1910-03-04

FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved that the House do, on Tuesday next, go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:	'
Resolved, tliat it is expedient to amend the Fisheries Act, chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by-
(a)	Defining the standard size of the barrel in which oysters are sold, bartered or trafficked in;
(b)	Prohibiting the taking, buying, selling, possessing or exporting of fish for the purpose of converting it into manure, guano or fertilizer, or for its manufacture or conversion into oil or manure or other fertilizing product, without a permit from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and
(c)	Providing for the bringing into force, by proclamation, the regulations prepared by the International Fisheries Commission between Great Britain and the United States, now before the House, and to authorize the making of regulations to secure their enforcement, and fixing penalties for their violation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. LEWIS.: I wish to ask a question of the government. I notice in the Toronto ' Daily Star ' an item headed:
Message to Canada from United States lost
for ten Days-Tariff Experts at Washington had Trunks packed waiting for Repfy

from Ottawa that never came-Criticism of British Embassy, which mailed Message-Canadian Attache needed.
Another paper contains the following item in reference to this despatch:
Where we Need a Man.
The Toronto ' Star ' prints a despatch from a correspondent in Washington which lets a little light into the darkness of this difficulty which sprang up so suddenly ten days ago over the question of tariff relations between the two countries. It seems that the American authorities, when they entered on then-work, issued a statement of their operations to the representatives of the countries that might be interested. Naturally, the British Embassy was the only place to serve nptifaca-tion respecting Canada. After waiting a while, not getting any answer, the Americans, with that courtesy which is bred of business training and the business man's allowance for unexplainable accidents, inquired again. Then it appeared that, in Mr. Bryce's absence in the West Indies, the best the British Embassy could do was to write over to the foreign office to see whether this was to be handled on the basis of four trips across the Atlantic between letter and answer, or whether it would be all right for Canadians to handle the business themselves. Fortunately, the foreign office very sensibly left it to Canada herself to settle with the States, and this answer came along about the time the Auipri-cans made their second inquiry. This time Canada was notified, but in the circumstances everybody was afraid to move, because on the one side it looked, from the newspapers, as if Canada was expected to dance to the II ash-ington piping, and on the other side as if Mr. Fielding was on his high horse and wouluii t deign to notice the existence of our big neighbour. By dint of applying good humour and common sense the situation has now been straightened out. But-
If Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to make this week the speech he made one day before Christmas, he might not be quite so certain that the presence of a Canadian representative in Washington is wholly unnecessary in face of the efficiency of the British Embassy. It doesn't so much matter what his title might be, or in what order he would walk in to dinner, but if we had had one reasonably intelligent Canadian stationed in Washington this incident need never have occurred. As it is, apparently nothing but the civility of some democratic American officials saved us from having to argue the case with the maximum rates standing against us. The double crossing of the ocean as a route of communication between Washington and Ottawa is a very interesting survival, but really it isn't business, and it had better be eliminated in the interest of economy. I
I also notice in another paper of an earlier date, referring to the Canadian office in Belgium, and the Canadian offices in Australia, and other places, an article. I ask the government if it is not about time that we should have a business agent in Washington, our nearest trade neighbour.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have to say in reply to my hon. friend that it may be perhaps opportune to discuss whether we should have an agent in Washington or not. but certainly not for the reasons mentioned in these extracts.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-SIR FREDERICK BORDEN.

Hon. MACKENZIE KING.: At the request of my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) I would ask permission of the House to make an explanation on his behalf. as he is unfortunately unable through illness to be in the House this afternoon. The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) in his speech on March 2, said:
Our minister of war (Sir Frederick Borden) delivered a speech here on February 10, and if hon. gentlemen will look it up, they will see that the hon. minister declared that the resolution that was presented by the Prime Minister last March was the one that was finally adopted by this House, and he puts in on ' Hansard ' just as it appeared when first read by the Prime Minister. Let me read it to you:
The hon. member then read the first part of the resolution as introduced by the Prime Minister, and continued:
You will remember that that is the paragraph as it appeared in the resolution brought in by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Militia has referred to that as the one finally adopted. But it was not so.
With reference to this passage I have received from Sir Frederick Borden the following- communication:
My dear Mackenzie King,-Thanks for your kind letter directing my attention to Mr. Crother's reference to my speech. I had hoped to be able to bring the matter up in the House to-day and notified Mr. Crothers accordingly. Unfortunately after making the attempt, I have had a return of lumbago and must keep quiet. I am anxious to_ have the correction made in my speech, and it has occurred to me that you might bring the matter up for me to-day, so that the necessary instructions may be given to ' Hansard to substitute the resolution which I read for the one published erroneously.
The speech itself carries with it the proof that I read the resolution finally adopted by the House.	.
As a matter of fact I had the resolution adopted March 29, 1909, and Mr. Borden's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Navy Bill (February 3, 1910) respectively pasted on separate sheets of letter paper just like the duplicate I am sending herewith. At six o'clock recess I handed them to the ' Hansard ' boy telling him he need not return them. They were not used by ' Hansard ' in extending reporters' notes, but the resolution of 1909 was erroneously clipped from * Hansard * of March 29, 1909, at the end of the premier's speech instead of at the end of the debate of that day.

I have a most distinct recollection of reading the resolution in which I had marked the words ' speedy ' for special emphasis and remark.
The proof-reading was done by me but was limited to my own words. I did not think of proof-reading the extracts. When I took the proofs to the ' Hansard' room, I mentioned the fact that I had not read the extracts, &c., &c., and was told that it was not necessary as special care was taken to read and compare them.
Tours very truly,



F. W. BORDEN.

[Stage Direction]
I wish also to read the following letter addressed to Sir Frederick Borden from the chief reporter of ' Hansard,' the letter speaks for itself:
Ottawa, March 4, 1910.
Dear Sir Frederick Borden,-In reply to your inquiry in regard to the resolution quoted by you in your speech of February 10 last as having been passed unanimously by the House on March 29, 1909, and referred to by Mr. Crothers in his speech of the 2nd instant, I would like to say that I find on inquiry, that, by mistake made in this office in copying the resolution from Hansard ' of 1909, the resolution, as moved originally by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was erroneously inserted in the report of your speech instead of the resolution as finally adopted by the House, which was the one you did quote.
The erroneous substitution of the one resolution for the other appears not to have been detected in the revision of the report, and hence is continued in the revised edition of the debates.
While regretting the mistake, I beg to say that in these matters the chief reporter has no responsibility.
I am,
Very respectfully yours, ALBERT HORTON,
_	,	. , „	Chief reporter.
Sir Frederick Borden, K.C.M.G.,
Minister of Militia and Defence.
I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, on, behalf of the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence, that you give instructions to 'Hansard, to have the necessary corrections made in the report of his speech.
Mr. CROTHERS.: The statement just made by the hon. Minister of Labour from the hon. the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) does not of course challenge any remark which I made in my observations the other night, and therefore does not call for any reply from me. My observations were not based entirely on what the Minister of Militia said, but also upon a statement made, as reported in the Toro11*? ' Globe,' by the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) to the effect that we on this side had approved of the resolution passed last March, prohibiting in any event the granting of a naval contribution towards the maintenance or construction of the imperial navy, and it occurred to me that the Minister of Justice is labour-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ing under the same misapprehension as was the Minister of Militia. However, I do not desire to add anything further than to express my very sincere regret that the absence of the hon. Minister of Militia, and express the hope that he will soon be fully restored to health, and resume his duties in this House.



PRESS GALLERY.

Edward Norman Lewis: I notice in the ' Albertan,' a prominent newspaper published in Calgary these words:
It may be a question whether or not the members of parliament really earn their salary for attending the sessions of the Dominion parliament, but there can be no denying the fact that the reporters in the press gallery-


Mr. SPEAKER.: Does the hon. gentleman wish to put a question? The custom at this stage is to bring up only questions concerning the business of the House, or of an urgent character. Other questions are brought up by notice under the rules of the House. The matter may be brought up on the motion to go into Supply, but that motion is not yet made.


Edward Norman Lewis: There is no one, Sir, more desirous of upholding your authority and the dignity of the House than I am, and I consequently bow to your ruling.



THE GERMAN SURTAX.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Has the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) been called to a rather curious error in the last memorandum brought down in respect of our trade relations with Germany? The minister will notice that in the statement he brought down it is declared that a kilogram is equivalent to 220 -4 pounds.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: That is a typographical error. My attention was not drawn to it, but I shall now see that it is corrected. It is in the punctuation.


Mr.  R. L.@: * BORDEN. No it is in the omission of the words ' one hundred ' it should be one hundred kilograms.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have it corrected.



THE UNITED STATES TARIFF.

Mr. OWEN.: I see by the papers that representatives of the American government are to interview our government re the tariff. Canada has entered into a treaty with France, and by a recent arrangement with Germany, the surtax has been removed wholly by Canada on all the articles we have to export, but only in part by Germany on what they have to export. Have we in any way forfeited our rights to the minimum tariff of the United States?



191U

William Stevens Fielding: That is too large a proposition. In my judgment we have not, but that is a matter of opinion. When my hon. friend says that we have removed the whole of the surtax, and Germany only one-half, he is under a misapprehension. Germany had no surtax to remove.



SUPPLY-THE PRESS GALLERY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Thanks for the suggestion.\nProgress reported.']
Edward Norman Lewis: I notice in a prominent paper in the west, published at Calgary, called the 'Albertan,' these words:
It may be a question whether or not the members of the parliament really earn their salaries for attending the sessions of the Dominion parliament, but there can be no denying the fact that the reporters in the press gallery should have their wages raised many times over.. . . A bold, brave young man who will risk his life and understanding by sitting day after day and night after night listening to the debates upon the Naval Bill, endeavouring to get the kernel out of_ the volume of chaff, is worthy of better things. It is possible that he does get good wages, but it is also certain that he does not get enough.
. ... So the ' Albertan ' repeats that whatever may be the salary of the reporters who sit by and listen to this kind of thing from day to day, from week to week, that they are underpaid. A man who risks health and mind on a proposition like that should get some sort of bonus from the State.
Sir, there's many a true word spoken in jest. I have taken the precaution to look into this matter, according to 'Sells' World's Press, 1909, I find that we have in Canada 892 newspapers, divided among the provinces as follows:
Newspapers.
Ontario	 525
Quebec	 117
New Brunswick	 39
Nova Scotia	 62
Prince Edward Island	 12
Manitoba	 79
Northwest Territories	 25
British Columbia	 33
Total	 892
There are forty press representatives in the gallery, representing probably eighty newspapers. Now, it is to the interest of Canada that what is done here should be published through the country. The 'unrevised 'Hansard' is sent out, it probably does not reach the persons addressed for a week or ten days after the speeches reported have been made, but what the men in the press gallery report is sent by telegraph. I submit that, if we have anything for the people of the country to know, the country as a whole and the newspapers as a whole should help to pay for making it known. We allow a certain sum for a newspaper editor in the city of London,
England, in order to secure information from there. The city of Toronto pays $4,000 a year for what? For a bureau of publicity. 1 ask that similar steps joe taken here. It may be an innovation; no other parliament in the world may have it, but why should we wait for another parliament to show us the way. If there is any way by which a certain amount could be set aside for publishing by telegraph the news which we desire to have published, I submit, the government should take some steps in the matter.



Mr. LENNOX.: I mentioned, last night as the House was about to adjourn, that to-day I proposed to bring up the subject of certain payments for alleged flooding in portions of the county of Peterborough in connection with the Trent Valley water system. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) mentioned to me just now that tha Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is out of the city, and he preferred that I should not proceed with the discussion now. The proposition is one which I think I should accede to, and therefore I will not bring up the matter to-day.


HALIFAX HARBOUR-BIG GUN PRACTICE AND THE FISHERMEN.
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Militia and Defence ('Sir Frederick Borden) to a resolution which has been forwarded to me from the municipal council of the county of Halifax, pointing out the detriment and danger to the fishermen; in the vicinity of Halifax harbour-that is, the entrance to the harbour-from	the big gun practice
which is carried on, and suggesting that this practice should be carried on if possible, between the 30th November and the 15th of June, instead of at the seasons which have been utilized for the purpose in the past. From the statements set forth in the resolution, which I will not read in full, it would seem that the fishermen sustain not only inconveniences but considerable detriment under the present system. If the practice could be carried on with equal efficiency-as seems to be the case- during the season which has been suggested, I would strongly urge upon the government that this request should be complied with.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my .hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will kindly send me the resolution, I will call the attention of my colleague to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
[Stage Direction]
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-British Columbia-Loekport -Queen Charlotte islands-wharf, $2,000.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Most of the members of the committee know that the Queen Charlotte islands form a group in the Pacific at the mouth of the Skeena river. They are said to be very rich in minerals and are clothed with valuable timber. There is a good deal of development in the particular locality referred to. I believe that a wharf is quite urgently required. The amount here asked is expected to finish the work.


Mr. COWAN.: What trade is anticipated over that wharf?


William Pugsley: I believe that at this point quartz mining is being developed.


George Henry Cowan: Have any steps been taken to ascertain how many immigrants are entering British Columbia over these wharfs without calling at the port of entry?


William Pugsley: I have no information on that point.
Masset, Queen Charlotte islands-wharf, $3,000.


William Pugsley: I understand that there is quite an important farming and lumbering district in the vicinity of Massett, and that this place is likely to become of considerable importance. The wharf is urgently asked for and it is expected that this $3,000 will complete it.
Nitinat Lake outlet-removal of obstructions-revote of lapsed amount, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to remove two large ledges at the outlet of Nitinat lake. One of these rocks is bare at low tide and the other is quite close to the surface. They form a menace to navigation and it is regarded as very desirable that they should be removed. This can only be done by blasting and we estimate that it will take about $5,000 to do the work. We shall have to remove from the large rock over 10,000 cubic feet and from the small rock 4,500 feet, representing a total of 540 cubic yards. We estimate the cost at about $10 per cubic yard, or a total of the amount we are asking.


Mr. BARNARD.: Did the whole of that vote lapse last year?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: Why was not the work done last year?
Mr. PUGSLEY' The vote was not passed last session but in the session before that. We allowed it to lapse because we thought this was one of those works which, in view of the then condition of the revenue, might well be allowed to lie over, and w-e are reSir WILFRID LAURIER.
storing it to the estimates as we are restoring votes for a large number of other needed public improvements.
Nootka-west coast of Vancouver island- wharf, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of building a small wharf at Nootka, -where there is a large marble quarry, and machinery has been installed for manufacturing marble. The wharf is needed in connection with that business, and for general traffic purposes.
Porclier island-mouth of Skeena river- wharf, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This amount, it is supposed, will be sufficient to build the wharf at the mouth of the Skeena river. There are some fifty farms located on Porcher island, and the wharf is required to assist the farmers in getting in their supplies and merchandise, and in getting out their produce.
Queen Charlotte city-wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: Queen Charlotte city is on one of the Queen Charlotte islands. It is supposed this amount will be sufficient to build the wharf. Queen Charlotte city is quite close to extensive coal and copper mines, and there are also extensive forests in the vicinity. I think there are about 100 men already employed there, and my information is that large developments are going on.


George Henry Cowan: I think these wharfs are quite necessary on Queen Charlotte island, but I wish to call the attention of the government to the fact that the building of these wharfs is really facilitating the entry into British Columbia of immigrants, not only under the Immigration Act, but under the Chinese Immigration Act, contrary to the rules and condition of those two Acts. I know that the matter is scarcely relevant to this item, but I wished to call the attention of the government to these facts.


William Pugsley: Even though by possibility immigrants might arrive at British Columbia at other ports than Vancouver, I would not suppose my hon. friend would seriously object to public improvements being made in other places by reason of that possibility. Of course, if immigrants come into British Columbia at other points, there will be the necessary officials present to examine them, and turn them back if they are not entitled to come in. But it would not do to impede the development of other sections of British Columbia simply because some extra precautions might need to be taken to prevent the entry-of undesirable immigrants.


George Henry Cowan: I am not objecting to these items, on the other hand I think they are-

quite proper. But I think that the construction of these wharfs should go hand in hand with some provision to prevent the violation of these Acts by the entry over these wharfs into British Columbia of immigrants who do not comply with the conditions of those Acts.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Explain how they violate the Act. My hon. friend seems to object to the building of a wharf on Queen Charlotte island, because thereby there might be a violation of an Act with regard to immigration. I want my hon. friend to explain how the building of a wharf at any point in British Columbia is going to permit or encourage the violation of any Act whatever.


George Henry Cowan: I have made two unsuccessful attempts to penetrate the intelligence of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue. I have already said that I am not objecting to these items, but I do say that the construction of wharfs on Queen Charlotte island should be accompanied by measures to prevent the violation of these Acts by the entry into British Columbia of immigrants who have not complied with the conditions of these Acts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that these Acts have been violated?


George Henry Cowan: I mean to say that exactly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the hon. gentleman give an instance?


George Henry Cowan: The instances on Queen Charlotte island are numerous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Cite one.


George Henry Cowan: I cannot give the names of the Japanese who have come in.


William Pugsley: How do they get there? Do they swim across the Pacific?


William Templeman: A statement that Japanese are entering British Columbia by Queen Charlotte island without any restraint or restriction, should not be allowed to go uncontradicted. It is absolutely and wholly inaccurate; there is not a shadow of foundation for such statements. There is not a Japanese on the Queen Charlotte islands who has not gone there through either the city of Vancouver or from the city of Victoria. It is true that up to a recent period there was a Japanese company developing a mine at Ikeda bay, employing between fifty or one hundred Japanese. But I think that mine has been sold, and there are, I am told, very few Japanese on Queen Charlotte island to-day. No ships, large or small, ever land on Queen Charlotte island from across the Pacific ocean. Up to the last two or three years Queen Charlotte islands have been largely undeveloped, there were very few people on
them. But now developments are taking place, and little communities are springing up, and we are trying to make provision for these places by the erection of wharfs. Just so soon as these communities become of sufficient importance to make it desirable to establish a port of entry there, the Minister of Customs will attend to them. But it is absolutely ridiculous, if my hon. friend will permit me to say so, to suggest that because we are endeavouring to meet the wants of the people at Queen Charlotte city by the erection of a wharf, we are thereby facilitating the violation of any customs regulations or any immigration law. It is unfair to say so, and it is not correct. I am sorry to see that my hon. friend from Vancouver is trying to throw obstacles in the way of a reasonable and moderate expenditure on Queen Charlotte island.


Mr. BURRELL.: Do I understand the minister to say that Japanese no longer own mines in Queen Chariotte island?


William Templeman: I have been informed that the Ikeda mines have been sold to another company.


George Henry Cowan: I wish to point out that on Friday evening the Minister of Inland Revenue woke up to make the general statement that British Columbia had never proffered a request for public works that had not been granted, and that it was absolutely ridiculous for us to say otherwise. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) promptly went to work and pointed out request after request from various sections in British Columbia which had been refused, and of which the minister knew absolutely nothing. Again he gets up and says that there has never been a boat crossing the Pacific ocean and making its entry at the harbours of the Queen Charlotte islands instead of Vancouver or Victoria. I shall have the pleasure of putting exactly the facts and the proof before the Minister of Inland Revenue upon that. But, I am sorry that I cannot penetrate the intelligence of the Minister of Inland Revenue. I am not opposing these items; I think they are correct, but I do think that the government should take steps at once to make some of these ports, ports of entry, or subports to prevent violations of the law.
Spallumcheen river-repairs to and extension of bank protection works, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make necessary improvements to already existing protection works that were constructed by the former government a few years ago. There has been some damage by storms and it is necessary to make repairs.


Mr. GOODEVE.: In reference to tills item, I would like to call the attention of

the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to the requests made with regard to the repairing of the banks of the Columbia river. In that case also the minister will remember that he had knowledge that the government had already paid half the cost of the repairs to the shores c>f the Columbia river. The shores are being washed away. The ground then taken by the minister was that he had changed the policy of the government in that particular, and that the government were no longer doing any work of that nature, and that he felt that it was the duty of the province to do it. I am not objecting to this item. On the contrary, I am very glad to see this amount in the estimates, but I should have liked to have an amount placed in the estimates for other improvements to which I shall call the attention of the minister. 1 want to take this opportunity, because it is the only one I shall have in connection with the estimates of British Columbia, to call the attention of the minister and the government to the fact that we have made application both in connection with the Kootenay river and the Columbia river, for some needed improvements in the way of wharfs and dredging. I have here three petitions, not merely individual petitions, but the petitions of the Associated Boards of Trade of Southern British Columbia, and, therefore, of such a character as should carry some weight with this government. I am informed by letters that each of these petitions has been sent to the minister. One of them relates to dredging at Burton City on Arrow lake. I took a great deal of trouble to explain to the minister the circumstances with regard to this proposed improvement. This is a horticultural community which requires shipping facilities. On account of the nature of the bed of the lake, sand and gravel bars are washed up with the result that during the winter season at low water the boats cannot get in, and traffic has been actually compelled to go around by way of Nakusp, Slocan lake and Slocan City to get down there, with the result that a number of ranchers are cut off from communication with the outside. They have only received their mail once a week owing to that. To a large extent that would have been obviated if the minister had seen fit to put a small appropriation in these estimates to do the necessary dredging at this place. Then, I have also called his attention to the necessity of having some dredging done at Kootenay lake, where somewhat similar conditions exist, and also to the necessity of having buoys placed in Kootenay lake.


