willing to dredge at 50 cents a cubic yard, and entered into this agreement with Mr. McAvity to give him 5 cents a cubic yard for his influence with the government. That is all he received for doing the dredging for ordinary material in the harbour of St. John, and for rock, he was allowed $8.60. And this for dredging to a depth of 32 feet. At Indian point the minister's other friend, Mr. Moore, was to get $17 for solid rock, though it turns out there was no solid rock to be found.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) say that he received anything for solid rock?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No. But it indicates pretty well that Mr. Moore did not know

anything about the character of dredging he had undertaken to do- or the department either.


William Pugsley: How?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I assumed from what the minister said that when the department called for tenders, it was after an examination had been made and an estimate of cost.


William Pugsley: There is a uniform classification, so that, if solid rock is encountered, it is to be done at the rate.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Of $17 a cubic yard in this case?


William Pugsley: No, but at the rate tendered for.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the other material was to be paid for at 50 cents, regardless of whether it is hard or soft clay, sand or silt. I suppose the classification was the same as in other contracts. The minister spoke of doing a large quantity of dredging at a lower rate per cubic yard than would be paid for a smaller quantity, but I observe that Mr. Moore got no less than $48,247 out of what dredging was done at Maquapit lake.


William Pugsley: Compare that with dredging at Fort William, where it will go to two or three million dollars.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister says, with reference to any comment made upon this subject, that, of course, I would be speaking^ only from what I had heard from my political friends. I have been spoken to by many in New Brunswick within the last week, and asked if it could possibly be true that Mr. Moore had received $48,247 for the work done at Indian point or were the figures which were reported a mistake ? I have heard responsible citizens of St. John, some of them leading business men there who are familiar with the work, state that Mr. Moore was getting that price for dredging that was worth not more than ten cents.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman tell these people that the work was let after public advertisement calling for tenders?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No. I did not think that made much difference in the circumstances. The fact is that the Maritime Dredging Company got this work without competition. There may have been tenders called for


William Pugsley: I say there were, and by public advertisement, with the widest reasonable circulation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is very singular if tenders were called for in such a way that Mr. Moore, or the Maritime Dredging Company were the only tenderers for the work in that locality and at such manifestly excessive figures.


William Pugsley: Tenders were called for by advertisement in the usual way.


George Taylor: But the minister would not give a contract if he thought the tender was too high?


William Pugsley: I thought it a reasonable price and the chief engineer so certified.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was any examination of the work made by the engineers of the department before tenders were called for? And was an estimate made of the cost?


William Pugsley: If the hon. member will look at 'Hansard' he will see that that information was given in answer to his own question.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Not concerning Indian Point?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. gentleman say that an examination was made and an estimate prepared?


William Pugsley: I do not know. The information is in 'Hansard.'


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think the hon. minister is mistaken. I have the question here, and I do not remember framing any question in reference to an estimate of the cost. I think he has in mind the question relating to the wharfs.


William Pugsley: No; perhaps in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Crocket's) absence the question was asked. He will find it all in 'Hansard.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister stated just now that tenders have been asked for this Maquapit Lake dredging. Is it not a fact that the Maritime Dredging Company were put to work there before tenders were asked and that tenders were only asked for after they commenced the work and had been at it for some time?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister say that that is not the case?


William Pugsley: I think it is not the case. But, if it were the case, it would be upon this agreement-that, if they were not the lowest tenderers, they would have to leave, and that for the work they did they would have to accept the price of the lowest tenderer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have been credibly informed that the Maritime Dredging Company were put to work on that dredging

some time before tenders were called for. Under these circumstances, it is altogether unnecessary to inform the minister there was good reason why there was only one tender.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When were the tenders called for?


William Pugsley: We are not considering any item for that, and I would not have that information.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would the minister bring down the information, to show when the tenders were called, and when the work was commenced?


William Pugsley: I would be glad to do it. One word before we close, let me put this right. My hon. friend says, what is quite true, that Mr. Mayes did get one contract at 55 cents per cubic yard, and for rock for his contract was $8.60 per cubic yard. But when tenders were called for further work no more difficult than that, his tender was 90 cents per cubic yard for ordinary material, and $19.60 for rock. That was his tender, and it was in respect to that additional work on the north side of Sand point slip that the Dominion Dredging Company were allowed to do part of the work at the same price.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Was not $19.60 for solid rock and not for boulders.


