1910-04-01

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID* LAURIER. I beg to move:
That from Monday next until the end of the session, the House shall meet on that and every subsequent sitting day at 11 o'clock in the morning and that, in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think there is no objection to the motion, as we all desire to bring the session to a close at a reasonably early date. It would, however, be desirable that the right hon. gentleman should state what further legislation, if any, the government proposes to submit this session.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: We shall have some supplementary estimates, then a resolution to amend the law concerning dry-docks, also the renewal of some railway subsidies, but no new subsidies, and some legislation regarding the Otta-wa Improvement Commission, also legislation with regard to judicial appointments necessitated by legislation of the local legislatures. If there be anything else I shall inform the House on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) moved that on Monday next the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act, chapter 16 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by providing for the payment of salaries as follows:-
To post office inspectors on appointment, $2,500, with an annual increase of $100 to a maximum of $3,500.
To assistant jiost office inspectors and superintendents of the railway mail service on appointment, $1,600, with an annual increase of $100 to a maximum of $2,500.
To authorize the increase to the minimum of the salary of any such officers whose salary is at present less than the minimum.
To assistant postmasters, on appointment, a salary of not less than $1,100 and not more than $2,800.
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he has brought down the correspondence relating to the Waterways Treaty, which we have asked for?


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be laid on the table Monday next.



TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. the Finance Minister to give me, at as early a date as possible, particulars of the goods that have been imported under item 711 of the present tariff, which is affected by the recent arrangements with the United States. I would like to have particulars of the goods imported from the United States under that item, the classes of goods embraced under that item generally speaking, and the expectations of the government with respect to the same, also particulars regarding changes anticipated in importations this as well as the other items.


Mr. FIELDING.: How these will affect the revenue?


Robert Laird Borden: I was not thinking so much of the revenue, though of course that would be affected. There will be a smaller customs tax, but possibly a larger revenue. What I want more particularly is the actual volume of the importations.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that we can give the exact information, as that would be a good deal a matter of surmise. However, I shall endeavour, as far as possible, to give the information desired before we proceed further.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, information as to the revenue should in itself convey information as to the importations because the one depends on the other.


William Stevens Fielding: I have already given instructions to prepare a memorandum giving the probable reductions of taxation under the new arrangements. That memorandum should give all the information the hon. gentleman desires. At all events I shall do my best to-furnish it.


Robert Laird Borden: The details necessary to be obtained in order to prepare such a statement will probably cover the information desired.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
the amount of the expenditure, but we have a right to complain that an over expenditure was made last year as to which the judgment of the House was never invited.
["I am afraid I cannot let the hon. member proceed, as the House goes automatically into Committee of Supply, which was interrupted at six o'clock."]
Mr. PUGSLEY.: We shall have to ask for a further amount this session.
Quebec harbour-deep-water wharf at Levis, $55,000.


William Pugsley: We purpose constructing a deep water wharf on the property acquired from the Bank of Montreal, formerly the Carrier-Laine property. $400,000 was voted last year, and out of it we have paid for the property, and we think the vote of $55,000 will enable us to enter into a contract.


Mr. SPROULE.: That will not complete the work?


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the work to cost?


William Pugsley: I am informed by the chief engineer that the estimated cost is about $400,000. We purpose going to a depth of 35 feet at the end of the wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had a vote last year of $400,000; how was that expended?
House in Committee of Supply.
Port Arthur and Fort William harbour and river improvements, $800,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for improvements in the way of dredging on the Mission river, and also at the harbour of Port Arthur, and for revetment walls on the Mission river, and also for a breakwater at Port Arthur. This amount is required to carry on the work during the present year.


Mr. BLAIN.: Under contract?


William Pugsley: All under contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister have an over expenditure the same as last year?


William Pugsley: In view of the rapidity with which the work is going ahead, and also in view of the fact that we have given favourable consideration to the proposal to build a breakwater extending from what is known as Bare-point, a little to the east, of the dry dock and ship-building and repairing plant, which are being established at Port Arthur, this amount will not be sufficient, and we propose asking for a further amount-if my colleagues approve of it-in the supplementary estimates. It is desirable to carry on this work without unnecessary delay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this improvement is needed I will not be found to grumble at


William Pugsley: The expenditure was $355,000 as follows: Balance of purchase price paid to the Bank of Montreal, $330,000; interest at 5 per cent, $4,855.55; further interest at 5 per cent, $8,572.43; outlay for arbitration and surveying expenses and temporary repairs, $4,919.43; additional expenditure previous to the close of the fiscal year, $1,652.59.
Quebec harbour-improvements at mouth of River St. Charles' estuary, $180,000.


William Pugsley: This work has been going on for a number of years with the object of giving accommodation for oceangoing vessels at the port of Quebec. We require this amount to continue the work of the present year, which is under contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are these piers like? I understand that one of them toppled over after it was built.


William Pugsley: No, the hon. gentleman is misinformed. The work is a very excellent work; the wharfs are built of crib-work under water, and for a certain distance under the water the superstructure is of concrete. We are building a very fine system of piers.


Mr. HUGHES.: How do these cribworks correspond as to width and height?


William Pugsley: They are forty-two feet wide at the base, and sixty-six feet..high, and a good many hundreds of feet in

length, and they are topped off with con-[DOT] erete.
Red liver-improvements at St. Andrew's rapids, $55,000.


William Pugsley: The government has been engaged for some time in building a lock and dam at St. Andrew's rapids for the purpose of affording navigation from Lake Winnipeg to the city of Winnipeg. The work is now practically completed, and we expect that in a few days it will be open for navigation.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Does the hon. minister purpose completing the roadway across this superstructure, which I understand is intended to be used as a municipal road? Does he propose making connections with the banks on either side?


William Pugsley: What my hon. friend, I suppose, means is, shall we build the approaches so as to enable the people to avail themselves of the bridge, which was built primarily as a service bridge for the lock and dam, as a highway bridge. I may say that we intend to do so.


David Henderson: Then there is no question that the intention of the government is that it shall be a bridge for the use of the public?


William Pugsley: There is no question, provided my colleagues agree in the view I take of the matter.


