1910-02-25

Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to refer to a matter which was brought to the attention of the House

the 8th of this month by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). My hon. friend drew the attention of the House to the herosim displayed by Conductor Thomas Reynolds in rescuing a number of people in the wreck of the 21st of January last, at the Spanish river crossing of the Canadian Pacific railway, and suggested that application be made to the imperial authorities for a suitable recognition of the heroic conduct of Conductor Reynolds. Had I been in my seat at the time, I would have been glad to inform my hon. friend and the House that, prior to his inquiry, application had been made for an award of the Albert Medal, the highest honour conferred in such cases by His Majesty the King. Just before coming to the House to-day, I had the pleasure of receiving the following cablegram:
Greatly, pleased to advise you that the King has awarded the Albert medal of first-class to Thomas Reynolds. When received it will be transmitted to you.



STRATHCONA.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.: Before we go into Supply, there is a matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and more particularly of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). It has reference to the exportation of horses from Ontario to our western provinces. Horses brought from Saskatchewan into Manitoba are met at the border by a veterinary surgeon who examines them for any contagious disease, and in the case of the importation into my province from any other province to the south, the horses are examined at the borders of my province. But horses from Ontario are not so treated. I understand that the custom is to examine them at the point of shipment in Ontario, but that does not seem satisfactory. A case that has occurred within the last few weeks was brought to my attention the other day. A horse shipped from Toronto in a carload developed glanders inside a few days and was shot foT that disease. With the method employed in shipping hoTses a horse thus affected might infect all the animals in the car and all the stock yards at the feeding points; the water troughs, the hay racks and the thousands of horses shipped over the same Toute are subjected to that infection. Glanders is the worst disease to which horses are subject. It is incurable and very contagious not only to horses, but to men, and men so infected die a horrible death. The horses exposed to contagion in such a case go to a hundred different points and may carry the contagion all through the west-134	-
ern provinces. I think it is up to the government and the Minister of Agriculture to take such steps as will prevent the possibility of such occurrences and protect the farmers of my county. I would also point out to him that the sales stables in different large centres are sometimes in the most disreputable condition as respects the health of horses.


Mr. FISHER.: Was that horse shot by order of one of my officers?


Glenlyon Campbell: Yes, I believe so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Then I can assure the hon. gentleman that any animal that has been in contact with that horse in cars, stables or yards through which it has passed will be carefully watched, and the cars, etc., carefully investigated 'and disinfected immediately. That is part of the orders and practice of our department. Whenever any animals have been in contact with an animal infected with glanders, they are all watched, and we see that all places where the infected animal has been are disinfected. No doubt a report of this case has been sent to the department. I have not heard of it myself, but I have no doubt my officers have heard and I shall make inquiries.


Glenlyon Campbell: I received my information from a shipper. The horse passed through and was fed in the various yards all the way from Toronto to Yorkton. It passed through some four or five weeks ago, and up until four days ago there had been no disinfecting of the yards. That is the point that I want the minister to notice.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public works-harbours and rivers, Quebec -Pointe aux Trembles (en bas), wharf improvements, $2,000.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: This $2,000 io to make provision towards constructing a building for use as a waiting room and constructing guards at the side of the wharf. It is expected the work will cost $2,500 altogether.
Rimouski wharf-repairs and improvements,


William Pugsley: This is to put on a new planking.
Riviere aux Vases-wharf near its mouth on northeast side of River Saguenay, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the sheathing on the part of the wharf already built, and to construct 100 feet more, consisting of one pier and head block. It is believed this will complete the work.



River Ottawa-beach protection work on Vaudreuil Cove, $3,100.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: What is the nature of this beach protection work?


William Pugsley: It has been made to appear to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the resident engineer, that this work is necessitated by reason of other works which have been constructed on the river, and which have raised the water so that erosion has thereby been caused by the increased floods. That is the ground upon which it is put. I hesitated until I got all the information and was satisfied there was good ground for that contention.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will this complete the improvements?


William Pugsley: It will require $1,900 more.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: On whose property are these improvements located?


William Pugsley: Not on anybody's property. I think there is a roadway passing near the water, the road allowance goes to the bank.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Is there any wharf there or landing at all?


William Pugsley: I think not.


William Wright: It is not in connection with any navigation.


William Pugsley: This is what the engineer says:
The rapid and dangerous erosion of the bank here is due to the construction of locks and dams at St. Anne de Bellevue, and by the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railway of numerous large stone piers, thus producing increased high water in the lake. The damages complained of are due to this increased flow.
So the injury we are seeking to guard against was caused first by the construction of the locks and dam at St. Anns, which is a government work, and to a certain extent also by the bridges of the two railway companies, which of course were constructed with the consent and approval of the government. But as I understand, the greatest cause of the erosion has been the construction of the lock and dam.
Riviere Ouelle wharf-repairs and improvements, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for repairs to the Riviere Ouelle wharf urged by the resident engineer. This will complete the work, the total cost of which will be about $8,000.


Mr. SAM. SHARPE.: Did the government originally construct this wharf?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: There was a wharf built there away back in 1856, and the government in 1906 made an extension or built a spur to the wharf. It is owned by the government. This is the place where the government steamer lands which runs in connection with the Intercolonial across to Murray Bay.


William Wright: When did the government purchase this wharf?


William Pugsley: I think it has always been a government wharf since the time of confederation.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: It was built bifore confederation. Some years ago the Intercolonial built a spur line from the village of Ouelle to the St. Denis wharf. It gives a winter service to the village of Ouelle.
River Richelieu-improvements, $60,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue tile very important work of improvement upon the Richelieu river. The matter was fully discussed at the last session, when the vote for this purpose was granted. The improvements consist of a lock and dam at or near the city of St. John upon the Richelieu river, and also of the dredging and removing of large boulders which are in the channel. The object is to improve navigation, and at the same time to prevent the flooding of a vast section of country which has been flooded almost every year by the waters of the Richelieu.


James Davis Taylor: While I do not object to this appropriation in itself, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that this improvement is designed to perform a service on the Richelieu river which he denied to us on the Fraser river, on the ground that it was impossible for the government to make such expenditure unless it was to be made for the improvement of navigation. Now the minister has just stated that this item was for the improvement of navigation, and also that it was in connection with the works being carried on on the Richelieu river. I have referred to his report, and I see that the primary object of this work is, not for the improvement of navigation, but to save this land from inundation. Now I wish to make myself quite plain, I am not opposing any vote for that purpose; I think it is a matter to which this government should give attention. But, the point I wish to make is that when the Dominion government makes a large expenditure of this kind to save lands from inundation in one province, the government is in duty bound to make a like expenditure in other provinces. I find in the annual report of the Minister of Public Works this paragraph with respect to Richelieu improvements:

Along the upper part of the river from the boundary to St. Johns, a distance of 22 miles, the shores are all low lands, except the first two mdes.
These low lands are covered at high water for sometimes over two months, long enough to prevent the culture of large areas. This high water also extends over the shores of the tributaries of the Richelieu such as Riviere du Sud and Riviere au Brocket. Some 40,000 acres of land are thus rendered entirely useless.
Then it gives the parishes. The report proceeds:
In order to lower the water and prevent the annual floods, it was decided to dredge a channel, 1,750 feet wide (the whole width of the river at its narrowest place), and 5,200 feet long.
I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in this official report of the operations on the Richelieu river there is not one word about these improvements being necessary in the interests of navigation. We must take it that the engineer who makes this report, the^ chief engineer of the department, is speaking by the book, and that he is making a faithful and trustworthy report to this parliament with respect to the real object of these improvements. I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that we on the Fraser river are entitled in equity to similar improvements which will protect our lands from flooding at Chiliwack, Matsqui, Langely, Nicomen Island and Ladner, where the conditions are precisely the same as we find here. We claim the protection on the Fraser river that is given on the Richelieu river, and we claim it not only as a matter of equity, but as a matter of compact with this government that has undertaken to give to us in the province of British Columbia expenditures of the same nature as are made in any other province of the Dominion. I wish the minister would take this seriously into his consideration, because, although this is a matter which has been mentioned frequently here, and has been met very casually by the minister, I wish to say that the conditions are getting so serious that the people of British Columbia will not permit their representatives in parliament to go without blame if they continue to vote money for expenditures in other provinces which are denied to the province of British Columbia.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) says that no stress has heretofore been laid on the fact that these improvements are for the purpose of aiding the navigation of the Richelieu river. I am quite sure my hon. friend is entirely in error as to that.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister will permit me, I was quoting from his own an-1341
nual report here, and I said that in this report there is no reference of that nature.


William Pugsley: I find in the note which I have, and which is taken from the reports, that it is claimed that this movable dam will afford considerable advantage to the navigation of the river and permit dispensing with the dredging which has now to be done at regular intervals between St, John and Lake Champlain. It will also provide an increased depth in the Chambly canal of at least one foot, and with the additional improvements, 9 feet of water can be obtained in the canal prism instead of
7.	I repeat that the object of this improvement is two-fold. One effect will be to improve the navigation of the Richelieu river, which is a very important stretch of navigable water connecting the St. Lawrence River system with Lake Champlain and the Hudson river in the state of New York.


James Davis Taylor: Is the Richelieu river more important than the Fraser river?


William Pugsley: I am not compelled to answer that question at the moment. I will come to the Fraser river in a few minutes, and I think my hon. friend will say that this government has done full justice to the claims of those who are interested in the improvement of the Fraser river. I also repeat that the effect of this improvement will be to prevent an enormous amount of otherwise good land from being periodically flooded by the waters of the Richelieu river. I think my hon. friend will agree that the work is an important one. In regard to the Fraser river, my hon. friend says that his constituents will complain if he does not, while considering items for other provinces, insist upon similar work being done on the Fraser. No one appreciates to a greater extent than I do the importance of the Fraser river, and as an evidence of the importance which I attach to that great river, I may say that last year the government, upon my recommendation, purchased a suction dredge called the ' Fruhling ' at a large cost, a dredge which is one of the very best operating upon either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast, and the primary object of the purchasing of that dredge was the improvement of the Fraser river. We have, through the engineering department, laid out a system of improvements on the Fraser river, by means of dredging and by means of jetties, which we expect will give a ship channel 30 feet in depth from the city of Westminster to the Gulf of Georgia. We anticipate that these improvements are going to cost this country at least $1,000,000, and yet, when we have engaged in this great work and have asked parliament to vote money for the purpose of carrying it on, it seems that the hon. gentleman feels

it to be his duty, when we aie asking for a small amount for the River Richelieu, _ to rise and protest against this item being passed unless a similar item is put in the estimates for a certain improvement on the Fraser river.


James Davis Taylor: I do not think the minister is quite fair in his remarks. I do not think he has interpreted fairly what I said. He seems to have entirely misunderstood my remarks. I did not protest against this work on the Richelieu river, but I did object to the policy laid down by the minister the other evening in answer to a question addressed to him by myself, wherein he said that work of this kind would not be carried on any longer, that this government would not any longer make outlays in any of the provinces except for the improvement of navigation. If that is strictly adhered to, no doubt we in British Columbia can stand it as well as the people of any other province, but I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that we in British Columbia are very large contributors to the general revenue of the Dominion, that we pay to Canada every year many hundreds of thousands of dollars, or, many millions of dollars, in excess of all the expenditures upon the province of British Columbia. Therefore, it is our good British Columbia money that is being spent to a considerable extent on these Richelieu river improvements, and it seems to us an intolerable position that, while our money is being spent upon the protection of property throughout Canada, the minister should lay down the princiole that vre must not ask for any of that protection in British Columbia. What I am asking for is equal rights. I am not jealous of any other constituency getting improvements, but I do object to one yard stick being applied to eastern districts which are near, which are under the eye of the minister, and in which the department seems to take more particular interest, and another yard stick being applied to British Columbia. I think the minister lays too much stress upon the cost of this magnificent dredge, the ' Fruh-ling.' and tells us too little of what the ' Fruhling ' has accomplished. The ques tion is not as to whether the minister has spent $300,000 on that dredge. What we would like to hear from the minister is what the dredge is doing, what progress it is making, not giving its capacity per hour or its capacity per lift, but how many lifts will be necessary to carry through the work, and what return we get for this $300,000. Moreover, to say that the dredge ' Fruhling ' is working at the mouth of the Fraser river comes very far short of being an answer to our request for improvements on the Fraser river. I would like to point out that the work of the ' Fruhling ' at the Mr. PUGSLRV
mouth of the river does not meet the requirements of the people along the Fraser, because, as I told the minister just now, the lands that are flooded are not immediately at the mouth of the river. We are applying for protection at distances long removed from the mouth of the river, at Chiliwack, at Matsqui, at Nicomen island, at Langley, and throughout the Delta, and to answer me that the department has bought a $300,000 dredge and put it to work at the mouth of the river is not an answer to our request for protection to works from Chiliwack down, to which we think we are entitled.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that my hon. friend on reflection will see that the question as to the money the government is expending on the Fraser river in British Columbia is an important question to consider in connection with other improvements in the same locality. We cannot spend all the moneys of Canada in the one place, and when we have made out a plan for a million dollars for improvements on the Fraser river I think it will be said that we are dealing-I will not say generously, but dealing justly with the important interests on the Fraser river. The hon. gentleman speaks of the large revenues derived from the people of British Columbia. I am very glad British Columbia is so prosperous. The population of the province is not large but the province has been blessed by Providence with resources of enormous value. We are all glad to see British Columbia improving so rapidly. I notice by the newspapers that the provincial government proposes to expend during the coming year some $7,000,000 which shows that their revenues are buoyant and that they are in a position to make improvements which other provinces are perhaps not able to make. My hon. friend will of course have an opportunity of discussing the Fraser river improvements later on, but when he complains that outside of this dredging work we are doing nothing for the Fraser river, I would call hi3 attention to page 71 of the items for British Columbia in which he will see that under the head ' Fraser river (lower) wing dam, bank protection works inclusive of repairs ', we are spending $35,000, in addition to the $25,000 which we expended last year.


James Davis Taylor: It was not my intention to say that the government were doing nothing for British Columbia, and I do not think I said it.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is certainly giving that impression because he is seeking to convey the idea to the people of British Columbia that British Columbia is being discriminated against with regard to these improvements


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: That is the inference that the hon gentleman (Mr. Taylor) seeks to have drawn by the people whom he represents.


James Davis Taylor: With regard to this particular kind of work.


William Pugsley: In the item I have read we are providing for work of a similar character to that which the hon. gentleman has already brought to the attention of the committee. But, so far as I recollect the hon. gentleman has not spoken of works to prevent the surrounding country from being flooded. I understood the hon. gentleman to speak of work to prevent the erosion of the banks of the Fraser river. And when the hon. gentlemau the other day mentioned that class of work I spoke of the fact that while we have done work of that character in different provinces we were not prepared to recognize that it was the duty of the federal government to engage extensively in such work. I think on reflection the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) will see that we are endeavouring to treat the province of British Columbia as fairly as any other province in Canada, and I do feel quite sure that if instead of complaining, when some item for another province is under consideration, he would prefer his particular request to my department it would be better, because then the request could be carefully considered on its merits irrespective entirely of what is being done for other provinces. I am sure the hon. gentleman will feel that he should not interpose any obstacle in the way of this vote passing, and when we come to British Columbia I shall be glad to hear any representations as to the particular needs of that province.	.


James Davis Taylor: I have again to call the attention of the minister to the fact that he is persistently misquoting my remarks. I do not know how parliamentary it is to say that, but I have stated three times, if not oftener, that I have not opposed this item, and I object to the minister persisting in stating as he did state several times-and he was corrected by me each time-that I was opposing this vote. I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that as a representative from British Columbia I am not to be gagged in this committee by any misinterpretation put upon my remarks by' the minister, and every time such misinterpretation is given I shall feel it my duty to stand up and correct him and to tell him that he is misquoting the observations I have made to the committee.


William Pugsley: Surley when the hon. gentleman, without waiting for the British
Columbia items to come under consideration, rises in his place and complains that this item is being put in for improvements in one province and there is no similar item-for improvements for the province from which he comes, that is throwing an obstruction upon the item and seeking to raise an objection in the minds of the members of this committee against the vote being granted. In effect, the hon. gentleman says: It is not right or proper to make that appropriation for Quebec unless you make a similar appropriation for Brit'sh Columbia. Although the work may be similar in principle we are not making an appropriation for any work of a like character. It does seem to me that a fair inference from the hon. gentleman's remarks is that he wants the people of British Columbia and of his constituency to believe that by voting this item for' the Richelieu river and not voting a similar item for the Fraser river we are doing an injustice to the province of British Columbia, that we are discriminating against that province and treating the province of Quebec with a favour which we deny to the province from which he comes. If that is not a fair inference to draw from his remarks I fail to understand the meaning of language.


James Davis Taylor: I wish to say that the minister during the course of the last part of the remarks which he has just now made correctly interpreted me. That is precisely what I wish this House and the province of British Columbia to understand.


William Pugsley: I thought so.


James Davis Taylor: But, in the first portion of his last address to the committee the minister reiterated that I opposed this vote, and I wish to state again for the fifth time that he is wrong in saying that I oppose this vote.


William Pugsley: What is the purpose of the hon. gentleman's observations?


Mr.  J. D.@: - TAYLOR. If the minister had been listening to me when I first spoke, instead of carrying on a side conversation, he would have understood precisely what was the purpose of my remarks. The purpose of what I said was that whereas the minister stated to this committee the other evening, in answer to me, tnat works of this kind could not be expected in future, that this government had carefully considered the matter and had come to the conclusion that they would not grant them in the future; that whereas he gave that to me as a complete answer and an intimation that we need not ask for them, we sue now called upon to vote this money for similar works. I say we are willing to vote for these works and that it is our

duty to vote for them, and that it is the duty of the government to make appropriations like this. But I say, further, that when they are made they should not be confined to one district or to four or five districts and denied to another district. That is the sole purpose of my rising to speak in connection with this vote for the Richelieu river. My purpose was to attract the attention of the minister to the fact that he is giving here a vote which he has represented to us we need not ask for British Columbia because we will not *get it.


Mr. COWAN.: 
William Pugsley: Is not the provincial tax in lieu of all municipal taxes?


James Davis Taylor: 


George Henry Cowan: No. it is not.


William Pugsley: Does not the provincial government look after all the roads and all the court houses?


George Henry Cowan: No. A very large portion of British Columbia is not under municipal government. In the very nature of things it could not be. Remember that our arable lands are in most cases in narrow valleys and gulches surrounded by snow-capped mountains, and are not sufficiently settled for municipalities to be organized; they are unorganized districts. Outside of the large cities and the more thickly settled suburban districts, this is practically the condition of things in British Columbia.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend pardon me a moment? I think he will ' agree with me that it was quite right that I should answer the hon. member for Westminister, but it does not seem to me that it is in order for another hon. gentleman to rise in his place and start in with a general discussion of the circumstances and the local conditions in the province of British Columbia. Of course, my hon. friend might and probably will refer pretty fully to British Columbia when we reach the British Columbia items; but on an item for the improvement of the Richelieu river, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman is hardly in order in giving us a long speech on the municipal and local conditions of British Columbia, its snow-capped mountains and beautiful valleys, with all of which we are very familiar. On another occasion I would be delighted to hear the hon. gentleman, but it seems to me that we should confine ourselves to the item under consideration.


George Henry Cowan: The minister remarked that there was no discrimination against British Columbia, and I wished to show him that his statement is entirely inaccurate. If he will withdraw that statement, there will be no occasion for any further remarks from me.


William Pugsley: I think I can satisfy the hon. gentleman. I can say that I am not aware that there is any discrimination, and there is no desire to discriminate.


George Henry Cowan: Then, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the minister's lack of knowledge on the subject calls for a little passing comment. Until he has knowledge that will make him aware of British Columbia conditions, it seems to me that it would be better for him not to give us even that negative statement. If Tie will say that even that negative statement should not have been made by him, I would be quite satisfied, and the only thing I could do would be to take my seat. Does he withdraw it? I understand the hon. minister withdraws even that negative statement.


William Pugsley: I am glad you have such a good understanding.
River Saguenay-dredging and other improvements, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the improvement of deep water navigation. It is to make a navigable channel by dredging and also improve the approaches to the wharf at Chicoutimi and form a turning basin.
River St. Lawrence-protection wall along south shore between Laprairie and Little St. James river, $11,000.


William Pugsley: This work will be 3,800 feet long and 25 feet on top with slopes. It is to be rip-rapped and covered with concrete. The estimated cost is $11,000.


James Davis Taylor: Is this to protect navigation or the banks of the river?


William Pugsley: It is to protect the town of Laprairie against the annual damage caused by ice shoves and floods, which prevent communication with Montreal by land at certain seasons. The necessity for this has been caused by the erection of the Montreal and Verdun dykes built by the Harbour Commission. That takes this work out of the category of general works for the protection of banks.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a bend in the River St. Lawrence below Lachine rapids and a large bay fronting Laprairie. For years the whole village of Laprairie, which is an important place, has been flooded and loss of life and property has been occasioned thereby. These works were laid down many years ago by the late Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public Works, and it is absolutely necessary that this protection wall should be built, as the flooding is largely due to the piers of Victoria bridge and the guard pier.


Mr. M. CURRIE.: What has the harbour work to do with this?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The land is very low and is submerged during April and the beginning of May. There is a large pier in the centre of the river at Isle aux Millions near Montreal, and this large pier and the piers of the Victoria bridge as well as the Lachine rapids, and the bend of the river, cause these floods.