William Pugsley: For solid rock and
boulders above two cubic yards in size. For anything above two cubic yards, he was to get $19.60 per cubic yard.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I daresay the deputy could inform the Minister, but my memory is that for ordinary soil the figure was 90 cents, and for solid rock it was $19.60, and then there was an intermediate price.


William Pugsley: Boulders above two
cubic yards were counted the same as solid rock. Then there was another class of boulders below two cubic yards and over half a cubic yard which was reckoned at another price.
Dredging in Ontario and Quebec, $140,000.


William Sora Middlebro: How much was expended on Wingfield basin?


William Pugsley: It was done out of the general vote.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there no separate amount.


William Pugsley: Out of this appropriation we are to use $13,521 to do the work at Wingfield basin.


William Sora Middlebro: Could the minister tell me if there is any town, any population at Wingfield basin? "


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


William Pugsley: Wingfield basin is a harbour of refuge, and we were strongly requested by the shipping interests to do this dredging. They regard it as an important harbour of refuge.


William Sora Middlebro: To what depth has it been dredged?


William Pugsley: I cannot say.


William Sora Middlebro: Who was the contractor for dredging?


William Pugsley: The C. C. Boone Dredging Company. It was let by public tender.


William Sora Middlebro: How many tenders were there?


William Pugsley: I cannot give that information to-night.


William Sora Middlebro: I am advised there was only one. What was the price?


William Pugsley: Seventy cents per cubic yard. That would include all material except solid rock. It would include clay, hardpan, anything of that kind. There is some rock to be taken out.


William Sora Middlebro: Did the specifications state so much for all material except solid rock?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: When was the contract let?


William Pugsley: On the 26th of June, 1908.


William Sora Middlebro: Were tenders called for in the public newspapers?


William Pugsley: Yes, we gave very wide circulation to the advertisement calling lor tenders.


William Sora Middlebro: How much does the minister think it will take to complete?


William Pugsley: That would be in connection with the main estimates. This is simply to close up the business for the present year.
British Columbia - Kamloops - Okanagan telegraph system-additional amount, $1,650.


Mr. BURRELL.: What is this for?


William Pugsley: We had to provide additional wiring, and this would be the freight upon the wire.
Yukon Territory-Ashcroft-canal section of Yukon system of telegraph lines-part repoling-to complete payments, $1,206.


William Pugsley: A portion of the line
was found in bad condition, and we had to spend this money. It is a part of the Yukon system.


Mr. COWAN.: I would like to ask the minister if this is the work that was begun two or three weeks before the election in that constituency and completed two or three minutes past the election. ^


William Pugsley: I do not know what particular work that was. I suppose it is not important just now.
Public Works-miscellaneous-compensation to Wm. Julien in full of all demands for injuries sustained by him on government dredge ' Ontario ' during the season of 1907, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is the case of a young man who had his arm torn off while working upon the government dredge ' Ontario.' After very careful consideration we thought it proper to provide for him.
Operating and maintenance expenses-telegraph lines-Yukon system-(Ashcroft-Daw-son)-further amount required, $30,000.


George Taylor: How did the minister come to be so far out in his main estimate for that line ? What is the revenue from the line ?


William Pugsley: We have been greatly bothered in connection with the Yukon line during the past year owing to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The Tailway follows our telegraph line for a long distance and in many cases wires are strung upon trees. In cutting trees wires are thrown down the sides of the mountains and we have to keep constantly at work to make repairs. We have protested to the company and the contractors and they say they have exercised all the care possible, but notwithstanding that we had to spend a great deal of money in making repairs.


George Taylor: Was not this due to the mode of construction of that line in the first place ? I understand that many of the poles were planted in the air and in snow banks ?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say that. It is a very difficult thing to build a telegraph line through the mountains of British Columbia away from highways.


George Taylor: There was money enough provided not only to build one line but to build half a dozen if it had been properly spent.


William Pugsley: That is some time ago and I cannot give any personal explanation about it.


Richard Blain: Would the minister answer the question as to the revenue ?


William Pugsley: About $80,000 is the estimated revenue for the year. We have about $72,000 up to date.


George Henry Cowan: Would the minister kindly inform us where the supplies for this Yukon telegraph line are procured ?


William Pugsley: Principally in Vancouver. Then we have to pack them up to the different camps. We take them up by boat to Ashcroft and pack them to the north.