David Henderson: I did not know the government were entering upon a scheme of building municipal bridges. The hon. minister objected very much to spending a few thousand dollars in my county to prevent erosions along the lake shore, insisting that the municipalities should do that. I am not finding fault with the expenditure, but it is rather surprising how conveniently the hon. minister can /accommodate a municipality in one case and refuse a very trifling assistance in another. It is rather remarkable that he should build a municipal bridge in the west and refuse a little consideration in the east.


William Pugsley: There is a difference, a very great difference. In this case the character of the river at that point is being changed. The ordinary mode of crossing by boat is necessarily being considerably affected, and I felt that the government, having been obliged to spend a considerable amount of money in building a service bridge for the operation of the lock and lifting curtains, it would not be unreasonable to go a little further and, instead of compelling the municipality to build the approaches, do that work ourselves.


David Henderson: I do not wish the minister to think for a moment that I am Mr. PUGSLEY.
objecting. I think it is a very good idea to provide this service bridge ror the people, because the municipalities contiguous to this portion of the river would certainly be put to a very large expense to erect a bridge. But I am rather amused at the reason the hon. minister has given, that the erection of this dam is going to interfere with the crossing of the river by a ferry. However, I do not wish to make any objection. I think the idea is a very good one.


Richard Blain: What will be the increased cost to make the provision for the municipality?


William Pugsley: $63,000 is the estimate.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I understand the minister to say that the present vote of $55,000 will complete the opening of the river for all the purposes of navigation, but will not complete the bridge?


Mr PUGSLEY.: This will complete the payments under the existing contracts, but wall not complete the approaches to the bridge or the sodding.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister give the total cost of the improvements to the rapids, inclusive of the bridge, except the approaches to which he has alluded?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure from the beginning will run to about $1,500,000.


Mr. LALOR.: What is the tonnage on Lake Winnipeg?


William Pugsley: I do not know the tonnage, but there are a considerable number of vessels plying from Selkirk to the foot of the lake. I know that there are two regular steamers and a considerable number of other vessels. It is anticipated that as a result of building these works so as to enable vessels to go right up to the city of Winnipeg the traffic upon the river and lake will be greatly increased in the near future. I have information of at least two vessels which have been constructed especially in view of the construction of this lock and dam. Lake Winnipeg is a very important lake. It is larger than Lake Ontario, and it is impossible to foresee what will be the traffic in the near future.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Before that lock was built one of the objections to it was the danger of ice jamming. The ice used to jam at the mouth of the Red river and raise the water in the city of Winnipeg. I have seen it on the streets there. Has the building of this dam and lock increased to any extent the danger of flooding the city of Winnipeg and district?


William Pugsley: We are quite sure that it has not, and the reason of that is that,

owing to the chief engineer of my department having in view the very danger which my hon. friend speaks of, the department engaged upon the construction of a dam and lock which are altogether unique upon the continent. There are some in the old country where the conditions are similar. Here the river takes its rise in the south, the ice melts farther up the river before it does near its mouth, and by a system of lifting or movable curtains we believe we have avoided the possibility of the danger of which my hon. friend speaks.
Mt; J. HAGGART. Is it a movable dam?


William Pugsley: Practically a movable dam.


John Graham Haggart: It is taken up on the shore when not in use?


William Pugsley: No, it is raised by electrical power.


John Graham Haggart: I have seen them; there is one on the Sault Ste. Marie canal.


William Pugsley: No, there is nothing like this in America.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, yes there is.


William Pugsley: No.


John Graham Haggart: Pardon me, I have
seen them.


William Pugsley: We sent an expert to Europe for the purpose of examining the lock and dam where the conditions are similar, but there is no place in America where there is a similar contrivance.


John Graham Haggart: The dam may be not exactly like the others, but the old dam used for the purpose of stopping the water above the Sault Ste. Marie canal is similar. It is a frame work and they let it into the river with pulleys.


William Pugsley: It is altogether different.


John Graham Haggart: And when it is not in use it is lifted up and taken on shore. This is a plan that has been used very often for the purpose of blocking up rivers.


Mr. CONMEE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) has reference to the temporary gates used on the canal in case of accident.


John Graham Haggart: It is for canal purposes.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt the foundation principle is the same. But we believe that we have vastly improved upon that by means of this system of lifting curtains.


John Graham Haggart: No doubt.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps we are not warranted in asking the minister to withhold
the item, but the members for the two constituencies directly interested are not here. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart) has not yet returned from his Easter holidays, but I understand that he will 'be here on Saturday. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) is in the city, but I have been unable to get in touch ' with him to have him here while this vote is under consideration. I would like if the minister would permit either of these gentlemen at a later stage to speak on the matter.


William Pugsley: I would be very glad to. Both of these hon. gentlemen have already spoken on the question, and I am sure that they would regret that there should be any delay in the passing of the item. The hon. member for Selkirk a short time ago spoke in very strong terms of the importance of finishing up these approaches and of the very great importance of the work. But when they come there will be nc objection to their speaking in regard to this when any other item is under discussion, of course, with the permission of the chairman.
St. Jolm harbour, New Brunswick-improvements, $450,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of continuing the work of dredging in the harbour of St. John and of completing the new pier which is now under construction. The work is all under contract, and we anticipate that this amount would be required during the current year.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will any of this be spent in Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: I am unable to tell my hon. friend at the present time whether it will or not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Could the minister state whether the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners have purchased any land at the head of Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I have been informed that they have agreed to purchase such land, but whether they have actually completed the purchase, I am not aware.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Supposing that the purchase is made, work would have to go on on Courtenay bay, would it not?


William Pugsley: I always believe in deciding a matter when the necessity arises.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then the necessity will not arise this summer?


William Pugsley: It does not follow.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister has no information to give on the subject?


William Pugsley: Not at the present moment.


John Graham Haggart: When the minister is getting a vote, and when an expenditure is to be made at a particular point, he should be prepared to say whether that expenditure is to be made there or not. He should give precise information in reference to what he intends to use the money for.


William Pugsley: Suppose he is unable to do so, what then?