William Wright: This land -was always flooded before the Victoria bridge was built and there are many other places in Canada in the same position. Do the government assume the responsibility of protecting the shores of all navigable waters, which might be affected by erosions? If they do, we ought to know it. I am not finding fault -with the work, but we should know if similar work is to be carried on in other sections.	,


William Pugsley: This protection has been rendered necessary by other works which the government, through the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, has carried on in the vicinity. We have had a petition from the mayors of the municipalities affected asking protection against the annual damage caused by the ice shoves and floods, which entirely prevent communication by land with Montreal at certain times. This protection has been rendered necessary by the Montreal and Verdun dykes built by the Harbour Commissioners. The government did not at once undertake this work, but had the matter investigated by their resident engineer who made the report upon it.


Morley Currie: What is the date of the petition and of the report?


William Pugsley: I have not the date of the petition, but the report of the chief engineer was made in 1909, so that the petition must have been a little before then. Our resident engineer, Mr. Michaud, a very competent man, reported that the construction of these dykes had diminished the flow of the St. Lawrence at that point, and that the proposed work would not only be valuable to the citizens of the town of Laprairie but also to the farmers of Laprairie and Napierville and other parishes, by permitting them to take teams to Montreal at all seasons of the year whereas now, communication by land is stopped during high water.


William Wright: How far are the works below Montreal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are nine miles above Montreal.


William Wright: That would apply anywhere up the river; it might be assumed that the water would be affected in some way by the works constructed there. I want a pronouncement from the minister on the subject as there are hundreds of places in Canada undeT similar circumstances, and if works of that kind are being taken in hand by the Dominion government I would be pleased to know of it. I am not finding fault at all but I wish for the information.


William Pugsley: In any case where complaint is made that as a result of the construction of a government work, whether it is a dam or dredging, or any work of a similar character, injury is done to one or more people, I would feel it my duty to investigate the matter, and if I found that by a reasonable expenditure we could relieve the people from the injury caused by such a Dominion work I would do so. That is the only thing involved in the passing of this item. I am not prepared to-day to admit and I think it would require a good deal of argument to in-

duce me to admit that it is the duty of the federal government in all cases to take the necessary steps for the protection of the banks of rivers or the shores of lakes from erosion. I think that this is work of a local character and ought to be attended to by the municipal or provincial authorities. In cases such as I have mentioned, where perhaps there is a vast damage caused and large sections of the country affected, so that it is work of a federal character, we might adopt a different rule. But, speaking generally, I think that w.ork of the character to which my hon. friend has referred is rather for the municipal or provincial authorities to attend to.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Did I understand the minister to say that this work was made necessary by works performed by or under the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is the government taking the position that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, who are a duly incorporated body and are largely subsidized by this country, c'an perform works of a local character, and that if these works cause damage to localities, this government assumes the responsibility of making compensation for these damages? Surely the works of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal can be taken care of by that commission; they have been liberally subsidized by this government.


William Pugsley: They do not get a dollar of subsidy.


Angus Claude Macdonell: They have had Dominion loans. Is the government taking the position that it is to indemnify either private or public interests for damages caused by the operations or works of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal? There are harbour commissions in other parts of the country that are doing their work in their own way under proper authority. As far as I know where they create damages they pay for them thern.-selves, some proper provision is made for the indemnifying of public or private interests damaged by the works of these harbour commissioners. Is the government creating this precedent that it will make good damages of this -nature which have been caused by the Montreal Harbour Commission? If so, it seems' that the government is leading itself into a position that is never-ending in so far as making good damages of this kind throughout the country is concerned.


William Pugsley: I do not intend to lay down any general rule because I suppose the cases would very seldom arise. I regard the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal as really public officials. They are


William Pugsley: called on to perform a great national duty in connection with perfecting, improving, enlarging and developing the port of Montreal, the greatest in Canada. They receive no bonus, they cannot engage in harbour work without coming to the government for its approval. They pay interest on the money the government loans to them and they are simply a branch of the public service. I think that where in the performance of their duties in improving the harbour of Montreal they cause flooding several miles away, in sections of the country not within their jurisdiction, it is not unreasonable that the government should perform the work of relieving the people from any damages they may have sustained. The harbour commissioners have no funds which would enable them to carry on work of this character. The money which they raise is all used for the improvement of the harbour. This is outside of their jurisdiction, their district is limited, and I do not see how they could do this work. There would have to be special parliamentary authority to enable them to do it. Without laying down any general rule, I vvould think that if the harbour commissioners of any part of the country in the performance of work which they undertake with the approval of the government for the improvement of harbours cause damage to individuals outside of their jurisdiction, it would not be unreasonable for the government to take steps to relieve the people of the consequences of that injury. However, I do not want to make any statement to extend beyond the particular work in hand.	.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What difference does it make if the damage is outside or inside their jurisdiction?


William Pugsley: The harbour commissioners could not build any works outside of their jurisdiction. They would,.have to come to parliament to get authority to carry on a work of this character outside of their jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose they would have any power to build a work of this kind in their jurisdiction.


William Pugsley: They might if it was for the improvement of the harbour.


William Wright: I have seen some of the works carried on by the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and it is not conceivable to me, as a layman, that it interferes with the flow of the St. Lawrence to any appreciable extent, whatever might be said of the Victoria bridge.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The dock does interfere.


William Wright: Have not the lands now supposed to be flooded by the improvement of the harbour of Montreal not been flooded before the work was undertaken, in fact every year since settlement first took place on the St, Lawrence?


William Pugsley: The representation which was made by the mayors of these various parishes and towns was that the floods had been increased as the result of the building of these dykes at what is known as the Isle au Millions, and the report of the engineer was that while it was not possible to say how much the dykes had impeded the flow of the river, if the waters were held back, the low lands.would be flooded, whereas they would not be to -the same extent if the waters were allowed to flow freely. The road has been flooded to such a degree that the people could not travel on the highway at high water. We have been satisfied that to a considerable extent this flooding of the highways has been caused by the building of these dykes


Angus Claude Macdonell: The representation of the minister makes the case Tather worse than I supposed. I am not opposing the expenditure of this money for this particular purpose. I admit this is a necessary public work, from what the minister has said, and from the explanations that have been made. But what I object to is this: Here is a body duly organized under the authority of the government, known as the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. They have large revenues and large resources, they act entirely independently of this government. They cut their coat according to their cloth; they make expenditures, they undertake public works on their own initiative, and carry them out. Now in carrying out these works this board of commissioners causes damage and loss to communities or to indivduals, and this government, without any knowledge of what the board is doing, without having anything to say about these undertakings, without knowing what damages are being done, this government comes along and makes good the damages they have caused. Is that a businesslike proposition? I have some knowledge of the operations of the Board of Harbour Commissioners of the city of Toronto. Whatever work they do, they have to pay for, and if any damages are caused by their works they settle the Bill themselves. Here the country is paying consequential damages resulting from the operations of this board, indiscriminately, without apparently having any control over them, and without knowing the extent to which they aTe being let in for damages. I object to that principle as unbusinesslike and improper, and I do not think the government ought to ask us to pass this vote.


James Davis Taylor: I am sure I am convinced by the statement of the Postmaster General, and of the Minister of Public Works that this is a very praiseworthy appropriation. I would like to point out to the minister that the operations of this department are more extensive and comprehensive that he has any idea of. If I may be permitted to mention an item which is not in the present estimates, but is taken from the report of the minister, I. find that he goes beyond repairing damage done by the Harbour Commissioners, or by works carried on under his government, and he goes beyond works necessary to promote the navigation of rivers. I have under my hand this item in his report respecting the River St. Louis, page 120:
During the spring high water the River St. Louis spreads over the farming lands from the canal feeder to the village of St. Louis de Gonzague, a distance of about seven miles and thus causes considerable damage. During the summer, the river often overflows equally after a heavy rain storm, and extensive fields of promising crops have been entirely lost.
. . . By proper deepening of the river bed and straightening of certain curves, the waters should be lowered some four feet, which would be amply sufficient to protect the farmers along the banks.
Now, I say by all means protect these farmers along the banks, but do not limit the protection to those particular farmers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Doe3 my hon. friend object to the proposed work in the River St. Louis?


James Davis Taylor: Certainly not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I may inform my hon. friend that the flood in that section of the county of Beauharnois is caused every year by the entrance to the Beauharnois canal constructed by the government. The level of the water of the St. Louis has been raised, and for years and yearo there has been some work carried on there in order to minimize as much as possible the damage caused by that flood. Now, this is a great public work which was started long before confederation, and which has been going on ever since. The new work on the Beauharnois canal made some fifteen or sixteen years ago, has even affected the level of the water to such an extent in the bay somewhere in the county of Huntingdon, that Ste. Barbe, I think, or some other village, was flooded. I remember when Mr. McLaren, the former member for Huntingdon, was in this House, he explained the whole thing. It is caused by the Public Works Department at the entrance of the Beauharnois canal.
Riviere du Loup (Fraserville)-repairs and renewals to wharf, $4,000.


William Pugsley: Riviere du Loup is a very important place upon the St. Lawrence, one of the important towns on the Intercolonial, and this work is very necessary to repair the wharf. It is expected this sum will make all the necessary repairs required at present.
Shigawake-extension of breakwater-revote of $880 lapsed, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This wharf is in the county of Bonaventure, and this work is urged by the resident engineer, Mr. Amyot. It is to build an extension of 300 feet to the present wharf, so as to give it a depth of seven feet at low water. The government owns the wharf.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is there any revenue from any of these wharfs?


William Pugsley: There is no revenue from this one, because it ha3 not yet been transferred to the Marine Department.
St. Alexis, Ha ' Ila ! bay-extension of wharf -revote of $2,500 lapsed, $10,000.
St. Alphonse de Bagotville-To complete new addition on south side of wharf and repair old work, $8,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build a head block, 160 feet long by 56 feet wide. It is to be an addition to the present government wharf at St. Alphonse. We require this amount in order to make repairs to the existing wharf, also to build an extension. I understand this wharf will give accommodation to ocean steamers.


Robert Laird Borden: What ocean steamers go there?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Saguenay (Mr. Girard) informs me that the railway is being extended down to St. Alphonse for the purpose -of getting to deep water, and ocean steamers will come there. This is the Lake St. John railway, which ships large quantities of manufactured stuff and farm produce over its road.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: The contract was $38,-[DOT]350, and this will complete the work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the population of this place?


William Pugsley: The hon. member for the district (Mr. Girard) tells me that this is a part of the parish, that it is not a separate town, but there are about 3,000 people in the parish. The important thing is that it will afford a deep water terminus for the railway. Until the Saguenay is dredged out ocean steamers cannot go any farther than St. Alphonse.


Robert Laird Borden: How many ocean steamers go up there each year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from the district says that about thirty ocean steamers will go up during the course of the season. Those are tramp steamers going for freight.
St. Andre de Kamouraska wharf-extension -revote of $3,200 lapsed, $10,500.


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $10,500, so that we expect this will complete the work.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the annual revenue?


William Pugsley: I do not think this has been transferred; if not there will be no revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we ought to. have information about such matters in connection with the very large sums proposed to be expended.


William Pugsley: I think that last session, or the session before, a statement was brought down showing all the wharfs that had been transferred.


Robert Laird Borden: That would make it very easy to give the information.


William Pugsley: It would make it very easy for my hon. friend to get it too.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not passing the estimates.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend had intimated he wanted that information I would have been glad to have obtained it.


Robert Laird Borden: Me should have it always. When we are asked to vote sums of money ranging from $10,000 to $25,000 for these wharfs it seems to me eminently proper that the minister should come fortified with the information in all such cases. This is information that ought to be given to the committee without any request having to be made. It would be very much easier to get the estimates through the committee, if the minister would always be prepared with a certain amount of information in every instance which should be available without any question whatever. When we do ask what seem to be absolutely relevant questions we are told that there is some other minister who might give it if he were here, or that there is some return which has been brought down and from which, if it were available, we could get the information instead of having it ready for us. I do not think the minister is really prepared with his estimates until he has all the information of this kind available.


William Pugsley: I would call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that all the items for Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island went through and it is only now that my hon. friend says that he wants a statement as to the revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. Whenever I have been here I have asked about that particularly.
I did s*o a week ago to-day, when the estimates were under discussion. I said then that the information ought to be forthcoming in regard to the revenue.


William Pugsley: The reason I did not think it important was this: Where wharfs have not been transferred to my department the revenue is nothing, as my department does not collect any revenue. In building wharfs we are not influenced by the revenue which we will get, in fact,, hardly at all influenced by the revenue; it Is rather by the accommodation which will be given to the public and by the opportunities for the development of trade and travel. But, if my hon. friend would like it, I will be very glad to find out as to the St. Andre de Kamouraska wharf and also as to the remainder of these wharfs, but I cannot give it to my hon. friend now.
I will undertake to furnish it if he wishes.


Robert Laird Borden: When we were considering the estimates a week ago I mentioned the information that I would like to have in this connection. There does not seem to be any principle whatever governing the transfer, or non-transler, of these wharfs from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. In one case no tolls are exacted; in the other case tolls are exacted. In one part of the country farmers are not obliged to pay any wharfage charges upon their goods; in other parts of the country, farmers, equally entitled to consideration, are obliged to pay such charges. There seems to be no system at all except perhaps a system of political expediency, and I do not think it is a good way to carry on public business. The minister does not think it is a good way to carry on public business, and from his statement there is some proposal now under consideration by the government for the purpose of adopting a general system in that regard. A general system ought to be undertaken. There is a further consideration. In the case of some of these items there may be a very good justification for building a wharf, but I do not apprehend that the government is very much concerned with any general principle in building these wharfs. Not long ago, this alternoon. the minister was speaking of works of a local and private nature. He said that the government could not undertake to engage in the expenditure of public money upon such works. Yet, a great many of these wharfs seem to me to be works of precisely that character. I dare say I might find more than one illustration, but in one case in particular we were asked to spend a considerable sum of money in the construction
of a wharf in my own county, where there was a very good private wharf in existence at that time. It is impossible for the minister to suggest that the expenditure of that money was governed by any consideration of public interest. It could not have been governed by any such consideration. The fault I have to find with these estimates that come before us year after year is that they do not seem to be based upon or inspired by any actual consideration of the public interest, but by some considerations that are absolutely foreign to the public interest in a great many cases at least. Where there is a locality, even if it has not a large population, which is to be the terminus of a large railway, and where the produce of a large portion of the country will be brought to the wharf and will be shipped on steamers for export abroad, I can see some reason for the expenditure of public money, because the enterprise is too great for the local community to undertake. But, to spend $700 or $800 upon wharfs, here, there and elsewhere, all along the sea coast and even in competition with private wharfs does not seem to me to be very good policy, and does not seem to be founded on any system that ought to commend itself to the members of this committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know about this wharf, and it was I who asked the hon. member (Mr. Lapointe) to urge for its improvement. The wharf was built long before confederation, to serve local traffic, but recently the Trade and Commerce Department has granted a subsidy for winter navigation between River Ouelle and St. Andre de Kamouraska, and north shore points. Recently a company has been formed at Fraserville to afford both summer and winter navigation between these points and across the St. Lawrence. The -enterprise has met with a good deal of success this winter, but of course the winter has been mild. The intention is to have winter navigation between Fraserville and St. Andre, on the south shore, and St, Catharines, Tadousac and Seven Islands, on the north shore. At the latter place, Clarke City is a large manufacturing centre. The Desjardins firm at St, Andre are largely engaged in the furniture trade, and they ship their furniture to all the north shore points. I may tell the leader of the opposition that Mr. Desjardins is one of his strongest supporters in that district, and he is a very able man.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Formerly the Desjardins firm were obliged to send their furniture to Quebec and there have it transferred to the Lake St, John railway for distribution to north shore points, whereas now, from this wharf, they can ship direct

across the St. Lawrence. I really believe that this wharf will be a great public utility.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Some few days ago I asked the minister as to the method of collecting dues at these wharfs, and I would point out that the hon. gentleman was entirely mistaken in seeming to think that I was then making any criticism. I understand that no dues are collected on these wharfs while they are under the control of the Public Works Department, but that when they are handed over to the Marine and Fisheries Department dues are supposed to be levied upon those who use the wharfs. In some cases when these wharfs have passed from the Public Works Department they are simply monopolized by some large interest which takes control of them to the exclusion of everybody else. In instances which have come under my observations these companies have refused to repair the wharfs, and as it seemed to be nobody's business to do so, they fell into disrepair. From what I can learn, it would appear that where a charge is made, the fees are simply handed over to the man who was appointed as wharfinger or harbour master, as the case may be. I inquired as to this a few sessions ago, and I was told by the Minister of Public Works that negotiations were pending between his department and the Marine Department with a view towards bringing all these wharfs under some business management. No progress appears to.have been made in that direction. It was then intimated by the minister that the government was considering the question of handing these small wharfs over to the local municipalities, and I think this could be done with benefit to the government and to the trade of the different districts. Where large expenditures have been made on wharfs, it seems to me that they should return some revenue to the government. If the smaller wharfs were handed over to the municipalities the government would be relieved from the charges of repairing them. I would like to see this question finally settled.


William Pugsley: I expressed my opinion on a former occasion, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) very correctly says, that the smaller wharfs, and indeed the larger wharfs in the country districts, might be handed over to the municipalities if they would undertake to make the lesser repairs. Of course, the larger repairs would have to be done by the department. I also expressed the opinion that in the case of wharfs used by regular steamship lines, they might be leased to the companies upon the understanding that farmers and others who only bring a small quantity of freight to the wharfs should not be obliged to pay any top wharfage. At the last ses-Mr. LEMIEUX.
sion of parliament a Bill, having that object in view, was introduced by the Minister of Marine, and passed, but the minister shortly _ afterwards left for England, and since his return he has not been able to give attention to the matter, which probably explains why it has not been settled. I am very anxious that some satisfactory arrangement should be made as early as possible in this regard. The present condition is unsatisfactory, but the government is not responsible. The same trouble has .been existing for the last forty years, and I know of wharfs constructed by the late government which never were transferred to the Marine Department. They came in this shape as a legacy to us. In the case of one wharf which was built twenty years ago, when it was known that I intended to transfer it to the Marine Department and that tolls would be collected, the people entered a very vigorous protest. I hope the question will soon be taken up and dealt with satisfactorily.
Ste. Anne des Monts-harbour improvements at mouth of Grande Riviere Ste. Anne, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision to carry out certain works in connection with improvements now going on at the mouth of this river. This is in the county of Gaspe. This vote will complete the work. The object is to make a suitable and safe harbour at the mouth of the river for fishing boats.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the entrance of the river there are large boulders, and the tide is very strong.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the river navigable?


Rodolphe Lemieux: For about a mile and a half. During the past thres or four years there have been wrecks there owing to the unsafe condition of the river. This work will, so to speak, bridge the entrance of the river. The piers on each side will keep the mouth in fairly good order so as to give ships fairly good facilities for entrance.


Aaron Abel Wright: What will be the total cost of the work?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cos is $28,000.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: That would seem to be a pretty large expenditure for the removal of boulders from the mouth of a river.


William Pugsley: It is more than that. There is to be a combined dam and landing pier of brush and stone work on either side of the river and ballasted crib work on the outer end. The pier on the western bank will extend for a distance of 400 feet,

and on the eastern bank for a distance of about 300 feet.
Mr. R- L. BORDEN. What is the depth of water at the mouth of the river?


William Pugsley: We shall have 5J feet at low water and 15 or 16 feet at high water.


Mr. PERLEY.: Is this for the benefit of the village and the public or for the purpose of helping some of the sawmills there?


William Pugsley: For the benefit of the public, to make a safe harbour.


George Halsey Perley: Is this not one of the wharfs built for the purpose of helping the sawmill owners?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no sawmill there.


George Halsey Perley: The report of the minister at page 123 says that several sawmills are in operation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Rathbun Company of Deseronto were there some years ago, but they have left. It is the largest place in the county of Gaspe. It has a population of something like 1,500.


Robert Laird Borden: The report of the minister is hardly up to date.


William Pugsley: This work was begun in 1904. There was a sawmill there at that time, and the notes would be carried forward. I did not know that the sawmill had disappeared.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister an idea of how many fishing boats go out from that place?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is quite a trad a.


William Wright: Do the ocean steamers call there?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that I cannot tell my hon. friend the number of fishing boats.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought this was principally for tha benefit of the fishermen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some Twenty years ago there was a fish industry there; but, as my hon. friend knows, the codfish have left that side of tha St. Lawrence. A herring industry has been started, however, and there is quite a trade batween St. Anne and Quebec. There are no railway facilities on that shore, as it is too hilly, and the people have to go to Rimouski or to Quebec to get their supplies; and, as there is quite a large district served from Ste. Anne das Monts, there are quite a number of schooners ther^.


William Pugsley: Tha Great Lakes Transportation Company, whose boats will call there have also urged this improvement.
St. Charles de Caplan-extension of wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This extension will be 350 feet long and 20 feet wida, and will give 9 feet 5 inches of water at low water spring tide and 17 feet 5 inches at high water. There is an old wharf there, and this is to make an extension to it. The total estimated cost is $20,000. We spent in 190809, $5,008.72, we are now askjng $5,000, and it will require a further amount of $10,000 to complete tha work.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister explain the necessity for such a large expenditure? Has not this wharf been there for a long time?