George Henry Cowan: Are tenders called for ?


William Pugsley: They are bought at market rates. They have to be packed specially-


George Henry Cowan: Are they got from a wholesale firm ?


William Pugsley: From a wholesale firm at wholesale rates.


George Taylor: At retail prices.


William Pugsley: I do not think so. They are specially put up to keep a good while, they have to be packed long distances.


George Henry Cowan: Is there a patronage list in British Columbia?


William Pugsley: There used to be one, but I have given instructions to do away with it.


George Henry Cowan: It is still in existence?


William Pugsley: I do not think it is. I gave directions to do away with it some time ago.


George Henry Cowan: Is it not the practice of the department to call for tenders when the quantity required is as considerable as it is here?


William Pugsley: The department did some years ago call for tenders for supplies for this Yukon system and they got a tender from an eastern city, but the result was exceedingly unsatisfactory. A great deal of the stuff spoiled almost before it got up there and a good deal was spoiled after it reached its destination. If you get supplies into that remote country which are not perfect, if the canned meats, the cream, the milk, and butter, are not first-class and are not properly packed it is then too late to discover that they are not as they ought to be. It was found very unsatisfactory and it was decided to buy, under careful inspection, from those who could be relied upon to furnish the very best articles. This was found to give the best results.


George Henry Cowan: Then am I to understand from the minister that no inspection is made of these goods when they are purchased?


William Pugsley: Yes, an inspection is made of them and we rely more upon buying from reputable firms at fair market prices.


George Henry Cowan: Am I to understand the minister to say that he cannot get tenders

from British Columbia firms and that is the reason why tenders are not called?


William Pugsley: No, I did not say that, but some years ago tenders were called and the lowest tender was accepted. It proved to be very unsatisfactory and the view of the department has been that it is better to have our own superintendent make the purchase himself, get prices from reputable firms, buy from those firms, see that he only gets a good article and have the articles packed under his own supervision.


George Henry Cowan: Why was it unsatisfactory?


William Pugsley: A good deal of the stuff spoiled.


George Henry Cowan: Does it affect the quality of the goods to advertise for tenders? Why should goods supplied by persons who put in tenders not be as good as those purchased from people who are not asked to submit tenders ?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend were going to northern British Columbia and were taking supplies for his personal use, would he call for tenders or would he go to reliable firms and get what he wanted at the lowest prices ?


George Henry Cowan: I would not make my purchases from one wholesale firm and pay them retail prices when I could buy from another wholesale firm at wholesale prices.


William Pugsley: But the hon. gentleman would not call for tenders.


George Henry Cowan: You may rest assured I would get prices from more wholesale houses than one, and I would not accept goods at retail prices when I could go half a block to another wholesale house and get the same goods at wholesale prices. Will the minister tell me now whether he has purchased any goods for this telegraph system from any but one firm in British Columbia ?


William Pugsley: I did go very carefully into the bills for goods supplied for this Yukon system and I got my deputy to get prices for similar goods in Ottawa, and I had explanations with regard to the different items, and I satisfied myself that the prices were fair and reasonable and were wholesale prices.


George Henry Cowan: Did you do that in the case of all the goods you purchased ?


William Pugsley: I took the goods running over a certain number of months.


George Henry Cowan: Does the minister vouch for the fact that the prices charged were wholesale prices and were not retail prices or higher than retail prices ?


William Pugsley: In the particular bills I examined I was satisfied they were fair wholesale prices.


George Henry Cowan: 


George Henry Cowan: For what year were these
bills ?


William Pugsley: Last year or the year before.


George Henry Cowan: All the bills ?


William Pugsley: No, the bills which came from one firm in Vancouver.


George Henry Cowan: What firm was that ?


William Pugsley: Is there a firm called Kelly, Douglas & Company?


George Henry Cowan: Oh. yes, there isn't any other.


Martin Burrell: In what year did the minister call for tenders ?


William Pugsley: It was when the late Mr. Tarte was Minister of Public Works.


Martin Burrell: The minister has admitted that the supplies for this telegraph line are purchased practically altogether from one firm in Vancouver and without calling for tenders.


William Pugsley: There is no public call for tenders.