John Graham Haggart: Well then, he is not justified in asking for the money.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that the contracts which are now actually in existence upon the western side of the harbour will require all of this money, provided we keep the dredges upon the western side, but if the Grand Trunk Pacific should complete, as I apprehend they will complete, the purchase of the land around Courtenay bay, then, in the ordinary course, they would, I presume, submit plans for the consideration of the government in regard to the improvements which would be requisite in connection with terminal facilities. Then, it would be my duty to take up the question as to whether we would take some of the dredges that are now employed, upon the western side and place them on Courtenay bay; but at the present moment I cannot decide that because I must know what the Grand Trunk Pacific intend to do before coming to a conclusion.


John Graham Haggart: Does not the minister think that it is perhaps more proper that this expenditure should have the consideration of the House rather than that it should be determined by himself? He has come here proposing an expenditure of money for a purpose; he should give the particular purpose for which the money is to be expended. In answer to my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel), he says that he cannot tell whether a certain amount is to be expended in Courtenay bay or not. That is not an answer. He should have precise information.


William Pugsley: I really think that upon reflection my hon. friend will see that I gave a frank statement of what is in my mind at the present time, and that is that the money will be expended upon the western side of the harbour. But, of course, the vote will enable us to expend it on either side of the harbour. If we deemed it necessary in the public interst to expend part on the eastern side of the harbour, I do not see any reason why the government, if they saw fit to do so, could not apply a portion of the money to that purpose, but at the present time it is in contemplation to expend all of this vote upon dredging


John Waterhouse Daniel: and wharf building upon the western side of the harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can the minister state whether it is the intention of the Grand Trunk Pacific to purchase this land at the head of the bay?


William Pugsley: I have been informed that it is the intention of the Grand Trunk Pacific to purchase the land at Courtenay bay, but whether they have actually completed the purchase or not, I am not aware.


Mr. EMMERSON.: The minister has (Stated that (some of this expenditure might be made in Courtenay bay. Have plans and specifications for that part of the work been prepared?	-


William Pugsley: Borings have been made in Courtenay bay, and although incomplete they show that a depth of 32 feet of water at low tide can be got without striking rock. Preliminary plans have been prepared by the engineers of my department, although they are not sufficiently matured to enable me to give to the committee any details that would be of value. Before engaging in the work, of course, careful consideration wrnuld be necessary, and detailed plans would have to be worked out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume no contract will be asked for until the detail or working plams are prepared?


William Pugsley: None would be entered into.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it proposed to do this work by government tenders or to invite tenders for the work that may be decided on after plans have been completed?


William Pugsley: Some time ago tenders were called by public advertisement for dredging in St. John harbour, including Courtenay bay. Tenders w'ere received from three contractors: G. S. Mayes, if I remember, asked 74 cents per cubic yard; the Dominion Dredging Company asked 39J cents, and the Maritime Dredging & Contracting Company asked 35 cents per cubic yard, if done with an ordinary dipper dredge, or 25 cents per cubic yard if done with a jsuction or hydraulic dredge. No contract was entered into, but in the contract which wae made for the dredging upon the west side of the harbour it was stipulated that if the government called upon the contractors to do the work of dredging in Courtenay bay they would do it at the price named in their tender. The question as to [DOT]whether it should be done by government dredges or by contract has not been determined. My own view is that there are many advantages in having the work done by a government dredge. I think probably we could get it done more

cheaply even than these low figures named by the contractors, which are much lower than anything which have heretofore been obtained at the port of St. John. When the last contract's were let, under public tender, for the western side of the harbour, the lowest tender was that of G. S. Mayes at 90 cents a cubic yard. In considering whether the work should be done by a government dredge we would have to determine the demands on the government fleet of dredges in other places, and also the question of acquiring additional dredges for the purpose. That matter has not been considered by council and will not be considered until we know whether or not the Grand Trunk Pacific propose to have their terminal at Courtenay bay, which I presume they will do if they complete the purchase of the property, and then the question would come up as to how it would bo best to have the dredging done, whether by contract or by government dredges.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In citing the Maritime Dredging and Contracting Company's tender at 25 cents per cubic yard, the minister omitted to state the qualifying clause, ' provided the material was placed behind revetment walls, etc.'
Mi-. PUGSLEY. That its so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It is not an ordinary tender?


William Pugsley: That is the way in which dredging is done by a suction dredge. You have to do it in that way, you have a long pipe and the material is placed in that way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: From the information I have been able to gather from statements made in the House, tenders were asked for the work at Courtenay bay in 1908. The tenders relating to Courtenay bay were not accepted although the tenderers were under obligation, if called upon, to perform the work which they offered to do, and, as I understand it, the contract was only entered into on behalf of the government with the lowest tenderers for that work on the western side of the harbour.


William Pugsley: That is correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The minister states that no complete detail or working plans have been prepared and the extent of the work has not been determined by the department for the proposed expenditure. I have been led to believe that the dredging alone would cost two or three millions. I may be wrong, but I gathered from an answer in the House some weeks ago that when these tenders were invited only $6,000 of a deposit was required. Evidently the government did not contemplate so great an expenditure on the part of the contractors when they only askec} the contractors to furnish a deposit of $6,000. Of course if the government only propose to carry out the contract, and not have any work done in Courtenay bay by these contractors, that would seem to be all right. But if it is proposed to extend that work, then I do not think it is in the public interest to take a step involving so large an expenditure without inviting tenders for the work which has yet to be determined. Now, the minister has stated that this vote is for the western side, and that possibly in consequence of some contingent action on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific it might be necessary to have the dredges on the western side of the harbour removed to Courtenay bay to do that work. Then it must be in the mind of the minister that the contractors tor the western side of the harbour propose to do the work on the Courtenay bay side. I simply want to know whether that is in contemplation and if it is involved in this vote, because if it is, I would take serious exception to it, and would take the trouble to advance reasons why that should not be done. I simply ask the minister that I may know, and that the country may know, his plans in respect to the matter.