William Pugsley: That would be under the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Mr. GOODE  VE@: Yes, that would come under their department more particularly, so that I will leave it until we come to the Mr. GOODEVE.
estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. However, in regard to this dredging, I endeavoured to put it very fairly before the minister. I explained the class of settlers coming in there, and I told him that we did not want large or expensive works, but that all we wanted was such wharfs as would enable settlers to_ get in their necessary merchandise and ship their fruit out. I considered this very fair, and I asked that he would place in the estimates an amount of $1,500 for wharfs in some places, and in others $2,500 or $3,000, which would be sufficient to build wharfs necessary to enable these settlers to carry on their business. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company are building a large summer hotel on Kootenay lake and they have seen fit to put on extra boats on account of the increased traffic. Yet, none of these considerations have affected the Minister of Public Works. I was very much surprised, in watching the estimates for the maritime provinces, to see that we are making grants to places much smaller and less populous, and that very large sums of money are being expended. In one place $15,000 was voted at the instance of the minister, and I saw where we spent it on day labour between October and November, 1908, a portion of it on the main street of the village. This village is said to have a population of 600 or 700. They put six inches of sand down on the main street, built culverts, &c. While that money is being expended in that way, we find it impossible in the new district into which a splendid class of settlers is coming to get these much needed improvements made. I think that this government should take this matter into consideration, and that they should fairly consider the great needs of a new country such as this is. It should also be remembered that British Columbia contributes a very large revenue. I do not propose to go into that to-day, because it was very clearly placed before the minister' a few days ago by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), and my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). Every member of the government is familiar with the very large revenue that we pay in proportion to population-more than any. other province of the Dominion of Canada-and, therefore, it is only fair that we should receive some consideration in regard to the matters to which I have drawn the attention of the minister. During the first year I was here, I had several interviews with the ..minister, and I was careful to lay all the details before him. I appealed to his reason and fairness. I did consider that, while he made no definite promise, he would take this matter into his consideration, and particularly in one or two cases, while perhaps I did not quite understand the position he took, I concluded that there would have been amounts in the estimates for thd

wharfs that, we were asking for. I regret to see that they are not in the estimates at this time.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has spoken of improvements on the Columbia river. If he will look at the estimates which we have already passed he will find a sum of $14,500 for improvements on the Columbia river. In regard to the wharfs to which he refers, they are under consideration, and in regard to the matter of dredging in Kootenay lake, it has been brought to my attention, not by my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) alone, but by others, by my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), and also by the Canadian Pacific railway. I may say to my hon. friend that I have now under consideration the question of building a dredge for operation on Kootenay lake. We have no dredge there at the present time. It has been impossible to do dredging work, and until we can build a dredge we cannot engage upon this work. I just want to say to my hon. friend that I do not think he strengthens his case at all by complaining that British Columbia is being discriminated against. If my hon. friend thinks there is any work in his province that is worthy of attention let him put it upon the ground that this province is being discriminated against by the Department of Public Works. I assure my hon. friend' that in that respect he is entirely in error. There is no foundation whatever for the statement, and the mere making of the statement and putting it forward so persistently, it does seem to me, is calculated to do his case more harm than good. If my hon. friend will take the main estimates he will see that we have provided for public buildings in British Columbia, $259,259. He speaks of the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, being more favoured than the province of British Columbia. If my hon. friend will turn to public buildings he will find that the total amount being appropriated in the main estimates for public buildings in Nova Scotia is $105,000. One hundred and five thousand dollars for Nova Scotia public buildings, as against $259,259 for public building in British Columbia-more than double the amount beng appropriated for public buildings than is being appropriated in Nova Scotia, and this notwithstanding the fact that we have just completed a public building in Vancouver which is one of the finest in the whole Dominion of Canada, and notwithstanding the fact that a large number of public buildings have recently been erected in other parts of British Columbia. I do not say that we are doing too much in British Columbia; I do not say that we are dealing generously with that province.
All I say is that we are dealing justly, fairly and equitably with British Columbia, just as we seek to deal with all the other provinces of Canada. Wherever there is a public work meriting an appropriation we endeavour to meet the wants of the people as fairly and as quickly as we can; but we cannot do everything at once. There are no doubt a great many public works in British Columbia, as there are in all the provinces of Canada which are worthy of being attended to, and which no doubt will be attended to in due course; but we cannot go on and construct all these public works at once, because we must have regard to the revenues of the country and to the demands upon those revenues. I want also to point out to my hon. friend that we are engaged in a great work of improving the Fraser river. Our attention has been directed strongly to the necessity of improving the entrance to the harbour of Vancouver. In Burrard Inlet, Vancouver has. one of the finest harbours in the world; but the entrance is not as good as it should be, in view of the rapidly developing traffic. Perhaps it can be truthfully said that it is dangerous. Well, we have an appropriation in these estimates, under capital account, for the improvement of that entrance, which shows that we recognize the importance of Vancouver as one of the national ports of the country. We propose widening the_ entrance to a width of 1,200 feet. This is going to cost, in addition to the cost of the dredge, about $350,000 or $400,000. We have also a provision in the estimates for making a great improvement in Victoria harbour- for continuing the dredging and blasting out of the rocks for the purpose of broadening the harbour and making it one of the best harbours in the country. At Nanaimo and many other places we are making improvements. My hon. friend will find in these estimates that we are appropriating $138,000 for wharfs and harbour improvements in British Columbia outside altogether of the expenditure for dredging and these great improvements in the Fraser river and in the harbours of Vancouver and Victoria. Therefore, if my hon. friend will look at matters as they are, I think he wall conclude that if we are not able to do as much for British Columbia at present as we would like to do, we recognize and are meeting as rapidly as possible the great necessities of this Tapidly developing and marvellously rich portion of our Dominion.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I do not think the hon. minister has answered any of the complaints I have made. I quite agree with him that, in view of the rapid growth of the province, the government are not expending too much in and around the city



of Vancouver, and the city of Victoria, on the coast or on the Queen Charlotte Islands. What I am speaking for is a place 500 miles from the place the minister has been discussing. He started out to discuss the amount to be expended on public works in the province; but as that item is not before us, I did not take up that question. When I spoke of the expenditures in. the other provinces, I was not complaining of them; but I pointed out that when the government were expending these sums of money in other provinces, it was only reasonable that there should be some money expended in the district I represent. I took this matter up in connection with the estimates at the first session of this, parliament, and I looked for something in the supplementary estimates of last year. As nothing was there, I took the matter up again, and the minister said that from the Minister of Inland Revenue and others from British Columbia applications had been made. Now, the resolution of the associated boards of trade of eastern. British Columbia, to which I have referred, says:
Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company contemplates the discontinuance of steamship service on the Lower Arrow lake owing to difficulties in navigation arising from wash-gravel deposited near the mouth of Cariboo creek, and whereas, such discontinuance of daily steamship service completes an isolation of such settlers, who with their families have purchased holdings, with the understanding that they should continue to enjoy the convenience of a daily steamer service, and the isolation of this large settlement will retard the development and settlement of such large areas as are now offered for sale, and hamper a legitimate industry that bids now to become the most profitable in the interior of this province, viz., the growing of fruit, &c. I
I need not weaTy the House by reading the whole of the resolution. The boards of trade have endeavoured to press this matter on its merits, and not in any contentious spirit, and I say again that in view of the revenue received by this government from the province of British Columbia, the development of the district to which I have referred, the number of immigrants going into it, and the fact that these are very large navigable waters, and that one of the greatest railway companies in the world is placing upon them a steamship service, I think they are entitled to some recognition on the part of the government. I went to the minister about this matter, having no desire to bring it before the House, believing that he would desire to deal fairly with it, and I am disappointed that nothing has been done, I am glad to hear the minister say that he has the matter under consideration, and I hope that he will still provide in the supplementary estimates, for the work I have men-Mr. GOODEVE.
tioned, both the dredging of the Columbia river, and the improvements on the Arrow lakes. In view of its pressing necessity, I would ask him if he has in view any dredging at Kootenay lake?


William Pugsley: We have only one dredge on the Arrow lakes, and during the past season it was engaged in doing necessary work for improving the channel. We keep it at work wherever it appears to be most required. In these main estimates we are making provision for quite a number of works in British Columbia, and the fact that the others of which my hon. friend speaks are not provided for in these estimates is no proof that we have not given them either very careful consideration or even favourable consideration. Of course I cannot say to my hon. friend whether there will be supplementary estimates or not, I am not in a position to say that, and if it was understood there were to be supplementary estimates I could not say to my hon. friend what would be in them. Ail I can say is that the matter of doing work at Burton, Proctor and some other places as well as the dredging of Kootenay lake are all under careful consideration.


Martin Burrell: I think the minister's
manner of replying to my hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) was hardly fair. I do not intend to discuss this very big question of better terms, but I do not think he should put the members from British Columbia into the position of condemning the size of the grants given to other portions of the country. I think if the minister were a British Columbian and had the history of British Columbia fairly well at heart he would take exactly the same attitude as any member from British Columbia. He would have to take it'because it has been clearly recognized in many high quarters that British Columbia has special claims on the consideration of the government, in fact claims which have not been met from our point of view and the leaders of his party when this question was being thoroughly discussed some time ago pointed out that they would not ask financial readjustment at the hands of the government, but would press for a laxger share of public works because that was the way in which the government of this country ought to deal justly with the province of British Columbia. It is not a matter to be dealt with in the way the Minister of Public Works dealt with it. If he referred to the expenditure on public works being greater in British Columbia than in Nova Scotia this year the only fair comparison would be a comparison over a number of years, and if he referred to the figures in the speech of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) during the budget debate in reference to these

things, particularly with reference to questions of dredging, etc., he will find that some of the figures in connection with British Columbia's position compared with the rest of the country are very startling. We have a perfect right, as members from British Columbia, if we think the numerous claims of British Columbia have not been met to ask the government that they shall be fairly met on their merits. I will take the minister's word and am glad to know that the government are becoming a little more aware of the requirements of the case in British Columbia.
Last year I mentioned to the minister an -item in the estimates of the previous year of $10,000 for deepening the channel between Okanagan lake and Dog lake. The Minister replied:


William Pugsley: Provision was made last year for improving the channel between Okanagan lake and Dog lake, hut owing to the fact that Dog lake is about 14 feet lower than Okanagan lake, I, myself, after considering very carefully the report of the engineers, have very grave doubts as to the desirability of proceeding with the work. I am inclined to think that it will not be proceeded with at the present time and I will tell my hon. friend why. I am afraid that if the outlet of Okanagan lake is lowered so as to give a free run to the water the result will be to lower the level of Okanagan lake and that might necessitate dredging. ... I am inclined to think that it might be better to delay proceeding with the work until a more careful study is made of the conditions. There is always the danger when you attempt to alter natural conditions with the idea of improving the navigation so as to give access to Dog lake that the result will be to materially injure the navigation of Okanagan lake which will be very much to be regretted.
I find in the report of the chief engineer for 1909, that $2,492 was expended. The report proceeds:
Some dredging in December done in Okanagan river about half a mile from where it leaves Okanagan lake. Work was resumed March 1. Prom March 1 to 14 the time, was occupied in building a house-boat to be used as quarters for the crew of the ' Heron' (dredge), the actual cost of which was about $350. Dredging was then continued where left oft at the end of December. Expenditure, $4,621.79.
I understand that the engineer in charge expects to be able to deepen the channel in such a way as to be able to make navigation possible without lowering the level of Okanagan lake and I shall be glad if the minister would explain the present position there and what the government propose to do, and are doing, because this work is regarded as of some importance in that country.


William Pugsley: I made the statement to the House which the hon. gentleman 150i
has quoted. Last summer when I was in British Columbia I visited the locality in company with Mr. Aylmer, the assistant resident engineer, and in discussing the matter with him I found that his opinion was that instead of carrying out the plaji which had been originally in contemplation of dredging the whole channel between the two lakes; it would be desirable only to restore the natural conditions as they were some 15 years ago when there was navigation between the two lakes, that is to dredge out for some distance south of the main Okanagan lake, and he was authorized to proceed with this work. I found that if it were done in that way it would not lower Okanagan lake, while we would get reasonably good accommodation between the two lakes, navigation suitable for light draft vessels and equal to the navigation of 15 years ago before it was obstructed by gravel from a stream tributary to the river connecting the two lakes so that it would be a quite desirable public work. With my authority, which was communicated to the department at Ottawa, the engineer was instructed to proceed with the work along those lines. It has not yet been completed, but I should think it ought to be completed very early in the coming season.


Martin Burrell: The minister expects to complete it with the previous vote?


William Pugsley: It can come out of the general dredging vote. We have our own dredge.


Martin Burrell: Then there is a reasonable expectation that the navigation can be made fairly satisfactory without lowering the lake?


William Pugsley: I believe so, yes.
Stewart, head of Portland Canal wharf, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build a whaTf at a very important place, where there are evidences of unusual activity and development in the way of mining. It is at the head of the Portland canal. Arrangements are already under way for the building of a railway fifteen miles in length into the country, and it is believed that the development there will be something unprecedented in British Columbia so far as quartz mining is concerned. The wharf is essential and we are asking $15,000 for it.


George Henry Cowan: Will this be sufficient?


William Pugsley: It is supposed this will be sufficient although it will be an expensive wharf, because the tide flats extend out a considerable distance from the shore; but we think by building a trestle and utilizing a head block which has been

built by the nrovinciai government this will suffice. If the head block is transferred to the federal government, as would seem reasonable, this would be sufficient.
Upper Fraser river-improvement of navigable channel at Fort George canyon, above Quesnel, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is intended to give navagation up the Fraser river through the Fort George canyon to a point where the Grand Trunk Pacific will enter the valley of the Fraser, and pass on to Prince Rupert. The navigation, is very fair now, but there is still some considerable danger, and this further amendment is required to make the canyon safe to navigate.


Martin Burrell: Will that be sufficient to put it into good shape?


William Pugsley: No, that will take about $10,000. We shall require $3,000 more.


Martin Burrell: I hope there will be no relaxation of effort to improve this navigation. It is an important stretch of water, especially in view of the country opening up round. Fort George, and I should like very, much to see that work expedited. Has anything been done in the way of an inspection by government engineers of the Fraser between Lytton and Quesnel? There are large stretches of water there on which navigation could be made perfectly effective with perhaps very little expenditure. I have been asked to urge strongly on the minister to have this done, and would ask him to have the government engineer report on the general condition of the Fraser to see if the water highway between Lytton and Quesnel could not be made more useful.


William Pugsley: I shall give the matter my attention. No doubt the upper waters of the Fraser are just as important as those lower down. We have made very considerable improvements at the Cottonwood canyon, which have greatly facilitated navigation, and the importance of making an examination between Quesnel and Lytton is well worth considering.


Martin Burrell: I would like to ask a question with reference to some immense waterways still further north. As the minister knows, the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Fort George westerly is opening up enormous stretches of country and bringing in very heavy settlement, and transportation facilities would be much cheapened if the necessary dredging were done in the Nechaco river. If the minister could see his way to have dredging done on the Nechaco and Stuart rivers, he would be doing a great service to that section of the country.	.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has referred to the Nechaco river. The naviga-Mr. PUGSLEY.
tion between Fort George and the mouth of the Nechaco is all right. To the Nechaco river itself, I will give consideration.
Yakoun river, Graham island, Queen Charlotte islands-removal of obstructions to navigation, $10,0i)0.


William Pugsley: It will require a powerful engine to remove the rocks.


Mr.   J.@: I). TAYLOR. I would like to ask what has been done about the approach to the wharf at Port Moody?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been done at present. To make a proper approach, which would be suitable at all times of tide would require a very large amount of dredging, and be very expensive. I have not seen my way clear to undertake that work.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Why did the hon.
minister have the wharf left so that it cannot be approached by vessels except at high tide? When he was in British Columbia last year, I called his attention to this wharf at Port Moody, and he promised to go and see it. For some reason unknown to me, he did not keep his appointment, and did not see the wharf; but upon the day when he was to have been there and did not come, a photograph was taken to show the conditions which would have been revealed to him had he made his visit. There were 400 yards of dry land between the wharf and the water. Presumably that structure tvas built because the minister believed a wharf was needed there. Certainly a wharf is badly needed and the dredging would be comparatively simple, 400 yards through the mud. It is a work much more urgently needed than other works of that kind, discussed here lately, which were ordered by the minister the moment his attention was called to them, even by telegram, and without waiting for tenders or an estimate of cost. We have frequently to vote money for dredging offhand and in a hurry, and it is not fair to a place of the importance of Port Moody to be deprived of the facilities for steamboat traffic that an approachable wharf would give. All that is wanted is a little dredging to enable boats to get into that wharf at all stageg of the tide. I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that this wharf being built to salt water at high tide is just as much subject to decay, and is costing the country just as much as it would if the work were completed and in use for traffic. Is it' proper to lay out so much money and have the work in a condition in which it cannot be used? Port Moody is entitled to this expenditure. We have been in confederation thirty-nine years, and in all that time the government has not built a wharf at Port Moody until this one, and

this one was finished 400 yards away from where it can be used at all tides. Only at high tide can vessels get in and that is not sufficient for the regular traffic. What the people require is a wharf to which boats can get at all tides, and thus be able to give them regular communication with Vancouver by steamer, in place of having to depend upon the railway. At present there is great inconvenience, as the railway time tables are made to suit through traffic and not local traffic. But if the approach were improved by dredging so that vessels could get to the -wharf at all times of the tide, we could have regular passenger and freight service to Vancouver all the year round. At present, however, the vessels cannot run on any schedule, and the people are deprived of the service they would like to have. Thirty-nine years is a very long time for any community to wait for a wharf, more especially when other communities have been served three or four times within that period, and we are still waiting for our first service.


William Pugsley: I assure my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) that there was no intended discourtesy in my not visiting Port Moody with him as I had hoped to be able to do. But I was pretty busy when I was in British Columbia. There were a good many places I desired to visit, and I regretted I was not able to keep my appointment with my hon. friend. It was not a positive appointment, hut I said I would let him know and if-well, it was pretty nearly an appointment, but not quite. But I did not fail to make inquiry at to the wharf at Port Moody. I satisfied myself that to dredge an approach to it would take a good deal of time, and we had no dredge available as all were engaged then in work that seemed to be more urgent and important from a traffic and business standpoint. Now, with regard to the wharf itself, my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) asks why it was built there.


James Davis Taylor: In that particular
place.


William Pugsley: Apparently, both governments allowed it to remain in its present position. It was built thirty years ago, and I suppose it was built because the people .wanted it and thought that a wharf that would enable vessels to come there at high tide would be better than no wharf at all. My hon. friend should bear in mind that Port Moody is only seventeen miles from Vancouver. Also, the Canadian Pacific railway runs through Port Moody and gives accommodation, so far as a railway can give accommodation, to the people. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places in Canada which have no railway, and many of which have no wharf accommodation at all, I know hundreds of places myself which have wharf accommodation, but vessels cannot reach them except at high tide, the ground at the face of the wharf being bare at low tide. If the hon. member goes through the proviuce of Quebec, he will find many wharfs in that situation. In the city of St. John he will find a good many wharfs, the faces of which are absolutely bare at low tide. Of course, we are doing dredging work there now to give accommodation for large steamers. But that ^work was begun only some fifteen years'ago. It is important work. I recognize that it would be desirable to have this work at Port Moody done, and regret 1 am not able to say just how.soon it will be done. It will be quite an expensive work, as I have said, and one must have regard to the interest of other parts of the Dominion. I am not without hope that, some day in the not distant future, we may be able to meet the hopes of the people of Port Moody in that respect.


James Davis Taylor: Being naturally an optimist, I am disposed to believe from the minister's remarks that he intends to do something for Port Moody. I would ask also with regard to another work that is urgently needed-a wharf at Steveston. 1 think the hon. minister gave some attention to that matter last summer, and I shall be glad of any information as to the prospect of having the work undertaken.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is enthusiastic enough to derive hope from my last remark' regarding Port Moody, I can, make him doubly enthusiastic as to the wharf at Steveston, because 1 have every reason to suppose that before very long we shall be able to build a wharf at that point.


James Davis Taylor: This being my lucky day, I would ask the minister about a number of applications for wharfs on the Fraser river. I observe that there is no appropriation this year for any wharfs there. There are a large number of applications before the minister, and I would like him to say when we may hope to see a resumption of wharf-building on the Fraser.


William Pugsley: The question of wrhat amount we should ask for wharfs generally on the Fraser river is now under consideration. If there should be supplementary estimates in which public works of this nature are being looked after by my department, I have good reason to believe that further provision will be made for wharfs upon the Fraser river.
Yukon Territory-Lewes and Yukon rivers -improvements, $5,000.
. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is a vote similar to the one we had last year. It will be devoted to maintaining and keeping in repair works for the improvement of navigation.


Mr. BLAIN.: What was spent last year?


William Pugsley: A total of $2,860.
Harbours, rivers and bridge work generally, $12,500.


William Pugsley: This is a vote similar to the one we are accustomed to take every year for general works of this kind throughout the Dominion. This is to meet small demands which may have been overlooked in the special votes.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. LAKE.: On Friday last, the minister promised to bring down information with regard to item 150-Last Mountain lake, improvements of navigable route. The minister was to make a statement as to the expenditure already made. I desire to know if he is ready to give that information, showing how much was spent on machinery and how much on labour.


William Pugsley: I must apologize to my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) for not having this information now. I overlooked it My deputy says that he will have it this evening.
Public works-chargeable to income-dredging-dredge vessel repairs, $160,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision, according to estimates sent in by the superintendents of dredging, for the amount that will probably be required for repairs to hulls and machinery of dredges, tugs, barges, &c., owned by the government and being operated at various parts of the Dominion.


Richard Blain: What is the general condition of this outfit? Is it good or bad?


William Pugsley: We keep these vessels in good repair year after year. The vote last year was $125,000, and we expended $122,183 up to December 31.


Richard Blain: Is this work of repairs done by public tender?


William Pugsley: Some of it. It depends upon the kind of work to be done. Some is done in our own yard here at Ottawa. Some is done at various machine shops and largely by day work, necessarily.


Richard Blain: Where was the largest amount spent last year?


William Pugsley: In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Richard Blain: At what points?


William Pugsley: Particularly in Ottawa. We have a ship yard here. I could give my hon. friends, if they desire it, an estimate of the different barges, tugs and scows on which we propose making expen-Mr. PUGSLEY.
ditures. These details cover a number of pages of my notes and would take some time to read. There is more or less work on all these dredges, scows and barges.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think it would be interesting to have some of that.


William Pugsley: As to the dredge ' Canada,' we will require to put her on the marine slip, paint the hull, repair the barge doors, and the engine room. That, with other improvements, is estimated to cost $8,000. The next is the ' Cape Breton.' We have to put her on the marine slip and generally overhaul and repair her.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the age of the dredge ' Canada? '


William Pugsley: Probably thirty years old. We expect to spend $7,500 on the ' Gape Breton '; $7,500 on the ' George Mackenzie;' $8,000 on the 'Northumberland;' $6,000 on the ' St. Lawrence;' $7,000 on the ' New Dominion;' $3,000 on the ' Prince Edward Island;' $2,500 on the ' New Brunswick.' The ' New Brunswick,' will cost more than that, because we are changing it to a dipper dredge, and we have to widen the hull, and largely rebuild the hull. $8,000 on the ' W. S. Fielding.' But that will not be sufficient, because we are providing her with new buckets so as. to have a spare set of buckets which we find is essential in order to keep the dredge constantly at work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the 'Fielding ' working?