Martin Burrell: The minister admits that pratically all the business has been done with Kelly, Douglas & _ Company and I suppose he knows that this particular firm has an exceedingly strong affiliation with the Liberal party; in fact that it has been the mainspring of the Liberal party for many years. It is regarded as a very strong grievance throughout British Columbia that these rather important supplies for telegraph lines in the north all go to this particular firm and that .other firms in British Columbia have not a chance of participating in that business. It has caused a great deal of adverse public criticism and it is looked upon as a reward for political services rendered from time to time. There are other firms outside of those in Vancouver who could furnish these supplies to the government and I might mention the Reid firm at Quesnel which does business at the very point from which these telegraph lines start. Whenever any other than the Kelly, Douglas firm, in British Columbia has endeavoured to get this business they have been told; you will have to see the member. I would like to have to-night some assurance from the minister that in future other firms in British Columbia will have an opportunity to compete for these telegraph supplies. It would be in the interest of the government itself if an end were put to the present system. I can assure the minister that the present system is almost in the nature of a scandal and were it unearthed to the bottom I quite believe there would be some startling disclosures.


William Pugsley: I am very much in favour of giving different firms an opportunity

of tendering, because I realize that in that way we are apt to get goods at the lowest price. There is some difference between buying goods for use right in the city where the goods are used, and, purchasing supplies of butter and canned meats, and condensed milk, and desiccated apples to be sent to distant territory into the wilderness. I can understand how, if the department has been getting perfect satisfaction from this firm for a number of years there would be a disposition to continue trading with them, just as people continue for years dealing with the Hudson's Bay Company because they have the reputation of always carrying out their contracts to the letter. I have no doubt there are other firms in Vancouver who would do the business equally well, but I suppose there has been a disposition not to change when satisfaction has been given. I intend to look into this question in British Columbia as elsewhere, and my disposition is to have all the supplies for the department obtained as far as possible by public competition. I can assure my hon. friend that that matter will receive careful consideration.


George Henry Cowan: Then we can feel confident that the minister proposes to do away with the patronage system in British Columbia?


William Pugsley: The patronage list has been done away with already.


George Henry Cowan: Well this firm-Kelly Bouglas is it?-has been getting all the custom of the government in the Public Works Department since 1896. Is that correct?


William Pugsley: I do not know as to 'that.
Mr. _ COWAN. Sines the minister has been in charge of thi3 department, Kelly, Douglas & Company have been getting all its custom?


William Pugsley: I cannot say that; no.


George Henry Cowan: On this Yukon line, I believe I heard the minister say?


William Pugsley: I said that the accounts I examined were accounts of Kelly, Douglas & Company.


George Henry Cowan: And you know of no other accounts?


William Pugsley: These are the only accounts I examined. There are a good many and I wanted to go into the items very particularly.


George Henry Cowan: Would the minister not think it might possibly be in the public interest if an inquiry were made as to whether other firms are getting any part of the custom of his department and as to whether their prices may not be a shade better than Kelly-Douglas'?


William Pugsley: If I thought their prices were a shade better and .their goods of ns high quality I would certainly buy from others.


George Henry Cowan: Will the minister give the committee an assurance that before he gives any further orders, he will ascertain from the other firms what their prices are ?


William Pugsley: I will give that due consideration; yes.


George Henry Cowan: And give the committee
the assurance that other firms will be given an opportunity of tendering on the next order?


William Pugsley: I think I have given a very satisfactory assurance to my hon. friend.


George Henry Cowan: I have had a number of very satisfactory assurances, but I am
speaking now of one particular assurance. I think the committee would be glad if the minister would assure them that the next order of his department will be open to tender from all the houses having the goods needed, and that a careful comparison of prices will be made and the best man get the order.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend can rest assured that I will not make any purchases except at fair and reasonable prices.


George Henry Cowan: But always from Kelly-
Douglas.


William Pugsley: No, not always.


George Henry Cowan: Will the minister be good enough to assure this committee that some one else than Kelly-Douglas will have an opportunity of tendering on the next order?


William Pugsley: I can assure my hon. friend that I will give no contract to any one that will not give us the goods at the very lowest market price. How does that strike the hon. gentleman?


George Henry Cowan: I regret that that assurance is scarcely what I consider to be in the public interest. I think it is a clever assurance, but I doubt if it is in the public interest, and I doubt if the public will take it as in their interest. I believe that the public want business done by the department of the minister as a sane, honest business man would do his own business.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear, that is right.