William Pugsley: I have not a very full detail, but the work has been urged by the hon. member for the county. The wharf already built does not give a sufficient depth of water to accommodate the steamers, so it does not fulfil the purpose for which the money was originally expanded to an extent that is reasonably necessary.


George Halsey Perley: Has the minister any facts regarding this work, or is he simply doing it because the member for the county has asked for it?


William Pugsley: I do it at the request of the member for the county.


George Halsey Perley: Has the minister no report on the subject from any of his engineers?


William Pugsley: I think thers must be a report, but I have no memorandum of it.


George Halsey Perley: Were there any petitions for this?


William Pugsley: I have no record of any.


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is in my constituency. The wharf was built in 1904-5, reaching into 5 or 6 feet at low water, and the intention is to complete it. St. Charles de Caplan is a parish on the Baie des Chaleurs, and there is another parish in the rear. There is a settlement extending into the interior a distance of some twelve miles from the coast. The population today exceeds 2,000, and the postal revenue of the district is close on to $1,000. It is one of the important localities along the bay. This wharf has been called for during years past. Steamers plying along the coast have to stop in the open and land their passengers and freight in scows, and when the weather is unfavourable people cannot get either on or off the boat, but must proceed to New Carlisle, about twenty miles distant in order to get a landing.


George Halsey Perley: The explanation seems fairly good, but I would like to ask about the work done on this wharf in the fall of 1908. I see by the report of the Public Works Department that the wharf was suddenly found to be in a dangerous and dilapidated condition in the fall of the year, and it was necessary to repair it by day labour at a cost of nearly $800. How comes it that this work was ail done between October 14 and November 7, 1908?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: In that year there were some very heavy storms in that part of the country, and it is difficult to have this work done in the seasons when the farmers and fishermen are busy. The timber of course can only be got out in winter.


George Halsey Perley: Was not that the time when the general elections were held?


William Pugsley: A heavy storm came on late in the month.


Robert Laird Borden: What depth of water for the extension?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is a tide of from 6 to 8 feet, and at the lowest tide the depth is at least 6 feet. The tide rises to 12 or 14 feet. I omitted to state that Mr. Fair has taken over the bait freezer from the fishermen's association there, and has entered into a rather extensive fish industry, the selling of fresh fish. He is doing a pretty extensive business. I have had several reports from him showing that quite a profitable business is being done as the result of the construction of that wharf, and the government have been urgently requested to have it brought into sufficiently deep water to enable steamers to effect a landing.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it a fishing place?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Yes, according to the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1909, 200 men are there engaged in the fishing industry, and they own 100 boats. Their fishing tackle is valued at $7,750. The fish district, of which St. Charles de Caplan is the most important centre, brought in last year $111,000.
St. Denis-wharf on River Richelieu-re-vote lapsed, amount, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This will complete a small wharf. The estimated cost is $5,500. We have spent $3,000 and are asking $2,500 to complete.
Ste. Croix wharf-revote of $2,000 lapsed,


William Pugsley: The amount voted being iso small, I did not think we should enter into a contract without coming back to parliament. We are now asking $20,000. The locality is a very important one, and Mr. SPEAKER.
this work has been urged very strongly on our favourable consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any report?


William Pugsley: We have a very full report. Total estimated cost, $46,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How large is the town?


William Pugsley: It is not a town, but it is in the centre of a very populous farming district. There are over 6,000 people to be served by this wharf. For a number of years there has been a regular boat service between Ste. Croix and Quebec, largely used for the transport of agricultural products and other merchandise. The wharf is now badly wrecked, and it is in the public interest that one should be built. We sent an engineer to report and he became satisfied that the demand was reasonable.


Mr. BARNARD.: What is the size of the town?


William Pugsley: It is a village, but the centre of a populous agricultural district. The abutments will be of wood and stone, and the trestle 75 feet wide and 775 feet long, besides a roadway of gravel and sand. There will be 683 lineal feet of open-faced crib work and a head block consisting of 172,175 cubic feet of crib work. We shall have to remove reefs and boulders and level the approaches at both sides to accommodate steamers at low water. We propose to build a waiting room and freight shed and a barn for sheltering stock. Total estimated cost, $46,000.


George Henry Barnard: When did the minister get the reports?


William Pugsley: Some time in 1908, I have not the exact date. This $2,000 was expended for improving the approach, I think.


George Henry Barnard: It seems strange that last year you spent $2,000 and this year you are spending $20,000 and you tell us it will cost $46,000. The ideas of the members for the county seem to have considerably magnified in the last twelve months.


Robert Laird Borden: What county is it in?


William Pugsley: Lotbiniere.


William Wright: $46,000 seems a large sum to spend for a wharf in what must be a small place, as according to the census it was not even incorporated at that time.


William Pugsley: At page 125 of the report a description of the work already done will be found, but that is but a small part of the work we will have to do. The amount required did seem large and I hesitated for quite a while. That is why we

42.3S
did not go on actively with the larger work the year before last, but after having the matter fully looked into we find that we cannot build a wharf giving the accommodation required for less than the sum mentioned. It is a difficult and expensive place in which to construct a wharf. I have had many conversations with the member, who knows how I hesitated in the matter, but he showed the benefit which it would be to the people. The large number of people in the locality, 5,000 or 6,000, have no other means of sending their produce to market. There is no railway and this wharf is absolutely essential to give to the people the accommodation required.


George Halsey Perley: The report says it is on the Intercolonial railway.


Mr. FORTIER.: The Intercolonial railway is too far from these localities to transport the produce of the farmers to the market.


William Pugsley: I understood it was not feasible for the farmers to transport their produce to market by the Intercolonial railway, and that they required to use water transportation.


Robert Laird Borden: There is only a small community which will be served by the wharf, some 5,000 or 6,000 people, and it is impossible to conceive that all of those people would be nearer the wharf than the railway.


Edmond Fortier: It is to serve different parishes.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot understand how the wharf is to be nearer the scattered community of 5,000 people than the railway.


Mr. E. ROY.: The only market for these people is Quebec which is on the north side of the river, while Lotbiniere is on the south side. As the Intercolonial railway stops at Levis, people who want to take supplies to market have to go to Levis and take the ferry and carry their produce to the Quebec market. The only practicable mode of taking produce to Quebec is to go by steamer right through to Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there winter navigation?


Edmond Fortier: No.


George Henry Barnard: If the old wharf was in such a dilapidated condition, why was it deemed desirable to spend $3,000 in repairs, especially when there was a vote of $5,000 for a new wharf?


William Pugsley: What we have done is all good work that will form the approach to the new wharf.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Was the old wharf a government wharf or a private wharf?


William Pugsley: A private wharf.


Robert Laird Borden: Then if private enterprise could build and maintain a private wharf for many years, how is it that the government has now to build a public wharf there?


William Pugsley: That often happens. You will find sometimes that thirty or forty years ago some enterprising man has been in a certain line of business, perhaps shipping lumber, who would build a wharf. He may have failed in business and not have kept the wharf up. In this case the wharf was allowed to go into decay and it has become necessary, if we are to give the people any reasonable accommodation at all, to build a new wharf.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the government own the land?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum with regard to the title, but I feel sure the title to the approach and to the portion which we have built, the crib-work is in the Crown. If my hon. friend wishes the information, I will have it looked up. I am quite sure that is the case, because I remember the question coming up.


Robert Laird Borden: How far is the wharf from the railway?


Edmond Fortier: Ten and a half miles.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: The best part of the municipality consists of farms along the river.


Robert Laird Borden: Without speaking particularly of this wharf, the policy upon which the government are embarking will result in the necessity of building wharfs all over this country. Where private wharfs have existed in the past, we are to have government wharfs in the future. That will be a large undertaking. Take the rivers of this country, both sides of the rivers, wherever a wharf is required, and all indentations of the coast line on both oceans, you will have perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 miles of country upon which the government will have to build wharfs. If you carry that out to the extent of building a $50,000 wharf to accommodate 5,000 or 6,000 people, some of whom' must be fairly well accommodated by a railway, it is going to involve a large policy. Yet I do not see that there will be any escape from it. I know that in the province of Nova Scotia, up to within recent years, the principle was that these wharfs were matters of private enterprise, they were built by private individuals who charged wharfage.


William Pugsley: Up to what time was that?


Robert Laird Borden: Up to a recent year, I think. As I have told the minister, I know of one instance in my own county

where there was a very good private wharf, and a government wharf was built within a quarter of a mile of it; if I remember rightly it was at Port Dufferin. The subject was discussed in this House six or seven years ago. I think it is the very wharf about which some inquiry was made in the House the other day, but I am not absolutely sure of the locality, I had letters from the place at the time, on behalf of the persons who were interested in the private wharf, and who bitterly complained because the wharf they had built, and from which they derived a certain revenue, would be practically put out of business by the government wharf. Well, that does not seem to be a very provident system, to say the least of it. I think the government are embarking upon a pretty large undertaking.


William Pugsley: It is not this government which is embarking upon this policy. The old government built wharfs along the St. Lawrence many years ago, and I remember it was a great complaint we used to make in New Brunswick that the federal government were building wharfs on the St. Lawrence and the provincial government had to build them in New Brunswick. My hon. friend now speaks of Nova Scotia; but perhaps a little later on this evening, or at some other time, we will hear members of this House upon the opposite side complaining of how many wharfs are being built in Nova Scotia as compared with other sections of Canada. This is not a new policy at all. All governments since confederation have engaged in building wharfs, more or less, regarding it as a policy in the interest of the transportation system of the country. I am prepared to justify the building of wharfs wherever they are necessary for the accommodation of the people. Wharfs are so intimately associated with transportation, and with navigation, they are so much a necessity in aid of navigation, that if there is any work that is properly federal work, it is the construction of wharfs. Of course, we must draw a line as to the extent of expenditure to which we shall go. For instance, if a large expenditure is necessary in order to give accommodation' to a limited number of people, we might hesitate in doing that work. But my hon. friend is entirely wrong when he says that he can fairly take the cost of this wharf as a measure of the cost of all other wharfs wdiich are to be constructed. If my hon. friend looks at the expenditure made upon other wharfs he will see they do not at all come up, upon the average, to the cost of this one.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should this one come up so high?


William Pugsley: Because the local conditions are such as to make it necessary to Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
expend more than is usually expended upon wharfs of this character. The physical features of the site often make a great difference in the cost. We can build in one place a wharf for $5,000, whereas in another place we might have to spend, owing to the physical conditions, $10,000 to build a wharf not any better, and perhaps not as good. A great deal depends upon the length of the approach, or how far you have to build your crib-work out in order to get a depth of water sufficient to accommodate steamers. In many cases you will get that depth at fifty feet, and in other places you might have to go out 100 feet or 300 feet to get the same depth of water, and to get the same accommodation for steamers. All these things affect the cost of the wharf. I think in this case wre are justified in expending this amount of money in order to give this accommodation to the people. Here are some 5,000 or 6,000 people whose natural market is the city of Quebec. There is no railway, as has been pointed out, from that portion of the province to the city of Quebec. To take the produce down that railway to Levis and cart it across to the city of Quebec, adds so much to the cost of transportation as to give no profit to the farmers. I think the expenditure, while it is large, can well be justified by reason of the advantage which we give to the people.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think the minister has made out a good case for this particular wharf. No one objects to the government building wharfs where they are needed. The minister is continually harping upon what the Conservative party did in the old days; if he followed them a little moTe closely perhaps he would get on better. He talks about their spending money on wharfs; certainly they did. As a matter of fact, last year thi3 government expended on public works nearly $15,000,000, and in the days of the Conservative party the expenditure was from ten to twenty per cent of that amount. I have no objection to this particular wharf, except that I think the cost is extravagant.


William Pugsley: The country has trebled in business since that time.


George Halsey Perley: But the government is spending eight or ten times as much money on wharfs, and if they were spending it well, I would not mind. But the minister has not yet read us any report from an engineer of his department saying that this wharf was needed at this particular place, a wharf that he estimates will cost $46,000. According to past experience with this government, it is likely to cost $70,000 or $80,000 before they get through with it. The wharf is at a place where there is no incorporated village. We cannot see the

place, and we cannot see these wharfs to judge for ourselves. But here is one across the river at Hull which we can see, and it is an expensive wharf, practically no value to any body. Even there it is built in a city of 10,000 people, but it is hardly used at all. Many of these wharfs built by the government are in places where they are not required, and the government often build wharfs costing four or five times as much as it is necessary to spend, because a wharf costing a quarter of the amount would answer the purpose just as well.


Edmond Fortier: The village of Ste. Croix is not a large town, but it is the chief place in the county. There are six or seven important merchants doing business there, ami a bank and the registry office is located at that point. Unless this accommodation is provided, all the products of farmers will have to go by the Intercolonial railway to Levis, at which point they will have to be transferred to the boat and then taken across the river to Quebec. Instead of doing that, when this wharf is constructed, the produce will be placed on the boat at Ste. Croix and go straight to Quebec, which is the market of the farmers of Lotbiniere. This service is now performed by two boats which call at St. Jean des Chaillons and carry the produce to Quebec. One of these boats goes every fifteen days to Montreal with cheese, butter, potatoes and other products intended for shipment to Europe. With regard to the old wharf, I would like to remind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that it was built only for the accommodation of sail boats. There is not a sufficient depth of water, and these sail boats could only go to this, wharf at high tide.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It seems that we are spending $46,000 of public money to take traffic away from the Intercolonial railway when we have been complaining that there is not enough traffic.


Edmond Fortier: The Intercolonial never had that traffic It was carried by these! boats, but they were not able to come to the wharf at low tide.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand that the Intercolonial runs through this parish?


Rodolphe Lemieux: For about 12 miles.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There are a great many farmers throughout the country who have to team their produce 12 miles to the market or station, and I cannot see that it will be any great hardship to the farmers of this parish to team their produce to the station 12 miles away and ship it to Levis, where it could be sold. It seems to me that we are spending $46,000 to take traffic away from the Intercolonial railway. This i seems a most indefensible expenditure. 1 135
The hon. gentleman who represents the constituency says there are only five merchants at Ste. Croix.


Edmond Fortier: Yes, at Ste. Croix, but this wharf is to serve five or six parishes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That will minimize the traffic that will go over the Intercolonial.


Edmond Fortier: No, the Intercolonial never had that traffic before.


Mr.   S.@: iSHARPE. Where is the traffic going to-day if it is not going over the Intercolonial railway?


Edmond Fortier: It is going by boats of all kinds.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) asked me if we had a report from the engineer. There was a petition presented urging very strongly the necessity for the building of this wharf. The engineer concurred in the views of the petitioners and declared that there was a pressing need for wharf accommodation at Ste. Croix. He says in his report that the parishes supply an immense traffic which must find its way to the market by water. I think that is as strong and distinct as anything could be as to the necessity of this wharf.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to know if the old wharf has served the purpose of the parish up to the present time?


William Pugsley: It did before the days of steamboats. As my hon. friend from Lotbiniere says, this wharf was originally built to accommodate sailing boats.


Edmond Fortier: Yes.


William Pugsley: They did a very large traffic, but now their places have been taken by steamers.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the depth of water that these steam boats would draw?


William Pugsley: Ten or twelve feet. I am told that a river steamer draws about 10 feet of water. A sailing boat could go up and lie aground at low tide by steamers will not do that and unless they can get wharf accommodation the steamers pass by and these farmers would be put to the increased expenditure in bringing their products to market or would have to go out of the business of raising products except for their own immediate use.


George Henry Barnard: I understand the minister to say that there were two steamers which called at this wharf.


William Pugsley: Two steamers the member for that district (Mr. Fortier) says.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: No, three trips each week.


George Henry Barnard: That is rather inconsistent with the idea of the minister that only vessels can get near to this wharf.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: This wharf is not built yet. No steamers can come to the wharf but they do call at the wharf in the adjoining parish of St. Jean des Ohaillons and these two steamers make two trips a week. So, there is one steamer every day calling at that wharf. When this wharf at Ste. Croix is built there will be one steamer a day. I live in the city of Quebec and we want this accommodation because the market 'of Quebec is supplied by the farmers of Lotbin-iere as well as the farmers of other localities. We will find it impossible to get the products of this county at reasonable rates unless this accommodation is provided. If the products have to be transported ten miles to the railway, transferred from the railway to the boat, taken across to Quebec and then taken from the boat to the mai-ket it will so increase the cost that it will be impossible to bring them to Quebec.


George Henry Barnard: We are then asked to vote $46,000 for a wharf that is to accommodate one steamer a day. Does not the minister think that it would be better to build a $6,000 wharf and put the remaining $40,000 into a steamer?


William Pugsley: It has already been 'explained that we cannot get a sufficient depth of water for the steamers without building out a considerable distance and to provide a wharf that will accommodate the steamers will cost this amount.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How far does the old wharf extend out?


William Pugsley: The old wharf was a private wharf and I have no memo as to that.


Edmond Fortier: It is crib work joined by bridges. It extends out about 700 or 800 feet.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is this wharf to be longer than 700 feet?


Edmond Fortier: I have not the details of the new wharf. * The site will have to be changed as there is no water at the old site of the old wharf.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I cannot give the length of the wharf.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Surely the minister is not asking for a vote without knowing how far the wharf will extend?


William Pugsley: I can give specifications of the plan it is now proposed to adopt. First, we are to improve the road down to the foot of the hill at the shore line.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How far inland does that shore extend?


William Pugsley: Just down the bank to the wharf.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is that a private municipal road?


William Pugsley: It will be a public road. Then we will have a crib roadway of timber and stone to the foot of the hill, 85,000 cubic feet; new intermediate block 100 by 22 by 17 equals 87,400 cubic feet; head block average 2124 by 524 by 19 equals 211,964 cubic feet; new trestle roadway 500 feet which will be capable of being removed in the fall. That gives a very good idea in a general way of the extent of the wharf.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In whom is the fee of the roadway leading down to the wharf?


William Pugsley: In the government.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are the approaches to the wharf and the title of the land on which the wharf will be built, in the government?


William Pugsley: All in the government.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will this interfere with the private wharf at which the vessels call at present?


William Pugsley: No, that other wharf is twenty-five miles away. When this wharf is built the steamers which call at the other wharf will call at it.


James Davis Taylor: I wish to know from the minister whether he will entertain with respect to other localities of the same size and importance as this, an application for a wharf that would involve a like expenditure? I have two localities in my riding which have been petitioning for satisfactory wharfs and which cannot get them because the minister seems to think that the expense involved would be too large in proportion to the importance of the district to be served. I have listened very attentively to all the descriptions given of the importance of this district, and as I have said with respect to the other items, if it is a proper item I am certainly not opposed to it. I have heard the minister state that on account of the peculiar situation of this place it unfortunately takes a large expenditure to provide the accommodation, which of course it should have. I quite admit that this locality should have an effective shipping wharf, but I would like the minister to say whether I understood his principle correctly to be, that a wharf should be provided at any cost if a locality needed it. If that is the principle I want to apply^ it in another direction. Is that the principle upon which the minister asks for this appropriation, and if so

is he willing to extend the principle to an application which I shall file when the proper time comes with respect to wharfs which he has withheld from us, because he thinks they will cost more than the trade of the place justified?


William Pugsley: I have not said there was any such principle. The hon. gentleman seems to think that I said that where a wharf was to the public advantage it -would be built no matter what it would cost. I said nothing of the kind, and I never intended to lay down any such principle. What I said was that in this particular case, in view of the large number of people to be accommodated, in view of the report of the engineer, in view of the fact that the only reasonable means the people have of getting to market is by water, I thought we were justified in going to this expense. As to any application which my hon. friend has to submit I can give no promise and assurance whatever beyond this:	that whenever any application is
made I shall feel it my duty to consider the matter very carefully, and I must deal with each individual application upon its merits.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Am I to understand that if any damage results to a private or municipal interest by reason of the construction of a public work the department will make good that damage? I may say that I believe that is a proper principle. When the government was constructing the Trent canal there was a road running parallel to the canal between the counties of Victoria and Ontario; and those engaged in the construction threw the excavated sand on to the public road of the municipality, rendering it almost impassable. I understand that petitions have come to the department asking.for a grant in reference to the gravel road injured in this way on the Balsam division of the Trent canal. I hope the minister will take these petitions into his favourable consideration. The principle involved in this is the same as that which justifies the government in protecting Laprairie and other villages on the St. Lawrence which were injured by water backing up in consequence of certain work done by the harbour commissioners of Montreal. I would ask the minister-to make a grant to the municipalities to regravel that road.


William Pugsley: I would have thought that my hon. friend had heard the Trent Valley canal discussed often enough in the House to know that it is in the Department of Railways and Canals, and not in my department.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I would like to ask the minister if his department has ever prepared a statement showing the length of life of these wharfs, and the expenditure for re-1354
newals per thousand dollars of cost of construction. This would be interesting information to have, because this is a growing expenditure, and it would give us some idea of where we stand with reference to the cost of wharfs throughout the country.


William Pugsley: That has not been figured out.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company -Mr. R. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Kingston, Smith's Falls and Ottawa Railway Company-Mr. Harty.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
St. Joseph de Sorel-wharf on west side of River Richelieu-revote of $3,000 lapsed, $9,000.
['We will proceed on Monday with the naval debate.']
William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards the construction of a pile wharf on the west side of the River Riche-) lieu. There has been a petition for it sent; to the department. We expect this vote will finish the work. We had a vote fori the year ending March 31, 1909, which we did not use. This is a new work.
Sorel-deepwater wharf, $42,000.