William Pugsley: The ' Fielding ' is working at the entrance to the harbour of St. John. At last report which I saw she had dredged about 500,000 cubic yards, and she has done considerable since then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the ' Fielding ' was a comparatively new dredge?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer says it is not over five years old.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will a string of buckets cost?


William Pugsley: Between $25,000 and $30,000. Unforeseen expenses $5,000; that is for Ontario and Quebec. Dredge ' Challenger,' $3,500, ' International,'	$8,000,
' Mattawa,' $3,500, ' Nipissing,'	$4,500,
Dredge No. I, $1,500, Dredge ' Ontario,' $3,500, ' Ottawa,' $5,000, * Queen,' $3,500, ' Quebec,' $3,500. Repairs to shipyard at Ottawa, $10,000; repairs and plant on Lake St. John and River St. Maurice, $7,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the last dredge built in the shipyard at Sorel?


William Pugsley: We do not build at Sorel, we build at Ottawa. If my hon. friend means the ' Fielding,' that was built some years ago at Sorel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The one that went into service last year?


William Pugsley: The dredge ' Ottawa,' and dredge No. 3 have both been built at Ottawa. The ' Ottawa ' was working at Rimouski, and the dredge ' Industry ' up on the lakes. Dredge No. 3 is on the St. Lawrence near Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the dredge on the St. Lawrence do much work on the St. Lawrence?


William Pugsley: Not until quite late in the season. She had to have a new boiler put in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking with reference to the dredge that was turned out last year, a new dredge turned out of the yard here, and I was asking what was the name of the last dredge turned out, and what it has been doing since, or if it has been working this summer, or last summer?


William Pugsley: The last one was dredge No. 3, which was built in Ottawa, and it has been working in the St. Lawrence near Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did it do much work?


William Pugsley: It did considerable work for the time it was engaged; but we did not get her to work until quite late in the season. We expect to expend $1,500 upon her foT additional equipment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am told that the dredge turned out at Ottawa was practically of no use, and that although it was turned out as a new dredge, it has got to be either fixed oveT or reconstructed.


William Pugsley: What dredge do you refer to?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood it was the last dredge turned out.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely in error as to the dredges turned out by the Department of Public Works. We have no information of anything of that kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister need not be too positive. If there is one characteristic of the minister it is that he is always very positive until he is confronted with evidence to the contrary and then he will admit his mistake. It may be that my information is correct and that he is wrong. I am not supposed to undervalue information sent me or to accept the statement of the minister in face of the fact that I have heard him frequently make statements quite as positive and which were afterwards proved not to be exactly correct. Notwithstanding the pos-it-iveness of the minister I am disposed to hold to my information until I have some other information which would justify me in changing my mind in regard to it. I will endeavour to get more information regarding it, but I have every reason to believe, from the information I have, that what I say is absolutely correct.


William Pugsley: The difference between my hon. friend and myself is that he says a thing upon mere rumour or gossip and, until something to the contrary is proved, assumes that to be a fact. My^ training has rather taught me not to believe anything until I have some evidence of _ it. Another difference between my hon. friend and myself is that he is influenced _ by mere Tumour while I have the positive statement of the chief engineer to me that nothing of the kind has taken place in regard to a dredge turned out by the Department of Public Works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard the minister make a statement in regard to a wharf that was bought and owned by Canada and when the papers were brought down an agreement made, not to purchase, not to sell, or anything that could be construed into a sale, and not showing this property to belong to the country, was disclosed. Yet the minister was just as positive then as he is in the statement that he makes now. He says that the hon. member for Grey takes mere rumour. I had my information from men who I believe are in a position to know, and all the minister can do is to get his information from similar reliable sources because he does not know of his personal knowledge. He only knows what he gets from the chief engineer or some one else the same as I take my information from those who wish to furnish it to me. Therefore, we are both on the same plane in that regard, and the minister has no more warrant for his assurance than I have.


William Pugsley: Yes, for this reason that this could not take place without coming to the knowledge of the chief engineer and the deputy minister. If anything happens to a dredge they know it at once. It is the duty of the chief superintendent of dredging to immediately report, and they have told me there is no truth in the suggestion, that it is wholly based upon rumour and I have a right to believe their statement. Just one word in regard to another matter which the hon. gentleman dragged in. My. hon. friend did not do himself credit, did not show that desire to be courteous which ought to but does not always characterize him. He made the statement, which, if it were made by others, I would be disposed to resent, that I made an untruthful statement in regard to a certain wharf not long ago in this House. I would remind my hon. friend that gentlemen do not as a rule attribute to hon. members

of this House a desire to state what is untrue, or suggest that they have stated what is untrue. My hon. friend has chosen to do that. I would say to my hon. friend that he is entirely in error. The statement I made in regard to the wharf to which he refers was absolutely correct in every particular. More than that, I read an extract from an agreement which has been made in respect to the property to which my hon. friend refers. I did not say, and no gentleman listening to me could believe I did state, that that property had been conveyed to the Crown. What I said was that the property had been built by a company at an expense of $8,000, that company had entered into an agreement, the substance of which was read here, in which they had given to the Crown and to the whole public a free right of way over this property which they agreed themselves to maintain at their own expense. They had also conveyed to the Crown the absolute right to control it as to wharfage, both side wharfage and top wharfage, simply reserving to themselves the right to have vessels consigned to them come to the wharf free of toll.


Mr. EMMERSON.: And with a right of way.


William Pugsley: Yes, the right of way was conveyed to the Crown too. I said that the Crown had built upon its own property a wharf, which was an extension or continuation of the wharf there. I said that the Crown had not spent one dollar upon any property except the property it owned, that every bit of the expenditure was upon Crown property. That is what I said, that statement is absolutely true, and it is confirmed by the' records which ought to have been in possession of my hon. friend because he had the opportunity of looking at them. I think that my hon. friend, in all fairness, ought not to make suggestions of this character. It would be unworthy of myself, or of any other hon. member of this House, to make statements which are not founded upon fact. It is my duty and my interest always to speak the truth in regard to public expenditures and in regard to public works.
I endeavour to do it. Sometimes it may be that I make mistakes, because of the lack of information at my command, but I have endeavoured, since I have been a member of this House, to state everything truly and fully to the members of this committee. In regard to this dredge, I repeat to my hon. friend that the only dredge that has been turned out by the Department of Public Works, has been from the shipyards here at Ottawa, and we have never turned out a dredge of the character to which my hon. friend referred.
I know that from the statement of the chief engineer, and the deputy minister,


William Pugsley: who would have immediate knowledge if anything of that kind were taking place. I challenge the hon. gentleman to investigate the source of his information; I challenge him to produce that information before this committee. My hon. friend ought to be able to do it before he makes any such statement in face of the denial of his statement made upon the authority of the chief engineer of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, challenges arc very easily made. Sometimes it is the part of the gambler to call the bluff, but I am not going to take the trouble to do it now. I want to say in reference to the observation the hon. minister makes regarding that celebrated wharf, that I am in the judgment of the members of this House who have heard the explanation which the minister gave to-night in regard to the ownership of the wharf, in regard to the statement that it was transferred to the Crown or that it was purchased by the Crown-
Mr. PUGSLEY-Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I ask the hon. gentleman to accept my statement. I have made my statement and the hon. gentleman, as a member of this House, must accept it. That is the ruling which has been made by yourself, as well as by Mr. Speaker, upon other occasions, and I think it is the correct ruling.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There is no doubt of the correctness of the rule quoted that where the word of an hon. gentleman is questioned, his statement must be accepted. But I have not yet understood the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to be contradicting the statement made by the minister. He has only uttered a few words, and I have not yet got that impression from his remarks.


William Pugsley: He certainly gave me that impression.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has followed his usual habit of breaking in at the wrong time. What I wish to say now is that I am quite content to leave it to the judgment of the members of the House who heard the minister's explanation with regard to the transfer and all that passed between him and the hon. member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket) and who are familiar with the papers which were laid upon the table. I am quite content to leave it to the members of this House to put whatever construction they desire to put upon it and to judge between the Minister of Public Works and myself as to which is correct.


William Pugsley: That is very fair, and I am quite willing to do that also.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to the dredging business, I may say that I may be

able to refer to it again, and if I am I fhink I can remind the minister of his positiveness under these circumstances, which does not mean correctness in this case any more than it does in some others.


Mr. DANIEL.: Did I understand the minister to say that the ownership of the Pink rock wharf is in the Crown?


William Pugsley: Yes, the ownership of the Pink rock wharf, built by the government, is in the Crown. There is no question whatever about it, and every dollar of money which the Crown expended was expended upon its own property, a property which it owns to-day, and with regard to the property built by the Albert Manufacturing Company, at a cost of $8,000, the collection of tolls, both side wharfage and top wharfage, are vested in the Crown, except in respect to vessels which are consigned to the Albert Manufacturing Company. Further than that, by the agreement that is on file in the department, that company has undertaken at its own expense to keep in repair the portion of the roadway or approach which the company built. However, we are dealing now with the item of dredge vessel repairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are a good many of these dredges that seem to require repairing, and it would be of value to us to know the age of these vessels, what repairs have been made to them in the last few years, and what grounds there are for incurring such a heavy outlay for repairs.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Ai few days ago I asked the minister what was to be his policy in the future with regard to dredging- whether it was to do the work by government dredging or by private contractors. The minister stated that he Lad a return in preparation giving the total number of government dredges in. the Dominion and their location, and that he would be able to lay that return on the table of the House in a couple of days. So far as I know that return has not yet been brought down. I think the matter is an extremely important one. The statement as to the large amount of money expended in repairing these vessels and in dredging work makes this question a very live question, and I think the minister ought to have that information.


William Pugsley: The return was brought down some days ago by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in my absence. My hon. friend will agree that it is not my fault if he has not yet read it.


Richard Blain: May I ask li there was a dredge recently built for the government at Sorel?


William Pugsley: Not for the Public Works Department. The last dredge built
for this department at Sorel was the dredge ' Fielding,1 which was built several years ago.


Richard Blain: My information is that a dredge was built for the government at Sorel or some other point, and that when it was completed and machinery was being put into it, it began to sink and had to be grappled or it would have gone_ to the bottom, and that another bottom is being put in it. I am not vouching for this information, but it has been given to me.


William Pugsley: I have no knowledge of the matter to which my hon. friend refers. Any dredge built at Sorel for the government would be for the Department of Marine,- and it would be quite easy for my hon. friend to put a question to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he desires to get information about it. I, of course, would have no more knowledge of that than my hon. friend would.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many dredge vessels require repairing?


William Pugsley: About 46.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the repairs made in government shops or just where the dredges happen to be?


William Pugsley: Wherever they happen to be.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where is the dredge 'W. S. Fielding' being repaired?


William Pugsley: Some of the repairs in the dry-dock at Halifax and such repairs as can be made at St. John will be made there.
Mr. DANfEL. How long is it expected that these repairs will take?


William Pugsley: A very short time. The dredge will be returned to St. John within a month or two.
New dredging plant-maritime provinces, $180,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What does the minister propose to do with this item?


William Pugsley: We are only asking $180,000, but we ought to have for the department in the maritime provinces the following:
1.	For plant operated in Nova Scotia, as per
estimate submitted by Superintendent G. W. Graham, Aug. 10, 1909:	dump scows and
water-boat for dredge ' Geo. McKenzie,' $6,560.
2.	For plant operated in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as per estimate submitted by Superintendent C. C. Scovil, August 16, 1908, viz.:-
Dredge ' St. Lawrence
One tug, surface-condensing, to attend barges	$ 25,000

Dredge ' New Dominion '-
New hull for this dredge	$ 15,000
One tug, surface-condensing, to attend dredge and barges	 It),000
Two centre-dumping barges (wood).	3,500
Dredge ' Prince Edward '-
One tug, surface-condensing, to attend dredges and barges	 10,000
Two centre-dumping barges (wood).	4,000
Dredge 'New Brunswick'-
One centre-dumping scow (wood)..	2,000
Dredge ' W. S. Fielding '-	#
One barge, centre-dumping (wood). 35,000 One tug, surface-condensing, to attend dredge and barges	 35,000
New set buckets	 40,000
Dredge ' Montague One tug, surface-condensing, to attend dredge and barges	 10,000
Two wood centre-dumping scows. ..	4,500
Tug ' Cricket'-
New hull	 1,500
Decked scow or barge provided with derrick, hoisting engine and ' clamshell ' or ' orange-peel' bucket for dredging boat harbours, &e., in Prince Edward Island, where services of ordinary dredging plant are unavailable, and for transportation of materials required for day labour
works	 3,000
One hydraulic dredge with 15-inch, suction pipe, complete	 70,000

We have decided to put the ' New Dominion. ' on the scrap heap, as she has outlived her usefulness, so that $28,500 of this will not be spent, and should we not get the suction dredge it would take off $65,000, making $205,000, leaving just about what we are asking, $180,000. But we are in this position that, having decided to put the ' New Dominion ' on the scrap heap, we will be left somewhat short of dredging plant in the maritime provinces, and we ought to obtain an additional dredge. However, we are asking $180,000. It may be that we can postpone the obtaining of some of the tugs and put the money into a dredge to take the place of the 'New Dominion.' That we have not decided, and will not without careful consideration with the superintendent of dredging and the other officers of the department who have given special attention to this subject.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understand that the government loaned two or more of their scows to the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company.


William Pugsley: They hired them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At what rate?


William Pugsley: I think $10 a day for each one.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are they still under hire?


William Pugsley: I think so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They have been under hire how long, two or three years?
Mr. iPUGSLEY.


William Pugsley: The Dredging Company had two at Gaspereau in the fall of 1908, and the chief engineer says they have two at St. John. These scows were not in use in connection with the government dredges, and I think they are still under hire at $10 a day.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Were not those the scows from the dredge ' W. S. Fielding'?


William Pugsley: No. I think not; I think they were brought from Nova Scotia. They had been used in connection with another dredge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the new scows be built by contract?


William Pugsley: Those built in our shipyard at Ottawa would be built by our own men and most if not all of the others by public tender.


Richard Blain: Is it not a new departure for the government to hire out dredges?


William Pugsley: These are not dredges; they are two scows.


Richard Blain: I did not know that they were so plentiful that my hon. friend would go into the business of hiring them out. Where will we find the total revenue from these scows in the past year?


William Pugsley: I can easily get the figures for my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of these dredges?


William Pugsley: They are not dredges; they are scows. I shall get the value.


John Waterhouse Daniel: These are steel scows, and cost about $11,000 each.


Richard Blain: For what were they originally used by the government?


William Pugsley: In connection with a dredge in Nova Scotia, but we had no immediate use for them, and it was considered good business to keep them in use if we could get a good rental for them.


Richard Blain: Have they been rented for two years?


William Pugsley: They were rented in the fall of 1908, and used at Gaspereau. They are not large scows. Those used at Gaspereau have a capacity of only 210 cubic yards.


Richard Blain: Are the company hiring them doing government work?


William Pugsley: Doing government dredging.


Richard Blain: That is a remarkable condition of things.


William Pugsley: Why? Would the hon. gentleman suggest it is better to keep the scows idle than to hire them out at a good rental?


Richard Blain: As I understand there is a good deal of work in different parts of this country for scows of that kind. If the government do not require the scows it would be better to sell them than to rent them. I do not believe the people desire the government to go into the construction of scows to be rented to contractors who are contracting for the government.


William Pugsley: The best policy would be to sell them if they were no longer required, provided a good price could be got for them, but pending that sale I think it would be thoroughly good business if, instead of keeping them lying up rusting, not earning any money, they should be hired out at a good, fair rental.


Richard Blain: Has my hon. friend made any effort to -sell them?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


Richard Blain: That is the point. We say it is not good policy to lease them if they could be sold. My hon. friend's department has had them leased almost two years, and he now says it is better to sell them. I understand that these scows are not very long lived, they do not stand work any considerable length of time, and I am not quite sure whether even $10 a day for a portion of the year will be sufficient to pay the government, but whether or not, I must express my disapproval of the government having a considerable amount of money invested in scows, which they are leasing to contractors that are working for this government. That is a policy the people would not approve of, and I am sure my hon. friend himself would not approve of it. In fact, he has almost said so. If the department has decided thaif these are no longer of service to the government, they should sell them and put the money in the treasury, and not have this bartering with contractors. How many days did they work last year?


William Pugsley: I am sorry I have no memorandum of the number of days, but would be glad to get the information and send a note to my hon. friend later, or lay it on the table.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would ask the hon. minister if the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company has not, in -addition to these two scows, the lease or hire of a large number of scows belonging to the ' Fielding,' including a scow that cost originally some $24,000? Is that under hire, and at what rate, and for how long?


William Pugsley: I sh-all get the information. Does my hon. friend want to know about the hiring of any other scow?


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister might bring down full information.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to do that.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. minister not know whether the statement of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) is correct or not?


William Pugsley: I do not.


Richard Blain: He ought to know, if he has a large number of scows in his department-, whether he is using them himself or leasing them to some one else.


William Pugsley: Neither the deputy nor the chief engineer can tell me at present, but I shall get the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like a statement of the number of cubic yards dredged by each of these during the last season, and the places where the work was doe.e, and also the cost.


William Pugsley: A return which the right hon. the Prime Minister brought down the other day contains all that information for the last four years. I do not know that it contains the information of the year expiring, but it does for the four preceding years. I could get the information for the present year, but that would be quite a job. Does my hon. friend not think that if he looked at that return, that would satisfy him?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that would probably do.


Richard Blain: At page 280 of the Auditor General's Report, I find, purchase price of dredge ' Industry ' and plant, G. W. Phillips, $157,378.78; custom duty, 25 per cent on $157,379, $39,344.75. Was that purchased after public competition, or in what way?


William Pugsley: It was purchased after most -careful examination and valuation by the superintendent of dredging. It was a comparatively new dredge which had cost a great deal more money, but owing to conditions, those who owned it had no immediate use for it, and it was purchased on very favourable terms.


Richard Blain: How did they come to pay the duty?


William Pugsley: Under the rule, every department has to contribute to the customs.


Richard Blain: Was this item passed last year?	.


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The dredge ' Industry ' is put down in the returns at $150,000, and the. minister says she costs more.


William Pugsley: There was some plant in addition and a duty of $39,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: According to this return, the total cost of the dredge ' Industry ' is $150,000.


William Pugsley: Then there were the spare parts which made up the difference. You will see it all in the account.


Richard Blain: Did she require a new boiler after you purchased her?


William Pugsley: Yes. And I insisted on a reduction of $10,000 in the price.


Richard Blain: But you said it was purchased after very careful inspection.


William Pugsley: Yes, and we insisted on a reduction of $10,000 in the price owing to the necessity of putting in & new boiler.
. Mr. BLAIN. Does that $10,000 appear in the purchase price in the Auditor General's Report?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of the discrepancy between what appears in the return and the facts? The return shows that the dredge -cost $150,000, and the Auditor General's Report $196,734. The House must surely be misled in trying to reach an understanding of the actual cost.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) has kindly handed me the return. The amount shown here of $150,000 is a mistake, and the figure in the Auditor General's Report is correct. The price should have been shown as $157,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the duty part of the cost?


William Pugsley: Part of the cost to the Public Works Department, but not to the country. The price of the dredge originally was $150,000, if I remember rightly. We had a special examination by experienced engineers, these gentlemen discovered a latent defect in the boiler. My recollection is that we then insisted that $10,000 should be taken off the price, and this was agreed to. Then we had to pay for the spares, of course, and for the actual cost of removing her from where she was to Cornwall.


Richard Blain: What, then, was the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total cost was $157,378.78, which included the spare parts and also the co3t of bringing the vessel from where she was to Cornwall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not include the duty?


William Pugsley: Then there was the duty of $39,344.75.


Richard Blain: And the new boiler cost $4,650?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: No, $9,300; nearly the amount that we deducted-$10,000- for the defect in the boiler.


Richard Blain: According to that she was purchased for $150,000, and after she was purchased


William Pugsley: No. This is what took place:	The price agreed upon-I do not
mean the binding price, but the price which the superintendent of dredging arrived at as fair-I think I am right in saying was $150,000. We decided to have a full examination made by experts. These experts discovered a latent defect in the boiler. The superintendent of dredging reported that there should be a deduction of $10,000 on this account.


Richard Blain: Making $140,000.


William Pugsley: Yes. The rest would be made up of the cost of spare parts and the cost of bringing her into Canada.


Richard Blain: What are spare parts?


William Pugsley: An extra dipper and buckets, chains, and every thing of that kind.


Richard Blain: Are these not included in the price of a dredge?


William Pugsley: No, they figure the spare parts as separate. They are in duplicate.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is her capacity?


William Pugsley: She has a large capacity -carries an eight-yard dipper.


John Waterhouse Daniel: She is not as large as the ' Cynthia ', or the ' Beaver ', in St. John.


William Pugsley: I think so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They have nine-yard dippers.


William Pugsley: The ' Industry ' has the capacity to swing a ten-yard dipper.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What about the length of arm? How deep can she dredge?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer tells me, 48 feet.


Richard Blain: What about $150 for legal expenses in this connection? Did the hon. minister have a lawsuit over the boiler?


William Pugsley: That was to get the title completed.


Richard Blain: Title?


William Pugsley: Yes, of course-registration.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Changing from United States register.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) will know that the $150 would be taxed by the Justice Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much duty was paid?


William Pugsley: We paid on $157,390.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the dredge cost $140,000.


William Pugsley: But the spares and everything went in on the cost and duty would be paid on the whole.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not a reduction of $10,000 on account of the boiler?


William Pugsley: Yes, on the dredge itself. But, in making that reduction the cost of spare parts and every thing brought it up $157,378.78, on which we paid a duty of twenty-live per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether I understood correctly or not, but I think the minister said, that while this duty was chargeable to the Public Works Department the country did not pay it.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the dredge brought into the country free of duty? It used to be the rule that goods brought into the country for the use of the government came in free of duty. Is that the case stm?