George Henry Cowan: And I believe that a sane, honest business man would not give all his orders to one firm without calling for tenders and inquiring for prices or inspecting the goods before delivery. I do not think that is the act of a sane, honest business man in the conduct of his own business, and I believe that this committee has the right to the assurance I am asking from the minister that in future orders will be open to tender to other firms than that of Kelly-Douglas. We know who Kelly-Doug-las are, we know who Kelly is, the minister knows, we all know. We know that he makes the political appointments through-

out the whole provinse of British Columbia for this government.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: Is he Irish?


George Henry Cowan: His name would indicate that. We all know that we are only trifling when we are calling him Kelly-Douglas; we know who Kelly-Douglas is and the people of British Columbia will say that I am perfectly right in asking in a polite way that the minister will give us some assurance that some one else than Kelly-Douglas will have a chance at the patronage of this department.	[DOT]


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I do not particularly take exception to the request of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) that the Minister of Public Works should intimate to the House his decision to have public competition if that is his policy; but I do take exception to the implication rather than the direct assurance of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), that Kelly Douglas & Company have been in any way overcharging the department. Neither my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) nor my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) has stated this to be the case. If they know that Kelly Douglas & Company have been overcharging the department, they ought to say so. Kelly, Douglas & Company is one of the largest wholesale grocery firms in British Columbia, in fact, in Canada. The firm do a business of several million dollars a year.


George Henry Cowan: The hon. gentleman knows that before Kelly-Douglas got the account of the Dominion government, Bob Kelly was not worth $ 1,400. He knows that as well as I do.


William Templeman: I do not know anything of the kind. I am not here as an advocate of Mr. Robert Kelly, the. principal partner of the firm of Kelly, Douglas & Company, who is certainly a thorn in the flesh of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). I do not know what prices he has charged the department. I do not know whether he has tendered or not. My hon. friend has not criticised the prices, he does not know himself whether the department has been overcharged for anything; there is simply the desire on the part of my hon. friend to attack a very prominent citizen of the city of Vancouver, who is at the same time a very prominent and active politician, Robert Kelly of the firm of Kelly Douglas & Company. If it is a fact that the firm is overcharging I am with my hon. friend and would request the Minister of Public Works to see that the public is not overcharged, whether he does it by public competition or not. -Mr. COWAN.


William Pugsley: There is no pretence of anything of the kind.


William Templeman: My hon. friend has said that public appointments in British Columbia are now made by Robert Kelly. That is not true, that is not accurate to be strictly parliamentary, and my hon. friend knows that very well. Mr. Robert Kelly is an active politician, as everybody in Vancouver knows, he is a very prominent citizen, he is one of the most successful men, in a business way, in Vancouver.


George Henry Cowan: Since he got the government account.


William Templeman: The government ac-cout is a mere bagatelle in his business. All he got is the grocery and provision supplies on the Yukon telegraph line. It is probably an extraordinary thing for one minister to suggest a matter of patronage to another minister. Here is the member for the city of Vancouver who is not satisfied that these goods, whether the amount be a thousand dollars or fifty thousand dollars, should be purchased in his city. Well, I wish to say to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works, that I represent Comox-Atlin, the capital of which is Prince Rupert, that Prince Rupert is on the line of the Yukon Telegraph, and Vancouver is not, and therefore to please the member of Vancouver if the department transferred its orders to the city of Prince Rupert.


George Henry Cowan: I would be delighted to see that patronage go to wherever there' would be a saving for the Dominion.


Martin Burrell: I want to emphasize again the point-and it not only affects Vancouver-that public tenders should be invited in all cases. The telegraph line starts in the lower portion of my constituency, and the minister should give an opportunity to the dealers in that portion to tender for these supplies.


George Taylor: I would ask the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Temple-man) to take down the figures as I give them from the Auditor General's Report and he will see what they amount to. The firm of Kelly, Douglas & Company figure in every account, and they are the only firm that figure for provisions in connection with the Yukon telegraph line. We do not know the prices they charge because only the gross amounts are given.


William Pugsley: The details are given in their bills.