William Pugsley: We had a vote last year of $86,000, but we only expended $44,000 of it. We are simply asking now a revote of the appropriation of last year that was unexpended. This will complete the work.
Sorel-breakwater of pile work and stone filling opposite Elizabeth street-revote of $2,500 lapsed, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the construction of a breakwater of pile and stone work. Nothing has yet been expended on this work. This is the total estimated cost. We took a partial vote for it and allowed it to lapse.
Tadousac harbour, north shore of St. Lawrence-wharf on southeast side of Tadousac island-revote of $4,600 lapsed, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is a new undertaking. The old wharf at Tadousac has got into a pretty bad condition, _ and has become dangerous. A new wharf is urgently required, and is expected to cost about

$[DOT]30,000. It will be crib-work filled with stone, and there will be a slip in it, and necessarily a shed upon it.
Three Rivers-deep water coal wharf at west end of harbour, opposite windmill-revote of $7,500 lapsed, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build a wharf which is very much needed at Three Rivers. We took a vote for the year 1908-9 of $7,500, but we did not proceed to let the contract, because the amount was too small to warrant us in entering into the contract without coming back to parliament. The pier which has been built there is required for ordinary merchandise, but there is no accommodation for the very large coal business. The harbour commissioners have urged this upon us, and the member for the county has also strongly urged it. I think also there are petitions for it; at all events, we had an interview by repre-* sentatives of Three Rivers, including the harbour commissioners. This will be a new work. We called for tenders for the work under the appropriation of 1908-9, but owing to the vote being so small, I declined to accept the tenders and returned the cheques. I cannot give the exact amount, but my impression is that the lowest ten-, der was in the vicinity of $140,000. The matter is entirely open, the deposit cheques having been returned. There is at Three Rivers a pier which was built in 1903-4, but that is for general merchandise, and it is fully occupied, so the engineer reports. This is for the purpose of enabling coal to be handled at the harbour. Three Rivers is a place of a good deal of importance. It is the outlet for Shawinigan Falls, some 20 miles away. Unfortunately, there was a severe fire at Three Rivers a year or more ago, which did the place a great deal of injury, but I am told it is building up rapidly again.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is this for the purpose of bringing in coal?


William Pugsley: Coal, and also to afford protection to boats frequenting the harbour.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it under a harbour master? .


William Pugsley: There is a board of harbour commissioners at Three Rivers.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Would the minister inform us just what purpose this wharf is going to serve? Is it the practice of the government now to build wharfs for every municipality that desires that accommodation, or for any private individual who may say that he needs a wharf for his own purposes? Is the government going to lay down piers and build wharfs throughout the entire country wherever there is navigable water? Is the government assuming Mr. PUGSLEY.
not only the control of all the harbours, but also embarking in the enterprise of building piers wherever a harbour is to be used? If so it would seem to me that the government is laying up trouble for itself in the future both in regard to putting docks where there are no docks now, and as to perpetually keeping in repair docks and wharfs that they are now building. It seems , to be a new departure in the policy of the government. I would like to know from the minister if this dock is going to serve any general public purpose, or whether it is serving a local purpose, and what other docks there are? Are there public or private docks, if so are they under any commission, or is this government simply going to build wharfs and docks at that point?


William Pugsley: It is a pretty difficult thing to answer my hon. friend categorically. We cannot lay down any definite rule as to what wharfs shall or shall not be built. For instance, at Fort William, the government is building a quay or wharf a good many hundreds of feet in length. We are doing that to facilitate the handling of merchandise, grain and coal.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is a national lake port.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend say3 it is a national port. I suppose he would say that the harbour of Toronto is a national port. So it is. You cannot say with certainty what is a national port and what is not. In the city of St. John I can well remember that the old government would not do any dredging in the harbour near any wharf because it would be said that they were benefiting the property of the city. They refused absolutely, stating that it was not part of their duty to do it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: So did this government.


William Pugsley: Up to a certain date, but we have broadened out since then.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Lately, yes.


William Pugsley: We have awakened to a clearer realization of the needs of this great country.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is right.


William Pugsley: And I do not think anybody will condemn us for doing it. The government are building a wharf at St. John to facilitate the handling of the business of Canada. I think my hon. friend will say that St. John is entitled to take its place as one of the national ports of Canada.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There is no doubt about that.


William Pugsley: We believe it is, but at the same time there are numerous places throughout Ontario where we have built

and are building wharfs. If my hon. friend will go up to Lake Nipissing, to the Montreal river, to Sault Ste. Marie, and scores of other places in Ontario, he will find that we are building wharfs, not to accommodate any particular railway company or any particular coal or lumber company, but to facilitate the particular business which can be properly handled at that port. At Three Rivers what have we? We have a town of large importance. It is the port of Shaw-inigan, Grand Mere, and other thriving communities situated back from the St. Lawrence. At Three Rivers the coal business has reached enormous proportions. It amounts to 100,000 tons a year, and there is no place at that port where that coal business can be handled. We have a pier built by the government. We had hoped that would be sufficient for the different kinds of merchandise, including coal, but the Harbour Commissioners, the people and the engineers say, no, it is crowded with business, and we have felt that it would be proper to build this pier in order to give accommodation to the rapidly increasing business. I do not know just whom it will help most, but I should think that the community will be the most specially benefited because it will make Tiiree Rivers a very important distributing point for the coal which will be brought there from Nova Scotia and other parts. We do know that a large business is done there in Nova Scotia coal. A 100,000 tons a year, at least, will be distributed from Three Rivers if we give this required accommodation. As to the other question that my hon. friend asked, I may say that the pier which has been already built is placed under the control of the Harbour Commissioners, and this pier, when built, will also be placed under the Harbour Commissioners. I believe the work is a very important one, and if we recognize that it is our duty to assist in facilitating business we can justify to i the fullest extent the building of this wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that the amount voted last year was so small that although tenders were invited none was accepted.


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to advertise for tenders again or to act on any of the tenders received under the first call?


William Pugsley: We have not decided the matter. There would be some reason why we should accept the lowest tender now provided the engineer is of opinion that, considering what difference there may be in the cost of material and wages to-day as compared with the time when the tenders were invited, the lowest tender
is fair and reasonable. We might accept that even at this late date because you will see there is some unfairness in rejecting tenders and then inviting them over again, providing the tenders are reasonable in each case. Therefore, all other things being equal, I would rather be disposed to favour the lowest tender now that we have decided to go on with the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is done is it intended to add to the amount of the tender the additional cost of labour and material compared with what it was when the tender was submitted?


William Pugsley: No, if we accept the tender at all we will accept it as it is put in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many tenders did you receive for this work?


William Pugsley: Six or seven.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose it is too early to give the committee what the tenders are?


William Pugsley: There would be no objection if I had them here, but my impression is that the lowest tender is somewhere in the vicinity of $140,000.


William Wright: What was tne engineer's estimate of the work?


William Pugsley: Between $7,000 and $10,000 higher than the lowest tender.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Is it fair to give that information?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has not given us what the tenders are.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, but the deposits have been returned and the lowest tender need not take it. It does not seem to me to be right that such information should go broadcast, if the department have any idea of dealing with the tenders that have been received by them for the simple reason that this knowledge is given to everybody and to the lowest tenderer that the department deem his figures too low.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have the deposits been returned?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because if the deposits have been returned there is no obligation resting upon any of the tenderers to enter into a contract. It is entirely the option of the tenderer to take it or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was stated some time ago.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Would the minister please state what work will be covered by the vote for Toronto harbour?


William Pugsley: The principal work at Toronto is the building of the entrance to the western harbour which is a very important work. A contract was let for I think $490,000 odd and this vote is to pay the contractor. There is some additional work which we are doing on the pier near the eastern entrance and this vote will also provide for that. I believe the new western entrance is going to be of very great value to the harbour, and while it was costly, it will probably be worth more than its cost to the traffic coming to Toronto.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I agree with the minister as to the importance of the work and the necessity for it, and the wisdom of putting this appropriation in the estimates. The work at the western entrance is now being carried out on the basis of an 18 foot channel, and I believe it is the expectation that the inland waterways of the great lakes are to be standardized to a depth of 22 feet, as far as possible. The main harbours on the great lakes are I understand being deepened to 22 feet, and I would now suggest to the minister that the channel at Toronto be dredged to 22 feet instead of 18 feet as at present contemplated. I am informed that if the present contract is comnleted on the basis of an 18 foot channel it will in all probability have to be deepened in the near future, and that the increased cost of adding this depth after the present work is completed would be far greater than if the channel were deepened to 22 feet now. Would the minister state what is the intention of the department in this regard, and whether the opinion of the resident engineer has been obtained, which I think is a matter of considerable importance, he being on the ground and knowing all the circumstances?


William Pugsley: It strikes me that it would be of no advantage to dredge to a greater depth than we are now dredging until the Welland canal be deepened, and even if that work were undertaken at an early date it would be some time before it could be completed. It seems to me there would be no greater difficulty in dredging the channel to the western entrance to a depth of 22 feet later on, than if we did it at present. I think the revetment walls at each side of the channel are sunk to a depth of 22 feet, but of that I am not absolutely sure, and at any future time the channel can be excavated to a greater depth between these walls just as well as it can be at the present time. I thank my hon. friend for the suggestion and I will have it looked into. I quite realize that in the future we must look to greater depth in our harbours. I am providing to-day for a 25 foot channel in Fort William and Port Arthur, and I am looking forward to having a depth of 25 feet in the harbours on Mr. MACDONELL.
the eastern shores of the Georgian bay, particularly at Tiffin and Victoria which are national harbours and which are so close-'.y allied with Fort William and Port Arthur. If we are going to hold our trade we must make our harbours deep enough to give accommodation to the largest lake vessels.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would have to deepen the canal as well. ,


William Pugsley: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The eastern entrance of the harbour requires immediate attention from the government. The eastern piers are rapidly decaying, and unless they are at once put in proper condition it will cost a very large sum to replace them later on. Will any part of this vote be devoted to that purpose?


William Pugsley: We have done considerable work at the eastern entrance in the past season and the work has been very satisfactory. We intend to continue it during the coming season and we shall take what is required for the eastern channel out of this vote.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Toronto island has been practically washed away on one or two occasions and the breakwater is in urgent need of repair. Very excellent work has been performed there which has had the effect of protecting the island from the full sweep of the sea, and if that work is continued the island can be preserved. If steps are not taken now, not only will the island be in danger, but the work already done will be rendered entirely useless.


William Pugsley: We have received a certificate and report from the city engineer of Toronto testifying to the very satisfactory way in which the work of finishing the breakwater has been done. As now completed it is proving very effective, and we believe, from the reports of our own engineer as well as those of the city engineer of Toronto, that it will give great satisfaction.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any definite system of inspection or checking of the quantities of dredging done? I heard one of the engineers of the department admit on oath that in one case there were larger returns made by the inspector than the capacity of the scow, so that there must have been fraud or looseness or incompetence on the part of the inspector. Where millions of dollars are expended in these dredging contracts there should be competent and experienced inspectors, perhaps more than one on each boat continuously, to check the work properly.


William Pugsley: I may say that we have a very thorough, and as we believe, a very

perfect system of inspection. We have recently made the rule more stringent than it was previously. We require the inspector to be constantly on the work, to personally inspect every scow load, to make his report and with it a solemn declaration that he has a personal knowledge of the quantity in every scow load. Having said that, let me appeal to my hon. friend not to believe one side of a story until he hears the other side, and not to be too ready to take insinuations which are made, but to look into the facts for himself. The hon. gentleman refers to some questions which were put by a certain member of this place. The gentleman who put these ques-House to the chief engineer in another tions assumed that the capacity of the scow was so many cubic yards.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The engineer said that.


William Pugsley: No. I read the evidence, and he put the words into the engineer's mouth. As a matter of fact, upon that very work there were two additional scows which were hired by the contractors from the department, and which had a capacity of nearly 20 cubic yards greater than the quantity stated by the gentleman who examined the chief engineer. That fact explains the whole matter.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When was the new system of inspection inaugurated?


William Pugsley: In 1908, about a year after I became minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister did not commence a moment too soon, because I have a very distinct recollection of a good many irregularities in connection with the dredging system. For instance, in one case an inspector was inspecting two dredges which were operating a quarter of a mile apart.


William Pugsley: He was dismissed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And he was at the time an employee of one of the dredging companies. it was admitted, I think, that it was utterly impossible for him to do his duty, but all the same payments were made on the returns he sent in.
Mt. PUGSLEY When I became minister in August, 1907, I took occasion to look into the matter carefully and to consider with my deputy what we could do to surround the dredging operations with the greatest possible safeguards; and in the following season we did adopt what we think are proper safeguards. We send out instructions in writing to the inspectors that if they do not give personal attention to the work they will be at once dismissed without notice, and we require them with each return to make a solemn declaration that they have been personally on the
work and have a personal knowledge of all the scow loads which were removed. In the case to which my hon. friend refers, the moment it came to the knowledge of the department that the inspector was attending to those two dredges we dismissed him.	[DOT]


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the wage of the inspectors?


William Pugsley: The wages vary, but the usual wage is $3 a day.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The inspectors are continuously on the dredge?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: What did the minister mean by saying that the member who questioned the chief engineer put the answer into his mouth? Did he suggest to the witness a certain capacity of the scow?


William Pugsley: No; what I said was this: The member took the capacity of a certain scow and assumed that that was the capacity of all the scows, and asked the engineer how he accounted for it that 200 cubic yards were returned when the capacity of the scow was only 190 yards. The engineer said he could not account for it. As a matter of fact, at that time there where two other scows with a capacity of 210 cubic yards each.


William Wright: I would like to draw the minister's attention to an application which I have made on two or three occasions to have a small wharf constructed at a place called Beaumarais, on the Muskoka lakes.
I do not find any item for it in the estimates. I hope the minister will take a note of it and make provision for it. Beaumarais is a very important point. The wharf is getting into a very dilapidated condition, and is very dangerous to the travelling public. If I told the minister the amount of tonnage that calls at that wharf he would be very much surprised.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. gentleman if that is a private or a public wharf?


William Wright: It was built originally by a private individual; but he has offered to hand it over to the .government free of charge if they will take it. They can get it by building a new wharf.
Manitoba-harbours, rivers and bridges- general repairs and improvements-$8,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual general vote taken every year to cover repairs to wharfs for which there is no special vote. It was $6,000 last year; we are asking for $8,000 this year.


Mr. STAPLES.: I have watched the estimates come down from year to year since 1904, and I have failed to find any appro

priation for the completion of a wharf on Lake Manitoba, near St. Laurent. The government undertook to construct a wharf there in 1904, but they got it into their heads all at once that it was necessary to commence this piece of work without calling for tenders. They have expended almost $16,000; and so far as any value is concerned up to the present, that money might as well have been thrown into the fire. The work stands there a monument of the wonderful ability of this government to spend public money just before the elections. The people were promised that this would be carried to completion, but the day after the elections, the work ceased, the dredge was taken away and has not been sent back since; but I might tell the hon. minister that there was an election in 1908, which no doubt he remembers when the same parties, or some of them, went to these good people and said they regretted very much that this work had not been completed, but that it would certainly be gone on with provided the people voted for the government candidate. Well, the people did support the government candidate. In a particular poll where I got 28 of a majority in the election of 1904, my opponent got a majority of 65. Surely the people have done their duty. They took the government at their word on two occasions, and yet that piece of work stands there unfinished-not a dollar in the estimates or supplementaries to complete it, and it has so far cost the people uselessly $15,978. I would like to know if the minister still intends to leave that piece of work unfinished? I put a number of questions on the order paper this session regarding it which, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Railways and Canals answered. They will be found on page 1240 of ' Hansard.' The Minister of Railways told the House that this was a piece of work in first-class condition, that it offered facilities to meet the public requirements in that locality and so on. But the fact is, we cannot get to that wharf. His answers, however, would lead the House to believe that you could get there with almost an ocean going vessel. Why, we cannot get there with anything larger than a canoe.


William Pugsley: The work to which my hon. friend refers was evidently laid out upon a pretty large scale. It was begun in 1902 or 1903, and at that time it was expected that there would be considerable railway development in that locality, and also that a .large freezer would be established there, and it was proposed to build two piers on Lake Manitoba and dredge the channel between that and a lake nearby, and then have a wharf on the other side of the lake, which would be reached by a railway and where a freezer would be lo-Mr. STAPLES
cated. There were strongly signed petitions for this work, including one from the Board of Trade of Winnipeg The expenditure incurred has been made upon the piers in Lake Manitoba and also in dredging out the channel between the two lakes. By the plan it was intended to dredge across the lagoon and then build a wharf at the opposite side. Just at present, I am not impressed with the immediate necessity of doing that work, particularly in view of the fact that the large freezer contemplated has not been erected and that the expected railway development has not taken place. During the past year we have expended on those piers $513.13, and they are serving quite a useful purpose.


William D. Staples: I do not know where the hon. minister has got his information as to the usefulness of that work. I have letters from various constituents living up there, and I have been there myself and have seen the work, and it is of no practical value. The minister says he is not particularly concerned about it and has no intention of continuing it. It would have been better if this government had taken their present view before spending $16,000 of the people's money for no practical use. But the work, if completed, would be of great practical value to the people of that district. So far as the freezer is concerned, would any sane person undertake to build a freezer, which might cost thousands of dollars, before he could get goods to utilize the freezer for any purpose? And so far as railway development is concerned, the Canadian Northern railway say they are quite ready to build a spur into this wharf as soon as it is built. The minister now says he does not propose appropriating any money to complete this work. What right then had these very keen politicians, before the election of 1908, to advise the people that if they would support the government candidate, this work would be completed?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend makes statements as to certain alleged facts, of which I was not aware. He says that tHe railway company has agreed to do its part of this development work by building a spur to the water. So far as my information goes, we have no record of any such offer.


William D. Staples: I do not know that it would be necessary that the department should have any record of what the company intend doing. The people of the district have the promise of that company that when this work is completed, a spur will be built.


William Pugsley: During the last year or two we have been obliged to go somewhat slowly in public works.


William D. Staples: You should also go slowly in promises.


William Pugsley: My information is that the work done is very useful in connection with the shipping on Lake Manitoba. I have felt that it is not unreasonable that before going to the large expenditure necessary to dredge the lagoon and build a wharf on the other side we shouldjiave an assurance from the railway company that they would do their part towards the development of the locality. If the railway company would submit a memorandum of their willingness to, make the extension as soon as we built the wharf, the matter would have my most careful consideration.


William D. Staples: On whose advice is the minister acting as to the usefulness of this work?


William Pugsley: The advice I have is the information I received from the resident engineer, Mr. Dufresne, as to existing conditions.


William D. Staples: Have you any letters containing that information? The people up there would foe glad to know just what it is.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend would convey to the people the answer at page 1240 of Hansard', he will see the statement made to the House and the representation of the resident engineer.


William D. Staples: I have several litters from people in that district saying that the answer referred to is anything but accurate, and that if this wharf was completed there is no doubt the railway company would build the spur. I protest at the government expending $16,000 on a work that is of no practical use. It was spent when an election was pending to secure a' few votes, the people supported the government candidate and it is up to the Minister of Public Works to carry out the promise that was then made by somebody.


William Pugsley: Nobody had my authority to make any statement in regard to this work. I was not aware that any such statements were being made and certainly never authorized any such statement. It would not be unreasonable that my hon. friend should ask the people to communicate with the railway company and ask whether they will engage to build this spur.


William D. Staples: I desire to see this work completed, and I would think the government, to avoid the criticism they subject themselves to foy spending that _ money on a useless work, would be desirous of making it of some practical use.


William Pugsley: It is curious that I have had no communication from any
people in the locality on the subject. It was represented that the Manitoba Fish Company and a Gypsum Company would make large shipments from here, but that has not been the case.


William D. Staples: How could they when the work was not completed?


William Pugsley: The piers could be used for a landing and if tne people wished the improvements it would be easy for them to have the Canadian Northern write me that they were prepared to build the spur and for these other companies to write that they would do their share.


William D. Staples: I would expect the minister not to wait to ask the Canadian Northern railway or any other company what they propose to do but would send some one up to ascertain whether or not the work was of any value and then come here and tell us straight.


William Pugsley: My engineer has been up theTe and has reported.


William D. Staples: If the work was not worth completing it was not. worth starting, and the government should have had the necessary information before beginning it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any connection between the building of the freezers and the fishing companies who received the very cheap licenses?


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Why did he spend $16,000 without an assurance from the company that they would build their share?


William Pugsley: It was all done before I became minister, therefore, I cannot tell what assurances there were. But I would suppose that at the inception of this work there were assurances. Probably the fishermen said:	We are going right to
work and build the freezers. I suppose the Canadian Northern railway said: We are going to work and build the spur; and the Gypsum Company said:	We
will ship all our gypsum in that way. Then my predecessor, did the government part of the work, that is the only part that has been done. This Freezing Company has not materialized, this Gypsum Company has not attempted to ship any of their products, and the Canadian Northern railway has not begun to build its spur. Although I have been minister for nearly three years, I have not received a single word from those people, I have not received a single assurance that if we did go on and finish up this additional work, any of these things will materialize.


William Henry Sharpe: Would not these assurances still be in the department?