William Pugsley: No, that rule lias been done away with. If any department now imports for its own use goods that would be dutiable if imported by a private individual, the duty is paid to the Customs Department by the branch of government importing the article.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That i3 what I thought. But I understood the minister to say that while this was chargeable to the Public Works Department, it did not cost the country anything.


William Pugsley: Exactly, because it is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not taken out of the consolidated revenue?


William Pugsley: Yes, and it goes into the consolidated revenue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How?


William Pugsley: By the Finance Minister. It goes to the Finance Minister, it is drawn from the Finance Minister to pay the Minister of Customs, and the Minister of Customs puts it back into finance again.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It simply has the effect of making the income of the country appear much greater than it really is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the expenditure of the country as well so much greater. It is as broad as it is long.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would imagine that if one of us was to purchase that dredge for
$150,000, and he paid 25 per cent duty on it, it would come out of his finances, it must have been paid for; and in case of the country, the country must pay for it.


William Pugsley: But where did the duty go to?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The duty must go to the Customs Department. But it is paid out all the same. When you come to give a statement to this House as to what that article costs, it seems to me that statement would not be correct unless you included in it the duty paid on that article. So the return brought down cannot be correct, financially speaking, when it only discloses the cost of the dredge without the duty.


William Pugsley: There has evidently been a mistake of the clerk in making up that return, a mistake of $7,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: May there not possibly be other mistakes in regard to other dredges mentioned?


William Pugsley: It might be, of course. The returns never come under my notice at all. I do not suppose that, ordinarily, they come under the notice of the deputy as to details. The proper clerks are given directions to make up these returns from the papers on file; and I suppose that the clerk has seen the first report which put the price at $150,000 without the spare parts, and he has taken that without his attention being called to the reduction by reason of this latent defect in the boiler. That, I assume, is the way it has occurred. I will see how it has occurred, and if my hon. friend desires, I will get a memo of the exact cost, and how that item of $157,000 has been made up.	.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think it is simply another typographical error.


William Pugsley: No, it would be an error of the clerk in making copies.


Richard Blain: Should not the $9,000, the cost of the boiler, be added to it?


William Pugsley: That is not a part of the original cost. I do not know, I am inclined to think my hon. friend is right, I think it should be added.


Richard Blain: I think the return is very wrong.


William Pugsley: No, I think the clerk has not added in the cost of the boiler, because that was obtained afterwards.


Richard Blain: Therefore, the return is $16,000 wrong on the price.


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: As I understand it, the return moved for-my hon. friend will cor-

rect me if I am in error-showed that this dredge cost $150,000; that is the return. Now, we turn up the Auditor General's Report and we find the first item is $157,000, that is $7,000 wrong. Then another item comes in afterwards of $9,000 for the boiler. These two items add $16,000 to the cost that were not added to the cost when the return was brought down to the House.


William Pugsley: I understand that my hon. friend is not reflecting on me at all, nor on my deputy; but it is a question of the clerk in copying. IF is doubtful to my mind whether the clerk, in copying, should put in the dunlicate equipment. A dredge is a dredge without that duplicate equipment, which is only procured as a matter of precaution. You have to keep that duplicate equipment on hand in case of a breakdown; it is like stores. It would have been erroneous if the clerk had put that in as part of the dredge.


Richard Blain: Was it complete without that?


William Pugsley: Perfectly complete without it. It is like the dredge 'Fielding.' We are asking now, in this vote for dredging plant, an amount to procure a duplicate chain of buckets for the dredge 'Fielding.' Now, if you ask what the dredge cost, it would not be proper to add that in, because that is a duplicate equipment.


John Waterhouse Daniel: All the same, the minister will allow that there is never a dredge put to work in any part of the country that has not duplicate parts ready. As he knows well, dredges are always breaking down, something is giving away, the spuds break, or something happens to the dipper, and it is impossible to work an ordinary dredge without duplicating parts of it.


William Pugsley: Yes, and in the same way no farmer works a farm without having on it horses and cattle, and ploughs, and harrows, and wagons; and yet if I wanted to buy his farm, and he said the price was $5,000, he would think it absurd for me ta say: Why all your horses, and cattle, and ploughs, and harrows, and wagons have come in, because you could not use your farm without those.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the minister's illustration is not apropos. He might as well include coal for working a dredge as for a farmer to include all the stock on the farm, unless you are buying the stock.


William Pugsley: All I can say is this: I would not necessarily blame the clerk, because in putting in the cost, of the dredge he did not include the cost of the duplicate parts. Neither will I blame him because he did not add in the customs duty, Mr. BLAIN.
or the cost of a boiler which was put in after the dredge was purchased. But my hon. friend can see there is nothing concealed, because here, on page B-280 of the-report, is given the total cost of the boiler which was purchased afterw'ards, and the cost of duplicating the spare parts.


Richard Blain: But the minister stated that the return brought down was correct. If it is not correct, how much should be added in order to make it a complete statement?


William Pugsley: My view is that, strictly speaking, it is correct, that it gives the cost of the dredge correctly; but it does not include the cost of the boiler, which was obtained afterwards.


Richard Blain: The boiler alone was $9,000.


William Pugsley: $9,300. That does not include the duty which wrent out of one pocket, and was paid into the other. It was paid by the Public Works Department into the Department of Customs. It is a matter of argument whether it ought to have been included or not.


Richard Blain: And that does not include the $7,000 paid for parts?


William Pugsley: No, it does not include the duplicate parts.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say that when a return is asked for, and ordered by the House as to the cost of this dredge it is a correct return when it does not include the boilers, and parts of this dredge? Does my hon. friend suggest that .the dredge would work without these parts costing $7,000?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Would it be complete?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Whether it is or is not, my hon. friend will not venture to say that the return as brought down stating that this dredge cost $150,000 was a correct return?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly.


Richard Blain: I do not think on reflection that my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) would say so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would say so.


Richard Blain: The fact of the matter is that these items, $9,300 and $7,000 were both paid in connection with this dredge, and are part of the cost of the dredge. This increase, a little over $16,000, and yet my hon. friend says that the return showing that the cost was $150,000 wTas a correct return.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know nothing about the matter. I was only giving my judg-

ment. As I understand it a return was moved for the original cost of a dredge which was purchased at Massena, New York, and a certain amount was paid for the dredge as she then existed. What they paid for the dredge there is the cost of the dredge.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my view of it. Subsequently they also purchased spare parts.


John Waterhouse Daniel: From the original seller?
Mr. EMMERSON They may have purchased them from the original seller or anybody else; it does not make any difference. It is not part of the cost, and need not necessarily have come with the dredge.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Suppose the hon. member for Westmorland goes out and buys a dredge, he buys duplicate parts, and the whole costs him $150,000; if I asked him how much that dredge cost him, would he leave off the duplicate parts? Would he not include them with what he had paid for the dredge?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the duplicate parts were a portion of the dredge they would be included in the total cost of $150,000, as the cost price, and the very fact that these parts were purchased apart from the price of $150,000 shows that they are not a part of the dredge, and are not part of the original cost of the dredge. The fact that the dredge itself was deficient with respect to the boiler, and that subsequently a new boiler was placed therein does not prove that the cost of the new boiler would have to be considered as part of the original cost of the dredge at Massena, or wherever she was purchased. That is my judgment. It is the difference between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. It is like purchasing a house, there are certain fixtures that go with the house, and there are certain other items that do not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the total cost of the house?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total cost of the house is, say $10,000. The fixtures do not go with it, and they are subsequently purchased, they are additional, and are not included in the original cost. I have in my mind an illustration in regard to myself where a certain fixed sum was paid for a house, and subseqeuntly I purchased certain other fixtures, incidental to the house, but not part of the original cost price. If parties asked me what that house had cost me, I would not include these other items.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does this return ask for the original cost of this dredge?


William Pugsley: Yes, the original cost.


Richard Blain: It says the price paid for the dredge.


William Pugsley: That makes it absolutely clear. Another reason is that the dredge was purchased at so much, these duplicate parts were separately invoiced, and the agreement was that they would sell them at the invoice price. Invoices were furnished showing that they were absolutely and entirely separate from the purchase of the dredge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister purchased a dredge would he not believe that he had purchased something that was complete, and ready for work? What would he regard as a complete dredge? Must it not include the equipment so that it can go on and dredge?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would not be a dredge if there were some dippers absent?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, then must not the equipment of the dredge be part of the dredge?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I take it that these parts should go along with it.


William Pugsley: No, they do not go along.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I buy a threshing machine, I expect to get certain equipment. There are certain duplicate parts that always go along with it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That depends on the bargain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, that is the regular custom. You know you are getting parts in duplicate, but you get a completed machine, so that you can go to work with it at any time. What amuses the hon. member for Westmorland?


William Pugsley: He is wondering what is the bearing on the discussion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was not laughing at my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule). He need not be sensitive. I certainly would not think of laughing at him. I had better be laughing than looking glum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was saying that if I purchased a threshing machine I would get certain other parts in duplicate. It is supposed to be a completed machine. A completed dredge is a dredge with all the necessary parts to make it work.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it include scows?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not imagine that it could very well work without scows unless you were working alongside of a wharf where you were dipping up the stuff and throwing it over to the other side. I take it that it would not be a completed dredge unless you had the dippers and other equipment necessary to go on with the work and, therefore, they ought to be included with the dredge. I would ask again:	Could a dredge work without a
dipper?


William Pugsley: That was all included with the dredge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could a dredge work without a boiler?


William Pugsley: There was a boiler in when the dredge was bought.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member says that we have a right to take that out because there was a defect in it, and we have reduced the price by the cost of that boiler -$10,000.


William Pugsley: The owners were working it right along with that boiler, and we could have worked it with that 'boiler, but the Canadian inspectors were very particular. They pointed out this defect, and we thought it better to put in a new boiler.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman said that the cost of that dredge was reduced by the cost of the boiler which we refused to accept as value.


William Pugsley: No, we accepted it. We owned the boiler, and we disposed of it when we took it "out; but we made them reduce the price of the dredge because of this latent defect in the boiler.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the hon. gentleman thinks that should not be included in the cost of the dredge. A dredge without a boiler would be incomplete and could not go to work. I do not know what parts of a dredge ought to be duplicated; but, as with other machinery, there are certain things that generally go with a dredge, and these ought to be included in the cost; otherwise the statement of the cost would be misleading to the House. When we ask the cost of a dredge, we mean the cost of everything connected with it completely equipped to go to work.


William Pugsley: I go almost as far as my hon. friend does. When we got this dredge she was ready to go to work. She was a comparatively new dredge, and had been working with that boiler; but the owners, as a matter of prudence, bought duplicate parts, which formed no part of the dredge and were not necessary to its operation unless some part should get broken, when it would be necessarv to have repairs made or to buy new plant.
Mr. PUGSLEY
In this particular case, we bought the dredge for a certain price, and the parts were bought separately. When the dredge was brought into Canada she had a boiler which was comparatively new, which had been working, but which we thought, under the Canadian inspection law, it would be desirable to take out and put a new one in its place. We asked a reduction in price which would enable us to put in a new boiler, and the owners agreed to the reduction because of this latent defect.


Richard Blain: Did the dredge go to work before the new boiler was put in?


William Pugsley: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has she gone to work yet?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: With regard to these duplicate parts, I think the minister is not, entirely frank with the House when he says that a dredge is in working order without these duplicate parts. I think his experience and knowledge of dredging will bring to his mind the fact that there is not a dredge working anywhere that has not' these duplicate parts. It happens constantly that something comes away, and these duplicate parts are absolutely necessary to keep a dredge in order.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Nelson River Railway Company.-Mr. Rutan.
Haughton Lennox: I would ask that this Bill should stand over for to-night. It contains a provision as to developing water-powers. Two or three similar Bills have passed the committee, but to-day, after a good deal of discussion, the committee postponed the consideration of a similar Bill in order that the minister might be present and declare some general policy in reference to matters of this kind. My desire, and the desire of many members of the House and the committee, is that all these Bills shall be treated on the same basis.


Mr. RUTAN.: I cannot see the justice of asking to have this Bill stand over. The' Burrard Inlet Bill had similar and even1 larger powers, yet it passed this committee. This Bill has been delayed and held up from time to time, and now that it has I passed the Railway Committee, I would

ask that it should not be delayed further We are not giving more than is granted by other Bills, and in justice to the promoters, it should be allowed to pass.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asks that it should stand over, the Minister of Railways not being present, I would think it would be better for my hon. friend to accede to his request, as it will only mean a delay until Monday or Tuesday.


William Windfield Rutan: I do not object then to it standing over.
Progress reported.


PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Neely.
Richard Blain: The promoter of this Bill is not present, and I would, therefore, ask that according to our practice, it should stand over.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is hardly fair; we do not observe that rule on all occasions.


Richard Blain: There are reasons against this Bill, which I think it would not be fair to present in the_absence of its promoter, and I am not quite sure, but that it is very good policy in any case not to advance a Bill when its promoter is not present.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We did it in the case, of the Burrard Inlet Bill-the very one cited.


Haughton Lennox: The rule is that if no objection be raised, the Bill goes o>n, but if there be any objections, it stands. Objections should not be taken unless there is some Teason, and my hon. friend from Peel says he has good reasons.


William Windfield Rutan: There are the same objections to this Bill as to the other.
Progress reported.


THE SASKATCHEWAN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Railway Company.-Mr. Martin.
Richard Blain: Are the directors of this company railway men?


Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: I could not give a definite answer. Any of the directors I do know are not railway men.


Richard Blain: We have a great many charters put through this House by men who are not particularly interested in the construction of the railway, and whose only >
151
object is to make money out of the charters. I am not suggesting that the present Bill is a case of that kind, although I suppose my hon. friend would not contradict that statement very much. I think we should put a provision in the Bill that the charter cannot be sold or disposed of without the consent of the Governor in Council. It seems to me that we should put a stop to this barter and sale of railway charters by people who are not engaged in the railway business and are not particularly interested in the development of the country. I am not going to say that this should apply to this Bill more than to any other, but I think it would be a fair precaution to take, so that in the event of a sale of a charter, the company would have to get the previous consent of the Governor in Council. Then the responsibility would rest on the government.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the -Congregational Union of Canada.-Mr. A. Haggart.
On section 4, subsection (e)-amalgamation with similar associations.
Mr. A. HAGGART.: It is thought that this clause is objectionable, first, because such associations are not required to be incorporated, and second, that they may be associations under provincial charters or otherwise. I suppose that that clause might better come out altogether.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. A. Haggart) that it would be better to let the Bill stand and consult the law clerk with regard to the matter. There is danger, in making a change at the table in this way, that we may spoil the Bill. Of course, if my hon. friend is satisfied, I have no objection, but I think it will be more satisfactory for him to take time for consultation with the law clerk.


Alexander Haggart: Thanks for the suggestion.
Progress reported.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 147) for the relief of Archibald Laurie.-Mr. Congdon.
Bill (No. 152) to incorporate the Northern Quebec Colonization Railway Company.- Mr. J. P. Turcotte.
Bill (No. 148) for the relief of Bernard. Shea.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill (No. 149) for the relief of Clara Louise Holden.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Supply.
William Pugsley: I think we have about finished the discussion of the item of maritime provinces dredging plant, and I suppose the item might carry.


Richard Blain: Can the minister state now how much the cost was?


William Pugsley: The item is $180,000/ [DOT] We had $100,000 last year.


Richard Blain: We did not have the difference between the actual cost and the cost, that was brought down in the return fully explained.


William Pugsley: I have not been able to get the particulars. I did not know that the hon. gentleman would want them tonight.


Richard Blain: Which is correct?


William Pugsley: The Auditor General's Report is absolutely correct. The other is correct also, being limited to the cost of the dredge, whereas the Auditor General has. taken in the cost of the dredge, the duplicate parts, and the new boiler, and also the customs duty.


Haughton Lennox: It is very important, of course, to members on this side of the House, who are not always able to get all the information we desire, and it is very important to the people, as the information they receive on these subjects must filter out to them through such channels as we can open, that the returns presented to the, House should be correct. The return placed in my hands showing the cost of a number of dredges includes the figures concerning the dredge ' Industry,' which, I think, is the one spoken of-I was not in before the House rose at six o'clock. The price given here is $150,000. If I am correctly informed-the minister (Mr. Pugsley) will tell me if I am wrong-as a matter of fact, the dredge cost $157,000 or thereabouts.


William Pugsley: That includes the cost of the duplicate parts.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that the dredge itself cost $157,000, and that the new boiler put in cost something over $9,000. and that customs duty of 25 per cent on $150,000 was paid. As to the extra boiler, there might be room for argument as to whether that should be included in the first cost. But I understand that the item $157,000 is first cost, and the duty, aboul) Mr. A. HAGGART.
$39,000, is equally an item that we should be notified of in this return, brought down on the application of a gentleman for whom we on this side have the greatest respect

the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). We do not get very much aid from the activity of members on the government side of the House in the way of bringing, out information, and, when information is so brought out we certainly desire to have it accurate. I hope that the government, did not feel that, as one of their own supporters moved for this return, they need not be accurate in their figures. Now, I would be glad if the minister could explain exactly how this matter arises. As to this, discrepancy between $150,000 and $157,000, I do not see how there can be an explanation.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend wras not here before recess. I stated then that the price of the dredge at first was to be $150,000. Afterwards, when the transaction was about being closed, we decided to have a further examination by boiler experts, and they discovered a defect in the boiler which they thought was ground for raising an objection. We did raise the objection, and on that ground, and as a result of further negotiations, the price was reduced to $140,000. Now the difference between that $140,000, and the amount of $157,000 mentioned in the Auditor General's Report, is made up by what the department paid for the duplicate parts, which, as I have said, were bought separately from the dredge, and were not in. the contract for the dredge, except that they had to be taken at the invoice prices. The duplicate parts were all new, and had not been used, and we agreed to take them at the invoice prices. Then there was the actual cost of bringing the dredge from Massena to Cornwall in Canada, which the department agreed to pay, and 1 think some insurance, but I am not positive. This brings the figure up to what is stated by the Auditor General as $150,000 odd. Then the report shows that there was in addition the duty which was paid. Now I take it for granted that the clerk has seen the statement of the agreement to pay $150,000, I assume that is where he got his information, and he has put that in. But, he has not given any account of the cost of the duplicate parts, he has not given any account of the duty, because I suppose he assumed that that was paid by one of the departments, and went into another department. He has not taken any account of what was subsequently paid for the new boiler. He has simply taken what was the price of the dredge. That is the explanation which I think can be given for the clerk making the mistake he did. I may say that I had never seen this return, and have not seen it up to the present mo-

ment; but I assume that is the way in which the clerk has made up the amount. But the cost is correctly given in the Auditor General's Report, of course, that is, the $157,000 odd for the dredge, and the duplicate plant which was taken at invoice prices, also the duty and new boiler. But neither of these items were considered by the clerk as being a part of the cost of the dredge.


Haughton Lennox: Is there anything on record in the department to show the change from $140,000 to $150,000 and the $157,000?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is all on record in the department.


Haughton Lennox: This does not get better very fast. The original contract, according to the minister, was $150,000. Then another contract was made subsequently amounting to $140,000. The record of the $150,000 is of course in the department, as the minister says; the record of the changed contract, the reduction to $140,000, is also on record in the department. We have the solemn order of this House that they are to bring down certain information, and that is consented to by the government, and that information they profess to have given us. We are altogether dependent on these returns for the knowledge of what is going on in the department. Now it is a strange thing that neither of these transactions is correctly set foTth. If it had gone from the $150,OOd down to the reduced price of $140,000, and left at this, it would have been a little more consistent than it is to-day on what the minister says. But we have neither the one figure nor the other, and we have a figure between them. Now are we to understand that in this long list of probably twenty dredges, all these returns are as reliable as this one of $150,000? This return was not brought down until the 24th of February last. All this explanation was not made to appear in the Auditor General's Report, the last report I understand before that. Surely there was time enough to have these things brought down, and surely there is an indication at least of a very dangerous kind of carelessness, if this kind of thing can exist in a well ordered department of this government. Surely the minister realizes that these duplicate parts, which I understand to be parts to take the place of those which are worn out, and unfit, making the total $150,000, are as much a portion of the dredge


William Pugsley: Allow me to correct my hon. friend. The duplicate parts were not to take the place of the parts that^ were worn out, but the parts that might in future become broken or worn out, a very different proposition.


Haughton Lennox: They were to take the place of what would be likely to give out.
15U
The government were not buying them for fun; I assume the government were not buying them for the purpose of pleasing any vendor of this class of goods, they were buying them because they thought they would need them. Surely the government must have considered them absolutely essential to the dredge, or else the government would not have bought them, and the price is as much a portion of the purchase money, when we ask what this thing cost, as the original figure of $150,000, or the substituted figure of $140,000. This has to be paid for, and has been paid for, and does form part of the price. To my mind, without going any further into the matter, I fail to see that the minister has made a satisfactory explanation, although no doubt he has made the best explanation the case is capable of.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend explain why they put the $29,000 of customs in the Auditor General's Report if it is not paid?


William Pugsley: But it was paid.


Richard Blain: Then as a matter of fact it was part of the cost of the dredge. The return states that the dredge cost $150,000. If we were without the Auditor General's Report we would have no opportunity of knowing whether this dredge cost only $150,000 or whether it cost more. We make a comparison between the return laid on the table of the House and we find that while the return says that the dredge cost this country $150,000 the Auditor General's says: 'New dredge plant; purchase price of dredge and plant, $157,378.78.'


William Pugsley: You will observe the Auditor General uses the words, ' and plant


Richard Blain: Yes.


William Pugsley: That would be duplicate plant.


Richard Blain: Yes.
Customs duty, 25 per cent on $167,379. $39,344 75 Poison Iron Works :	installing
Scotch marine boiler, $9,300; less
$4,650 paid in 1909-10	 4,650 00
Legal services, I). B. Maclennan,
Cornwall	 150 00
From my hon. friend's explanation it appears that there is a great difference between the actual cost of this dredge and the price that was inserted in the return. I do not think my hon. friend's explanation will dispose of the fact that the return is altogether misleading, and if we had not had an opportunity of verifying the return we would still have been under the impression that the cost of this dredge was only $150,000. Was I wrong in understanding the minister to say before six o'clock that the dredge did not go to work until after the new boiler was put in?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is right.