George Taylor: Here are the figures from the Auditor General's Report, paid . Kelly. Douglas & Company for provisions:

Big Salmon	$396	83Blackwater	
399	69Bobtail lake	
633	83Bulkley ranch	
93	35Burns' lake	
242	49Coffee creek	
400	04Dawson	
370	00Echo lake	
406	00Graveyard Point	
385	62Hazleton	
374	68Hazleton stores	
310	97Hootalinqua	
234	42Iskoot	
374	46Kitselas	
308	03Kitsumkalum	
236	62Lome creek	
224	61iMorricetown	
94	86Nahlin	
413	28Nakina	
391	70Ogilvie	
236	25Port Simpson	
66	50Prince Rupert	
65	00Quesnel	
58	00'Quesnel Forks	
66	78Raspberry creek	
288	98Chesley	
407	05
And in every place they charge about $25 for packing the supplies and putting them in crates.


William Pugsley: How much should it be ?


George Taylor: I do not know.


William Pugsley: I thought not.


George Taylor: Stewart river	$237	37Stonev creek	
412	11Tagish	
407	80Telegraph creek	
626	96Telegraph creek (refuge cabins) 165	95
The government pay the operator $38 and feed him on $165 worth of provisions.
Telegraph Point.. .	$389	43Whitehorse	
131	18Yukon Crossing.. .	
398	15First Cabin	
81	90Second Cabin	
80	83Third Cabin	
51	39Fourth Cabin.. ..	
82	93Fifth Cabin	
105	51Sixth Cabin	67Seventh Cabin.. ..	
108	59Eighth Cabin.. ..	
100	68Ninth Cabin	1425-mile Cabin	2940-mile Cabin.. ..	59That is the end of	the	bills from Kelly.	Douglas & Company	for	the Yukon	telegraph business.


George Henry Cowan: Who administers the patronage of the hon. minister's department at Vancouver ?


William Pugsley: The purchases are made by the agent of the department in Vancouver. The superintendent of the Yukon Telegraph Line, Mr. Phelan, makes the purchases for the Yukon telegraph, and Mr. Keefer, the resident engineer, for the use of the dredges.


George Henry Cowan: Are they instructed to purchase from Kelly, Douglas & Company?


William Pugsley: They are instructed to make their purchases at fair prices. I have given no directions to purchase from Kelly, Douglas & Company.


George Henry Cowan: In the interest of clean administration and in order to get rid of disagreeable suspicions, would it not be well for the minister to give some assurance that tenders will be called for and other firms given an opportunity to tender for the supplies of his department. There seems to be only one name on the patronage list.


William Pugsley: Then it ought not to be difficult to destroy it.


George Henry Cowan: But the smaller the list, the more difficult it seems to be to destroy it. I think it would be very much in the interest of clean administration. It would have a very beneficial effect upon the public opinion of that country. It would lead them to think that Mr. Kelly had not the minister's department in his pocket.


William Pugsley: I have already said, and it has been publicly announced, that we have done away with the patronage list in our department, and that purchasing agents have already had instructions to get prices from different dealers.


George Henry Cowan: And, in Vancouver, they are not confined to Kelly, Douglas & Company.


William Pugsley: They are quite open to go to any dealer. Mr. Phelan has instructions to get prices from different people. These instructions went out a considerable time ago.


George Henry Cowan: That is, instructions with regard to these supplies-


William Pugsley: These instructions apply to all supplies!


George Henry Cowan: The instructions that apply to these particular supplies-are they, or are they not, in writing?


William Pugsley: This item applies to the current year before the patronage list was abolished.


George Henry Cowan: My question seemed to me to be rather plain. Are these instructions in writing?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Henry Cowan: Perhaps I have not made myself understood. Are the instructions to purchasing agents to get prices from other firms in Vancouver than Kelly, Douglas & Company in writing ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Henry Cowan: I am waiting for an answer by the minister.


William Pugsley: I must apologize-what was the question?


George Henry Cowan: I understood from the minister that instructions had been given to the purchasing agent, Mr. Taylor, to get prices from firms other than Kelly, Douglas & Company for the supplies needed for this line. I ask if the instructions are in writing?


William Pugsley: I did not say that. I said that instructions of a general character had been issued, directing the purchasing agent to be careful to employ competent men, careful as to the prices at which they purchased goods, to get the goods at lowest market rates, and to inspect them- to do everything to make sure that value was got for the money.


George Henry Cowan: Have these instructions been given to Mr. Taylor?


William Pugsley: To all the agents. There is no Mr. Taylor.


George Henry Cowan: Who is the purchasing agent?


William Pugsley: Mr. Phelan.