William Pugsley: I do not know if they 1 are in the department or not.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I happen to know something about this district, although it is not in my constituency. I think if the minister understood the conditions there he would not hesitate for a moment in building that dock in such a way that it could be used. The dock is built in a position to-day that it is of very little use, no steamboat can get near it. I think it would not cost much to do sufficient dredging to let a steamboat in. I would like to say that the Gypsum Company has been in operation for years, they are shipping hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gypsum down that lake, and they are compelled now, for the want, of a wharf, to take it right down to the bottom of Lake Manitoba and up the Westbourne river, and it is very difficult to get up that river, and very expensive. I am satisfied if the minister understood the situation he would complete that dock.


William Pugsley: It is a curious thing that none of these interests have communicated with me on the subject at all.


William Henry Sharpe: What would it cost to finish that in proper shape?


William Pugsley: I have not that information, but I would be glad to get it.


William D. Staples: Will the minister send his engineer up there and get estimates, provided he is not prepared to take the word of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and myself with regard to the usefulness of it? Will the minister even go that far, and ascertain what is required to be done, and about what will be the cost?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to look into the matter further, and to get a report from the engineer, Mr. Dufresne, who I presume is familiar with all the facts.


William Henry Sharpe: Would you not have information as to the cost in the department?


William Pugsley: We no doubt have the original scheme as outlined, but I would not have a report as to the present condition.


William D. Staples: There is a matter I wish to bring up though it does not come under this item, but under the next one. There is another piece of work the government have been doing in the constituency of Portage La Prairie, adjacent to the constituency of Macdonald; that is on the Assi-niboine river. Could the minister give me any information as to the condition of that work? It is with reference to straightening out the river in order to let the water run a little more freely, and prevent the flooding of some land.


William Pugsley: I would like very much if my hon. friend would intimate to me


William Pugsley: beforehand what information he wants on any particular item. I have not got the papers here to-night, or any notes in connection with any work except those that are actually in these estimates. I could not give my hon. friend the information which he asks for. All I know is that the work was reported as being very useful, but just in what stage it is I am not prepared to say.


William D. Staples: I think it is pretty well completed. I have a return here that I moved for last session, in reference to this piece of work. This piece of work, like other work in that district, has occasioned a great deal of dissatisfaction. There is quite a large return here, and it is really laughable to read some of the communications. I find that some keen politicians were mixed up in it in the election of 1908. They even went so far as to dip down into their own pockets and pay the necessary money in order to keep the work going without creating dissatisfaction until the election was over. That is the position of affairs. They went on and completed this work on a piece of land before they even had a title to it. Now the Minister of Public Works cannot get away from this particular piece of work, he was minister, I believe, at the time. I think it is nearly completed now. But there are some letters here that would really make a person laugh to read them, from men who were concerned, Mr. Macpherson, a lawyer from Portage la Prairie, and even the outside leader of the opposition in Manitoba, Mr. Edward Brown, who was very active in it, and guaranteed the payment to a certain Mr. Armstrong for certain lands. But before he got through with the government, they wrote even to the Minister of Public Works very strong letters, that would indicate they were not very well satisfied with the way in which the government had treated them. I do not know what understanding there may have been between the government and these particular persons. But Mr. Macpherson had to write a good many letters, and write some rather plain letters, before he got his money back that he had put in it, and also certain other bills paid. The minister apparently does not know in what condition the work is in, and I would suggest that he let this item stand until he arms himself with the necessary information.


William Pugsley: Much as I would like to oblige my hon friend, he must see how unreasonable it would be to let these items for the coming year all stand over until I can get some information of a work that was done upwards of a year ago, and with regard to which he can get the fullest information before the Public Accounts Committee


William D. Staples: I moved for this return on the 22nd of April last year, and only got it a few days ago.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not understand. He seems to think it has been done. As far as I know, he regards that as being satisfactory. But what my hon. friend wants to do is to indulge his curiosity in regard to what he says took place between some of the people engaged on the work. I must urge that this item of harbours, rivers and bridges should not be allowed to stand over. We will come later on to a dredging vote. Probably next week there will be some further items in public works, and I shall be glad to get the information for my hon. friend, but I trust he will not urge that these important items should stand over. We want to get along as rapidly as we can. I hope to get as far as the British Columbia items to-night, and I hope my hon. friend will not endeavour to delay these items.


William D. Staples: I do not wish to retard the progress of this House a moment. I have sat in this committee night after night when the minister had his estimates before the committee, waiting for an opportunity to bring up one or two little things regarding Manitoba, and I do not think he can accuse me of entering into any discussion for the purpose of delaying the House. But I do not propose to allow the minister to sit down and say that I have brought these items up simply as a matter of curiosity.
I think this committee is entitled to know the way in which this government have undertaken to do certain public works, and that they have undertaken to do this piece of work on land for which they had not the title. I do not think that is conducting public business on a very good principle. This work was done on property before they had the title. The minister cannot get away from that.


William Pugsley: The title is in the Crown.


William D. Staples: It is now; it was not when this work was going on.


George Henry Bradbury: Do I understand the
minister to say that we can discuss any question relating to Manitoba?


William Pugsley: At any time.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: Can we get anything more definite than this statement of ' harbours, rivers and bridges '?


William Pugsley: Perhaps I can answer my hon. friend's question best by showing him what was expended last year. Last-year, we only spent $2,654, but the resident-engineer thinks that, taking all the different works together, we ought to take a vote of $8,000. We may not spend the whole
of it; we may not spend more than two-thirds of it.


George Henry Bradbury: Just for repairs?


William Pugsley: Just for general repairs and work which may spring up during the fiscal year for which we have no other provision.
Lake Winnipeg-wharfs, $10,000. .


William Pugsley: This is an amount which we are taking to provide for what we think possibly may be some wharf accommodation required on Lake Winnipeg in view of the improvements which have just been completed at St. Andrew's rapids, and which will enable steamers to leave the city of Winnipeg, pass down te Red River and to the foot of Lake Winnipeg. We believe that there will be considerable traffic developed, and we think that necessarily it will have to be provided, for by thej building of one -or two wharfs which would probably serve as breakwaters as well. There should be at the northern part of the lake a breakwater, and we -may utilize that as a wharf as well.


George Henry Bradbury: Has the minister any idea where any of these wharfs should be built?


William Pugsley: We have not decided at what places, because it is a new business that is going to be opened up.


George Henry Bradbury: I understand. I would like to say that at Gimli there is already a government wharf with an L built across. We hope that the government will extend that L for the purpose of making a harbour there. It is now the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway on Lake Winnipeg and it is a very important place. I do not know whether the government have a petition or not, but I think that a petition from Gimli was prepared asking for the extension of this wharf, 120 or 150 feet.


William Pugsley: They are asking for 100 feet.	*


George Henry Bradbury: That is a very important matter, and I would like to impress upon the minister the necessity of doing the work. All the boats that ply from Selkirk to the head of Lake Winnipeg pass this place. It is a very shallow lake, storms come up very rapidly, and the waves get very ugly there. There is no way of getting into Gimli when there is a heavy sea on at the present time, and if this 100 feet were built and a little dredging done it would make a first-class harbour for any boat on the lake, and it would be a great benefit to the people of Gimli, to the steamboat owners and t-o everybody wh-o is doing business on that lake. I would, therefore, urge the minister to -provide a sum to extend the wharf at this point this year.


William Pugsley: We have been already urged to make an extension of the wharf at Gimli, and the matter is under consideration. It will be quite possible to use part of this vote for this purpose. We intend to have a pretty careful survey of the harbours of Lake Winnipeg made with the view of expending any money on wharfs at points where it would be of the greatest advantage, always keeping in mind the importance of having some harbours of refuge which are essential to the preservation of life and the safety of shipping. As my hon. friend knows, storms arise very quickly on that lake, and it is essential to the safety of shipping that there should be some harbours of refuge at different points on the lake.


Alexander Haggart: The building "of these wharfs on Lake Winnipeg, the deepening of _ the river at the mouth and the construction of the St. Andrew's rapids all point to the fact that the destination of the trade which is expected to be developed will be the city of Winnipeg. If it is to be the destination of that trade we certain want wharfs. In the olden times when the river was navigated by the old Eed Eiver steamers with flat bottoms and stern wheels, any part of the bank was a wharf. They simply ran the prow of the boat upon the prairie and loaded or unloaded. But, if Lake Winnipeg is to be navigated, it will be by lake steamers which will come up through the lake and the Eed. river, and we will want a wharf at Winnipeg; otherwise there will be great inconvenience to transportation. There is expected to be a large trade in stone, timber and cordwood, and unless there are facilities for unloading there will be great inconvenience. Just in connection with this I would like to mention that now would be the time to procure a site, and now would be the time to lay out a plan for the wharf, because property along that river is being very rapidly acquired, a great deal of it by the railway companies. The minister ought not to lose sight of that.


William Pugsley: 
George Henry Bradbury: With reference to the bridge over the St. Andrews dam-


William Pugsley: We are going to build that bridge.


George Henry Bradbury: That is just what I want to know.


George Henry Bradbury: 


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: Then I will not discuss it. I am very glad that the minister has seen the necessity of doing that work.


William D. Staples: Does the minister mean that he is going to build the approaches?


William Pugsley: The approaches to the bridge.


William D. Staples: The intention is to build the approaches?


William Pugsley: The intention is to complete this work by building the approaches. The bridge is designed as a service bridge in connection with the dam, and also for a highway bridge. I just want to say, I have to say it now in the absence of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that I was greatly surprised at the statement he made here as to the uselessness of that work at St. Andrews rapids, and I was more surprised that hon. gentlemen from Manitoba who are familiar with the facts, and know the vast public importance of this work should allow these remarks to pass unnoticed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) stated it was a waste of public money, that he had been down to see it, that it was a splendid piece of work which was entirely unnecessary, and would not serve any good purpose. That is the effect of what the hon. member for North Toronto said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister is doing the hon. member (Mr. Foster) an injustice. I understood him to say that owing to the elevation of that work, although it is a good piece of work, it would be of no value unless approaches were built.


William Pugsley: No, the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was speaking of the whole work as being away beyond the necessity of the times, and as being an extravagance and a waste of public money. I desire to say that in my judgment there is no more useful work in Canada than that lock and dam in St. Andrews rapids. There is no work that is more likely to lead in the near future to a large traffic. We have designed the bridge as a highway bridge, and a service bridge. The extra expenditure to make it a highway bridge is not very great, and we purpose proceeding during the coming season with the building of the approaches. I visited this work, and I met there the representatives of the municipalities, and I told them I would take their request into my careful consideration. I have much pleasure in announcing for the information of our friends from that portion of Manitoba which is more particularly interested in this work, that during the coming season we will build the approaches to the bridge so that the people on both sides may have the accommodation.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) does not need any one to defend him in this House, but he is not here to defend himself, and while I think the minister does not want to be unfair to the hon. member (Mr. Foster), yet the minister made a mistake when he said that the hon. member for North Toronto had declared the work to be useless.


Glenlyon Campbell: He made a big mistake.


George Henry Bradbury: I was present with the hon. member (Mr. Foster) when he investigated this work, and what he did say was that he considered the expenditure altogether too large for the requirements of the place. As the representative of that constituency I am not prepared to say that the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was not right. The government has spent a large sum of money there, and they have certainly done an excellent piece of work, and I must give the department credit for having erected one of the best steel structures of that kind on this continent.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Henry Bradbury: Whether that large expenditure is warranted at the present time I am not prepared to say, but at all events, what the hon. member for North Toronto argued was that the putting of the passenger bridge on top of the work required for the steel girders to allow the ice to pass had occasioned an increased expenditure of something like $200,000.


William Pugsley: The increase would not be $20,000.


George Henry Bradbury: I have to take the word of the minister, but against it I have the word of the engineer in charge of the bridge at the time whom I asked what the extra cost of providing for the passenger bridge was-


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will pardon me. The hon. member for North Toronto was simply speaking of the bridge that was there; he was not speaking of the approaches, and he said we had spent $200, 000 beyond what it would have been necessary to spend if we had not provided that portion of it for a highway bridge, and he said that money was wasted. As to that he is all wrong; my engineer informs me that $20,000 will be the extra cost.


George Henry Bradbury: Had the minister maintained his position of last session that he would not build the approaches-


William Pugsley: I did not say I would [DOT] not.


George Henry Bradbury: It was pretty near that.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


George Henry Bradbury: If the minister had not built the approaches then the member for North Toronto would be right.


William Pugsley: I have been up there since, you know, and I have seen the place.


George Henry Bradbury: When the member for North Toronto criticised that work he stated that it was an excellent piece of work, but at the same time he did not feel that the large expenditure was justified at the present -time. The hon. member (Mr. Foster) pointed out with reference to the lock, and I think he was right in that, that if the traffic from Lake Winnipeg and the north is going to be anything as- great as that heavy expenditure would indicate, then the lock is surely too small, because at the present time it will not tak-e an ordinary lake barge and a tug at the same time, it is only possible to take one barge through the lock by the old style of towing. Probably that is one of the things the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Foster) was drawn to when he was on the ground, and he realized that a larger lock should be provided in view of the great expenditure. I think the minister told me lasit year that the work would cost $1,500,000.


William Pugsley: Not so much, about $1,250,000.


George Henry Bradbury: I will not criticise this work further. I congratulate the minister that at last he has seen eye to eye with myself as to the absolute necessity of completing that work. It would have been folly to allow that -work to stand in the position it was in last year because it was useless for a passenger bridge as no one could get near it. I am glad the minister has made up his imind to complete it.
Red River projection-new entrance to channel at its mouth, $10,000.


George Henry Bradbury: What does the minister intend to do at the mouth of the river?	*


William Pugsley: We are to build protecting jetties to prevent the filling of the new channel at the mouth of the river. These jetties are to be respectively 400 feet and 300 feet long, pile work. A new channel 4,000 feeit long and about a hundred feet wide, 4 feet 5 inches deep at low water and 9 feet 5 inches deep at high water, has been dredged at the bar, and we propose, by means of these protection jetties, to keep the current in that channel.


George Henry Bradbury: That is a work which is very much needed, and I am glad the department is taking that way of making the channel. Thousands of dollars have

been wasted at the mouth of the river, and the method which the government is adopting wall I hope make a permanent channel.
Winnipeg Beach harbour-protection pier on Lake Winnipeg, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a very necessary work, and we propose going on with it this year.	.


George Henry Bradbury: I may say that this is a very necessary work. I urged this on the hon. minister last year as strongly as I could. He stated that the finances of the country did not then warrant him in going on with the work, but I am glad that he has provided for it this year. I have in my hand a petition from the residents of Winnipeg Beach, addressed to the ministgr, and signed by the mayor of the village, W. J. Woods, by counsellors A. C. Dukes, J. Stacey, Wm. J. Howes, and by the secretary, J. D. Forster, praying that this work be commenced immediately and be completed as soon as possible. They point out the absolute necessity of commencing the work before the ice goes away, if the minister has any intention of building it this spring, as I hope he has, because a great deal of the piling can be done on the ice, which could not be done afterwards, except at much greater expense.


William Pugsley: I may say that I have seen the locality and recognize the very great importance of this work, in the way of providing a suitable breakwater and harbour of refuge at this point on Lake Winnipeg. We are endeavouring to expedite the work as much as possible. We are taking all the preliminary steps in the hope that by next week we shall probably be able to call for tenders, so that the moment the Appropriation Act passes a contract can be entered into. In the meantime it will be intimated to the parties who are the lowest tenderers, so that they can get the timber out before the ice leaves. Now, let me call the attention of the .committee to the remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on the subject of the dam and lock at St. Andrews. It was a matter of surprise to me that my hon. friends from Manitoba should have let those remarks pass without correcting the hon. gentleman. I think common fair play to the Department of Public Works and to the government should have induced the hon. gentlemen who are so zealous for this work and know its importance to correct the hon. member for North Toronto. This is what the hon. gentleman is reported to have said, at page 1498 of 'Hansard.'


Alexander Haggart: What was being debated at that time?


William Pugsley: It was the Budget. Referring to St. Andrews lock, the hon. member for North Toronto said:
Mr. BRADBURY
Whilst in the west, I took an automobile trip down the Red river to see a very notable, noted, or notorious work, called the St. Andrew's lock. There you have a very fine work. The total cost of it, I believe, is to be over $600,000.


George Henry Bradbury: A million and a half.


Mr. FOSTER.: Six hundred thousand dollars has been spent now.


George Henry Bradbury: Over a million.


George Eulas Foster: It is worse than I thought it was. Supposing we put it at a million or a million and a quarter. Has the Prime Minister ever seen it?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have not had that privilege.'


George Eulas Foster: Has the Prime Minister ever inquired into it?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is a very weak reply. The Prime Minister is head trustee for the people of Canada. Will he now justify his conduct as head trustee for the people of Canada in sinking a million and a quarter of money in the St. Andrew's locks? Of that amount, $200,000 is for a highway bridge, for which no vote was ever taken, and that bridge lies there in its naked steel splendour, thirty-five or forty feet up in air from the road on either side.
Let me pause to remark that that bridge is essentially and primarily a service bridge for the purpose of operating these curtains in connection with the dam, and the amount spent to date on making that service bridge a highway bridge, which was also to be used as a highway- bridge, was somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 instead of $200,000 as stated by the hon. member for North Toronto. Then he proceeds :
I want to ask the Prime Minister, as head trustee for the people of Canada, to tell me to-night if he can get any three business men in the city of Winnipeg to put within his hand any justification, on the traffic that exists at present or on the business which may be expected in the near future, for the ex- ' penditure of a million and a quarter of money on that work? It is one of the finest pieces of concrete masonry and steel I ever saw; but where is the business to come from ? It is an absolute waste of public money at the present time. Was that brilliant work, when the head trustee himself does not know a thing about it? Who does know? Somebody; and somebody ought to have told it.
If my hon. friend thought then, as he thinks to-night, that this was a most useful public work, and that it opened up possibilities for the development of traffic in stone, timber, cordwood and other resources, which will no doubt be developed in the future along the shores of that great lake, which is larger than Lake Ontario, surely it was his duty to have risen in the House and told the hon. member for North Toronto and the people of Canada that he was entirely mistaken in charging the government with building a public work for which there would be no business, and

which, therefore, was an absolute waste of public money. I desire to say that I have carefully inquired into the matter, and I do believe that the construction of that lock and dam at St. Andrews rapids is going to be the means of opening up between points on Lake Winnipeg and the city of Winnipeg a traffic which will grow to very large dimensions; and a man does not need to have a very prophetic vision to be able to look forward to the not distant future when, by the construction of a few locks near the mouth of the Saskatchewan, we can hatve steamboat accommodation all the way from Winnipeg to within a comparatively short distance of the foothills of the Eocky mountains, about 100 miles west of Edmonton, and this dam at St. Andrews rapids is the first link in this great chain of inland transportation.


Mr.   BEADBTJEY@: I am not going to dispute what the hon. gentleman says as regards the importance of this work. But I do not think it is altogether fair to the hon. member for North Toronto. He seeks to convey to this committee and to the country that the hon. member for North Toronto condemned the work in its entirety. This would not be fair or correct.


William Pugsley: If language means anything, he did.


George Henry Bradbury: I differ with the hon. gentleman. What the hon. member for North Toronto said was that a million and a quarter was a larger amount of money than was justified under the circumstances. This work has a history which the hon. minister does not perhaps know; but we who have lived in that country, some twenty-five years know that government after government has been approached to build this great work. I remember that when the Hon. McKenzie Bowell, who was then premier of this Dominion, was in Winnipeg, he met the board of trade of that city at the city hall, and after listening to their representations, he told them that if they could show him anything to justify the expenditure, he would make it. At that time the engineers of the government estimated the cost at half a million dollars, but it has cost instead $1,500,000 or very close to that amount. I am not prepared to admit that such a large expenditure was absolutely necessary to create the dam and the dock at St. Andrews rapidf but the work erected there is a magnificent piece of work and a credit to the government that did it. I believe, however, that we could have built a piece of work there, which would have answered the purpose just as well for perhaps one half the expenditure the government have made. That, I think, was the position which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) took.


William Pugsley: You could hardly get that system of curtains for the amount you mention.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister will admit that this is the only system of curtains on this continent.


William Pugsley: Quite so, and this is the only work of that character on this continent.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think so You will find other rivers that have a dam and a lock built along these lines.


William Pugsley: Eunning from south to north ?


George Henry Bradbury: I do not know.


William Pugsley: That is just where the difference is.


George Henry Bradbury: I am quite satisfied that a work could have been built there which would have suited the purpose just as well for much less money. Fifteen yearn ago we had as resident engineer in Winnipeg, one of the brightest engineers the department has ever had, and he never proposed any such work as this. There can be no question that we could have built a work which would have answered the purpose just as well, without these steel curtains. At the same time, now that the work is completed, I am not going to criticise it; but when the hon. member for North Toronto spoke, what he deprecated was the very large expenditure in excess of what he thought was justified under the circumstances. He was not condemning the work itself or a proper expenditure. Had he done so, I would have expressed my dissent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. minister to say that work was contracted for, involving an expenditure of about $200,000, before there was any item in the estimates.


William Pugsley: No. That is what the hon. member for North Toronto said. He said that $200,000 had been expended without any vote, but that statement lacked the essential element of truth.