Richard Blain: The dredge was of no service to this country until after thi3 boiler that the minister is leaving out of the price of the dredge was put in. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the cost of the boiler should be included in the price of the dredge.


William Pugsley: Suppose the clerk should have added in the duty, and the cost of the boiler, does my hon. friend think that is worth taking up a great deal of time over, because, before this return was brought down, the Auditor General's Report had been in the hands of members for months. Therefore, there could be no intention to deceive any body. The uttermost you could say would be that the clerk should have put in the cost of the duty, and the cost of the boiler.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister say that it will not occur again?


Richard Blain: I am not offering any. particular criticism of the clerk. Mistakes will occur, but I am pointing out that my hon. friend is unwilling to say that we have there a misleading statement. I am emphasizing the fact that we must be very careful when this government bring down returns, because we find that they are not always correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The price is stated as $10,000 in excess of the actual cost of the dredge.


Haughton Lennox: It is nothing of the kind; it is stated a great deal less.
New dredging plant-Ontario and Quebec, $135,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is required to make provision for the purpose of new dredging plant. The details are as follows :
New hull for dredge ' Nipissing,' complete	$ 10,000
New boiler and machinery for dredge
' Nipissing '	 10,000
New boiler and machinery for tug
' Sir John '	 10,000
New hull for dredge 'Challenge'.. ..	18,000
New boiler for dredge 'Mattawa'..	..	3,000
2 new 32 cub. yd. dump scows for
dredge ' Deschenes '	 4,000
New light draught tug for dredge
' Deschenes '	 9,000
6 yawl boats for different vessels..	..	300
New light draught tug for dredge
'No. 3'	 10,000
Dippers for different dredges	 5,000
New engine for tug ' Storm King	'..	6,500
New steel spuds for dredge ' Industry '	 10,000
New 8-yd. steel-bucket dredge ' Industry *	 2,000
New steel scow dredge ' Industry'.. 25,000 New spuds, dredge 'International'..	2,000


Richard Blain: Extras on contract not yet decided upon tugs ' Lisgar ' and ' Peel '.... $ 1,000 Establishment of a small shipyard on Lake Timiskaming, near Hailey-bury, to provide repair facilities and winter quarters for dredging plant, &c., used on this lake and the
streams flowing into it	 5,000
Add for balance that may have to be paid in 1910-11 on new plant begun in 1909-10, unforeseen requirements for 1910-11, possible shortages in the
above estimate, &c	 4,200
Total	$135,000


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much for spuds for the ' Industry'?


William Pugsley: $10,000; these are steel spuds.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many will that supply?


William Pugsley: Four.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many did she have when she was bought?


William Pugsley: Four wooden ones.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I think it would be a long time before the United States would come over to Canada to buy a dredge, and I hope that all the machinery for these dredges will be bought in Canada, and that the repairs will be done here.


William Pugsley: It is the custom to-dav for all repairs to be made in. Canada.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I see by the Auditor General's Report, Page V-318, that there is an expenditure of $17,401 on the steamer ' Speedy '. I would like to inquire where she is working, and what she is doing?


William Pugsley: The steamer ' Speedy ' is used as a tug boat for towing dredges around from one place to another.


George Taylor: Where?


William Pugsley: On the St. Lawrence and the lakes.


George Taylor: In Ontario and Quebec exclusively?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Taylor: Where did she spend last season?


William Pugsley: On the lakes.


George Taylor: Where was she fitted out in the spring?


William Pugsley: Toronto.


George Taylor: And where was she laid up in the fall?


William Pugsley: Toronto.


George Taylor: How does it come that there is an expenditure of $517.70 to pay travelling expenses in connection with the staff on that boat as follows:

Chief engineer, board and travel.. .. $48 80
2nd engineer, board	and	travel	
43	083rd engineer, travel	
11	951st officer, travel	
65	11Cook, travel	
33	60Steward, travel	
59	81Stewardess, board and	travel	
54	38
Making $517.70 for travel for crew. I would like to know how that comes?


William Pugsley: The travelling expenses of the crew are paid from their homes to the place where the vessel might be in the spring, or from the vessel to their homes in the fall when it is laid up. The steward is utilized when not required on the ' Speedy ' in connection with other matters, and his travelling expenses are paid. Then there would be the board of those of the crew who are engaged in the spring in fitting out the vessel before she is ready to enter upon commission. That in a general way explains all the travelling expenses.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: What is the nature of the work done by this steamer?


William Pugsley: Towing government dredges and scows and also inspection work.


George Taylor: She has a first, a second and a third engineer. Is the work such as to require the services of three engineers?


William Pugsley: Yes; she Has to be going night and day.


George Taylor: Then you paid out in wages for the whole staff for the season, $7,255, and the board for the staff amounted to $2,595, equal to over 331 per cent of the wages. We thought the government had dispensed with the patronage system. The Minister of Marine promised that he would make an arrangement with the steward to board the crew for a certain figure. That system was adopted on the 'Montcalm' several years ago, and resulted in a saving of about fifty per cent. But in the Department of Public Works the patronage system is still maintained, and not one dollar's worth of provisions is bought from a Conservative; they are all bought from the hon. gentleman's political friends. For the steamer 'Speedy,' provisions to the amount of $2,300 were bought from the hon. gentleman's friends.


William Pugsley: Are not the prices fair?


George Taylor: As a rule they are not fair and just. We had evidence before the Public Accounts Committee last year that whenever a messenger with brass buttons came from the government to buy goods the prices would be Taised from 25 to 30 per cent. All these dredges and tugboats requiring repairs are sent to two
special friends of the government. One is Mr. Davie. Where does he live?


William Pugsley: At Levis.


George Taylor: And Mr. Drolet is at Quebec. Last year the 'Speedy' was laid un at Toronto, but she had to have some little repairs, and she was sent to Levis to Mr. Davie. The hon. gentleman misinformed the committee when he stated that this vessel was laid up at Toronto last fall and winter, and started out in the spring, or else he paid Mr. Davie $1,778 for nothing, because this is what Mr. Davie charged up for hauling, wintering, repairing and launching the vessel; and I am informed that Mr. Davie does not do the work at tender prices, but generally gets a good round sum for anything he does for the government. Last year he got no less than $8,483 for hauling out and doing some, little repairing on tugs, and Mr. Drolet was paid another large amount. The minister cannot, therefore, say that the patronage system is dispensed with in his department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is not Mr. Davie a Conservative?


George Taylor: No. My hon. friend knows that quite well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that he is.


William Pugsley: Mr. George T. Davie is a very respectable and reliable man, even though he may be a Conservative, and Redoes his work thoroughly well. There is no better machinist in the whole of Canada. He has a dock at Levis, I think a marine railway, and he does a good deal of repairs. My hon. friend has unintentionally fallen into an error. He assumes that because the 'Speedy' was at Toronto last winter Mr. Davie's account for hauling up and wintering the 'Speedy' at Levis could not be correct. She was at nevis the year before, and that fiscal year ended on the 31st of March, and Mr. Davie's account for services during the winter and spring would be charged in the fiscal year following, the accounts of which we have before us. The important question is whether Mr. Davie's account is too large. I have no reason to suppose that it is at all out of the way. But that is work we could not let by tender. There was at that time nobody at Levis except Mr. Davie who could do that class of work. The Quebec Machinery Company is there now, and we are asking for tenders.


George Taylor: It is not very far from Quebec to the government shipyard at Sorel.


William Pugsley: Quite a distance, and I do not think the work would cost us less there. Look at some of the items in the

Auditor General's Report. Soft coal bought on the St. Lawrence and great lakes at $4.25 a ton. Will any one say that is out of the way?


Mr. S. SHARPE.: That is a pretty high price.


William Pugsley: Is it not a fair price for Sydney coal bought on the lakes or on the St. Lawrence?


George Taylor: It is steam coal, is the minister sure it is Sydney coal?


William Pugsley: So the engineer says.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In that case it is cheaper there than in the city of St. John.


William Pugsley: Take anthracite coal bought in small quantities at $7 a ton on the lakes.


George Taylor: $6.50 I pay, delivered in my cellar.


Mr. HARTY.: $6.75 I pay in my city.


Mr. BOYCE.: You can buy it at Sault Ste. Marie for $7 a ton.


William Pugsley: In Ottawa it costs $7.50. Then there are sailors' suits, $13 a suit, that is not out of the way.
Mr. DANIE'L. Is the coal weighed by the department or not?


William Pugsley: Weighed by the department, yes. Then there is coal oil, 18c. a gallon. Is that out of the way? So I ask my hon. friend to go through this item by item, and I venture to say he will find abundant evidence to support the statement that the captain and steward have exercised great care in making purchases and have gone around and got the lowest price. These are the directions to the captain. Where a steamer like the ' Speedy ' is travelling about, we cannot call for tenders in a public way. They have to get meats and vegetables, groceries, &c., and their instructions are to get them at the lowest market price. I was on the ' Speedy ' year before last, and saw evidence of nothing but the strictest economy. More than that, while a good deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the Speedy the officers of my department assure me that the ' Speedy ' earns to the government very considerably more than the cost of operation, so it is not a loss to the government. The only fault I have to find with her is that she is not as strong as she ought to be for doing towing work.
Mr. DANIEi,. The minister said that the coal was really weighed by the officers of the department. Did he make that statement really and truly, or did it just come to him off-hand?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I thought my hon. friend was a gentleman, and I think so still, and therefore I am greatly surprised at his putting that question to me. The information I gave is based upon the statement of my deputy, who has seen the weighing actually going on, and the department is always careful to see that the coal is weighed.


Richard Blain: I see two items, Geo. T. Davy, hauling up, wintering and launching the ' Speedy,' and on the same page an account of Geo. Summerville, wintering vessel, $75.
t Mr. PUGSLEY. That would not be the ' Speedy,' it might have been a caretaker, but I could not give the information tonight.


Richard Blain: Are any of these items bought by public competition?


William Pugsley: No, they are all bought by seeing different dealers, and getting the lowest prices.


Richard Blain: I see a whistle, $65.


William Pugsley: It is usual for steamers to have whistles, that is a fair price.


Richard Blain: Has my hon. friend abolished the patronage list? Some ministers state that there has been a brand new departure lately, and that the patronage list is unknown. Would my hon. friend say that the list is unknown in his department?


William Pugsley: Yes, I think I can safely say that the patronage list, as it used to exist from 30 to 40 years ago, down to last year, has been abolished. We do not furnish to our officials a list, as used to be done when my hon. friend, perhaps, had a good deal to do with patronage.


Richard Blain: No.


William Pugsley: Well, my hon. friend's predecessors in love and affection. We instruct our officials to buy where they get the goods cheapest, but I take it for granted, where there are articles of any considerable amount to be purchased, they will invite tenders. Where purchases are made through the department, the rule is that we invite tenders here, but the resident engineers, the superintendents of dredging, must buy supplies, and their instructions are to purchase them at reasonable prices.


Richard Blain: When did the change take place1?


William Pugsley: It was announced last session, I think.


Richard Blain: Does the minister find, under the new arrangement, that goods have been purchased cheaper?


William Pugsley: I do not think so, not so far as ordinary supplies are concerned. There has been a difference and a saving to the department in this respect, that when we require fittings for different public buildings we are in the habit of giving a wider advertisement than was formerly the case. We secure greater competition, and I think the accounts will show that we are making a considerable saving in that way.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister state that within the last year there has been really any change in the list of firms from whom the department has been purchasing?


William Pugsley: I do not follow that at all. Having done away with the patronage list, it is no part of my duty to follow that. We leave that to the discretion and judgment of our buyers and do not interfere with them at all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the hon. minister say that the agents of his department have full liberty to purchase goods from any one outside the supporters of the government?


William Pugsley: They have a perfectly free hand.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is strange then that they do not seem to make use of their freedom.


George Taylor: They would lose their job if they did.


William Pugsley: No, I never inquire from whom they buy.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says that where tenders are called for, he has broadened the scope of the advertisement. Does he now advertise in any newspapers other than those supporting the government?


William Pugsley: No, we have not ordinarily found it necessary to do so. We can get sufficiently wide publicity by utilizing the papers friendly to the government. What I meant was that we have widened the circle in the way of informing contractors. Formerly the practice was not to advertise in the newspapers for fittings but to send out to people in the business asking them to tender. We now, however, advertise generally in the newspapers so that there is wider competition and the same opportunity is given to Conservatives as to Liberals.


Richard Blain: But the hon. minister does not deem it expedient to advertise in any Conservative newspapers?


William Pugsley: We have not found it necessary to do that.


Richard Blain: Where the hon. minister finds a Conservative newspaper in a city
having a very much larger circulation than the newspaper supporting my hon. friend's government, he will still advertise in the newspaper with the smaller circulation, and not in the Conservative newspaper with a much larger circulation. He will have some difficulty in explaining that there is very much change in this practice from the former one. The only difference he says is that heretofore the department had a list and only invited the people on the list to tender for supplies, but that now he has broadened that practice by advertising in the newspapers which support the government. Does my hon. friend think that is a change in the public interest?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Richard Blain: Would not that rather increase the government patronage?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: I beg to differ with my hon. friend on that point. Heretofore he had a list of the faithful, but now he advertises in the newspapers that support the government but not in any other. How does he know that a paper supports the government or not? Has he a list of the papers supporting the government?


William Pugsley: As a rule, I endeavour to see if they take an enlightened view of public matters. From that I can pretty well judge on what side they are.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister appears to think that in the letting of contracts for supplies he is taking an entirely new departure and is giving Conservatives just as good an opportunity to tender as Liberals. But he knows that the Conservatives, to a large extent, do not take Liberal papers.


William Pugsley: That is a great misfortune. I am surprised at that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When it comes down to advertising for tenders, it does not seem very good practice for the minister to advertise only in government newspapers. If he were conducting his own business, he would not conduct it in that way.


George Taylor: My hon. friend the minister read out a few items a moment ago which he said were fair and reasonable. Let me draw a few to his attention, taken from page V-319 of the Auditor General's Report. On dredge scows- Mr. Davie had something to do with this -he spent $1,333.13. Let me just mention a few items and ask the hon. gentleman if he considers the prices fair. Elm, 950 feet at 8 cents per foot or $80 per 1,000 feet. Why, we are buying elm lumoer at home at $12 per 1,000 feet.


William Pugsley: Where?


George Taylor: At my home.


William Pugsley: That must be an elm country. Is that what they call swamp elm?


George Taylor: What my hon. friend bought no doubt was slippery elm.


William Pugsley: I would sooner have that than swamp elm. My hon. friend will not answer my question.


George Taylor: Here is an item of iron spikes, 457 pounds at 6 cents per pound. I want my hon. friend to state if 6 cents for spikes is a fair price. He can buy them by retail at 3 cents.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer disputes that statement absolutely.


George Taylor: Let him go to any hardware store and he will get them at 3 cents per pound. What do you pay for railway spikes on the Intercolonial Railway?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a vast difference in spikes.


William Pugsley: You buy them by the ton for the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a difference between ship spikes and iron spikes.


George Taylor: They are all made of iron and steel, and steel and iron are the same price to-day.


William Pugsley: I am told not.


George Taylor: I know better, for I am handling 1,000 tons every year. Here is an item for labour, one and a half day at $5 per day.


William Pugsley: It depends on whether that was expert labour or not.


George Taylor: $5 a day would be a pretty good price for Mr. Davie himself.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Ship spikes and steel spikes are entirely different. Ship spikes are wrought spikes. They are entirely different from the ordinary wire spikes and cut spikes.


George Taylor: Here is oakum, 434 pounds at 8 cents per pound. What is pitch worth a barrel?


William Harty: I do not know. I never handled it. We do not use it.


George Taylor: It is used in Kingston. The government use a good deal and pay $5.50. I can buy it at $3.50 laid down.


William Harty: How many barrels are charged there?


George Taylor: Four. The government are paying $5.50, and other people can buy it for repairing their roofs at $3.50. Then, there is an item, use of forges, etc.,


William Pugsley: $30. These are hand forges that you can buy at $15 or $16 apiece. Yet, the department pays $30 for the use of two or three of them. Another item reads, use of tools, $75. These are tools brought over to repair these scows. And the minister pays a bill like that. It is like the cross-cut saw that was spoken of last year for the use of which $30 was paid. Then there is cartage of tools, etc., to and from dock, $25. Also wood wedges, $25.60. I am sure that if we moved for these accounts and got them down, we should find them all certified as ' fair and just '. But plenty of the members on that side of the House know that the prices of some of these articles are not fair and just. And the minister pays these prices that are made without tender and without calling for competition. Then he will tell us that the patronage list is done away with.


William Pugsley: The hon. member (Mr. George Taylor) is out, as he sometimes-I will not say always-is. Take, for instance, the item of $5 for labour about which he makes such an outcry. This is a day and a half at $5 for the day and a half.


George Taylor: No, it is carried out at $7.50.


William Pugsley: Well, I will not quarrel with my hon. friend over $2.50. With regard to the elm, I am told that such elm as was used for this work costs what is charged. It is what they call rock elm.


George Taylor: You can buy it for $20 a thousand.


William Pugsley: The hon. member said it could be bought for $12.


George Taylor: I say we are buying it at $12-not rock elm.


William Pugsley: I think we should be glad to take all that the hon. member (Mr. George Taylor) can furnish at a good deal more than $20. With regard to the hire of tools-	i


Mr. NESBITT.: I will say that if the rock elm is of the right kind it is worth $80 a thousand.


George Taylor: I presume my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) is a good judge of it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, I know all about it. I will guarantee that I know more about it than Die hon. member (Mr. George Tay-lar), and put up money on it.


George Taylor: I dont' bet money.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend ought to be fair. You cannot buy mill run rock elm with the culls out, for $20.


William Pugsley: It does me good to have a practical man meet my hon. friend (Mr. George Taylor)-


George Taylor: I do not admit that the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is a practical man-practising law and knowing all about the price of lumber. I will tell him that we can buy elm lumber-we refuse it-at $12 a thousand, and not mill run-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not believe there is a man in the world who would be foolish enough to sell mill run, culls out, rock elm at $20 a thousand. And even swamp elm cannot be bought at $12 a thousand, unless he takes it mill run without the culls out.


George Taylor: We are buying it, cut, four, five and six inches, specially sawn, five-eights thick, at $12 a thousand.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Log run?


George Taylor: No. I know what we are doing.


William Pugsley: From what the chief engineer of my department tells me-and he is an expert, buying these materials continually-I am led to believe that my hon. friend from North Oxford is a much more practical man than the hon. member opposite (Mr. Geo. Taylor).


George Henry Cowan: On what does the minister base his judgment?


William Pugsley: On the opinion given me by a gentleman who knows about these prices.


George Henry Cowan: I thought it was on the noise the hon. gentleman made.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have a letter upstairs offering me $18 a thousand, log run, dead culls out, for swamp elm.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Is that from the government?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, from a private party.


William Pugsley: Carried.


George Taylor: No, the minister was about to explain about the tools.


William Pugsley: This was in cases where the work was done by our own men.


George Taylor: How about the $30 for a couple of hand forges?


William Pugsley: It depends on how long they were used.


George Taylor: You can buy them for $15 a piece.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the difference between the maintenance expenses and operating expenses as shown in the return brought down to the motion of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German)?


William Pugsley: It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between the two. In operating expenses are included wages, coal, oil and other items of that kind. Some
slight repairs might also be charged in operating expenses. But it is at this point that it is hard to draw the line.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What principle does the department follow?


Mr PUGSLEY.: The chief engineer tells me that there are charged to maintenance, those repairs which cannot be fairly made, by the crew when the boat is in use.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are the expenses of each of these dredges shown separately in the Auditor General's Report-all the ex-: penses of each dredge?


William Pugsley: I understand so.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In the case of the dredge ' Challenge,' I find at page V-305 of the renort of the Auditor General for the* year 1908-9, the items chargeable against the vote amounted to $7,394.44. But in the return brought down, the operating and maintenance expenses amount to $12,058.27. Why do not the items in the Auditor General's Report and in this return correspond?


William Pugsley: The reason might be this:	The statement in V-305, I think, is
for dredge vessel repairs. In the statement which the department brings down, there is the cost of operating, $5,976 and the cost of maintenance, $6,081. Now the Auditor General may not apportion the cost of dredge vessel repairs or of operating and maintenance the same as the department does, he may take a different view. But the total should be the same for the 1 Challenge.' The two items, dredge vessel repairs and dredging, ought together to make the sum total we have in our re turn. But the difference would be accounted for by the fact that the auditor might take a different view of the operating expenses.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand that the expenditure chargeable against any dredge, both for operating and maintenance, would be included under the name of the dredge in the report.


William Pugsley: No, because there is another item for dredging. My hon. friend will see in the estimates, page 72, for Quebec and Ontario, dredging, which includes operating expenses.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is there any account kept with regard to this dredging work, giving the cost of dredging, then what amount of material the dredge has taken out, so as to get an idea of what the dredge is doing in the shape of work per day, and per quantity, classifying the cost, and ascertaining how much that class of work is costing?


William Pugsley: That is done periodically. My hon. friend will find all that

in the annual report of the department. The report does not write off anything for depreciation, but the actual cost of operating is given with the quantity of dredging.
Dredging plant, Manitoba, $13,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is to make provision for the construction of new dredging plant to do the dredging required in Manitoba. We require a new hull and boiler and a small tug for the dredge 'Assiniboine'; also a new hull for the dredge crane, and improvements in machinery.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Where is that dredge going to operate?


William Pugsley: The 'Assiniboine' works at the mouth of the Red river near Selkirk.


George Henry Bradbury: Is thaj, the new dredge built last year, constructed out of an old snag boat?


William Pugsley: I think the 'Assiniboine ' was renewed about a year and a half ago.


George Henry Bradbury: The dredge I refer to was a snag boat converted into ai dredge. I understand they are both working at the mouth of the Red river. One was a suction dredge, and the other a dipper dredge.


William Pugsley: I am not familiar with the names of the dredges, but the chief engineer tells me the 'Assiniboine' is working at the mouth of the Red river.
Dredging plant, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $65,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make- provision for building two snag boats and stone lifters, to be operated on the Saskatchewan river. We find these boats are urgently required to remove boulders and improve the navigation of the river.
Dredging plant, British Columbia, $160,000.