Mr. GERMAN.: I notice that the minister says he has, not yet decided whether the work to be done in St. John harbour shall be done by contract or by government dredges. A year ago I asked for a return of the number of dredges owned by the government, and the work they had heen doing during the last three years. The return shows the amount of work these dredges have done, and I have made up a statement of the relative cost of doing the work which has been done by government dredges, and the cost of work done by similar dredges which are owned by contractors ; and I intend on another occasion to speak at greater length on this matter. But I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that wore can be done, and is being done, by contractors at a cheaper price than the work that is being done by government dredges. The government owns at present an enormous fleet of dredges and dredging plant, I think they own a greater amount of dredging plant than they should own. I am absolutely opposed to doing work of that kind by government dredges. If the hon. minister will look at the work which was done by the dredge 'W. S. Fielding' in St. John harbour during 12 months, he will find that the work done by that dredge, apparently working continuously for the 12 months, did not exceed the amount which such a dredge should do in two months. The dredge cost over_ $600,000, and working foT 12 months straightaway, winter and summer, it moved less than 400,000 yards of material. A dredge which cost that

much money ought to remove that much material in two months.


Mr. EDWARDS.: What kind of material?


William Manley German: Ordinary clay; this dredge would not work in any other kind of material, it would not work in harder material. It is an endless bucket dredge, and works only in. comparatively soft material, it would not work in hard pan.


William Pugsley: That is just what it is doing in St. John harbour, the very hardest kind of material.


William Manley German: I won't dispute the hon. gentleman, because he apparently lives there. But my knowledge of such dredges is that they usually work in comparatively soft material, not in what is called hard-pan and boulders, because the buckets are not large enough to hold large boulders. I am positive that if the minister looks over the Tecords he will find that the government own at present all the dredges that they should own, and that the policy of the government in buying and building more dredges should be reversed, that work of this kind should be let by public tender, that it should be let to the lowest bidder, that there should be no arrangements made with bidders beforehand, but the man who is the lowest bidder on that particular job should get the work.


William Pugsley: I am glad to hear what my hon. friend (Mr. German) has just said. I quite agree with him when he says that when contracts are let they should be given to the lowest bidder. But I may say to my hon. friend, and I am sure he will agree with me from his knowledge of what has taken place, that that is the case in all contracts let by the Department of Public Works, and I believe by all other departments of the government. But the question which my hon. friend raises as to whether it is better to do dredging by government dredges or by contract, is one with regard to which there may very properly be differences of opinion. My own view, notwithstanding what my hon. friend has said, is strongly that it is in the public interest to extend the number of government-owned dredges. I would like myself to see all the dredging of the country performed by government dredges. While, perhaps, there may not be just as much work done by government dredges per day as may be done by contract dredges, yet upon the whole, I think they can do the work more cheaply, because contractors, of course, necessarily figure upon the cost of their plant, they naturally look for reasonable profits from their work, and of course each contractor has to insure for himself. So, upon the whole I am Mr. GERMAN.
inclined to think that it would be to the public advantage to increase the number of government dredges rather than diminish it. But, of course, that is a matter of opinion with regard to which hon. gentlemen may differ. Now a word with regard to the dredge ' Fielding.' My hon. friend makes a comparison of its work with work which may be done by a contract dredge in some other section of the country. You cannot make a reliable comparison in that way. The dredge ' Fielding ' is dredging the channel of the harbour of St. John. The material consists of hard material, in addition there are a good many boulders. I have been on board the dredge, and I have seen the operations stopped by very large boulders getting into the buckets, and when one of these boulders does get in the buckets it delays the operation of the dredge for a considerable time. It is dredging out a part of the harbour where it is greatly exposed to the weather, as gales arise there frequently, and when these storms occur the dredge has to stop working To make a proper comparison one Would have to take a contract for dredging at a similar place, and under similar circumstances. It is to be borne in mind that the dredge ' Fielding ' is dredging to a depth of 55-feet below the water when the tide is high, and there is a wonderful difference between working under those circumstances and going into a bank of soft mud, and simply shovelling out the soft material by means of a dipper. I took pains to make inquiries as to the work being done by the ' Fielding ' last summer, and while I cannot give the exact figures, I believe it was doing most creditable work.


William Manley German: In July, 1909, it dug out 69,000 cubic yards, and in August 52,400.


William Pugsley: Under the circumstances it was doing very good work. With ordinary dredging material, 10,000 cubic yards per day is an unusual quantity.


John Graham Haggart: What kind of a dredge?


William Pugsley: An elevator dredge with an endless chain of buckets.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the capacity of the buckets?


William Pugsley: About one cubic yard, taking about one ton to each bucket." In reply to the question of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), I do not think that the dredging in Courtenay bay is involved in this vote, because if we should contemplate dredging at that bay, we would have to get a larger vote. Should we come to the conclusion to do that work, we would have necessarily to ask for an additional amount in the supplementaries, and my hon. friends would then have the opportunity of fully discussing the item.


John Graham Haggart: When introducing this vote, the hon. gentleman said that a portion of it might be used for dredging at Courtenay bay.


Mr PLTGSLEY.: But involved in that was the understanding that I would have to obtain a further vote in the supplemen-taries. But if there be no further vote, I would not use any part of this in that work because the vote would be too small.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister went further. He asked for tenders, and awarded a contract, and those tenders covered that particular work of dredging out Courtenay bay, and he did that without a vote from parliament at all.


Mr PUGSLEY.: No.
Mr 1. HAGGART. We knew nothing about Courtenay bay until the hon. member for Westmorland gave the information.


Mr EMMERSON.: The information I gave was contained in a return made before the House.


John Graham Haggart: Then I am only speaking for myself. I did not know the information until I heard it given by the hon. member for Westmorland. To my astonishment I hear that this, involves an expenditure of between two and.three million dollars for dredging Courtenay bay. The plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost, and a full statement of the work to be done should be given by the minister before he asks for a dollar. The minister corrects himself now, and says he would not venture upon the work without a subsequent vote. That was not the statement he made on the introduction of the vote. According to that statement, it appeared that we were giving the minister power to make an expenditure in Courtenay bay. I protest against any such manner of introducing so important a vote -a vote that will add to the enormous expenditure which we are at present making on the Transcontinental an expenditure of over $3,000,000. We should have the plans and specifications, and a complete estimate. What authority had the minister to ask for tenders for the purpose of beginning the work?