Alexander Haggart: I think we might now leave this. This bridge has been built, the money has been spent, the work is there, we have had the opinion of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and we now have the opinion of the minister, and I certainly sympathize with the minister and hope that every prophecy he has made will be realized. In connection with the other item, the building of this pier at Winnipeg beach, that is a work in which the people of Winnipeg are deeply interested. That beach has been much improved by the Canadian Pacific railway. It is within about 40 miles of the

city, and is one of the outing places for its population of 170,000. By furnishing fast trains and giving good accommodation, the Canadian Pacific railway has given the people of Winnipeg the opportunity of enjoying an outing at that beach for the day or the week's end. A large amount of pleasure craft have their headquarters there, but these boats run the risk of being destroyed by every storm that blows. During Christmas time I was approached by many people who represented to me the crying need for the construction of a pier at that beach, and they want it begun now so that they may enjoy the benefit of it this summer. Now that the river has been dredged, there is water communication between Winnipeg and that beach, but no valuahle boat can be left there over night for lack of this protection. Hundreds' of people have cottages and live there during the summer months, as it is convenient for business men who can leave there in the morning and be in town in time for their work. It is really the only summer resort near Winnipeg where people can have their summer homes, and at the same time attend daily to their business. All classes of citizens have been urging me to use my best endeavours to have the minister go on with that work with all the expedition possible, but I doubt very much if the sum of $10,000 will be adequate.


William Pugsley: It will take something more than that, but w i intend to proceed as rapidly as possible with it. It will take about $16,000 to finish it.


George Henry Bradbury: I want to draw the
attention of the minister to the fact that at Hecla island, or Big island, on Lake Winnipeg, there are about 50 or 60 settlers. It is an old settled district. All the steamers coming to or going from the north pass by this island, and a great many stop there to take on wood. A wharf of some kind should be built at that place, and I would urge the hon. minister to investigate it this summer, and have his [DOT]engineers select a site for a wharf there. I notice in the estimates quite a number of wharfs provided in the eastern provinces, and I do not think I am asking too much when I urge on the minister to provide a wharf at this island. It would not cost more than $5,000 or $6,000 and will be a great accommodation to steamboats and people who have no wav of gst-ting from the island except by boat. There is a large quantity of wood there, which has now to be shipped under great difficulties, besides agricultural products.


William Pugsley: My object in providing this vote was to do these very things. It is to provide that, after careful examination, we may give wharf accommodation where needed. The representation of my Mr. A. HAGGART.
hon. friend regarding Hecla island will have my most serious consideration.


Glenlyon Campbell: With regard to the appropriations for 1910-11, I would like to ask the minister what has happened the yearly appropriation I have seen in the estimates during the last five or six years for the lowering of Lake Dauphin and taking care of the silt at the mouth of the Mossv river? Is there any special reason why these works have been, eliminated?


William Pugsley: This work, if it be useful work, of course the government will look into carefully. It can be done out of the general dredging vote with our own dredging plant, and we do not require a.special appropriation for it.


Glenlyon Campbell: The dredging at the mouth of the Mossy river was done in a very inadequate way, those operating the dredge knew nothing about their business, they took up the mud from one side of the boat and dumped it on the other, and the northeast wind sent the sand back into the old channel. If the dredging is not done this summer, it would be impossible for boats to get into the mouth of the river.


William Pugsley: I am going to have it looked into. I have not been satisfied "with the way that work has been proceeding, and I want to see if we cannot have it go along more satisfactorily.


Glenlyon Campbell: Thank you.
Harbours and rivers, Saskatchewan and Alberta-Athabaska riier-removal of boulders and deepening channel through sand and gravel bars, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to do work urgently required to improve the navigation of the Athabaska river. There is a gerat deal of settlement going on north of Edmonton and we have as rapidly as possible to make provision for the people. The only way to get to remote districts is by the river. Some have motor boats, some small steamers, and some York boats and we are endeavouring to remove the boulders, etc., as fast as we can. The same remarks apply to the items for the Lesser Slave lake and the North Saskatchewan river.
Last Mountain lake-improvement of navigable route, $24,000.


Mr. LAKE.: Would the minister give some information in regard to this work, the length of the navigable route, the amount of traffic, etc.?


William Pugsley: There is a great deal of settlement upon both sides of Last Mountain lake. A steamboat has been put in operation on the lake and is doing a very considerable, business. This work is to make the outlet and the mouth of the lake navigable. We have been dredging at the

entrance right into the lake so that a small steamer will be able to leave the railway at Craven and go up into the lake. The idea is that lumber and other supplies can be taken up to the settlers by water and grain can be brought down. Last Mountain lake is the one great sheet ol water in the western country west ol the Manitoba lakes. It is a beautiful sheet of water and there are a number of fine harbours on it. It is rapidly becoming a very favourite summer resort for the people of Regina. There is excellent fishing and, better than all, both sides of the lake for many miles back are settled by a very large number of industrious and thrifty settlers who have been very prosperous and who have improved the country in a few years.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the actual distance of navigation being opened up, what has it cost and what is it likely to cost before it is completed?


William Pugsley: From Craven to the head of the lake, I would think would be about 60 miles of navigable water. I shall be able to give my hon. friend the details of the expenditure at a later date. I have not a memorandum of them here. We built a small dredge and a tug and have been dredging there. There will also be land damages on account of flooding.


Charles Alexander Magrath: What is the area of land damaged?


William Pugsley: By building a dam at Craven in order to preserve the water in Last Mountain lake at normal level a considerable area of land below the foot of the lake and in the valley of the outlet was flooded, and we expropriated quite a quantity of land, I think about 1,800 acres, thinking it better to. expropriate the land than to pay damages. The Exchequer Court allowed $25 an acre. I believe that by utilizing the dredge to make a dyke along the foot of the lake and at the outlet we will be able to shut out the water and the land in a few years will be worth as much as we paid for it.
North Saskatchewan river-wing dams for improvement of navigable channel from Edmonton to Lake Winnipeg, $25,000.


Mr. HERRON.: What does this improvement consist of?


William Pugsley: Building wing dams for the purpose of confining the channel at certain points within narrow limits, in order to increase the depth of water. There are a number of places where navigation can be greatly improved in this way. I believe we can get, at a moderate expenditure, very good navigation from the head of Cedar lake, at all events, right through to a point west of Edmonton, without build 136
ing any locks. Down the river below Cedar lake some locks will be necessary to make navigation reasonably good.


John Herron: Will the minister say what is the nature of navigation on the Saskatchewan, and what trade is being done there?


William Pugsley: At present there are quite a number of steamers operating at different points, but there is no through traffic from Edmonton to Winnipeg. There are steamers between different points. At Prince Albert there are a number of small vessels, and at Edmonton also. There is a good deal of settlement springing up along the bank^ of the Saskatchewan, and people living at Prince Albert and other points up and down the river, are of the opinion that it is desirable to preserve and improve gradually the navigation of the river. It is felt that it will be a most desirable means of bringing heavy freight from the prairie country, from the towns along the Saskatchewan, and from the farms in the vicinity, freight such as grain, coal and lumber down the Saskatchewan, to go either over the Hudson Bay railway to Hudson bay and thence to Europe, or to the city of Winnipeg. Coal would only be brought to Winnipeg, but lumber might be shipped over the Hudson Bay railway. If it were brought down by water, it could take the Hudson Bay railway at Le Pas and could thence be shipped to Europe. Of course it is impossible to tell the extent to which development will take place. But I do think that our western country is very fortunate in having such a vast system of inland navigation as we have on both branches of the Saskatchewan, and along the tributary streams such as the Carrot river. The main river has been more or less explored from time to time. During the past season, I directed an exploring party to go from the mouth of the river up as far as Le Pas where the Hudson Bay railway will start. A very valuable report has been made, and the engineers report that it will be practicable to give nine feet of navigation at low Water to the head of Cedar lake, and in that way lake vessels navigating Lake Winnipeg could go up the Saskatchewan river to the head of Cedar lake, and from Cedar lake on to a point probably 100 miles west of Edmonton. Navigation would be suitable in the dry season only for light vessels drawing three or four feet of water; but that is the class of vessels which are largely used in navigating the waters of the western rivers in the United States, such as the Missouri, the Ohio, and ports of the Mississippi. My hon. friend probably knows about the South Saskatchewan. I know there are steamers, tug boats and other vessels plying upon that river. Of course the build-



ing of railways has done away to a large extent with the navigation that formerly was done on the Saskatchewan river. But as the country settles up, I think the time will soon come when people will look to water transportation as the chief means of getting heavy produce carried to market. Navigable rivers will prove valuable to regulate railway rates; and if there is one thing more than another I would like to say to the people of that western country, it is to preserve at all hazards the navigation of these rivers, not to allow any obstruction in them in the shape of building fixed bridges, or otherwise, but rather to induce the government to keep on improving and preserving navigation, because it will be found of incalculable value as the country develops in the future.


John Herron: I am aware that there has been some navigation on the Saskatchewan river for 30 years back. But the minister has not told us definitely to what extent navigation is carried on there at the present time. I would like to know, for instance, if there are any steamers running regular trips on schedule time from Edmonton east as far as Prince Albert, or for what distance, or are they only used as ferry boats? Is there any freight at the present time carried up and down the Saskatchewan river?	,


William Pugsley: I could not say that.


Mr. W. H. WHITE.: I think I could give some information to my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Herron). There was considerable boat traffic on that river until the Canadian Northern was built two years ago. There is no boat running regularly between Prince Albert and Edmonton, hut there is some boats running from Edmonton taking on freight to Battleford, and it is also used for the shipment of coal. The improvement of this river is much needed. Along the banks of the Saskatchewan river there are many outcroppings of coal, sometimes a hundred feet or 150 feet below the level, and it costs more to raise the coal up and draw it to the railway than it is worth. If the river was made navigable, it would afford a cheaper means of transporting coal than is now available, and would give an opportunity to ship coal to Battleford and Prince Albert. There is no railroad north of the Saskatchewan river, but there are large farming settlements, cattle and grain, and could be better shipped by boat than by rail. I think that if some of the boulders were removed from the river we would see regular boats running during the summer months between Edmonton and Prince Albert. They would carry a good deal of freight, and I think all the coal on the Saskatchewan might be carried that way.


William Pugsley: 


Charles Alexander Magrath: I hope the minister will have his department prepare some comprehensive plan for the development of the water routes in that country. He has spoken about the North Saskatchewan. It is _ desirable, in making expenditures of this kind, that they shall all form a link in the final result that he expects _ to reach. Water transportation in America has not been satisfactory. The hon. gentleman was speaking, a few moments ago, about the Missouri. I remember when the upper reaches of the Missouri were crowded with steamers, - and there are none there to-day. The railroads appear to have been shoving these waterways out of business. I do not hold that that is desirable. I think that expenditures of this character should be in line with a common policy and that a proper engineering force should be put to work along our western streams and a thorough investigation made so that every dollar we spend will be leading towards the perfected plan of final developments.


William Pugsley: That comes under the next item for surveys of rapids, &c., on the North and South Saskatchewan river, and other navigable streams.
Northwest Territories-harbours, river and bridge work-general repairs and improvements, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is for work in the Northwest territories outside of the provinces.
British Columbia - Athalmer - Columbia river-wharf, $1,500.	'


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the construction of a small wharf at Athalmer, asked for by a petition of the residents. This will complete the work.
Bamfield-west shore of Vancouver Island, $5,000.
Mr., PUGSLEY. This is for the renewal and enlargement of the existing wharf at Bamfield. It is asked for by the superintendent of the cable station and others.
Campbell river-improvements and wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is requested by the resident engineer, and it is for repairs to Campbell river wharf.


George Henry Barnard: What is the work that is going to be done?


William Pugsley: The wharf is to be renewed. It has been very severely damaged by the teredo. It is useless to renew it without protecting the piles. The engineer recommends that a Gold teredo proof pile should be used in the renewals as it will last ten or fifteen years and will cost $5,000. '


George Henry Barnard: I notice that some of I the wharfs being built in the province of

Quebec, that we were discussing this afternoon, were apparently being built of concrete, and that the cost was more or less estimated by the cubic contents, showing that work of a practically permanent nature was being constructed. I think it is almost conceded that no piles in the waters of the Pacific coast will stand the attacks of the teredo for many more than a feiy years. Has the minister ever considered the idea of making these wharfs of a permanent nature by putting in concrete or (something that will do away with the necessity of this constant renewal?


William Pugsley: To build piers of concrete in British Columbia at the present time would be pretty expensive. I do not know that there are any cement works out there.


George Henry Barnard: I can give the minister some information as to that. There is no trouble about getting cement. You can get a very good quality of cement on Vancouver island.


William Pugsley: Is it manufactured there?


George Henry Barnard: Yes, at one of the best plants in the country.


William Pugsley: It is certainly worthy of considering as to whether or not it would be better, as far as possible to build of concrete in places where the teredo is very destructive.


George Henry Barnard: That is everywhere.


William Pugsley: It seems that it is almost everywhere on the coast except in the Fraser river where you have fresh water. The chief engineer of the department informs me that there is a timber called turpentine timber which is got in Australia-The Canadian Pacific railway are beginning to use it-which is said to resist the ravages of the teredo, and it may be that we will find it of advantage to use it and that it will be cheaper than concrete. It is supposed that it will last, as against the teredo, for forty or fifty years.
Columbia river-improvements, $14,500.


William Pugsley: This is for general improvement upon the Columbia river.


George Henry Barnard: Where?


William Pugsley: At Revelstoke, above Golden and at the Arrow lake wharf. These are three which we are urgently asked to attend to.


George Henry Barnard: Are any of the works which are to be constructed at Revelstoke in the nature of protecting the bank against erosion?


William Pugsley: No.


George Henry Barnard: I understand that representations have been made along this 136J
line by the provincial government on account of this being a navigable stream. I would like to know if the minister has taken into consideration the desirability of doing that work?


William Pugsley: Part of this money will be used for protecting the works there that we have already contributed to, but we have not- in contemplation the undertaking of any new work of this nature upon the Columbia river at the present time. I have been communicated with by the British Columbia government asking me to pay half of a certain work that they are carrying on. I have not felt it advisable to accede to their request.


George Henry Barnard: We have to-day voted numerous items for the protection of the banks of the St. Lawrence and other rivers in the east. I would like to know if there is any reason why this government should not undertake the protection of the banks of navigable rivers in the province of British Columbia in the same way as they do in the east?


William Pugsley: We are finishing up some works of this character in the east, which were undertaken some time ago, the same as we have done work in British Columbia and in other provinces, but, for reasons which I stated upon another occasion, I do not feel that we could, as a general rule, engage in work of this character. I do not feel that we could recognize that this is an obligation which rests upon the federal government. There may be circumstances under which we will continue to do it. There may be cases in which the work is of such great magnitude that it would not be reasonable to ask the province to do it entirely. In those cases we may perhaps fairly assume a part of the burden, but to say that we are bound, as a matter of duty and obligation simply because a river is navigable, as a federal government, to do the work of protecting the banks is to put forth a proposition which I deny in toto. I say that there is no obligation of that character resting upon the federal government. It will not do for the provincial authorities or the municipal authorities to attempt to throw that work on to the federal government, and to say this is work which it is your duty to attend to, simply because a river' ot a lake that is washing away the shores is navigable water. There are cases where we have done it. We have assisted the local government in British Columbia, but it does not follow that because we have given them some assistance we are going to assist them in every work of this character that they undertake. If we did that we would be called upon to do work of this character on the McLeod river, the Saskatchewan, the St. Lawrence, the Lievre

and hundreds of other lakes and rivers of Canada. There is another reason. We are already doing work on the Columbia river for which we are asking an appropriation of $14,500, and we are dealing as liberally as the funds at our disposal will enable us to do to improve the navigation of these rivers. We are going to clear out the debris in the steamboat channels for the purpose of assisting navigation. We are doing a great deal of work in various sections of British Columbia along these lines. I cannot undertake that as a matter of federal obligation we would protect the banks of all rivers simply because they happen to be navigable.


George Henry Barnard: The minister has got heated over this matter.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


George Henry Barnard: I simply asked the minister whether he was going to do this work, and if not, whether he thought there was any distinction between the treatment accorded to British Columbia and the treatment accorded to the province of Quebec. I merely mentioned the province of Quebec in the comparison for the reason that we have had, to-day, several appropriations for work of a similar character in that province. I would like to know from the minister if we are to take it that it is not the policy of the government to do this kind of work in any of the provinces in 'the future unless special circumstances arise.


William Pugsley: There is one thing the hon. gentleman seems to desire to forget, and that is that if he looks to the protection work that has been done in the different provinces in recent years, I venture to say that as much or more has been done in British Columbia as m any other province of Canada. But the hon. gentleman does not recognize that, and he seems to be wanting all the time to put forward the allegation that we are discriminating against British Columbia.


George Henry Barnard: So you are.


William Pugsley: As a matter of fact, we have done more of this kind of work in British Columbia than in any other province in Canada.


George Henry Barnard: I would like to ask the supporters of the government from British Columbia if they consider that the province of British Columbia has been as fairly treated as have the other provinces.


Mr. FIELDING.: That is another question.


George Henry Barnard: That is a question which neither the hon. member for Nanaimo nor the Minister of Inland Revenue will venture to answer to-night.
Mr -PUGSLEY.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not the question before the committee.


William Pugsley: It is a great pity to raise these sectional questions.


James Davis Taylor: The question before the committee is not a sectional question; it is a question of honour between the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia, which makes it far more than a sectional question. We have a solemn agreement with the Dominion of Canada and that agreement has been violated in several respects. We have a solemn agreement providing that the federal government shall carry on in British Columbia all classes of works which it carries on in the other provinces of Canada. That is the principle for which the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) has been contending to-night. It is not a matter of expediency, it is not a matter of policy on the part of the government, it is a matter of whether or not they intend to break faith with British Columbia. The minister and his colleagues recognize that it is a very difficult thing indeed for a province to compel the federal administration to keep faith in a matter of this kind, but there is such a thing as honour left in this country, and we have put it forward as a matter of honour time after time, that they have made a contract with us to do these works, and that they are doing them for other provinces as I showed this afternoon in regard to the province of Quebec when I read item after item-and I mentioned Quebec merely because the items for that province were before the House when the matter came up-item after item appearing in the estimates for all sorts of protection works in that province. I invited the intention of the Minister of Public Works to that fact in view of this discussion this afternoon. Now I would like to ask the minister whether he repudiates this contract with British Columbia or whether he thinks this government should carry it out in the spirit in which it was made?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman asks me the question I would say that so far as this government is aware it is carrying out in the most absolute, good faith every obligation to British Columbia. It does not follow that because we build a wharf in one province we have got to build a wharf in British Columbia whether it is required or not.


James Davis Taylor: That is not the question.


William Pugsley: We are carrying on all classes of work in British Columbia just the same as in the other sections of Canada. The Dominion is giving subsidies for railways in British Columbia just as

in other sections of the country; it is building wharfs in British Columbia, and it is doing dredging work in British Columbia just the same as in any other section of Canada.


George Henry Barnard: Not the same.


James Davis Taylor: The point beforj the committee is: Will the government continue to erect protection works in British Columbia or will it follow out the policy of refusing to do so, which has been indicated by the Minister of Public Works?


William Pugsley: Our policy in regard to protection works will be the same in British Columbia as in every other province of Canada.


George Henry Barnard: The Minister of Public Works told us he was doing dredging work in British Columbia the same as in other provinces. I have not been in this House very long, but I have had two opportunities of showing the minister that the tonnage of the ports of British Columbia exceeds the tonnage of these pet ports of his in the maritime provinces very largely indeed. And I have also told him that the province of British Columbia in connection with these harbour works and harbour and dredging appropriations gets about 20 per cent in proportion of the appropriations that the other provinces get.
I have pointed out that the province of British Columbia is to-dav crying out for these public works and it is crying to deaf ears.


George Henry Cowan: The Minister of Public Works is seeking shelter in his own ignorance when he says he ' is not aware,' and perhaps it is my duty to put him wise to the facts. The fact is that this government is taking three times as much per head of the population from the people of British Columbia as it is taking out of the people of the other parts of the Dominion, and this government is spending in public works in British Columbia about one-fifth as much per head of the population as it is spending in the other parts of Canada. In other words, this government is discriminating against British Columbia about eight times. Where there should be an exact equality, where on every principle of honour there should be an exact equality, there is a difference of about eight to one against British Columbia. Now, the minister has sheltered himself twice under the statement that he is unaware of the facts, and I venture to say on the floor of this House that I am stating the facts when I give these figures.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: And I venture to state that my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) is not stating the facts with regard to the proportion of expenditure in
British Columbia as compared with the other provinces in the Dominion. My hon. friend, I believe, claims to be the father of the famous better terms proposition of the British Columbia government, and the fallacy of the figures presented in the tabulated statement he has caused to be prepared was absolutely proven by the return brought down to this House a few years ago.


George Henry Cowan: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could show where that fallacy is?


William Templeman: It is shown in the return brought down to which I have referred. The hon. member is making general statements to the House and is not producing any proof whatever to substantiate what he says. He simply says that the appropriations for expenditure in British Columbia are as one to eight in the rest of the Dominion, and he claims that the contribution to the revenue by the province of British Columbia is much larger than the contribution of other provinces Well, that is a very large question, and the hon. gentleman can argue almost anything he likes from that statement, because it is hard to prove a statement of that kind.' I do not think it is so myself, and I say so frankly and fearlessly after a very long investigation into the question. I do think that the province of British Columbia is a very large contributor to the revenues of the Dominion, but that is aside from the issue altogether. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that public works are not being carried on in the province of British Columbia by this government, but I would like to know what demands made upon this government for public works have been refused. What demands have this year been made on the^ government for necessary public works in that province which have been refused? To my knowledge, I know of none.