William Pugsley: A new elevator dredge is required, and we require a gasoline launch for use on the Thomson raver by the assistant resident engineer estimated to oost $5,000. Then we want a drilling plant for Victoria harbour, $30,000. We shall have to increase this vote largely. Improvements are very urgently required in Victoria harbour, and we want to make them more rapidly. These improvements are required by reason of the Grand Trunk Pacific having determined to build a wharf in Victoria harbour. They have applied to the department for approval of the location of it, and it is going to very seriously interfere with other steamers coming in unless we can widen the harbour. We will find it neees-Mr. PUGSLEY.
sary to do a considerable amount of rock blasting and also a considerable amount of dredging. We have now in contemplation the purchasing of two Lobnitz rock breakers. We propose operating both of them and also having double shifts in order to get through with the work as rapidly as we can. The work is most urgently needed by reason of the increased number of steamers that are going to Victoria harbour. There are steamers running between Seattle and Victoria, between Vancouver and Victoria, between Prince Rupert and Victoria, and the number is to be supplemented by the steamers that have lately been acquired by the Grand Trunk Pacific. Therefore, we shall have to ask probably a little later on for a considerable increase in this vote. Then, in regard^ also to Vancouver harbour, we shall require a very considerable increase. We have had a very careful survey made of the entrance to Vancouver harbour, or what is known as the first narrows, and we propose to do a very important and very necessary work in the immediate future, namely: the widening of the channel to about 1,200 feet. This work is going to cost up probably $400,00, apart from the cost of the dredge. We will require a dredge having peculiar features to do that work most expeditiously and economically. The dredge which the engineer recommends is one of the elevator variety.


George Henry Cowan: Is that the dredge you referred to?


William Pugsley: Yes, and that dredge, it is estimated, will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $275,000 in addition to the duty.


Richard Blain: Why could not that he built in Canada?


William Pugsley: The only dredge of the kind that has ever been built in Canada is the ' Fielding,' which was built at the Sorel shipyards, and which cost very considerably more money than this dredge cost. We may be able to get it built in Canada although it would take considerable time. This work is urgent. We have not positively decided that we shall go abroad. If we can get it built in Canada within the time that we ought to have it at work we shall be very glad to do so.


George Henry Cowan: I understand the minister to say that the elevator dredge for which $135,000 of this item is intended is for work on the first narrows?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Cowan: That is the dredge the minister is speaking about?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Cowan: As I understand from the reports of the various engineers who have

examined the situation, an ordinary dipper dredge or a suction dredge will not do; it must be an elevator dredge. Did I understand the minister to say that dredge will be ordered in Canada or not?


William Pugsley: No. what I said was that I am inclined to think that we shall find it most advantageous to purchase that dredge in the old country, because these dredges are not ordinarily built in Canada.
I do not know of any elevator dredge built in Canada except the ' Fielding/ The capacity of the ' Fielding/ is about the same as the dredge we propose buying, and if I am right in the figures we will get this dredge, which is of steel and has a capacity of about 800 or 1,000 cubic yards per hour, for about half the cost of the ' Fielding,' excluding the duty. If upon inquiry we find that we can get an elevator dredge built in Canada within a reasonable time, I would be very glad indeed to get it here, but I am sure we can get it very much earlier if we buy it abroad.


George Henry Cowan: It is the advice of the government engineer, is it not, that it will be necessary, in order to get the right kind of dredge, to order it in the old country?


William Pugsley: Yes, of the resident engineer.


George Henry Cowan: Did I understand the minister to say that this item will have to be increased?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Cowan: I understand then that the $90,000 taken out of this item will not be devoted to the purchase of a dredge or plant?


William Pugsley: No, we will use the $90,000 for operating.


George Henry Cowan: Might I ask the minister, who has been giving, I am very pleased to be able to say, good attention to the first narrows, about when the dredge will be ordered, and in operation?


William Pugsley: The dredge will be ordered immediately upon the passing of the Appropriation Act. We have, no power to give an order till then, but immediately after the Appropriation Act passes we shall give the order for the dredge. We are making inquiries and getting all the information, but we cannot enter into a contract until the Appropriation Act passes. I recognize the great importance of going on at the earliest possible moment with this work of widening the first narrows, and also the work in Victoria harbour. The work at both places is most urgently required, and I can assure my hon. friends from British Columbia, that there will be no time lost whatever after the Appropriation Act is pessed.


George Henry Cowan: I think the minister is aware that on the south side of the narrows there are some submerged or partly submerged rocks that the engineer advises should be removed?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Cowan: Some 63,000 yards, I believe. May I ask the minister what machinery is being provided for the removal of that rock?


William Pugsley: That will be removed by means of the Lobnitz rock crusher. We also propose to remove the Parthia shoals as well.


George Henry Cowan: That is one of the objects for which these rock crushers are to be purchased?


William Pugsley: Yes, we intend using Lobnitz rock crushers there, and at Victoria harbour. We will put them at work in Victoria harbour first, but we will start work at the first narrows as soon as we can conveniently, and we will use the Lobnitz crushers on the south side of the channel.


George Henry Cowan: I think the attention of the minister was drawn when he was_ at Vancouver to the necessity of providing anchorage for vessels in English bay, at a cost for dredging and a breakwater of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000.


William Pugsley: I do not remember just what the cost is estimated to be, but I remember my attention being called^to the need of it.


George Henry Cowan: May I ask the minister what provision is being made for that very much needed work?


William Pugsley: We are taking an amount for operating the dredging plant in British Columbia. We have several very urgent propositions in British Columbia in respect to dredging. We have the Fraser river, the north arm of the Fraser, the entrance to False creek, the Vancouver Narrows, Victoria harbour, and Nanaimo. These are the most important places. Then we have quite a number of less important harbours in British Columbia where dredging work i3 urgently required. All I can say to my hon. friend to-night is that we shall give attention to the work of dredging the basin at the entrance to False creek as soon as we can, but I feel that the first * work to be done is the widening of the narrows.


George Henry Cowan: The present estimates make no provision for that?


William Pugsley: Not specially for the work at the entrance to False creek. It can be done out of the general vote, if we have enough money.


George Henry Cowan: I understood that the engineer suggested that there should be a breakwater as well as a little dredging at the entrance to False creek.


William Pugsley: We would require a special vote for that. I did not understand that a breakwater was needed, but simply dredging of a basin, and the approach to provide an anchoring ground for vessels entering False creek.


George Henry Cowan: Do the estimates before the House provide for the removal of Par-thia shoal? I think the minister is aware that that will not require a rock cutter, but only an ordinary dredge.


William Pugsley: Yes. Both the widening of the narrows and the removal of Parthia shoal could be done out of the general
dredging vote.


George Henry Cowan: The minister, with a keen eye to the situation, notwithstanding the entertainment he received at Vancouver, was good enough to tell us that we would have a dredge before the season expired. Our seasons there are fairly long, like our patience. We would be glad if the minister would be good enough to say, if he can, when a dredge for this general work is likely to be in the harbour.


William Pugsley: From the best information I can get, I believe we can have an elevator dredge launched by the middle or latter part of July, and we can have her at work in Vancouver harbour probably bv the first of September.


George Henry Cowan: I was referring, not to the elevator dredge, but to the ordinary dipper dredge, which has a good deal of work to do there-the removal of Parthia shoal, for instance. I believe that the engineer has recommended very strongly that a dredge should be got there at once to do this work.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that the dredges are all busy. The ' King Edward ' is, I think, at this very moment engaged in dredging in False creek at the request of the city of Vancouver. We brought her from Nanaimo for the very purpose of doing urgent work there. What we are trying to do is to keep all the dredges busy all the time. I can assure my hon. friend that the removal of Parthia shoal will be done just as soon as we can do it.


Martin Burrell: I did not quite catch what the minister said about $5,000 for a launch.


William Pugsley: That is applied for by Mr. Aylmer, the resident engineer, for use on the Thompson river.


George Henry Barnard: What work is he doing on the Thompson river?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: There is work all around there-east and west, north and south; for instance, the inspection of booms, and the clearing out of the channel. Then, the Thompson river connects with the Shus-wap lakes, and his duties will take him there. He told me when I was in British Columbia last year that he could not do his work without having a launch for the purpose of getting to these inland waters.


Martin Burrell: Is the engineer changing his headquarters from Revelstoke to Kamloops?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Martin Burrell: The minister had an application for some dredging on the North Thompson river to make that navigable. Will that be part of the work?


William Pugsley: Not out of this vote, but that work, if recommended by Mr. Aylmer, will have careful consideration. He thought Kamloops would be a more central point for him, in view of the duties he has to perform in various directions.


George Henry Barnard: In regard to the rock drilling plants which the minister spoke of for the harbour of Victoria, about how soon does he expect to begin operations there?
Mr. PUGSLEi. We shall have to build very heavy scows on which the rock drilling plants are to be placed, and it will take probably three or four months to have the rock drilling plants delivered, as they are made in the old country. Of course, I cannot enter into a contract until the Appropriation Act passes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It appears that this return does not comply with the order of the House, because it contains only a list of the dredges owned by the Department of Public Works. The return is indorsed as a return to an order of the House of Commons dated 15th March, 1909, showing the number and names of the various dredges owned by the government. This deals only with the dredges owned by the Public Works Department, and so does not comply with the order of the House.


William Pugsley: It complies as far as my department is concerned. It would be for the Marine Department and the Railways and Canals Department to bring down their returns separately. This is limited to the Department of Public Works and professedly so. If my hon. friend would bring the matter to the notice of the other ministers, I have no doubt they would bring down their parts of the return.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why should it be necessary for an hon. member to call the attention of the government further?


William Pugsley: It may be that the member only wished the Public Works Depart-

ment dredges. -I know it was to me he spoke.


George Henry Cowan: Referring to the first narrows works, what is the capacity of the elevating dredges, what is the quantity that it is estimated will have to be removed, and will the $90,000 be sufficient to carry on the work to the end of the year?


William Pugsley: The quantity is estimated at about 2,500,000 yards, and the actual cost of removal with a powerful elevator dredge, without making any allowance for interest upon the cost of the dredge, wear and tear, sinking fund, &c., will probably be about 15 cents per cubic yard. The dredge has a capacity of aboujti 800 cubic yards per hour. There will be no question about keeping the work going when we get the drege there, it will be kept going.
New Dredging Plant, Generally, $340,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the lowest price per cubic yard for any dredging done! under the Dussault-Lemieux contract in Quebec harbour?


William Pugsley: That is art entire contract for wharf building and dredging together. For dredging, my recollection is, it is 57 cents per cubic yard scow measurement for the crib seats.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When the minister rents a scow to a sub-contractor, I understand he rents the crew and outfit?


William Pugsley: No, just the bare scow


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: A dredge?


William Pugsley: If we rent a dredge, that includes the crew, because we have to keep our crew aboard.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: So in 1908, when the Dredge ' International ' was rented to Dus-sault et Lemieux, we received $25,200 at 15 cents per cubic yard. That would be
168,000	cubic yards for which the contractor would receive 57 cents a cubic yard, and we, although we supplied the dredge and all the men, paid all the wages and bore the whole expense of the dredge, received only 15 cents a cubic yard. In other words, the contractor made 42 cents' a cubic yard, and on the item of rent of the dredge alone, he has a profit of something like $57,200. The resident engineer, Mr. Valiquette, stated before the Public Accounts Committee last year that while the department received $150 a day, the expenses and upkeep came to $125, leaving apparently a profit to the department of $25 a day, but it was shown by the evidence of the same witness, that sometimes as much as 1,000 cubic yards, amounting ot $800 or $900, was dredged, so the contractor was making $600 or $700 a day out of the dredge, and the department was making only $25. According to the
minister's statements, this item will give as alarming a profit out of a dredge owned and operated by the government


William Pugsley: Which dredge is that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The ' International.' The government pay all the expenses, and all they receive is 15 cents, and the department pays .the contractor 57 cents for the work we do with our own men and dredge, while we pay all the expenses. In other words, out of that contract the contractor is making $67,000.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is far from stating all of the facts in the case.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I have stated all the facts from the minister's answers.


William Pugsley: He has overlooked some facts.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then it is due to the minister's answers.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman overlooked some things. The contract was made long before I became Minister of Public Works. I found it in operation when I became minister. The dredge ' International ' dredged out the crib seats, it is true, for the contractor, but it was also dredging out the channel, and, under ordinary circumstances, that dredged material would have been taken out three miles or so to deep water and dumped there. But the contractor, who had the contract for the crib work, dredging, and back filling- which he, being the lowest tenderer, obtained after public competition-bought this material from the government and paid 15 cents per cubic yard all round, not only for what was taken out of the crib seats, but also for vast quantities which the government was not paying him a copper for. The result, as brought out before the Public Accounts Committee, was that the government was actually the gainer by the operation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not remember that.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. George Taylor) brought that question up a couple of years ago, but when he found out the facts he dropped it like a hot potato, and we heard nothing more about it until my hon. friend resurrected the matter to-night. When I became minister I found, in connection with the further work, that there would be a greater amount of dredging in connection with the crib seats and less channel work, and I saw the thing would not work out as before. These contractors were going on with the work of building the cribs in regard to which their tender was very low-much less than the work could be done for to-day, in view of the advances in prices of materials. I made a new bargain and insisted on their

paying $200 per day for the use of the dredge. After allowing for the cost _ of operation and wear and tear, and sinking fund and a reasonable contractor's profit, that gives to the government for the dredge ' International ' $110 per day in profit.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How many cubic yards per day?


William Pugsley: It varies from day to day. Some days she would strike hard material and dredge a less quantity, or storms might arise when she would be more or less idle.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. minister's statement may be clear to himself, but I cannot understand it. The bare fact is this, that the dredge was rented by the contractor on a cubic yard basis at 15 cents per' yard and he is paid for excavation at the rate of 57 cents per yard, so that while the government dredge did the work the *contractor got a profit on that work of 42 cents per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: That is not so.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. minister obscures the issue by bringing in a lot of side contracts, dumping down the river, filling in the crib work, &c., but the main fact is that the dredge was rented by the contractor at 15 cents per cubic yard, and the contractor was paid 75 cents per cubic yard, and we did all the work, thus leaving him net 42 cents on our work.


William Pugsley: That is not the case. That was ventilated before the Public Accounts Committee two years ago, and we never heard a word of it last session from my hon. friend or the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. George Taylor) when the matter was fresh in their memory. Now, however, when not only my hon. friend but others have forgotten the facts most absolutely essential to understand the matter, my hon. friend brings it up again. But in so doing he forgets the most essential fact, which is that, while we were paying for a portion of the dredging at 57 cents per cubic yard, the contractor was paying the government for thousands upon thousands of cubic yards for which he was not getting one cent from the government, so that the one account over-balanced the other, and the government received more than it paid out to the contractor. When I became minister I found that there was more dredging to be done in connection with the crib seats and less channel work, so I made the contractor pay $200 per day for the use of the dredge, on which we get a net profit of $110. There are many days when the dredge would not average 700 yards. It does not average that for the season. On some days, therefore, we would be getting at the rate of 40 or 50 cents per cubic yard for the work done.


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When we lend a dredge at so much per cubic yard, if there be a day when the dredge is not working the government pays the inspection.


William Pugsley: This charge is for every day, whether the dredge works or not.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am not speaking of the $200 per day, but of the item per cubic yard.


William Pugsley: That was an old arrangement before I was minister.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will admit that I was correct so far as 1908 was concerned?


William Pugsley: No, because my hon. friend leaves out of account the vast quantity of dredging out of the channel for which the contractor was not receiving one cent from the government, and which, if the arrangement had not been made with the contractor, we would have had to tow out to deep water some three or four miles distant. For those thousands and thousands of cubic yards of dredged material, the contractor paid us and used it for back filling.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If he had not got it from the government, he would have got it from some one else.


William Pugsley: But we would have had to tow it out to sea and dump it there.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the $90 a day cover the wages of the crew and the expenses in connection with the dredging as well as interest upon the investment?


William Pugsley: $91 covers the wages, the coal, the interest upon the expenditure, and a reasonable amount for wear and tear.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the capacity of the dredge?


William Pugsley: Working under favourable circumstances, about 700 cubic yards per day at that depth of water.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the depth of water?


William Pugsley: Forty-eight feet.
Dredging, maritime provinces, $675,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What are the details?


William Pugsley: It is impossible to tell in a minute detail where this will be expended. We have many demands from different sections of the country. This covers the cost of operation of the government dredges in the maritime provinces, as well as contract work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister an estimate which shows where the dredging is to be done?


William Pugsley: 
Richard Blain: All this next summer?


William Pugsley: As far as we can get along.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not hear


William Pugsley: And Gaspereau.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ah, I was going to say that I had not heard the minister say anything of Gaspereau. I want to impress upon the minister the absolute necessity of the continuance of the work commenced there in 1908. He was not in the House at that time, and was not familiar with the circumstances, but as early as 1901, the Minister of Public Works of that day, the late Mr. Tarte, had the original survey made and items were put into the estimates for one or two years, encouraging the people there to believe that the work would be speedily prosecuted, but year after vear disappointment came. There are some very large industries there requiring navigation facilities. There are large lumbering operations, a canning establishment and others. Steamers go there and boats ply up and down the river. The difficulty in the way of navigation is the bar near the mouth of the river. The main reason always given for not going on with the work was that there were not dredging plants available-that the government had not dredges in the maritime provinces to undertake the work. In 1908 tenders were asked for and operations begun. In the spring of 1909-unfortunately, in my judgment, and to the injury of the work that had already been commenced in 1908-the work was not prosecuted. It was near the close of the season of 1909 when the government dredge was sent. Then, owing to the' inclemency of the weather, she had soon to desist from operations. The work done in 1908 would have been of advantage had the bar been completely dredged through so that the channel of the river could have been reached. But, unless this work is prosecuted so as to reach that channel every dollar that has been expended is absolutely wasted. I know the minister has made every effort to have this work done, and I can appreciate the fact that he has been besieged from every section of the maritime provinces for dredging. There is more work to be done than the plant can accomplish. I know that that has been the case ever since I first had any knowledge of thpse things-and my knowledge began in 1900, when I first became a member of this House. Still, I would strongly urge upon the department the continuance of the work this year. It seems to me it would not require a great deal more to make the work already done of practical advantage to the port and to the shippers who find it necessary to reach that port. Larger vessels are being used, and a great deal of lumber is being exported. As a result of the conditions of the channel, the lumber merchants are sending their lumber to Cape Tormentine and other ports, incurring the cost of railway charges, this being necessary in order to secure shipping facilities. If the dredging were completed vessels would go up the river and load at the wharfs of the lumber establishments at Port Elgin.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How far is Port Elgin from the mouth of the river?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not sure, but I should estimate it at between a mile and a mile and a half.


Richard Blain: Who owns the wharf?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The lumber establishment own wharfs where they would ship if the vessels could reach them. Then there are fishing concerns, that ship.


Richard Blain: Does the government own any wharf there?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there is an old landing wharf below the railway drawbridge. But the main shipping would be done at the wharfs above the draw-bridge. The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Railway which connects Sackville at the Intercolonial Junction with Cape Tormentine opposite Prince Edward Island, passes through Port Elgin and crosses the Gaspereau river at that point. In the bridge they have a draw to enable vessels to pass up and down the stream. Small vessels can go there. There is a large business with Prince Edward Island.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do small vessels go to Port Elgin now?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Vessels with light draft-yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What draught?


William Pugsley: They can go at high tide.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The difliculty is the bar which prevents the approach to the river. The river opens out into the Bay Verte. The sweep of the sea from Northumberland straits up into the bay has

formed this bar. In former days, I am told, larger vessels could approach that river and navigate these waters.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would not the river require to be dredged?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not to Port Elgin. After you get beyond a certain point the channel is sufficiently deep. The dredging is necessary at the mouth of the river -that is my understanding of it. The people there were very much interested. They have from time to time got up petitions and had public meetings. They are very anxious for the advancement of the trade of that section of New Brunswick, and so to have this work proceeded with. I cannot use language strong enough in which to urge upon the minister the importance and necessity of this work. I think he has had applications from time to time directly from the residents of that community, and must himself have some idea of the necessity of the work. He can readily understand, representing that constituency, and coming more closely in touch with the people, how zealous they are in approaching me, and if I could be inspired with the same zeal in my attempts to approach him, I am sure my appeal will be a successful one.


William Pugsley: I have been very strongly urged by my hon. friend, repeatedly and incessantly urged, to complete this work. I have also been urged by prominent business men of Port Elgin, and I am happy to be able to say to my hon. friend that I anticipate that early in the coming season I shall be able to continue this work with one of the government dredges, probably the same one which was there last year.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to remind the Minister of Public Works that there are a number of places in Nova Scotia, which he has not mentioned, but for which I shall not fail to put in an application in due course, places in which my constituents are interested.


Richard Blain: I thought that everybody was served in the county of the Finance Minister.


William Stevens Fielding: Not at all. My hon. friend must come down and see that lovely neighbourhood.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to ask the member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) if I correctly understood him to say that the government dredge was sent there too late in the season of 1909 to do any work, on account of stress of wreather.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I commenced early in the spring urging the minister to send a dredge there. His answer was that he Mr. EMMERSON.
hoped to have one available very shortly, one which was engaged either in Prince Edward Island or in Nova Scotia; he hoped that she would be relieved shortly and would go there early in the season. I assumed that it was because he was disappointed in his expectations that the dredge did not reach there earlier. She did reach there and did some work, but the season closed early with rough weather, and they were compelled to take her away.


William Wright: Following up the item which has just been introduced by the hon. member for Westmorland, asking for an appropriation for government dredging in some of those minor streams, I would like to ask whether the local government in New Brunswick does not do a good deal of this kind of work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. I may say that the harbours and streams in the maritime provinces, as elsewhere in Canada, are not only under the control of the Dominion government, but are entirely within their jurisdiction. The provincial government and legislatures have never recognized any responsibility with regard to them for that reason, and for the further reason, that this dredging work being for the promotion of navigation, it is exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Dominion.


William Wright: I might point out that in the province of Ontario a good deal of this kind of work has been done by the provincial government, on just such streams as the hon. gentleman has made a plea for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In harbours?