William Pugsley: We had a vote in 1908 of $400,000 for St. John harbour.


John Graham Haggart: That does not include Courtenay bay.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Yes it does.


John Graham Haggart: The vote for St. John harbour, we are now told, covers the expenditure on another place which is a little distant from that harbour-a new harbour proposed for the use of the Grand Trunk Pacific That was never explained, and
we would not have known anything about Courtenay bay only we saw in the newspapers that the Grand Trunk Pacific intended to purchase it for a terminus. What this House must have is a statement showing what work is contemplated, and the necessity for it, and a complete estimate of the expenditure. If the statement of the hon. member for Westmorland is correct, the expenditure involved is between two and three million dollars. ,


William Pugsley: I want to correct an error into which my hon, friend evidently has fallen, and perhaps not unnaturally, because he says this is the first time he heard of any proposed improvements at Courtenay bay. The reason is he was not aware of the return having been brought down, to which my hon. friend from Westmorland has referred. He says that we entered into a contract for the dredging of Courtenay bay. That is what we did not do.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman received tenders for the purpose of doing this work?


William Pugsley: Yes, but in my judgment Courtenay bay is a part of St. John harbour. Vessels have been for a hundred years going up Courtenay bay. There are one or two small wharfs at the head of the bay, and vessels have always gone there. By the charter of the city, that bay is declared to be a part of the city and harbour of St. John. True, the boundary is at Marsh creek, which runs down through the bay, but it is a part of the harbour. I did call for tenders, but we did not enter into any contract. The matter, therefore, is in this position, that if the government should decide to go on with the work of assisting in the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific, should the Grand Trunk Pacific decide to make a terminal there, if, will be open to the government to determine whether that work should be done by contract or by one or more government dredges. My hon. friend misunderstood me when he understood me to say that a part of this money would be used for dredging at Courtenay bay. The hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) asked me if a part would be so used, and I said I did not know. The reason I do not know is because I cannot tell whether the government will decide to put in the supplementary estimates any amount for the purpose of dredging out that bay. But I can assure the committee that unless there should be a further amount voted for dredging out Courtenay bay, no part of this vote will be used for that purpose. But if there should be an amount in the supplementaries, the matter can be fully discussed, and plans will be submitted. In making this statement, I want it to be clearly understood that the government has not decided to do

any dredging at Courtenay bay. The matter is entirely open. I am only speaking now of what may take place in case an amount should be put in the supplementary estimates. Personally, I am in favour of proceeding at an early date to make improvements at Courtenay bay, always provided that the Grand Trunk decide upon that as their terminal. That is only my own individual view; the government has not considered the matter at all. If it should be decided to go on, it would necessarily come in further estimates, and then the matter wouy be all open for discussion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement made by the minister is as I would have expected. Knowing from the return, the circumstances connected with it, I did not for a moment assume that this vote was intended for the development of that portion of the harbour of St. John known as Courtenay Bay harbour. I recognized that tenders had been asked for dredging in St. John harbour, inclusive of Courtenay bay, but I also recognized that the government had not entered into any such contract, and that in making the contract with the successful tenderers they provided in it that they could call upon the contractors to do work in Courtenay bay if they desired, but that the contractors could not hold the government under any obligation to give them the work or to have the work done. I, therefore, assumed that there would be no such work entered upon by these contractors, and furthermore, I had assumed that if any work was entered upon, we would have the full plans and specifications laid before parliament, and that tenders would be asked for that additional work. In a work that involves millions of dolllars, you would naturally expect that those who would be invited to compete for it should make a greater deposit than a mere pittance of $6,000; a pittance in comparison to the great expenditure. As I understand the minister, the matter stands in this way: that no part of this sum of $450,000 is to be expended in connection with the Courtenay bay work.


William Pugsley: Unless there should be a further sum asked for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then you would have the two amounts aggregated?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Manley German: I want to impress as emphatically as I can on the minister my views as to the policy of the government owning and operating government dredges. I may say that the ' Fielding ' -and this applies to almost every dredge that is operated by the government-the 'Fielding' cost $612,784; she worked the whole year from the 1st of April, 1908, to the 1st of March, 1909, and she excavated Mr. PUGSLEY.
only 350,540 cubic yards, and J am in the judgment of the engineer of the department, that that dredge should have done that amount of work in two months. An ordinary dipper dredge which will not cost more than $30,000 will excavate 5,000 cubic yards of material in a day.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


William Manley German: I know whereof I speak.


Robert Laird Borden: How much did the ' Fielding ' cost?


William Manley German: She cost $612,784; the cost of operating her for twelve months was $61,221, and the cost of maintaining her for the twelve months $14,113.


Mr. BOYCE.: How much did she earn?


William Manley German: I would not think she would be earning anything.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What was the value of the work she did?


William Manley German: Taking operating and maintenance expenses, and without calculating anything for interest or for depreciation, the cost would amount to about twenty-two cents per yard. What applies to the ' Fielding ' applies to every dredge owned by the government, as I believe I can emphatically show the minister. The dredging done by the government dredges costs more than the dredging done by contract work.


John Waterhouse Daniel: A dipper dredge could not operate at all where the * Fielding ' has been operating, because she is exposed to the winds and the roll of the Bay of Fundy.


William Manley German: I am not saying anything about that, but let her do more work for the money that is being spent on her.


William Pugsley: I know myself of dredges owned by contractors which have cost from $100,000 to $150,000 and more, and in fifty feet of water upon the sea-coast they never make on an average more than from 1,000 to 1,500 cubic yards a day. There is not a dipper dredge in Canada that in fifty feet of water could dredge 5,000 cubic yards a day. My hon. friend (Mr. German) would want to pursue the inquiry further, and consider what is done by contract dredges working under similar conditions to the ' Fielding '. We are getting dredging done by contract as low as eleven cents in some places, while in other places we are paying ninety cents per cubic yard. Some dredges do work as low as one and a half cents per cubic yard, and others do it at twenty cents, forty cents, sixty cents; it all depends upon the conditions. The splendid hydraulic dredge ' J. I. Tarte ', does work at three or four cents per cubic yard under peculiarly advantageous circumstances.