James Davis Taylor: I can tell you.


William Templeman: I might point out to the hon, member (Mr. 'Cowan) that the very large and necessary public work of deepening the Narrows is provided for to just- as large an extent as it could be provided for. As much money is being provided for the coming year as can be well spent during the year. And so throughout the entire province, I know of no large public work which has been asked for that is not being done. The Fraser river, which is receiving a good deal of attention from my hon. friend from Westminster, is also being provided for, and the improvement of the channel up to Westminster is being carried out as rapidly as circumstances will permit.


James Davis Taylor: The minister says that he knows of no public work that has

been requested that has not been provided Without going into many others, that 1 could mention, I would like to ask him with respect to two, which I myself heard him promise at a public meeting at Chilliwack during the last campaign, namely, a new post office for Chilliwack, another public building for Chilliwack, and dredging for Chilliwack, a dredge being then supposed to be actually on its way up the river. I am bound under the rules of the House to take the hon. minister's denial if he says that he did not promise these, although I heard him promise them myself. I ask him whether he has ever asked for these or whether they have been granted.


William Templeman: This is extraordinary, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, I think I am as non-committal in making promises of public works in a constituency or as to the performance of anything in the future over which I have not absolute control, as any other member of the government, and I deny absolutely that 1 made any such promises at a public meeting at Chilliwack. But it is a fact that a site for a post office was being considered at that time, if it had not been secured, and if there was not in the estimates a sum of money for a post office at Chilliwack, it was certainly intended that there should be, and if I am not mistaken, it is in the estimates to-day.


William Pugsley: It is there.


William Templeman: Votes for public buildings at Chilliwack, Vernon and two or three other places in British Columbia were cut out of the estimates last year in consequence of the general reduction oi the votes for public works. But I believe that these are in the estimates of this year.
I may have said that I was personally desirous of seeing a public building, and would use my best efforts to-have it built. If I made a casual promise of that kind, that promise is being fulfilled. As to the dredging in the Fraser river, that is a purely local question. I do remember something about the moving of a dredge from one point to another point to do a little local work. Whether that has been done or not I do not know. It certainly was intended to be done. But I know of no wharf, no dredging, no public building or other public work that should be carried out in the province of British Columbia that has not been carried out when proper representations have been made, and 1 challenge my hon. friends to say anything to the contrary. The province of British Columbia has not many towns or cities; but in almost every town of two or three thousand people and over we have now a nice public building, whereas when this government came into power there was only one public building if I am not mistaken.


James Davis Taylor: certainly not more than two, in the entire province.


George Henry Cowan: May I ask the minister a question? I presume that he knows that the tonnage of the port of Vancouver is second only to that of Montreal. Can he point to one dollar of Dominion money that has been spent in the improvement of that port?


William Templeman: The question is quite an unnecessary one. There is no better harbour in the_ Dominion than the harbour of Vancouver, and therefore it is unnecessary to spend much money to improve that harbour.


William Pugsley: We have done dredging there. We have had the ' King Edward ' at work there.	.


William Templeman: The great improvement which the port of Vancouver requires is to widen and deepen the narrows, and I believe it is the intention of the Minister of Public Works- to buy a dredge for that work. In the last two or three years, one of the finest public buildings in Canada has been put up in Vancouver for a post office and custom house, and we have recently bought a tract of ground for an ex->
amining warehouse in connection with the custom house. We have provided all the accommodation in the way of public buildings that is necessary for the great city of Vancouver, and I am proud to say that it is a great city. It is all very well for my hon. friends to make statements in a general way, but they cannot substantiate them. I do not know what more we could get in the city of Vancouver. The deepening of the Fraser river from its mouth up to above Westminster is a very important work on which this government has already spent half a million dollars, and which it will take years to complete. In the city of Victoria we have been spending at least ten times as much money as did the former government, and in this year's estimates, there is twice the sum appropriated last year for the purpose of deepening some points in the harbour in order to accommodate the increase in shipping. It is all very well for my hon. friend to raise the miserable old issue, raised in the last general elections in British Columbia, of the alleged antagonism of this government to the best interests of British Columbia. That charge is a false one, and I challenge my hon. friend to make it good.


George Henry Cowan: I accept that challenge, and I say further: perish my right hand if I ever in this House utter one statement I am not absolutely sure is correct. If I am right in saying that there is discrimination * against British Columbia, 'the government are absolutely unjust to that pro-vnee. The minister says T am wrong, but

I base my statement on figures, not prepared by myself, but by the Dominion's statistician, and they are absolutely correct.


William Templeman: I dispute that absolutely.


George Henry Cowan: Very well, then grant an inquiry. Will the minister agree to that? I would like an answer. If the Dominion statistician will certify to the correctness of my figures, will the minister grant an inquiry?


William Pugsley: Which minister?


George Henry Cowan: Any minister-one or all. Will any minister say that if the Dominion statistician will certify to my figures, he will support my demand for an inquiry?


William Stevens Fielding: The proposition is too preposterous and ridiculous to entertain it for a moment. If British Columbia has any claim to any public works of the same class as is provided in any other part of Canada, that claim will receive consideration; but this pretense that one province pays more than another, is one of the ridiculous things we are apt to hear in this parliament. Why, my hon. friend from East Grey will remember when the province of Ontario was troubled with the conviction that it was the milch cow of the Dominion and had to pay for all the other provinces. We have heard Montreal plead the immense contribution it makes to the Dominion treasury because the imports for the west pass through it and the duties are there collected. But these duties are in reality paid by the people further west who consume the bulk of these imports. The same remark applies to Halifax and other ports of entry, so that no statement which could be prepared on the basis of the duties collected at the different ports could give a correct idea of the contribution to these duties by different sections of the country. The goods landed atone port may be consumed a thousand miles away, and it is the consumer a thousand miles distant who pays the tax, and not the importer at Halifax, St. John, Vancouver, Montreal or Quebec. No calculation that can be made on that subject can possibly be absolutely correct, but must be a matter of conjecture. It would be ridiculous to have an inquiry into a matter of that sort; but if British Columbia requires a public work of the same class as is provided by the Dominion in other provinces, and which i3 necessary and useful for the development of trade, then let that claim be brought forward, and if it be not considered then, and not until then, will British Columbia have a grievance.


George Henry Cowan: I am very much pleased, indeed, that one of the ministers has had
the courage to speak out, but I regret the lack of that courage in the Minister of Inland Revenue. The Minister of Finance says that if there be discrimination-


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say any thing about discrimination.


George Henry Cowan: Against British Columbia

	1


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


George Henry Cowan: And the amount of that discrimination is certified to by the Dominion statistician-


William Stevens Fielding: I said nothing of the kind.


George Henry Cowan: Still he says he will grant us no inquiry. Yet this is the minister who in 1886 carried Nova Scotia for the repeal of the union, because that province was not getting fair treatment at the hands of the Dominion. When, however the other man's ox is gored', he gets up, brave as a lion, and says, no, I will give you nothing. Fortunately we can retaliate, to the extent of seven representatives in this House, on any minister who will defy us in that way. Let me say to the Minister of Finance that I know whereof I speak. I say there is a black injustice being done British Columbia, and that it reflects nothing to the credit of the Minister of Finance,.or hi3 government, to refuse an inquiry. We are prepared to take the results of that inquiry, let it be absolutely fair and impartial. If we can establish no right, if we cannot make good our claim, we will take the result and take it like men, but I cannot understand how any minister of any government can close the door of justice to any province or any portion of the people. We do not ask anything more than that we should have a fair and impartial hearing on this claim. The minister says that that is ridiculous, and what reason does he give. He says that the goods may be entered at Vancouver, but they may be consumed down at Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear hear.


George Henry Cowan: And the minister's echo says ' Hear, hear.' But if the Minister of Customs were here, he could tell my hon. friend that the goods entered at the port of Vancouver-the through freight-do not pay duty at the port of entry, and if he would take the trouble of going to the office of the Dominion statistician he would learn that I am absolutely right and accurate in my statement that we can ascertain exactly how much that province is paying per head of its population into the Dominion treasury. I said exactly; I want to modify that to this extent, that

there are certain goods going north to the Yukon which leave a little shade of doubt as to the exact amount, but none of the goods going through east or anywhere else than north to the Yukon leave any shade of doubt. Thus his reason for saying, ' no ' does not anneal to me as cogent. If that was the strength of the reasons he advanced in 1886 for the repeal of the Union and the secession of Nova Scotia, I do not wonder that the result was changed in 1887.
I wish to assure the minister that I am not raising this point for any purpose other than this, that British Columbia should get a fair, impartial, just hearing of a claim that she thinks is just. It may be that we are wrong, it may be that we have no claim. We are not saying that we have a claim, that we have proved it conclusively; I can say that I know it is proven conclusively, but I am not asking you to accept my word; I am asking you to give British Columbia an impartial tribunal before which that claim may be heard. No man will refuse that-I cannot understand why the exigencies of party-


William Pugsley: The hon. member does not oppose this item at ah?


George Henry Cowan: No: but I must surely have an opportunity to reply to the Finance Minister's emphatic ' no ', and his unemphatic reason for saying ' no.' I would really like the Minister of inland Revenue to offer his testimony . as to whether he would be in favour of British Columbia having a fair and impartial hearing upon this claim or not.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish another word first. I think that if the hon. member felt that he had a good case in British Columbia he would hardly have travelled to the other end of the continent and introduced Nova Scotia. I have settled that question with my friends, with my Tory friends from Nova Scotia, over a long period of years, and there is nothing to be gained by reopening it. I have no reason to regret anything that happened. If I am to treat the hon. gentleman's remarks as serious, what is his proposal? That there shall be an inquiry as to whether or not British Columbia gets back all she pays. What reason is there that British Columbia shall have that inquiry? Why shall not the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) demand a similar inquiry _ for Ontario? Why shall not my hon. friends from Manitoba, from Prince Edward Island, from Quebec, why shall not the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Westmoreland demand a similar inquiry for their provinces?


George Henry Cowan: And if their claims are just why should they not be heard?


George Henry Cowan: 


William Stevens Fielding: Then it means that we want to find out whether every province gets back 100 per cent on the dollar in actual direct payment-and that is provincialism run mad.


James Davis Taylor: What harm would it do to find that out?


William Stevens Fielding: I say that this country is not being run on provincial lines; there must be give and take between the provinces. If every province is to be measured, if you are to show that a given province has paid $100 revenue and must get back $100. it is a ridiculous thing, and you never could make a nation on any such ground.


George Henry Cowan: I never suggested that we should get 100 cents on the dollar back. There is not a ghost of a show of our getting that as long as there is in power a ministry that gives the money of this country to the big vote.


William Stevens Fielding: And as the hon. gentleman has no hope of seeing any other ministry I do not blame him for being anxious on the subject.


George Henry Cowan: Still I think they might at least correctly report my statement and not misreport it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I mis-reported my hon. friend, but I would be glad if he would tell me any reason why an inquiry should be granted to British Columbia and refused to Prince Edward Island, why


George Henry Barnard: Possibly Prince Edward Island has not asked for it.


William Stevens Fielding: Prince Edward Island thinks it has a grievance. My hon. friend from Kings county tells us it has a grievance and I have heard Ontario members represent again and again that their province is the great taxpaying province of the Dominion.


James Davis Taylor: Did not Nova Scotia set up the same claim?


William Stevens Fielding: Nova Scotia set up that claim at one time.


James Davis Taylor: And successfully?


William Stevens Fielding: That was a great many years ago, and the government of the day recognized Nova Scotia's claims many years ago by an additional amount.


James Davis Taylor: Certainly.


William Stevens Fielding: But does my hon. friend contend that the position of British Columbia is the same?


George Henry Cowan: Much stronger.


William Stevens Fielding: If we have to go to ancient history, the great difference is this:

Nova Scotia did not enter the -union volund tariiy and she had a right to complain if she wanted to. British Columbia and the other provinces came into the union vol-untarilv; they made their bargain and would have no right to play the baby act if that bargain was enforced. All they have a right to say is that they are citizens of this Dominion and should be treated like other citizens. But it will not make for good government, it will not make for nationality, if we are going to take a tape-measure to find whether one province pays a dollar and gets back only ninety-nine cents.


George Henry Cowan: The minister has asked why British Columbia should prefer a claim and the other provinces should not.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that, I said why should they have an inquiry more than any other province; they can
make all the claims they like.


George Henry Cowan: Since the question is put to me I wish to answer it. British Columbia has a right to an inquiry, because every trust transferred from the colony of British Columbia to the Dominion is being abused, and I venture to say it is being abused in such a way that if we could get into a court of equity we could get justice.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a court of
equity.


George Henry Cowan: But a court of equity that closes its doors; when we come rapping on the door, they say: No, no entrance here.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no, you are here.


George Henry Cowan: The fountain of justice is closed. We are denied an impartial hearing.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is in the position that he cannot get a judgment in his favour and so he says the fountain of justice is closed.


George Henry Cowan: The minister says that because we came in voluntarily in 1870, therefore, we made a bargain. I do not know from what pettifogging lawyer he got the idea that a treaty is a contract. I did not know until I heard it from the Minister of Finance that a treaty such as the terms of union between British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada was a mere contract, and if we got the worst of the bargain we could squeal, but we must take our medicine. That is the position, the little position, the minister, takes. Men who have studied these things know that it is not a statesmanlike position to take upon this question. The intention of the union was that there should be without undue taxation sufficient revenues left to the
province to enable it to perform the duties assigned to it as a province under the terms of union and that the Dominion should only take such revenues away from the province-and that is the trust-as would enable the Dominion to perform the added duties imposed on the Dominion because of the province coming into confederation. So the Dominion is in the position of trustee of the powers of imposing indirect taxation.


William Pugsley: If the hon. - gentleman would permit me to interrupt him, I would ask him whether it is really fair, on this item of $14,500 for improvements upon the Columbia river, to go into the question of the amendment of the British North America Act so as to give to British Columbia a larger subsidy than it now receives. What do you think, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not understand that the point of order has been raised.


William Pugsley: Yes, it is a point of order.


George Henry Barnard: In speaking to the point of order, I think this discussion is logical.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point of order being raised, it is the right of the hon. member for Vancouver to explain what he desires to say.


George Henry Cowan: I was induced to rise to my feet by the statement of the Minister of Public Works that he was unaware that there was discrimination against British Columbia, and he seemed to think that that negative statement, that ignorance which he alleged in himself, was s- ;ne reason for the argument he was advancing.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend will realize that the question of an appropriation for a necessary public work in British Columbia is a very different question from that as to whether the British North America Act should be amended. They are two different questions. I am not aware that there is any discrimination against British Columbia.


George Henry Cowan: No one knows better than the Minister of Public Works, because he is a capable lawyer, that no amendment is needed to the British North America Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Speaking on the point of order, I think any member of this House, in speaking of expenditures In his own province or elsewhere, if he thinks he is not getting a proportionate share of the finances that his province requires, can make a comparison between what is spent in his province and what is spent in any other province, on any item that is under consideration.


William Pugsley: I would appeal to my hon. friends from British Columbia to allow these estimates to go ahead, because these are all necessary items.
Coquitlam river-removal of obstructions,


William Pugsley: We wish to remove these obstructions so as to facilitate navigation.


James Davis Taylor: This is one of the public works we have been asking for. Is there anything special being done on that river?


William Pugsley: We had an appropriation for the present year, and up to the 31st of November we have spent $691. We are now asking for $1,000 more, which we intend to use for removing obstructions which exist to free the floating down of logs and shingle bolts. We hope to be able to effect a substantial improvement with this money. There have been some complaints' as to the results which have been obtained by past expenditures. We hope that this money will accomplish good work in removing those obstructions.


James Davis Taylor: When were the complaints made?


William Pugsley: I received a complaint not very long ago. I think I also have a letter from my hon. friend on the subject.


James Davis Taylor: For the information of the Minister of Inland Revenue, who does not know that there is anything required in British Columbia at present, I would like to state that this complaint was sent from Coquitlam about the 16th of December. I will read a copy thereof:
To the Hon. the Minister of Public Works, Ottawa.
We, the undersigned, mill-owners of New Westminster, interested in logging, and residents of the municipality of Coquitlam being land owners along the banks of the Coquitlam river, do respectfully ask you to make an inquiry regarding the work which has been done to improve the channel of this river, for the last five years, by the money you have from time to time voted for that purpose.
Both banks have been slashed, and all overhanging trees cut down and limbed and thrown into the river, with the result that the river channel was covered over with a net work of scrub mattresses on which sand bars have formed, thus forcing the river out of its natural channel, and is doing immense damage to property on both banks.
This makes it very expensive and difficult to drive logs even during a freshet, as they either lodge on the sand bars in the centre channel or get jammed in the irregular side channels.
We respectfully lay this matter before you, as the river has got ouc of all control, and unless these reinforced sand bars are removed by dredging or other means great damage will result from every freshet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After inspection we humbly trust you will see your way to supplement your granc for this year, as it is altogether inadequate to meet the improvements required.
If the minister has acted upon this he will have to supplement the vote, I suppose, in the supplementary estimates. If he has done that, it is no use my taking up the time, of the committee further. But if not, I think this is the proper time for , discussion. Does the minister propose to make a supplementary grant for the Coquitlam river?


William Pugsley: It is quite impossible for me to inform my hon. friend even as to whether there will be any supplementary estimates. When the estimates are brought down, assented to by His Excellency the Governor General and submitted to the House, my hon. friend will know what they contain, but until that time, very much to his regret, I am quite sure, I am unable to give my hon. friend that information.


James Davis Taylor: That may be a satisfactory answer from the minister's standpoint, but from the standpoint of an independent member of this House endeavouring to do his duty to his constituents, it is not a satisfactory answer. I do not think it is the answer that a member of this House, acting on behalf of his constituents, ought to receive. I do not think we are sent here to trifle in this manner with the public business. When a member comes down from a riding, presents a numerously signed petition from his constituents and which _has been in the hands of the minister for more than three months, asking for an appropriation for this work to avert threatening damage, the minister fails in his duty in standing up in this committee in this cavalier manner and making what is intended to be a smart observation that we shall learn what is in the supplementary estimates when they come down. I am quite as well aware of that as the minister is, and I do not thank him for the information at all. This only emphasizes the gross neglect of the interests of British Columbia by the Minister of Public Works, by the government iand by the Minister of Inland Revenue, who is supposed particularly to represent British Columbia and who told us a few minutes ago that there were no unanswered requests for improvements in British Columbia. To my own knowledge thousands of dollars of damage is being done to private property along the Coquitlam river every year by the ravages of the stream because of the insufficient attention given by this department to the matter of controlling the Coquitlam river. As the people say in their petition this money is wasted because of its insufficiency. A thousand dol-

lars a year will do nothing substantial towards the improvement of the Coquitlam river, and if we are going to save ' these people from damage the government will have to take more vigorous steps than any appropriation of a thousand dollars will enable them to take. I call this matters again to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Inland Revenue, the representative of British Columbia who speaks without knowledge when he says that no requests frqpi that province remain unanswered.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know anything about the special merits of thisl work and I do not presume to speak of it, but I might inform the hon. gentleman that he is entirely mistaken when he assumes that the answer of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works could have been given in any other way. The answer of the Minister of Public Works is the answer which he is obligeu io give in and out of the House to innumerable requests. It is utterly impossible for the government to determine in advance what the supplementary estimates shall contain. Until these estimates are laid before parliament they are subject to revision and perhaps rejection. Not only did my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works intend no discourtesy to the hon. member, but he gave the proper answer when he said he was not able to tell him what might be in the supplementary estimates. That is the proper answer, and that is the a'nswer that we have to give to people every day.


James Davis Taylor: There are ways and ways of giving an answer in parliament. It would have been a simple matter for the minister to say politely that he could not indicate what was going to be in the supplementary estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: Is not that what he did say?


James Davis Taylor: No sir.


William Pugsley: What did he say?


James Davis Taylor: His answer was a very supercilious answer intended to make a laughing stock of the member who asked the question.


William Pugsley: The hon. member is too sensitive altogether; he is supersensitive.


James Davis Taylor: The hoti. member is not too sensitive, but I do not propose while I stand here on behalf of my constituents to accept an answer which is not a proper one. I guarded myself by stating in advance that if the minister could indicate that he was dealing with this matter in the supplementary estimates or otherwise I would not pursue the subject. Surely that was a proper request to make. I said if the minister was dealing with this
I would say no more. But the minister stands up and gives a smart and flippant answer.


William Pugsley: I am exceedingly sorry that my hon. friend is so sensitive. I wonder if he wants to provoke a quarrel with myself as head of the Department of Public Works, I can assure him that if he does-


James Davis Taylor: Is that a threat?