William Wright: Navigable streams.


William Pugsley: The provincial government?


William Wright: Yes, I have seen them doing it myself.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me of any case where the Ontario government has done any dredging, except of course in connection with drainage works?


William Wright: Yes, in the Muskoka rivers and Muskoka lakes, and I have seen them doing it. You will find them dredging below Huntsville, where they have worked in a chain of lakes and have made these lakes navigable for steamers. They have done dredging in Peninsula lake.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I must say that the provincial authorities of Ontario have shown a magnaminity which is refreshing.


William Wright: I think they will be inclined to drop this kind of thing if the

Dominion government does it in other provinces.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman will find that it has been pretty well dropped long ago.


Mr. WEIGHT.: I know a good deal of that work has been done in the upper lakes by the local government. I think it would he unfair to saddle this kind of work on one province and do it for other provinces. If that is the way it is viewed in the maritime provinces, I am pleased to know it. We will know where to go to get dredging done in future.


William Pugsley: The Dominion government has done far more in the way of dredging for the province of Ontario than for any other province, I think we are doing more for Ontario than for all the other provinces combined. Take Port Arthur, Fort William, Victoria Harbour, Tiffin, Midland, Goderich, Port Burwell, Port Stanley, Eondeau, Cobourg, Toronto, Hamilton, Port Dalhousie-take them altogether, and you will find that they amount to as much as the dredging in all the other provinces put together. What my hon. friend says is a surprise to me. It is a strange thing that, having been minister for some years, I do not know of any dredging work being done by the government of the province of Ontario. I never heard of such a thing.


David McKenzie Wright: In the -very next item the maritime provinces get $675,000, a general vote for dredging, while Ontario and Quebec combined get the same amount. So the hon. gentleman is entirely wrong.


William Pugsley: Go back to capital account, page 55, and you will find for Fort William and Port Arthur, $800,000, Tiffin, $120,000, Victoria Harbour, $145,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister estimated the cost of the work that will be necessary at Gaspereau to make a channel which will enable vessels to go up to Port Elgin, as suggested by the hon. member for Westmorland?


William Pugsley: My recollection is that it is somewhere in the vicinity of 200,000 cubic yards.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does that include dredging in the river as well as at the bar?


William Pugsley: Yes. That will be dredging to give access to Port Elgin.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do not propose to discuss this matter, because it has been under investigation in the Public Accounts Committee. But I saw the report of the resident engineer, Mr. Stephens, in which 152
he stated that the depth of water there varied from 8 inches to 5 or 6 feet. Perhaps the hon. member for Westmorland has some information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On account of this bar a good deal of sawdust has floated down the stream and has reached a point between where the waters of the bay join with the waters of the river. There are some sawdust banks and they are a measureable obstruction, but they are of such a character that vessels going in and out, while they touch them are propelled or hauled through, I think, by tugs, and the passage is not difficult. As a result of that there may be a variation in the depth of the water near the mouth of the river. The cost of the removal of such obstruction would be a mere bagatelle. The main dredging is in connection with the bar and, where the bar comes along the channel, straightening the channel. '


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did I correctly understand, the minister to say that the dredging which was done in 1908 did not complete the channel through the bar, But that it was left in such a condition that if the work is not continued that which has already been done will fill up and there will be an absolute waste of money?


William Pugsley: When it is completed through the bar the work will be done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If you undertake to make a channel through a bar, only cut a certain distance of it, and do not complete the whole channel, and the channel is not available between the harbour and the sea outside, it follows that unless that work is prosecuted through, the money already expended will practically be made useless.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the condition in which the work was left in the fall of 1908?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is the condition in which it was left in the fall of 1908. Unfortunately some heavy storms came there that compelled the removal of the dredge. It is a very difficult place to dredge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Because of the class of material?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, but because of the winds and the exposed position of the dredge. When the winds come in a certain direction it is very difficult for the dredge to do any amount of work per diem. In the fall of 1908 the weather became very severe.


Oswald Smith Crocket: They got 1,360 cubic yards in a day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know how much they did in a day; I can only say that during a great many days they were



unable to work at all. I know that from personal observation. What they 3id when the weather was good and when they could work is to me unknown, but I do know that time and again when I was in the vicinity, on account of the weather, the dredge was .unable to do any work whatever. She was compelled to go away from the scene of her work in November.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. member's statement agrees very largely with that of the resident engineer who reported that the work would require to be continued, and he stated in his report last year that the work that had already been done was of such a character that it would fill up during the season of 1909.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not an expert on such matters, but it would be self-evident to me that this would occur at almost any place.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The statement of the engineer was that it would require to be continued last season. I understand from the hon. member for Westmorland that the work was not continued last season, and that the opening was not made in the channel.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then my hon. friend misunderstood me. The work was continued last season, but too late to finish it up and on account of the inclemency of the weather they had to leave it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long did the dredge work last season?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell you. I was away in the United States during the time she was there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The reason I ask is that I understood from the chief engineer of the department, in the course of his examination before the Public Accounts Committee, that the government dredge was not at work there, and did no work during the last season.


Henry Robert Emmerson: She certainly did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And I understood the minister to say the other day that the government dredge was sent there, and prosecuted the work during 1909.


Henry Robert Emmerson: She did, and I know from a gentleman who was here recently who is veri? much interested, he being a citizen of Port Elgin, that the dredge had been there, and had done work during last autumn. I do not know of it personally, because I was absent from the country during the autumn months of last season.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must be mistaken as to what the chief engineer said. I cannot conceive it possible Mr. EMMERSON.
that he made that statement knowing that the dredge was sent there, and he tells me that he did not say such a thing. I made the statement myself that last year, owing to it becoming necessary, if we were to do this work at all, to do it by a government dredge, I tried to send a government dredge there as early as possible, but the government dredges were all engaged upon necessary work elsewhere, and it was not until late in the season that I was able to take a government dredge away from other wrork and sent her to Gaspereau. She went to Gaspereau and continued the work of dredging there until the season was so far advanced that it was necessary for her to leave the place, and go into winter quarters. In the coming season we propose to continue the work commenced on 1908, and which was continued last year in order to give access for vessels to Port Elgin. .


Oswald Smith Crocket: I certainly understood the chief engineer-and I do not intend to discuss the evidence which has been taken -to make the statement which I have repeated to the committee. I will be very much surprised if the minister does not find that statement in the concluding portion of the chief engineer's evidence where I asked him if the work was continued the following season by the government dredge, I referring at the same time to the statement that the minister had made in the House. He may have misunderstood me or I may have misunderstood him.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman knows that I stated in the House that the government dredge had been sent there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer tells me, that you may have misunderstood him, or,he did not understand your question, because he did not intend to say anything of the kind. The reports show the time she was there.


Mr. JAMESON.: While the item of general dredging for the maritime provinces is under discussion, I wish to ask the minister whether he has decided that he can do any dredging at the port of Weymouth this year?


William Pugsley: I am not able at this moment to -say when we shall be able to do the dredging work that will be required at Weymouth. What we intend to do, is to apportion the vote among the places which most urgently require dredging work.


Clarence Jameson: At this point it may be desirable for me to give the minister some information respecting the needs of Weymouth. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last year, and at that time there was no money available for the purpose, or "the arrangements had been

made for ihe dredging for the season, and consequently it was not convenient to take the matter up. At present, Weymouth is very much in need of some dredging at the entrance to the harbour, and also for the straightening of the channel up the river. Some time ago a plan of the river and harbour was made by the department's engineer, and it was intimated that certain dredging work would be undertaken before long. Up to the present time the department has not reached that work. I may say that very great inconvenience is experienced by shippers and others at this important commercial centre owing to the fact that it is very difficult to get the class of vessels that go to Weymouth over the bar and up the river at different times of the tide. At certain times also two steamers, which call at that port regularly, are obliged to lie off St. Mary's bay, because they cannot pass over the bar at the entrance to the river. I pointed out to the minister last year that Weymouth was an important commercial centre, the geographical centre of the county of Digby, and the centre of a large population; that a large lumbering business and a large pulp business were carried on in the immediate vicinity, and that the business of the port would be very considerably increased if the shipping facilities were improved by some dredging and some improvement of the harbour. As the vote this year is almost twice what it was last year, I hope that it will be possible for the minister to give some attention to the needs of Weymouth. It seems, from the report which has been brought down in reference to the dredges which are available for the Department of Public Works, that there are now no less than ten in use; and as three of these at least-and they seem to be dredges of greater capacity than those that have heretofore been used by the department- have been provided in the last four years, I hope that the minister, when he makes his arrangements with regard to the dredging in the maritime provinces, will be enabled to consider the needs of Weymouth.


William Pugsley: I have given a good deal of consideration to the question of dredging at Weymouth, and, while I recognize that dredging is required there, as it is in many other places to which we are not able to give attention at the present time, yet the quantity of dredging required at Weymouth, to be effective and to give to the people what they are asking for is so large that I hesitate to recommend to my colleagues the undertaking of the work, at the present time at all events. If I remember rightly, the estimate of the chief engineer is that about 500,000 cubic yards will have to be removed. That is a very large amount of dredging; and, in view of this fact, I am not able to say with any definiteness to-152J
night, whether the work will be undertaken during the coming season, or just what decision will be arrived at with regard to it.


Clarence Jameson: I may point out to the minister one fact in regard to Weymouth which may influence him a little in making his decision; that is, that for years, I think since confederation, there has not been a dollar of public money expended there for any harbour improvements, with the exception of a very small sum which was . spent at some little distance from Weymouth'1. I am not asking the minister to do all the work which the report he has before him states it is essential to do in order to bring that port up to the position it should occupy; but 1 submit that he might make a beginning. He might, for instance, do some work at the entrance to the harbour in connection with the bar which I have mentioned, which would afford considerable relief to shippers and to the operators of the two steamers which call regularly at the port. I do not ask that all the work which the plans show to be necessary should be carried to completion out of this vote or during the ensuing year; but I submit that some commencement should in all reason be undertaken during the year for which this vote will be available.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to get some information from the minister in regard to some of the dredging that is going on in the province of New Brunswick. I would like to know how much money has been expended in dredging at Dalhousie, and how much it is estimated will be expended there out of this vote during the coming summer?


William Pugsley: I cannot give my hon. friend to-night a statement of the dredging which has been done at Dalhousie. I did not suppose my hon. friend would ask for that, because the matter has been under investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much has been expended at Dalhousie since the close of the last fiscal year?


William Pugsley: I have not that information to-night.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Also, when is it expected that the work of dredging at the public wharf and also at the ferry slip at Dalhousie will be completed?


William Pugsley: A good deal of dredging work is to be done at Dalhousie, and how soon it will be completed will depend on the description of dredge tbjat will be used. If we had a large and powerful dredge the work would be done much more quickly than it can be with one of the small dredges. I am not able to give the

hon. gentleman the information to-night, but I should think that it would take the whole season and perhaps two seasons to complete the dredging at the railway wharf and public wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the minister able to state the quantity of dredging required at the public wharf?


William Pugsley: I have the information in the department, but not here.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to have that information.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Clarence Jameson: Does the minister propose to continue the dredging which was done at Digby last year?


William Pugsley: There is more work to be done at Digby. I am not at the moment prepared to say whether we will continue it during the present season or not. I will look into the reports and determine whether it is urgently required or not? Of course, we cannot engage in all dredging work at once, and we have to take first the places where dredging is most urgently required.


Clarence Jameson: The plans will disclose that they have not been worked up to.


William Pugsley: No, there is still work to be done under the plans.


Clarence Jameson: To show the urgency of the need for this work I would say that an arrangement has been made with one of the steamship companies plying between the United States and Nova Scotia to run a direct boat from Boston to Digby beginning on the 1st of July. That boat will" require more wharf and harbour accommodation than is required by the boats plying between St. John and Digby. The operating of this new service will be of importance and benefit to all of Nova Scotia, and aDo to the province of New Brunswick, which is sharing very largely in that profitable summer business. Then, the fishing interests in Digby, along with some others in different parts of Nova Scotia, are being, I am informed, amalgamated, and when that amalgamation is completed, I understand considerable additions will be made to the plant, and a much increased business in this line will be done in Digby. A reasonable amount of dredging in one part of the harbour would undoubtedly afford this Boston steamer increased accommodation, and would also afford better facilities for the larger fishing business which it is likely will be carried on by the fleet.


William Pugsley: When we come to apportion the amount the question of continuing the dredging at Digby during the pre-Mr. PUGSLEY.
sent season will be carefully considered. Referring to Dalhousie, during the season of 1909, the A. and R. Loggie dredge ' Reliable ', afterwards named the ' Invader ', worked in the ferry business at Dalhousie, dredging about the pier head, and the new ferry wharf berths for schooners with thirteen feet of water, and next the Dalhousie wharf a berth for deep water vessels seventy-five feet wide six hundred feet long, and twenty feet deep at low water. The material removed was 62,735 cubic yards, costing $31,632.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the work at the wharf of the Dalhousie Lumber company completed?


William Pugsley: It is completed to the depth of fifteen feet, but the traffic coming to the wharf requires a depth of twenty-one feet. It is for us to consider whether we will go on dredging to a depth of twenty-one feet or not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was expended last year upon that?


William Pugsley: 30,546 cubic yards were removed since the close of the last fiscal year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was any work done at Caraquet last year?


William Pugsley: Yes, dredging operations were performed across the shoal in Caraquet harbour. 48,772 cubic yards were removed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that to be continued during the coming season?


William Pugsley: We have not decided as to that; there is necessity for completing the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When contracts are let do they specify the depth to which the dredging is to be done, or the quantity that is to be removed?


William Pugsley: Sometimes they have in the past and sometimes not. We think it is the better practice to determine the depth to which the dredging shall be carried on and specify it' in the specifications. I think the coming year we will do it in all cases.


Oswald Smith Crocket: At Caraquet I judge the depth was not specified.


William Pugsley: That is a matter for the resident engineer. He lays out the work and the dredge is supposed to work according to his direction.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This seems a very objectionable practice in the letting of contracts. At Dalhousie, for instance, I understand the contract was simply a contract to do dredging at Dalhousie without specifying where. The' contract wras let to

a contractor, and the work might go on from year to year for ten years, or as long as the resident engineer could find anything to dredge at any point in the harbour. In the case of Dalhousie, from the documents brought down, the contemplation of the department at the start seems to have been that the dredging should be done at the public wharf. The dredge was removed, after a few weeks work, from that to another point, where I do not believe any work was contem plated at the time the contract was let. They go on working her the greater part of the season, then they go on the next season at the same place, and the minister tells us the work is going on next year and has no idea where it is going to stop. This is a most reckless way of letting contracts involving such immense sums. The same remark is true with regard to Loggieville, and other places where dredging is being done. A contract is let and one has not the slightest conception how many years it is to continue. It is all done as the resident engineer may direct. He may direct dredging to be done and to be continued to a depth as in the case of Loggieville, of 15 feet. Then the department determines to carry it another season to 20 feet, and that contract goes on, and the government seems helpless. The practice is most objectionable. If the minister had any regard for the proper conduct of his business, he would introduce some new regulations which would provide for contracts that had some definiteness, and the department would have some idea when they would come to an end. At present A. & R. Loggie, and other firms in New Brunswick have contracts for dredging that may be continued for years to come.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman either forgets the facts or he does not think it worth while to state them. Ever since the department has been doing dredging work the practice has been, in the great majority of cases, to let contracts for dredging at certain points. The resident engineer is on the spot. He knows better whether it is best to make one cut right up to the wharfs or two cuts, depending on whether it is possible to give accommodation by making the one or the two cuts, or giving a lesser depth first and making the cut right up to the wharf and later on digging to a greater depth. The practice has been to let contracts for dredging at certain places without actually attempting to lay out the work definitely, to do which would require a great deal of survey work in order to have any accuracy. The hon. gentleman says that the Loggie contract may go on for years, and that the other contracts may do the same. According to my recollection, the contract of the Messrs.
Loggie is for the season of navigation, or such further period as the minister may determine. Therefore, unless the minister extends the contract, the Messrs. Loggie or others will only be entitled to- dredge for that season. As regards extending a contract, the minister would naturally consult his engineering staff, and from the plan made by the resident engineer he would see how much dredging had actually been done, what depth of water there was in the harbour, and what accommodation to shipping, and whether it was reasonably necessary to continue the work. By all these things he would be influenced in determining whether or not the contract would be extended. As regards Dalhousie harbour, a contract was let for the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Without specifying any particular part.


William Pugsley: Yes, where necessary to accommodate the people, and the layout of the work was done entirely by the resident engineer. Some remarks have been made by the hon. gentleman as to work being done at certain points. With that the minister has nothing to do. That was purely determined by the engineering department, especially the resident engineer. The resident engineer would be guided by the interests of the port and would have the work done wheie it would best accommodate the pressing necessities of business, and the layout of the work would rest entirely with the resident engineer Neither the minister nor any of the officials of the department interfere at all with him in the exercise of his judgment.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has said that I either forgot the facts or deliberately refrained from mentioning them. But no one who has listened to his statement could have failed to observe that he himself mentioned no fact whatever which I had not mentioned myself.


William Pugsley: Did not the hon. gentle* man say that the Messrs. Loggie had a contract which they could hold the Crown to-for ten years?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I said they had a contract which might go on from year to year for ten years, and which has gone on, in the case of the dredging at Loggieville and Dalhousie, for three years and apparently, according to the minister's statement, is intended to be continued the coming season at least.	,


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is wrong. There was only one extension of the contract at Loggieville. They were tenderers in the different years and they received the contract in the ordinary way, and after that there was but one extension.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I refer to the dredging given them in the season of 1908, and which

the minister said had been continued last year, and they got some three years in all.


William Pugsley: That was only one extension, and the hon. gentleman said it had been extended fpr three years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I said in the case of the dredging at Dalhousie there was a contract two years and the minister announced it was to be extended next year.


William Pugsley: I did not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then I certainly misunderstood him. Did he not state the dredging was to continue next year?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman wishes to draw the inference that I said the Loggie contract was to be continued another year. I made no such statement, and no decision has been arrived at on the subject.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can he not state whether the Messrs. Loggie will continue the dredging at Dalhousie next season?


William Pugsley: The matter has not been considered at all.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the work not completed, which was let them by contract in 1908, was continued by them last year?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister states that, according to his recollection, there is a clause in the contract which limited the dredging to the season of navigation.


William Pugsley: And which may be extended further as the minister may see fit.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would not care to speak from memory as to whether in these particular contracts there is such a term. I know there are some which are thus limited, and the contents are sometimes required by order in council to be so limited.


William Pugsley: I feel quite sure such a limit is in this, but I am not quite positive.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That does not alter the case if the minister, as a matter of course, does renew the contracts from year to year. If it be the case that the contract is limited to the season of 1908, did he call for further tenders in 1909?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has already been informed that I did not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: So it amounts to precisely the same thing, whether the term is in the contract or not. Contracts are let for dredging in a harbour without designating the wharf or the localities where the dredging is to be done, and it is only one who is able to get information either from .the resident engineer or the officers of the department, who is in a position to tender. That is one


Oswald Smith Crocket: thing which is very objectionable. Tenders are called for without giving any information whatever upon which contractors could base a tender. It is necessary, before a contractor can put in a proper tender, or estimate what the work is likely to cost, to ascertain where the dredging is to be done.


William Pugsley: Which he always can do.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That may or may not be.


William Pugsley: And more than that, w'hen the contractor puts in his tender, he must state that he has acquired information as to the dredging.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Nevertheless there are cases where intending tenderers have not been able to obtain that information. I have not introduced this discussion for the purpose of raising matters that have been under investigation in the Public Accounts Committee, but to call attention to what seems to me a very loose method in awarding these contracts, a method that leaves the door wide open for all sorts of conduct which, I think, would not be thought to be in the public interest. I think that, in connection with this matter, there c light to be some requirement that, when a contract is let, the department itself and the public ought to know just what is expected to be done, and not leave it open to what the minister says has occurred in the ports of Dalhousie and Loggieville-a contract made for one season and continued from year to year so long as the department can find anything to be done in the vicinity of the particular point which is named in the contract.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall the item carry?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is there anything in this vote for dredging in the St. John river between the city of Fredericton and Woodstock?


William Pugsley: It is not decided yet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the survey of the St. John riyer channel between Fredericton and Woodstock been completed?


William Pugsley: Not wholly completed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it to be continued next season?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much has the survey cost up to the present time?


William Pugsley: I am afraid I cannot tell my hon. friend to-night. I will have to get that information. I will afford my hon. friend opportunity to discuss the matter after I get the information from him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was- going Jo suggest that this item stand-


William Pugsley: No need of keeping the item for that-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Not for that particularly. But there are many other matters in connection with this item, many other places referred to, concerning which I wish to get information-not only places of which I have spoken but other places in New Brunswick and in other parts of the maritime provinces. Furthermore, there are matters that I would like to discuss later on that are not ripe for discussion at the present time. Examination has been proceeding in the Public Accounts Committee with reference to dredging in the maritime provinces which cannot be properly discussed now because the evidence is not reported to the House. It may be that some of these are subjects which ought to be brought to the attention of the House, and it is only in connection with this item that this can be properly done.


William Pugsley: It would be very unreasonable to ask that tire passing of items be delayed until the Public Accounts Committee get through the investigation of what may be before them. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has spoken of surveys of the St. John river. There will be an opportunity to discuss that. Upon the motion for concurrence, he can discuss anything he wishes. And, on any item in my estimates, I will afford him opportunity to discuss to the fullest extent matters in connection with dredging or any other matter. But I hope he will not ask that the passing of these items be delayed. I think that, upon reflection my hon. friend will not do that. There is nothing to be gained by doing it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think we are not called upon to pass this item with the meagre information which the minister has communicated to the House to-night. There are many places the minister has mentioned in which these moneys are to be expended. For my part, I wish to know, first, whether, where the dredging is to be done during the next season, and I want, at this time and before the item passes, to attempt to discover just what reports have been made as to the necessity of dredging at these places, what examination has been made and what reports received, and what the estimated expenditure of the dredging is. And I think it is a most unreasonable thing for the minister to think that we who aTe sent here to watch the expenditure of the people's money shall sit here and see $675,000 voted upon such meagre information as the minister has given here to-night. I do not think the request I make is unreasonable. I say to the minister, quite frankly, that I want information with regard to the places that he has named in which dredging is to be done, and this information I am entitled to as a member of this com
mittee. As far as I am concerned,I certainly do press the request I made that the item should stand until the information is given to the committee.