Mr. BRADBURY.: What does dredging cost per cubic yard on the Red river?


William Pugsley: I have not that information at hand.


Mr. BARNARD.: What is the estimated total amount to be spent on St. John harbour, including Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: It depends entirely upon the extent of the work to be done, and of course that depends upon the development of the business. The development of St. John as a winter port began in 1895, and since then the business has been increasing from year to year until now it has reached a volume of from twenty millions to twenty-five million dollars of exports during the winter season. The number of steamers coming to that harbour is constantly increasing, and we hope the number will continue to increase. It will take many, many years before the St. John harbour will be finally completed. What it will eventually cost I am unable to say. At present we are building a wharf upon the western side of the harbour which will accommodate two additional steamers; we are doing dredging for a series of wharfs which will be needed in the future, and we are making provision for the building of an additional wharf in the near future which will give accommodation for two more steamers. When we have done that, I think we might let the work rest for a few years, until the trade develops still further, and there is a more urgent demand for additional wharfs.


John Graham Haggart: Can the minister give the total expenditure bv his department and by the Railway Department on the harbour of St. John from 1867 to the present time?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say that I have not that information.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Has the minister received any serious complaints from Port Arthur to the effect that some of the contractors who were dredging there and who had orders to carry out the material in the night-time frequently went out with only a few barrow fulls, and that the inspectors were not doing their duty in that district?


William Pugsley: No such complaint has reached me.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister look into the matter?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will be good enough to furnish me with any details he has in his possession, I shall be very glad to look into it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have reason to believe that it is worth the minister's while to look into the matter-to ask his inspectors at least.


William Pugsley: It is last year that my hon. friend refers to?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend has any further information and will give it to me, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.


Robert Laird Borden: Do these improvements relate solely to dredging or do they include other matters?


William Pugsley: They include dredging and the building of a wharf now under construction on the western side of the harbour. *


Robert Laird Borden: Not on Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: No.


Robert Laird Borden: How far is Courtenay bay from that wharf?


William Pugsley: The entrance to Courtenay bay is less than half a mile. It begins just at the eastern side of what is ordinarily known as the harbour of St. John.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister obviously has some plan of improvement in contemplation when he is asking for this vote. The question was put to him a little while ago, and he did not answer it.


William Pugsley: Yes, I have a complete plan of contemplated improvements on the west side, which it is hoped the business of the future will require-not the immediate future, but we must look forward a good many years in the case of a port which is rapidly developing. This plan includes dredging from Sand point to the Beacon bar, and a series of ships berths between these two points. When the development is finally completed, it will give additional accommodation for about ten ocean steamers.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this below the Canadian Pacifiol terminals?


William Pugsley: Yes, to the southward.


Robert Laird Borden: How many berths are there now?


William Pugsley: I think there is accommodation for six ocean steamers, and we are at present providing for two more. The plan contemplates ten in addition to these two, giving accommodation for about 18 steamers in all.


Robert Laird Borden: I also understood from the minister that he desires authority to devote a portion of this vote to development in Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: No, we would require the greater part of this amount to complete the wharfs which are now under construe-

tion on the west side and in order to finish up the dredging work lor the additional wharf we contemplate building to the south of Sand point; and therefore, unless we had a further vote, it would be useless to take any part of this for the development of Courtenay bay. No part of this will be devoted to that purpose. If we should ask for a further amount, then I will bring such plans as we have, and give the committee all necessary information in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I simply wanted a clear understanding of the matter. If any portion of this money is to be devoted to improvements at Courtenay bay, then the country would, of course, be committed to some plan of development there, in which case we would want the minister's explanation. But I understand that no portion of this money will be devoted to the carrying out of any plan at Courtenay bay until a further sum is asked for and full explanations of such plan are given to the committee.


William Pugsley: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the land at Courtenay bay been acquired by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company?


William Pugsley: I have been informed by the company that they had made an arrangement to purchase the land at Courtenay bay,, this will take in all the land at the head of the bay and also the foreshore right of Messrs. Gilbert, the owners of the property.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How large an area?


William Pugsley: The land at the head of the bay covers an area of about 75 acres, and the tide flats cover several hundred acres, of which they would be the riparian owners. Whether they have actually completed. the purchase or not I have not been informed.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I saw it stated in the press, regarding the option said to be held for this purpose, that the area on the shore was 31 or 32 acres and that there was a similar area of foreshore about 64 or 65 acres altogether.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend has been misinformed as to that. I thjnk it takes in all the head of Courtenay bay, extending from the Marsh creek around to the property owned by the late Mr. Dunn.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister is not in a position_ to state whether the Grand Trunk Pacific intend to buy that additional area or not?


William Pugsley: All I can say to my hon. friend is that the officials of the company have informed me that they have decided to purchase the property, but whether they Mr. PUGSLEY
have completed the purchase or not I am unable to say.


Mr. TODD.: Could not facilities be provided for the accommodation of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the west side of the harbour? If so, it would save a very large expenditure which will otherwise have to be undertaken by this country in connection with the Courtenay bay project.


William Pugsley: The company have, through their officials, informed me, that they have their engineer at St. John and they are of opinion that the west side would not, owing to the difficulty of the approach, afford to them the adequate facilities that they want for their terminal. As my hon. friend is no doubt aware, in order to get to the west side they would have to use the Canadian Pacific railway, crossing over by their line at the falls and then going around to the terminals of the Canadian Pacific railway. Rival companies have (serious objections to using each other's lines, I suppose, because of the difficulty of making arrangements. But the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific, Mr. Hays, has informed me that Courtenay bay presents an ideal site for terminals, and he has also told me that ajs a result of a visit to St. John of their engineer, he is of opinion that this presents the only opportunity at St. John which would enable them to get the terminals which they would desire for the great business they expect will go over the Transcontinental railway. They could get limited accommodation in connection with the Intercolonial terminals, but their opinion is that Courtenay bay nresents the ideal opportunity for railway terminals.


Robert Laird Borden: How many berths are there at the Intercolonial railway terminals?