George Henry Cowan: Has he received written instructions to get prices from other firms than Kelly, Douglas & Company?


William Pugsley: His instructions are general-to get goods at the lowest market, prices irrespective of any particular firm.
Mr. 'COWAN. Are these instructions in writing?


William Pugsley: A circular has gone out.


George Henry Cowan: To Mr. Phelan?


William Pugsley: To all the agents.


George Henry Cowan: Can the minister bring down a copy of these written instructions?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to do
so.


George Henry Cowan: When were these instructions given?


William Pugsley: About three months ago.


George Henry Cowan: Then, we may hope that prices will be obtained from firms other, than Kelly, Douglas & Company.


William Pugsley: We may hope that- yes.


George Henry Cowan: Will the minister assure the committee that prices will be got from ether firms than Kelly, Douglas and Company?


William Pugsley: Yes, no doubt.


George Henry Cowan: 


George Henry Cowan: And that, before the order is given to Kelly, Douglas & Company, prices will be got from other firms?


William Pugsley: That is the duty of Mr. Phelan.


George Henry Cowan: According to the_ written instructions, which the minister will bring
dawn?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Martin Burrell: I do not want to bore the committee, but if I am in order, 1 would like to refer for a moment to the carriage of these supplies. On March 3, I put the question on the paper in connection with the carrying of these supplies up on the telegraph lines. I would impress upon the minister that the same policy I am advocating now, which every hon. member ought to sympathize with, the policy of public tender, should be carried out in connection with the carriage of goods as well as the purchase of them. It is a very big contract. It was given in 1901, the minister stated, in answer to an advertisement, for tender published in the town of Hazelton. Strong complaint is made throughout the north end of my riding that tenders were not asked for in the usual way. A small notice was given in Hazelton and none of those in the Cariboo country, where the supplies start, knew anything about it. The contract was let at 17i cents per pound for carrying the supplies. They get that price, even "if they do carry the goods eight miles. And this in the face of the fact that, years ago, contractors were taking supplies for the Hudson Bay Company all through that country under more difficult circumstances, at five cents and six cents a pound, and were making money. I do not wish to assume jthat the, minister would wish to continue a state of things that is more or less a scandal in that north country. I hope that the minister will arrange to have contracts given after notice calling for tender. If he does so, he will get this work done at a lower figure than at present


William Pugsley: It follows from the doing away with the patronage list that we must-have competition for carying supplies, for that is part of the cost of the supplies to the country. I have already given directions to the officials of my department that tenders shall be called for packing of these goods into northern British Columbia.


William Templeman: I dispute the assertion of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) that goods can be packed into the interior of that country for five cents a pound.


Martin Burrell: I was talking last summer to a gentleman who was discussing this question, and he told me that he stood on the shores of Stewart lake and saw a packer who had packed a heavy amount of freight from Ashcroft up to Stewart lake and delivered it at that point, at 8 cents a pound, and made money. It is known all through that country, and if there is one thing that is a particular reproach to the government it has been carrying these supplies year by year without a renewal of tender, at what is conceded, even by his own Liberal friends, to be an extravagant price.


William Templeman: I disnute the accuracy of my hon. friend's statements. To say that goods can be carried from Ashcroft to Barkerville and further, all through a wilderness, by trails and where there are no trails, for 8 cents a pound, is to my mind an absolute absurdity.
Montreal harbour (lower division)-improvements below St. Mary's current-to pay W. J. Poupore in full and final settlement of all claims for interest accrued on deferred payments on contract for construction of high level piers and bulkheads, dated July 25, 1900, $25,242.29.


William Pugsley: This is a claim for interest, and arises in connection with the construction of that large pier at Montreal called Maisonneuve pier. When the work was built there was a dispute between the 'government and the contractors as to a certain claim, and it was finally left to a departmental board of referees, consisting of the chief engineer, the deputy minister, and the engineer of the Ottawa river works. After hearing the evidence they awarded to the contractors a considerable sum against the government. That amount was paid, and this is for interest at 5 per cent from the time when the work was done, as found by the referees, to the time of payment.
' Mr. LENNOX. Was the claim reduced?


William Pugsley: The claim was reduced. The amount of interest is about $25,000.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue the supplementaries, beginning with the Minister of Railways and Canals. But we hope to clean up the whole of them to-morrow.
' Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m. Friday.

Friday, March 26, 1909.