William Pugsley: Question.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, it is not carried-


William Pugsley: The hon. member cannot speak twice unless some other member speaks-he cannot resume his seat and then rise again.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) is entitled to speak.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is a rather novel proposition to come from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). But we m New Brunswick are all aware of the ingenuity which has characterized him all through his public career, and-


William Pugsley: I was referring to what I understood was the rule of the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think that in committee an hon. member is entitled to speak as often as he pleases. I do not know any rule under which it is provided that after he has spoken he cannot speak again until some one else has spoken.


William Pugsley: I think that is the case.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have not so understood the rule. If the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) can point to the rule-


William Pugsley: That is the rule in the New Brunswick legislature, whose rules are modelled on those of this House, but I have not examined the rules of this House. Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. In the New Brunswick legislature, whose rules, as I say, are modelled on those of this House, a member cannot speak a second time unless some other member intervenes.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do nto so understand the rule.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to know, with reference to the dredging at Bathurst, just what it is proposed to do there. What expenditure was made at Bathurst last year?


William Pugsley: So far as future work is concerned, we have not decided concerning Bathurst. We want a full report as to Bathurst. We did) [DOT]considerable at Bathurst last year. There appear to have been 272,00 cubic yards removed last year both from the harbour and from the bar.

48C0
Mr. CROCKET, tors at Bathurst?
Who were the contrac-


William Pugsley: It is not decided yet, and will not be until the report is received.


William Pugsley: Messrs A. & R. Loggie.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the contract awarded for the Bathurst dredging?


William Pugsley: I have not these particulars with me to-night.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to have the information.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to give the information later.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to know if tenders were called for.
Mr. PUGSLEY, I will get the information.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That was in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1908. That expenditure, the minister will remember, was ordered by himself, by telegram sent from Dalhousie on the 14th of October, 1908, to the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, limiting the expenditure to $5,000.


William Pugsley: That was in the previous year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many cubic yards v.ere taken out?


William Pugsley: Some 72,UUO.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was that done at the same rate as was fixed under the minister's telegram of the previous year?


William Pugsley: I am satisfied tenders were called for that work; it was let under a contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think the members of this House are entitled to know where it is proposed to expend this $675,000 which is appropriated for dredging in the maritime provinces. I would like to know, further, in reference to the dredging at Bathurst, if it is intended that the work which is to be continued, if it is to be continued during th6 coming season, is to be done by the firm of A. and R. Loggie, under the same arrangement they had with the Department of Public Works for doing last season's work?


William Pugsley: We are considering doing considerable dredging at Bathurst, necessitated by the development of the iron deposits some eighteen miles from Bathurst. These deposits are being developed on a large scale, and Bathurst is the nearest point of shipment. The company have in contemplation, if the harbour can be improved, the shipment of a large quantity of their ore from Bathurst, and also the establishment of smelting works there. An improved harbour will also accommodate vessels taking out lumber. If this large work is entered upon, it is not unlikely that the government may arrange for a suction dredge to be sent there. But until a report is received showing the character of the soil, and the quantity of material to be dredged, and until we make up our minds as to what it is going to cost, we will not be able .to come to a decision. Borings are now being made by one of the engineers of the department, through the ice. We expect these reports in shortly, and then the matter will be taken up and considered.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like the information as to whether tenders were called for, and if so, when they were called for, what tenders were received, and the prices offered.


Richard Blain: I think it is now about time to adjourn. This is an item that will provoke a good deal of discussion.


William Pugsley: I think we had better finish up this item.


William Pugsley: I will be happy to give my hon. friend the information later.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the price?


William Pugsley: $3 per cubic yard for rock, and 41 cents for loose material.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was that material all towed to the dumping ground, or was it cast over as in the previous year?


William Pugsley: I have not the information, but I will be glad to get it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: We understand that a portion of this $675,000 is to be appropriated for the continuation of this work at Bathurst.


William Pugsley: I have not said so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Well is it, or is it not?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: ^ do not think the minister should attempt to force this item through. He has admitted that he is not able to furnish the information I have asked for, and that I am entitled to receive. With regard to the dredging at Bathurst, I think the great majority of the people of New Brunswick would approve of the scheme. If Bathurst harbour can be dredged so as to accommodate these large vessels for shippingthe ore of the Drummond company, who are establishing a great industry there, I think the people would approve any reasonable expenditure to accomplish that object. I understand an engineer went down there especially to investigate that matter, and I would like to know if his report shows whether that scheme is feasible.


William Pugsley: I have just stated that we have not the completed report. But the

engineer is now completing his work of survey.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister say that if that scheme is decided upon, and ii he enters upon that larger scheme of dredging he has spoken of, a portion of this appropriation will be applied to that work.


William Pugsley: It is not unlikely that a part of this money will be expended for that purpose. It will be useful in connection with the larger work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to know exactly where the work was done last season.


William Pugsley: Part of it was done in removing a sharp bend in the channel at the approach to the public wharf and increasing the depth in the berth at the public wharf. Then there was a quantity of material removed to give passage for logs at low water near the Bathurst Lumber Company's mill. A quantity of material was removed from the ballast bar and also a auantitv of mud from what is known as the Tetegouche bar at a point in the channel leading to Bathurst harbour. Of course, all that will ibe useful work in connection with the carrying out of the larger scheme.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this amount to be expended under contract or does it include any amount to be expended on government dredges as well?


William Pugsley: We will require about $250,000 to, operate the government dredges and that will leave available $425,000 for contract work.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I was not here when this item was first called up, but as a matter of fact, most of the principal items in dredging: are looked after in the Estimates by special appropriations. This vote, I suppose, is to place in the hands of the government a sum sufficient to dredge where appropriations have not been made?


William Pugsley: Where there is no special vote.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It appears to me, when asking for such a large amount as $675,000, that the minister must have some knowledge as to where this amount will be expended.


William Pugsley: I gave that when the hon. gentleman was not here. I gave the list of a large number of places where dredging was urgently required.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the minister given the places where this amount is to be expended?


William Pugsley: I gave the names of a large number of places in Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island where dredging was urgently required' but I stated that we could not do all the dredging at these places this year, and I also mentioned the fact that there were quite a number of other places which I had not mentioned in the three provinces where dredging was urgently required, and that we will not have enough money to do all the dredging work at these places during the coming season, but we will have to use our best judgment to pick out those places where dredging has been urgently required, and do dredging at the other places after the next session of parliament, coming for a further appropriation. But, we have not yet decided as to the different places. We have to go through, and it is a very great labour requiring a great deal of care, all the reports, we have to look into the question of the necessity of the work, the depth of the water, the size of vessels frequenting the port, and then exercise our best judgment and pick out the places where we think the work of dredging should go on. In regard to Bathurst harbour, that work will either be done by a government dredge, or public tenders will be invited when we decide to go on with it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is for the larger work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it intended to expend any of this money in dredging the Oromocto shoals on the St. John riven during the coming season?


William Pugsley: It has not been positively decided, but I recognize the necessity for the work, and I think it is not unlikely that a portion of the money will be expended there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister any requests for that work?


William Pugsley: Yes, we have had requests from the board of trade at Fredericton and, I think, from the council.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that there was a contract let for the work in the summer of 1908 to the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company. Was any work done under that contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was paid under the contract?


William Pugsley: That was in 1908. I have not that here, but my hon. friend can find it in the Auditor General's Report. If the work is continued there public tenders will be invited during this season for it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is information that I would like to have. It is a portion of the St. John river in which the people of my constituency are very much interested inasmuch as the depth of water on the shoals governs the size of vessels that are able to get up to Fredericton, and we understand that these shoals have been filling up, and that navigation has been very considerably interfered with during the last year or two. I would like to know just what work was done under the contract let in 1908, how much was paid to the contractors under it, and if any work was - done during the past year.


William Pugsley: Of course, my hon. friend can find out from the report of 1908.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister surely has that.


William Pugsley: I do not keep everything in my pocket or in my head. There must be 1,250 of 1,500 works going on in different parts of Canada, and I do not keep all the details in my head.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister, or his officers should have that information.


William Pugsley: No, my officers should not either. We are asking for an appropriation for 1910-11. It does not follow that when we come here we will have information as to all the work which was done two years ago.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think I am entitled as a member of the committee to ask the minister for it, and the minister is entitled to give it to me.


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to get it for the hon. gentleman, and furnish it to him at a convenient time, but I will not go down to my office to-night, and unlock the office to get it. I am not going to send the chief engineer, and I am not going, unless by the desire of this committee, to stay my estimates until it can be hunted up.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is for the minister to exercise his. own judgment.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend wanted to know about the work at Oromocto. Last year a channel 18,400 feet long, 225 feet wide, and with a depth of 11 feet was dredged. That was quite an important portion of the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the depth?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend does not, by the exercise of his abundant ingenuity, keep my estimates from passing, I propose to go on with the work on the Oromocto shoals during the coming year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do not think that the minister seriously supposes the House Mr. PUGSLEY.
would believe that I could prevent him, by asking a few questions, from going on with a work which he says is necessary_ in the public interest. If that is the thing that influences the minister in the appropriation and expenditure of public moneys the sooner members of this House, and the people of the country know it the better. Is it possible that a little personal feeling which may animate him in reference to an lion, member would influence him in the expenditure of the public moneys of the country? I have asked the minister only for information which I am entitled to receive. All of the questions that I have asked the minister have been pertinent questions, and I propose to continue asking pertinent questions about any public work in New Brunswick or any other part of the Dominion that the people's representatives are interested in, and that we have a right to ask him about. I made a very reasonable request of the Minister of Public Works to allow this item to stand, because he mentioned a long list of places in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in which he said that he proposed to do dredging during the coming year; or rather, he mentioned a long list of places from which he had urgent requests for dredging. I wanted to ascertain at which of the places mentioned it has been decided that dredging shall be done during the coming year.


William Pugsley: I can say to my hon. friend that if the matter stood for a fortnight, I could give no more information as to where the dredging will be done in the coming year than I have given to-night, because it has not yet been decided. I did not -mean that the course taken by the hon. gentleman would at all influence me so far as the dredging at Oromocto is concerned, but if the hon. gentleman is sincerely desirous of having dredging done there or anywhere else, he does not take the best means of showing his sympathy for the work by obstructing the passing of the estimates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I leave it to members on both sides of this House if I have attempted to obstruct the estimates, 'or if the questions which I have put to the minister are not reasonable questions respecting items of expenditure to which we are all entitled to the fullest information, or if I have asked for information which hon. members of this House ought not to have before voting away such a large amount of money as this. I told the fninister some time ago that I did not propose to discuss any of those matters on which criticism might be made. I wanted to get information as to the different places in the maritime provinces where dredging is proposed to be done, and I suggested to the minister, I thought very courteously, that the item

had better stand, because there was information "which the minister has admitted that he is not in a position to give to-night; and I advance the additional reason that there were matters which I wished to discuss under the head of dredging for the maritime provinces, but which are not ripe for discussion at the present time because some of those matters are under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. I cannot conceive of any good reason that the minister can have for dredging contracts of the Department of Public Works. Surely he does not hope, by forcing this item through at this late hour, in a very slim house, to escape the discussion of these matters.


William Pugsley: There will be the fullest opportunity for discussion that the hon. gentleman desires.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have been in .this House for six sessions, and this is the first time I have heard a minister refuse to allow an item to stand so that a matter may be discussed which a member desires to discuss.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will permit me, the proper time to discuss matters which are under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee is when the report of the committee is presented. Then it may be fully and completely discussed; my hon. friend may take all the time he wishes. We shall have the report of the committee and the evidence, and everything can be gone into. But surely my hon. friend will not suggest that it is reasonable that important items of supply should be delayed until the Public Accounts Committee makes its report. Therefore, I must urge that we proceed with the business before the committee.


Richard Blain: I wish to renew the suggestion I have made to the leader of the House. It is now twelve o'clock, and whatever may be said of the opposition, I am sure that to-day and on other days when the hon. Minister of Public Works has had his estimates before the committee, there has been no suggestion of obstruction. I am sure that the leader of the House will recognize that this request is a reasonable one.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Minister of Public Works has given as much information on this subject as can reasonably be expected. Thlere are certain classes of information which a minister should give; there is other information which a member has a right to obtain but it is not reasonable to expect it from the minister in this off-hand way. For instance, the minister was asked to give the expenditure of two years ago at Bathurst. Th's information is really in the possession of
the House. We never like to tell hon. members that they should look up the information in the blue-books, because we are glad to look it up and give it to them; but I do not think it is reasonable to ask a minister to withold his estimates until information of thlat character is obtained. My hon. frend wanted information because he wanted to discuss the question of dredging broadly, and because it is before the Public Accounts Committee. The assurance of the minister that there would be the fullest opportunity to discuss the question when the report of that committee is presented to the House should satisfy the hon. gentleman. This is a general vote and it has been dealt with exactly as in former years. On a general vote of this kind it has never been possible to give in advance information as to the places where dredging will be done. I have had to undergo precisely the same experience as my hon. friend from York in that respect, and after the assurance of the minister that we will have abundant opportunity to discuss the matter when the report of the Public Accounts Committee comes up, I hope he will let the item pass.


Richard Blain: I was not appealing as to whether more information should be forthcoming or not. I was appealing because of the lateness of the hour.


Haughton Lennox: We have made a good deal of progress to-night, and without considering whether more information should be forthcoming or not, when it comes to twelve o'clock on Friday night, I think we all feel that it is time to adjourn.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I may say that the Minister of Public Works has had over $1,000,000 voted to-day.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not seeking at all to delay the passage of the estimates. If an hour ago, when the members of this committee shouted carried, the item had been forced through, I would hot have had from the minister the information that over 70,000 cubic yards of dredging was done at Bathurst last year, information which I was glad to receive. The minister was not able to complete that information, he could not say under what arrangement that money had been spent, whether it was a continuation of the expenditure


William Pugsley: I said it was by public tender. .


Oswald Smith Crocket: He stated he had not the information, and promised he would get it. This is all information to which members are entitled. I would like to know something about the dredging in the Mira-michi river, whether it is at Chatham, the necessity for it, the depth of water, and all that.	.

480S


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says he could not give you that because it has not been determined.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is remarkable if the minister asks $675,000 and has no report in reference to any particular locality as to how much is to be expended here or there. There must be some data on which an estimate is prepared. It will be a revelation to the House if estimates are prepared in that way and votes asked without reference to places or to reports.


William Stevens Fielding: That is hardly a fair argument. The minister read a list of places, and spoke of many others from which he had applications for dredging, all, or most of them meritorious. He simply says: We cannot possibly do all this, but we ask an appropriation of a certain amount, and when expending it we will try to meet the various applications, but we cannot say what particular ones we will grant. That is not unreasonable. If it is unreasonable, we have been unreasonable for many years since I have been here, for that vote has always been dealt with in the same way.


Richard Blain: I think our request is reasonable, and I am sure the minister will not press the item. I have never 3een a session when there were so few requests for information, or such short criticism in Supply as we have had this session. We are not open to the charge of obstructing the estimates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I want the minister's statement in reference to the dredging proposed in the Miramichi river.


William Pugsley: I thought I had mentioned it. I have nothing to complain of about the hon. member for Peel, nor have I anything to complain of so far as the hon. member for York is concerned. I do not complain of his course; he can take any course that commends itself to his judgment, but if other hon. members took the same course as he is taking we could not get through the Public Works estimates alone before next August. I am willing to afford and always afford the fullest opportunity to every hon. gentleman in regard to items in my estimates. The member for York has chosen to take up the entire time of the Committee on Public Accounts for three months with matters connected with my department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I rise to a point of order. Neither the Minister of Public Works or any other member has any right to refer to proceedings before a committee of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: There has been an occasional reference to it to-night.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


William Pugsley: When the report of that committee is submitted to the House hon. gentlemen can discuss dredging on the St. John river, upon the Miramichi, at Bathurst, and every where else. If he will give me a memorandum of what information he wants in regard to dredging at any place I will get it for him from the accountant of the department, and furnish it to him before the matter comes up for discussion.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the minister - had adopted the simple suggestion I made, that this item should stand until we had another meeting of the committee, I do not think any more time would have been lost. There are items before the Public Accounts Committee .that one would not want to make a matter of discussion before the House, and which could be dealt with more satisfactorily in Committee of Supply. Some matters will be discussed, but there are others that could be more briefly and advantageously discussed in Supply. All I desire is an opportunity to discuss these matters, and to give the minister an opportunity to bring down the information, which he admitted he had not, and which he promised to bring down. I think the usual practice in such cases is to let the item stand. A discussion on the item cannot regularly take place once it is passed. The hon. minister could object to these matters being discussed on any other item. I have no desire to discuss a New Brunswick contract when an Ontario item is up.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely my hon. friend will accept the assurances of the minister that not only will he furnish the information, but put the hon. gentleman in possession of it in advance of any discussion he may require.


Oswald Smith Crocket: So far as the information is concerned, that is satisfactory, but there are a few matters that perhaps could not properly be made the subject of debate on a substantive motion before the House. Their discussion would take up very little time in the committee, and that is the only object I have in asking that this item be allowed to stand. Apparently the object of the minister is to take advantage of his position to shut off discussion from matters which he knows can only be discussed in Committee of Supply.


Haughton Lennox: Cannot we have some understanding about this? Can we not have it understood that the hon. member for York will be given an opnortunity to have all the discussion he wants?


William Pugsley: He will have the fullest opportunity of discussing anything he wants in this committee.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In Supply?


Mr PUGSLEY.: Certainly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister should have said that half an hour ago.


William Pugsley: I thought that was the
better time, but on any item of supply, the hon. gentleman can discuss this or any other matter.
Quebec and Ontario dredging, $675,000.


Haughton Lennox: 1 think we ought now to adjourn.


William Pugsley: My hon._ friend front
Halton (Mr. Henderson) has been waiting here all evening for this item, and 1 would not like the committee to rise unless he desires it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It is very kind of the Minister of Public Works to leave the matter with myself, but I would not pretend to govern the procedure of the House. I have waited here patiently during the whole evening for the purpose of referring to a particular matter with which I know the hon. minister is quite familiar. He was good enough, during the course of the evening, to refer to a considerable number of dredging appropriations throughout the province of Ontario, more particularly the larger places, such as Port Arthur, Tiifin, Midland, Goderich and down on the Lake Erie shore, and in the city of Toronto, but did not make any reference to the smaller ports. I was afraid he was going to overlook them. I very much desire that the minister shall pay some attention to the smaller harbours that require immediate attention if they are to be of use to the public. I refer particularly to Oakville. This is not new to the minister, because during the month of February I had the pleasure of drawing his attention to the great need, the urgent need, of dredging that harbour as well as of making improvements also to the wharf. The minister kindly suggested that when this item was up for discussion, I might draw attention to it, and this I now do. I do not know that the minister has ever visited Oakville. If not, I would cordially invite him to come there at the first opportunity. I think that should he visit that beautiful town and note its surroundings and its great need of harbour improvements, it would not be necessary for me, particularly at this hour of the morning, to urge upon him to make a small appropriation for those improvements. Oakville is about midway between Toronto and Hamilton, on the north shore of Lake Ontario. It is a town of considerable importance. In the past there has been considerable shipping at that port, but as nothing has been done for the last six or seven years to keep the harbour in
good shape there is no means of vessels getting in except those of very light draft. The result is that very little trade is carried on in comparison with what was done in former years. And unless the government takes action I am afraid that_ the prospect for the future is not very bright. The difficulty with the harbour is a lack of depth of water due to the fact that the dredging has been neglected. I not merely ask the minister, but I urge him, urge him as strongly as I can, to do something for this harbour. Nothing has been expended there since 1902-3-almost seven years. During that time, the harbour has been so filled up that only vessels of the lightest draft are able to go in. The result is that the trade in flour, grain, apples and small fruits that was carried on there has not been carried on through the harbour of recent years, nor can it be unless some improvement is made. Nor can the passenger boats between Toronto and Hamilton call there as they formerly did. I would remind the minister that Oakville is practically a Toronto suburb so far as residents are concerned. Many Toronto people come out to Oakville to live. They come out in the evening and return to their work in Toronto in the morning. Had we communication by water, Oakville could be made a summer resort of much greater importance than it is. The water communication would be more agreeable to many than the railway. I understand the minister has an estimate from his district engineer of the probable cost of this dredging; I have been led by the district engineer to understand that he forwarded a report or survey to the minister showing the amount that would probably be required. I do not know the contents of that report. I should be very glad if the minister would give us an idea about how much would be required to put the harbour of Oakville in proper shape.
Now, I leave the matter to the minister's own judgment. I think he will be disposed .to treat the town of Oakville fairly and do what little is necessary-I do not say too little, for I do not want him to be niggardly in the appropriation. I want him to do what is necessary to put the harbour in good shape, both with regard to depth of water and to the improvement of the wharf where necessary. I am told that some stone filling is required, and also that there are some projecting timbers that interfere with vessels coming to the dock. I am sure that if the minister undertakes .the work, he will see to it that it is properly done. I make the appeal to him to do this work, and I trust I may meet with a favourable response.


William Pugsley: The claims of Oakville have been very strongly urged upon my attention by residents of the locality as well

as by my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) who has very properly presented the matter, not only once but two or three times to my attention. I am impressed with the desirability of doing dredging work at Oakville so as to allow steamers to enter the harbour. At present they are obliged to lie outside of the wharf or breakwater, and, when storms arise, this is not a safe place for them to lie. If we had some such improvements as are suggested by my hon. friend, it would be greatly to the advantage of the people of Oakville. The report of the engineer has been received. I have not it here at the moment, but my recollection is that about $10,000 was estimated to make very effective improvements. In making the division of the amount we are asking for Ontario and Quebec, the claims of Oakville will receive careful consideration. While I cannot say positively that the work will be done, yet I can assure mv hon. friend that I shall be disappointed if I do not find myself able to do this work at Oakville during the coming year.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Richard Blain: What business will be taken up on Monday? .


William Stevens Fielding: The naval debate will be continued.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 7, 1910.