William Pugsley: Only two, and they are filled all the time during the winter with the present business.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they capable of extension?


William Pugsley: Other property might be bought at the head of the harbour, but the difficulty i's to get yard room. Space is very limited at the head of the harbour, as my hon. friend from St. John knows.


George Henry Barnard: I understand that the wharfs that the minister mentioned in connection with the harbour at St. John are wharfs which are provided for the moving of commerce generally. How much wharfage has the minister there?


William Pugsley: Of course, there are wharfs in connection with the Intercolonial railway. The Intercolonial has two berths for ocean steamers at the head of the harbour, and then there is also what is known as the ballast wharf terminal. That makes

three. But at the ballast wharf I do not think the water is deep enough for the largest ocean steamers. Upon the western side of the harbour the wharfs have practically all, up to the present time, betejn. constructed by the city of St. John.


George Henry Barnard: By private individuals?


William Pugsley: No, by the corporation of St. John at their own expense, and the people have felt that a heavy burden has been imposed on them because they have been called upon to provide terminal facilities for the trade of Canada, not for the local trade, but to enable the exports and imports of Canada in the winter season to pass through a Canadian port. They have expended in the vicinity of $1,250,000 for that purpose. It has been expended for a national purpose, and they have not felt that they could go any further. They came to me when I was elected and became minister and urged that further facilities ought to be provided at the expense of Canada, keeping in mind all they had done for this national purpose. I then, with the approval of my colleagues, entered upon the construction of a wharf in extension of the wharfs which had been built by the city upon the western side of the harbour, and the department is now building an additional wharf which will give accommodation for two more ocean steamers on the western side. Then, we have in contemplation, in the near future, the building of another wharf to the south of Sand point which will give accommodation for two more steamers.


George Henry Barnard: There are no privately owned docks?


William Pugsley: Not for ocean steamers.
Tiffin harbour-improvements, $120,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the work of drilling and dredging at Tiffin. We are providing for a depth of 25 feet at low water. This i<s to provide a harbour in connection with the Grand Trunk railway. I may say this is a part of the national transportation scheme which was recommended by the Transportation Commission whose recommendations the government is endeavouring to carry out. Tiffin harbour ifs to be used pimarily as a point for the transhipment of the products of the west. The Grand Trunk railway are building a railway with a grade not exceeding four-tenths of one per cent eastward, over which they will be able to carry large trains of cars with one locomotive, and they hope so to reduce the cost-and in this they are emulating the Canadian Pacific railway in connection with their work at Victoria harbour-of carrying grain eastward that they will be able to divert a large portion of the grain froth the Northwest which now goes by way of Buffalo and 195
other American ports through Canadian channels and Canadian seaports. This is a very important national work, and we are asking for this amount in order to carry it to completion. We hope that by next fall we will be able to give deep water accommodation up to the splendid system of elevators which the Grand Trunk are building at Tiffin.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Grand Trunk have heretofore been using Midland. Do they intend to establish a new port at Tiffin?


William Pugsley: Yes, their through transportation business will be done at Tiffin.


Mr. ARTHURS.: I would like to ask the minister if these wharfs being built at Tiffin are on property owned by the government or by the Grand Trunk?


William Pugsley: The government is not building any wharfs at Tiffin. All the wharf building is being done by the Grand Trunk itself.


James Arthurs: Has the government built none of the wharfs in the past there?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this intended to complete this dredging or only a part of it?


William Pugsley: It ought to very nearly complete the work we have in hand there.


George Henry Barnard: What is the railway company spending there?


William Pugsley: Several million dollars. They are building a magnificent elevator and wharfs, they are sipending a large amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, by contract let after public tender to the Canadian Dredging and Construction Company at twenty-nine cents per cubic yard for ordinary material.
Vancouver harbour, British Columbia-improvements, $67,500.


William Pugsley: I explained this the other day. We are asked to make very considerable improvements at Vancouver. One is the widening of the First Narrows. The entrance to the harbour is only about 600 feet wide. There is quite a heavy run of tide, and often it is foggy, and by reason of the great increase in the number of vessels entering the harbour there is considerable danger attending the navigation of that part of it. Some time ago a collision occurred, and some lives were lost. We propose widening the harbour to 1,200 feet. There are also some improvements at the entrance of False creek which we have under consideration.



Victoria harbour, British Columbia-improvements, $48,750.


William Pugsley: This is a very important work. It will consist of rock drilling, and dredging in Victoria harbour to improve the channel, and also broadening out the inner harbour in the vicinity of the Canadian Pacific Bailway dock, and the new dock about to be constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific. My information is that the business of Victoria is rapidly increasing. During the present season there will be a considerable addition to the number of steamers frequenting the port, and the improvement seems necessary to accommodate the increased shipping. We propose acquiring, if our information as to their usefulness is confirmed, two Lob-nitz rock breakers to carry on the work of rock-drilling as rapidly as possible, and we will have one or more dredges to remove the rock as it is broken. We propose continuing as rapidly as we can the general work of improving the harbour.


George Henry Barnard: I understood from the minister that this would not be sufficient for the purchase of these machines.


William Pugsley: The question of what additional amount should be voted is now before council.
Victoria harbour, Ontario-improvements, $108,750.


William Pugsley: This represents to the Canadian Pacific railway what Tiffin represents to the Grand Trunk railway. It is a part of the transportation system of the Canadian Pacific. railway. They are building elevators, and wharfs, and the government is doing the dredging. I think this will nearly if not entirely complete the work we have in hand at Victoria harbour. It is under contract to the Canadian Dredging and Construction Company at 12J cents for ordinary material, and $2.25 for rock and boulders. That illustrates -the difference in cost. There you have the ordinary material tendered for by the lowest tenderer at 12J cents at Victoria, Ontario, and 29 cents at Tiffin more than twice as much at Tiffin as at Victoria harbour, and yet the contracts in both cases were let after wide public competition, and to the lowest tenderer.


Richard Blain: The same class of dredge?