William Pugsley: He is not taking a course which would commend itself to reasonable men. What the hon. gentleman asked me was to tell him whether a further amount for the Coquitlam river would appear in the supplementary estimates. I do not know that I have shown any discourtesy towards the hon. gentleman by telling him that I could not state even if there would be any supplemetary estimates and that I would be unable to tell him what these supplementary estimates would contain until they had actually received the assent of the Governor General and were actually submitted to the House. If the hon. gentleman says however that this amount of $1,000 which is in the estimates will be utterly wasted, will be of no use whatever, on the Coquitlam river, it raises the very serious consideration for myself as to whether we should spend any part of this appropriation .upon the Coquitlam river. My predecessor, in determining to make improvements^ on the poquitlam river, stretched a point in his desire to assist the people. Coquitlam is not a navigable river. It is a river which may be called a floatable river, down which logs are floated, and it must have been for my predecessor a serious question as to whether an amount should be placed in the estimates. In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman says that this money will do no good, that it has been wasted in the past, that it has been productive of no results and that it will be productive of no results in the future it raises the important question as to whether any portion of this appropriation shall be used for this purpose.


James Davis Taylor: I wish to state that, to use a sporting expression, that cock does not fight. I am not at all terrorized by the threat of the hon. gentleman to withdraw this appropriation from the Coquitlam river. I presume that it was placed in the estimates in pursuance of what he considered to be his public duty. I do not presume that, it having been so placed there, the Minister of Finance, or the Postmaster General, or the minister from British Columbia will permit him to withdraw it for the unworthv reason stated, because it is not a matter for the Minister of Public Works alone. It is a matter for the government. I do not presume that they will permit him to say that he will withdraw it as a threat against any mem-

ber of this House who is pursuing his duty. I wish to correct again the minister in the statement that I said this would be entirely useless. I told him that this was altogether insufficient to procure the effective results which should be procured on the Coquitlam river. Even $50 or $100 could be used * to advantage there, and $900 can be used to advantage. But, the minister has not been using this appropriation in a way which would bring advantage from the ' expenditure; there are ways however in which it can be used.


William Pugsley: I did not intend my remarks should be regarded as a threat, but I feel bound to take any hon. member of this House seriously, and when he alleges, as I understood my hon. friend to allege, that this amount would be practically useless unless we had a larger sum, I felt I was bound to take him seriously as a representative of that constituency, when tire constituency, through him, spoke as it did speak to-night, and said it would be utterly useless to expend this money.


James Davis Taylor: I rise to a point of order. I object to the minister misquoting my remarks, particularly as I have explained just now what I said.


William Pugsley: I was referring to what the hon. gentleman had said previously.


Mr.  J. D.@: - TAYLOR. I rise to a point of order.	[DOT]


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman's declaration of what he said must be accepted.


William Pugsley: Of what he said previously. Then, all I can say is that I did not feel that it was out of place for me to take the hon. gentleman seriously, and any remarks which I made were the result of my so regarding the observations of the hon. gentleman.
Eraser river-(lower) wing darn, bank protection works, inclusive of repairs, $35,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make further provision to maintain existing works from the city of Westminster to the Straits of Georgia, preventing the formation of detrimental side channels, protecting banks from erosion, also services in connection with the maintenance of navigation in this river.


James Davis Taylor: Has the minister received a communication from the city of New Westminster lately in respect to this work, and what action, if any, has been taken upon the communication?


William Pugsley: I did receive a communication from the city of New Westminster as to going on with the very large works of importance which had been laid out, and which consist not only of the Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
-dredging, but also of the building of jetties for the purpose of giving direction to the channel and so improving the navigation.


James Davis Taylor: Has the minister done anything in pursuance of the indication he gave to a public meeting at New Westminster last summer, that he might put two shifts a day on the dredge 1 Fruh-ling ' in order to obtain more effective work from it?	.


William Pugsley: I am not sure that I addressed a public meeting at New Westminster, I do not think I did.


James Davis Taylor: If the minister wishes to be very exact, it was a meeting of citizens and the board of trade.


William Pugsley: Yes, it was not a large meeting; it was a meeting of the members of the board of trade. I did state that I intended to make provision for working the ' Fruhling ' two shifts per day, and the estimates we have before the House provide this very service. We hope to have two crews working on the ' Fruhling ' so as to do the work with the greatest rapidity possible.


James Davis Taylor: When does the minister expect to have the channel upon which he is now working available for traffic ?


William Pugsley: No one can- tell in a work of that kind when there are shifting sands. It is a very large work, but we hope, in the comparatively near future, to have the channel in good order.


James Davis Taylor: I put a question on the order paper the other day, and I thought possibly that if the answer to it was given seriously by the minister he would remember it now. I am sorry he does not remember what time he told me then, because he placed the date so near in the future that I was more encouraged by it than by the reports I heard from New Westminster. The people of New Westminster are very anxious indeed about the progress of this work, and on the 7th of January of this year the board of trade at New Westminster addressed a petition to the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier on this subject. I presume that petition found its way to the Minister of Public Works. It reads as follows: _
To the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
G.C.M.G., P.C., Ottawa.
Sir,-The New Westminster Board of Trade deems it necessary to again bring to the attention of your government the matter of the Fraser river ship channel.
The board desires to express its appreciation of the work done so far by the new ' Fruhling ' dredge, without which the channel at its entrance, would probably have become . impassable for ocean vessels of any size. As it is, however, it is only when the high tides

occur in daylight that vessels drawing 22 or 23 feet can pass in or out, the latter draught being the limit that may safely attempt the channel at all at the present time.
The usual volume of ocean traffic on the river has been maintained during the past year, but various large industrial propositions have been and are deterred from locating on the river by the fact that much time may be lost by vessels having to await daylight tides to enter and clear. As cases bearing on this point it may be mentioned that the board recently received a communication from the agents of the Blue Funnel line of steamships, plying direct between Liverpool and Vancouver, intimating that upon assurance of the adequacy of the channel for their vessels, they are desirous of sending them to this port ; also that a vessel chartered to deliver a cargo of iron pipe at this citv due to arrive in March next, will not be able to come here, as there will not be sufficient water for her on the Sand Heads.
To accommodate the trade now offering, it is imperative that a channel be provided without delay, sufficiently deep for the passage of the largest vessels plying on the Pacific ocean, at any stage of the tide, and buoyed and lighted so as to be navigable by day or night.
The board is of the opinion that to attain this result within a reasonable time, it will be necessary to either augment the dredging power now available for use on the river, or to proceed at once with the construction of a jetty from Garry Point to the outer edge of the Sand Heads, as suggested and recommended in reports heretofore submitted, on behalf of the citizens of New Westminster for the consideration of your government.
The board earnestly hopes that this matter will receive the immediate and favourable consideration of your government, and that provision will be made at this session of parliament for the vigorous prosecution of the work necessary to this end.
The minister will see from that, that there is more than ordinary interest taken in the carrying on of this work rapidly, because there is a great deal of shipping that would be headed for the Fraser river if there was any reasonable assurance of its getting in there. There are some very large industries there, and particularly to the new industries established at New Westminster it is a very serious matter that those interested should have to bring in their freight by any other route than by the Fraser river.
Fraser river-to refund to the municipality of Delta one-half their expense of constructing emergency works to protect the south bank of the river near Ladner's Landing, on condition chat the government of British Columbia will refund the other half, $1,850.


George Henry Cowan: Why the division?


William Pugsley: I think it was Mr. John Oliver who saw me on behalf of the municipality, and he said they had an assurance from the provincial government that they would pay half the cost of this work, provided my department would pay the other half, and therefore I put the vote in in that way.
Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $10,000.


James Davis Taylor: In connection with this vote I have pleasure in further refreshing the memory of the Minister of Inland Revenue as to works applied for in the province of British Columbia and not granted. I see nothing in the estimates about a work to which I refer now, and so I must presume it has not received the attention of the government. I have here a letter which bears every evidence of authenticity, and which reads:
I wish to call your attention once more to the need of removing the obstructions to navigation in the Upper Lillooet river. All our farming implements and heavy goods that we cannot take in on horseback we have to bring by the Harrison and Lillooet lakes and the Upper Lillooet river, and it is almost impossible to get boats up the river. There are so many log jams in the river that men are in great danger of losing their lives in trying to get these goods up the river in boats. The government spent a few thousand dollars in removing log jams in the river in 1908 with very good results. We wrote to Mr. Templeman requesting him to try and get a grant for the above work. In his reply he said he would do all he could to comply with our request. We sincerely trust you will do all you can to get the government to remove log jams from the river, as it would be a great benefit to this settlement.
I would like to ask the minister whether he has given any attention to this case of the Upper Lillooet, which is before the government not only now, but was before it last year, on application from the same man who has written this letter?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I have given consideration to the matter.


James Davis Taylor: The minister has given consideration to it, but will Mr. Punch get any result?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend that. But this item will be available for that work, and I recognize the Lillooet river as a navigable river where improvement of the navigation might very well be done. My department has done work there already, and out of this very vote I trust that we shall be able to make further improvements during the coming season.


James Davis Taylor: There is another item which has been before the government for some time. I took the liberty of mentioning it to this House last year, and the minister promised me then that he would give it attention. That is the matter of improving the Fraser river be-

tween Chilliwack, the head of navigation, and Agassiz. I pointed out to the minister that on account of the river having been allowed to silt up between those two points, it is impossible to get navigation into Agassiz. This is a matter of recent date, because when this government took over the affairs of the Fraser river, navigation extended to Yale, which is far above Agassiz. I pointed out that the people of Agassiz were very much in the position of those of Ste. Croix, mentioned this afternoon, in that it was very advisable for them to make their shipments by water, but that it was impossible for vessels to get to the place. I suggested to the minister a very small appropriation for snagging between Chilliwack and Agassiz, and a provision for some sort of wharf at Agassiz, almost the cheapest kind that he could construct, so that these people might have relief from what they consider the excessive freight rates of the railway and send out their produce by steamer to New Westminster. I would like to ask the minister what has been done between last session and the present in the direction indicated.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend must be wrong in his statement that I said I would give attention to this matter, if he takes that to mean that I would do it.


James Davis Taylor: No, the hon. minister did not promise it.


William Pugsley: Nothing has bfeen done between that time and the present that I am aware of; but perhaps we might be able to do it out of this vote. I will have the matter looked into, and see if we can use a part of the money for that purpose.


John Herron: When did the government adopt the policy of doing no further work in the way of protecting the banks of streams? Has it been adopted within the last year or two, or has it been in force a considerable length of time?


William Pugsley: I may say that since I have been Minister of Pubic Works I have been thinking the matter over, having regard to the largely increasing demands being made on the government. My colleagues and I have discussed the matter somewhat. We all recognize that if it were our duty to do work of this character, it would involve the.wDominion in very large expenditure. While we have not shut, down on this work entirely, we are limiting it largely to matters in connection with works that have been already entered upon. In the very items under discussion some work of this character in British Columbia is being provided for, but I am endeavouring to curtail our ex-Mr. J. D. TAYLOE.
penditure for this class of work as much as possible.


John Herron: Perhaps the elections
had something to do with that. The minister had an appropriation for protecting the banks of streams of my constituency- in fact, protecting government property- and he withdrew it after the elections of 1908 were over. Was it because the constituency did not deliver the goods to the government on that occasion?


James Davis Taylor: I would like to call the minister's attention to another matter which was before his department, a request for assistance which was not granted, and as to which the Minister of Inland Revenue has no knowledge. This comes from Mr. William Wilson, of Cottonwood island, near Chiliwack, who says he has been petitioning for two or three years in regard to the devastation of his farm by the current indue id by the formation of a bar in the Fraser river opposite his place, a bar which would be removed if the suggestion which I make with regard to navigation to Agassiz were carried out. Mr. Wilson reports that the matter went so far that Mr. Kickbush, the gentleman in charge of the government work there, brought up the assistant district engineer, Mr. Gauvreau, who spoke of dredging through the bar. Mr. Wilson also reports that a petition to the government was being circulated at that time-the 22nd of November last. I wonder if the minister proposes to do anything in the matter of this protection work at Chiliwack?


William Pugsley: I have not thought of that. When matters come up for consideration-, we will have to see what are the most urgent demands that can be met out of this general v-ote of $10,000. I regret- that I cannot say anything more to bay hon. friend to-night as to the matter.


James Davis Taylor: I have another matter that I must bring to the attention of the minister. It is from the same locality, and is in connection with a request, not only for dredging, which would enable the river steamers t-o come up to the proper wharf, but, if the dredging cannot, be gob, for road improvements which would enable the traffic to come down to the spot on the river where it has to meet the steamer. When I mentioned this the other night, the minister stated that he had no request from Chiliwack for that purpose, and the only meaning that we could take from that was that if he had such a request, he would pay alteration to it and give it his kind consideration. I have here a memo from the Chiliwack Board of Trade which indicates the extent thev are suffering for lack of just such an improvement as I have in mind. The letter covering it reads as follows:	.

I beg to inclose herewith copy of report concerning conditions re the Fraser river landing at Chilliwack, and statistics in support of claims of the residents of this valley for an improvement in the condition of the same.
The facilities afforded merchants and farmers, the latter class forming the majority of the population, for the shipping of goods at the Fraser river landing are entirely inadequate and cause a great deal of "inconvenience, expense, and frequent loss to those engaged in business and the farmers.
The object of the inclosed report is to place in your hands some reliable information regarding the amount of business conducted in the Chilliwack valley, and setting forth the very_ inadequate assistance supplied for the facilitating of the same.
Trusting that this data will be of value to you in setting forth the claims of this district for an improvement of the existing conditions, I beg to remain, yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Then, their memorandum, which will give the minister a fair idea of the importance of the trade generally in the Chilliwack valley, read3 as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Merchandise received and shipped at Fraser River Landings,
The amount of general merchandise received and shipped at the port of Cliilli-wack, on the Fraser river, for the year ending in July, 1909, comprises the large total of 26,474 tons.
The steamer ' Beaver/ operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, carried 16,474 tons, as per the returns given by the general freight agent, and the steamer * Ramona' and other boats operated by the Western Steamboat Compan3r of New Westminster, carried as near as can be ascertained by tne records furnished, about 10,000 tons.
Wharfs.
There is a government wharf at this port, situated at such a point that it is only available for use by the steamers for a few months in the year, and from a statement made by the steamboat officials, fully three-quarters of the freight handled has to be shipped and landed at a point more than a mile below the government wharf, owing to the fact that the water is too low to allow the steamers to reach their proper landing place. For many years this fact has been a source of great worry and hardship to the merchants and shippers of this valley, and it must be pointed out that the period of low water comprises the rainy season in the fall and the winter and spring. The bulk of the shipping is done by the farmers in the fall and winter, their shipments comprising fruit and vegetables of all kinds, potatoes in large quantities, hay and live and dead stock; and at the same time the merchants are receiving their winter stocks of merchandise, &e. In the winter and spring, there is still considerable shipping of hay, potatoes and other farm produce held over, while the merchants and dealers are receiving their summer stocks of merchandise, machinery, flour and feed, &e.,
so that during the period in which the government wharf is in commission, from the months of May to September, there is comparatively little shipping to be done. The accommodation provided at the nearest point at which the boats can reach during the low-water period is only of a temporary nature and is situated on a gravel bar; the rush of high water each spring usually destroying it.
Shelter is provided by a shed built on a scow, and in many cases perishable freight has to be left out in the wet owing to lack of room. Goods having left the care of the transportation companies are frequently damaged by exposure, and the merchants have therefore no claim for damages, and after coming, perhaps, many thousand miles, are liable to the most damage within three miles of their destination.
Owing to the nature of the gravel bar at which, as stated above, the bulk of the freight is landed and shipped, it is impossible to maintain a road that will stand the heavy traffic during the seasons when the best of roads get out of repair through wet and frost, and the hardship inflicted in hauling heavy, costly and bulky freight over practically a beach and along shelving banks is nearly unbearable, to say nothing of the dangers incurred in conveying passengers to the boats.
Time and time again have the Dominion government been appealed to to have the channel dredged and maintained
[Stage Direction]
I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue to that:
-so that the wharf and sheds standing idle the greater part of the year can be used and this hardship now suffered by shippers and consignees alike be relieved, but nothing has been done except promises given to have matters remedied, and after great pressure being brought to bear, some temporary repairs to the inadequate shelter provided at the lower gravel bar.
Statistics.
That the district of Chilliwack, comprising the city and the fertile country surrounding it is an important one, and entitled to be relieved at the hands of the government from the condition of affairs with regard to better shipping and landing facilities on the Fraser river, is shown by some figures dealing with the post office, express shipments, &c., output of factories and population.
Population.
The population of the district, including the city of Chilliwack, which is incorporated, according to the last estimate made some time ago, is 5,500, but the next census will probably show larger figures, as new families are coming into the district every week.
Then follows a page of statistics which I shall not read. I would say, however, that I think the matter is sufficiently important to engage the attention of the committee even at this late hour of the night. An inspection of these statistics shows that the cost to the people of Chilliwack, because of the lack of facilities for making connections with steamboat traffic, is estimated on the rate per ton which they pay in addition
[Stage Direction]
to the normal rate, and that amounts to $10,000 a year. That is the amount of tax levied on those people every year because of the neglect of this government to provide a work which probably all told would not cost what the people pay in one year. That is a matter which ought to have been within the knowledge of the Minister of Inland Revenue as representing British Columbia. It seems to me that it must have been within his knowledge. I have heard him address public meetings at Chilliwack. I know that he spent a whole day there, and I think he did make himself familiar with the surroundings. I am surprised, therefore, that he should tell the House that he knows of no application for assistance to this riding which has not been granted by this government. Why, the people are paying $10,000 a year as a special tax to make connections which the government should provide without this tax. This ought to be considered a matter of urgency, and the minister should make it a very special case, considering the number of years the people have be 3n suffering.
William Templeman: When I challenged the representatives from the province of British Columbia to show that any application which had been made for public works in that province had been refused, I was referring, of course, to works of large magnitude and not to works such as the one to which my hon. friend refers. No one knows better than my hon. friend the - difficulties of the Fraser river, and I quite appreciate the difficulties under which the farmers of Chilliwack county suffer. It is true that certain wharf facilities are not available, but that is in consequence of the continual shifting of the river, the formation of sand bars, the washing away of banks and islands, the formation of new ones, and the continual changing of the channel. Right opposite the Chiliwack landing I will show broad areas of gravel bank, were some ten years ago a farm of 160 acres had existed that had been washed away. The Fraser river will always be a difficult problem for any government with respect to navigation and to construction of retaining works. I have discussed the matter frequently with Mr. Keefer, the resident engineer, and work has been done, but not probably of a nature sufficient to enable steamers to come to the present wharf. Mr. Keefer is most anxious to use the money voted for the Fraser river, so as to give the farmers all along the valley as far as Chilliwack all the facilities possible; and I am quite sure it is the intention of the department to carry out just that class of work to which my hon. friend refers. I repeat that when I made the statement that the representatives of British Columbia could not make good their Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
challenge, I desired that they should point to some considerable public work which has been refused. There are here and there throughout the province, I know myself, places where wharfs ought to be built that are not in the estimates yet; we will have them there before very long. There are places on the Fraser river that should be dredged, and probably some places where wharfs should be built, but they are not very numerous and no doubt in a very short time all these wants will be attended to.


James Davis Taylor: I must congratulate the Minister of Inland Revenue on the condition of affluence which he enjoys which makes him think that a public work -the absence of which costs the people of Chilliwack $10,000 a year-is not worth his lordly consideration.	.
I want to bring another need before his attention. I refer to the matter of aids to navigation on the Serpentine river, which serves the municipality of Delta, near the mouth of that river. This was undertaken many years ago, the minister of that_ day recognizing the importance of providing water transportation by the Serpentine river. In the course of years the work then done has become decayed. On September 24 last, this letter was addressed to the secretary of the board of trade of New Westminster who had interested himself on behalf of the petitioners:
Ottawa, September 24, 1909.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th inst., in reference to aids to navigation in the Serpentine river, and would advise you that Captain Gaudin referred your previous correspondence to this department promptly, with a recommendation that the piles formerly marking the channel of the Serpentine river should be replaced. The lowest offer Captain Gaudin could get for doing the work was $1,062, and besides which, the department would have to provide several buoys, and as the life of the piles from previous experience, appears to have been only two or three years, we question whether the traffic in the district would warrant so large an expenditure, and propose deferring action until a technical officer of the department can visit the locality and determine conditions on the spot. We have only a limited vote available for aids to navigation, and must spend the money where it will be an advantage to the greatest tonnage of shipping.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) C. STANTON, Assistant Deputy Minister
of Marine and Fisheries. Chas. H. Stuart-Wade, Esq., F.R.G.S., Sec.-Treas. Board of Trade,
New Westminster, British Columbia.
Since this letter was written there has been ample time for the inquiry by a tech-

nical officer indicated. I would ask what the result of that inquiry has been.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is asking about matters with which the Minister of Public Works has nothing to do. This belongs to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and if my hon. friend would defer this matter until we get into the Marine and Fisheries items I have no doubt the acting minister would be very glad to give the information desired.


James Davis Taylor: Haven't we been providing aids to navigation?


William Pugsley: That is in the Marine Department.


James Davis Taylor: You have been providing works like this?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some time ago I asked that the House should adjourn. I now ask the deputy Speaker to count the House out.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I would rather move the adjournment of the House.
Some resolutions reported.


ADJOURNMENT-NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING TARIFFS.
James Davis Taylor: I wish to ask the Finance Minister whether he could give any information as to negotiations with Washington respecting tariffs. I am informed there are press despatches from Washington indicating that something im-[DOT]portant is going on there and there is some public anxiety ta know whether the minister has any communication that can be made.


William Stevens Fielding: The matter is not in a position that would permit me to make any intimation to the House at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed on Monday with the naval debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 28, 1910.