William Pugsley: The same class of dredge. It is the difference in the conditions, and the material to be dredged. In one case the contractors thought it would be worth 29 cents, and they tendered at that. In the other case it was 124 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is to be hoped they will not be able to count up the material as the contractors have been able to do on the Grand Trunk Pacific or they should Mr. PUGSLEY.
make a very profitable thing on it. I suppose the government can only depend on their inspector to ascertain the different quantities of the different materials?


William Pugsley: We have taken every precaution to protect the public interest. I recognized after I became minister the fact that the country was to a certain extent at the mercy of the inspectors, and I have taken every precaution to guard against any. improper iconduct on their part. We require them not only to prepare returns as to the quantities, but to make a solemn declaration, which is the same as an oath, that they are on the work, that they personally inspect each scow load that goes out, and make the measurement in the manner prescribed. We also inspect the inspectors, we have persons who are inspecting them, and their work as well.


Richard Blain: Is that a new office, an inspector of inspectors?


William Pugsley: No, it is not a new office.


Richard Blain: Is it a new policy?


William Pugsley: We do that through the resident engineers, and their assistants. We keep careful oversight over the inspectors.


George Henry Bradbury: Before that item is passed, I would like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that there is no fish-way provided at St. Andrew's rapids, and the river is in a very unsatisfactory condition so far as fishing is concerned. It was a serious oversight not to provide a fish-way. I drew the attention of the Marine Department some time ago to the fact, and I understood they were to take it up with the minister. Has that been done?


William Pugsley: The matter has not yet been brought to my attention by the Marine Department, but I will have it looked into.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to impress upon the minister the importance of this matter, because under present conditions no fish from Lake Winnipeg can get past the St. Andrew's dam; consequently the upper part of my constituency and the city of Winnipeg are denied the use of those fish.


William Pugsley: Would the fish venture past the sewers of the city of Winnipeg, and would that affect them at all?


George Henry Bradbury: Not at all.
Dredging in Quebec and Ontario, $675,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is to make provision for operating during the present yeaT the dredging plant, and also to make payments for work which will be done under contract in different places. In the

province of Quebec work will be done at various points on the lakes and rivers, also in the province of Ontario a good deal of work will be done at various harbours upon Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and the Georgian bay.


Richard Blain: How about Port Credit?


William Pugsley: I think that is a private harbour, is it not?


Richard Blain: Sometimes my hon. friend expends public money on private harbours.


William Manley German: I would ask the minister what new dredging plant he proposes to acquire in the province of Ontario? I see that he has a vote for new dredging plant in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as other provinces. If it is a proper question, I would like to know what dredging plant the department intends to acquire in Ontario?


William Pugsley: We require to get a hull for the dredge ' Nipissing,' a new boiler and machinery for the dredge ' Nipissing,' a new boiler and machinery for the ' Sir John,' a new hull for the ' Challenge,' a new boiler for the ' Mattawa.' two new 32-cubic yard dump scows for the ' Deschenes,' six yawl boats for different vessels, a new light draft tug for dredge No. 3, dippers for several dredges, costing about $500, a new engine for the ' Storm King,' new steel spuds for the ' Industry,' a steel scow and new spuds for the ' International.' We want to do some work upon the tugs ' Lisgar ' and ' Peel,' and to complete some payments, amounting to $4,200. The total is $135,000.


William Manley German: Boes the minister propose to purchase any dredging plant in the province of Ontario the coming season?


William Pugsley: Not out of this vote.


William Manley German: I understood the minister proposed to purchase some dredging plant from the Dominion Dredging Company. I must say, as I have already said, that I think the government has got all the dredging plant they require, and why they should purchase dredging plant from a company which is now in the dredging business and building new dredges, I cannot understand.


William Pugsley: There were some negotiations, but no decision has been arrived at.


James Arthurs: Is it the intention of the government to operate the dredge now at Lake Nipissing?


William Pugsley: Yes.


James Arthurs: This dredge did certain work at the mouth of the South river last year, but on account of the removal of the roller dam at the foot of Lake Nipissing, 195J
this work has become of little or no use at the present time. The level of the lake has been so much lowered by the removal of these dams that the dredging is of little use. I think some improvement should be made there.
Mr, PUGSLEY. The improvement of conditions on Lake Nipissing is engaging the earnest attention of the department. We are confronted with the difficulty that if we maintain dams at the outlet of the lake, the country is liable to be flooded, and if we do not maintain the necessary dams then the water becomes too low for vessels in many cases to navigate the lake. We are giving earnest attention to the question, and hope we will be able to improve conditions there.


James Arthurs: I think the minister will find that the trouble at Lake Nipissing is largely caused by the unusual way the dams were built. They were entirely useless in the way they were built.


William Pugsley: If we should decide to build new ones, we will endeavour to avoid any mistakes that may have been made,


Richard Blain: I wish to take the occasion of this item to direct the minister's attention to a promise that was made by the government some years ago, and repeated year after year by the Minister of Public Works, that some dredging would be done at Port Credit, Lake Ontario. It is rather an important point, lying between the city of Toronto and the city of Hamilton, on Lake Ontario, where there is a good deal of traffic in the summer time. It was also looked upon as a harbour of refuge. My hon. friend in past years has stated that it was a private harbour. It is a private harbour, but I think it would be in the public interest, and that the government would be discharging a public duty, if they made an appropriation, or took some portion of this money, to do some dredging in that harbour. Many years ago the government did dredge the harbour out and made some pretty liberal expenditure on that work. At that time it was a private harbour and there has been no change since, except that it may have passed from one private owner to another. My hon. friend always in committee, when I have drawn his attention to this matter, has replied that the government cannot spend money on private harbours. But I would like to point out that his department and his predecessors, have spent public money on private harbours. I am not saying that the policy is a good or a bad one, but there are exceptional cases, and this is a case in which there is a great deal of traffic interested. There is a lighthouse in that harbour which is kept up by the government, and a great deal of shipping is going on there at present. A considerable amount of products of

different kinds are taken in and out of it, but they can only be taken by very small boats, because of the condition of the harbour, owing to the fact that there has been no dredging done there for many years. I want, as emphatically as I can, to draw my hon. friend's attention to it, and ask if he will not allow some engineer of his department to inspect and make a report upon it, so that he may see whether it would be a wise and proper expenditure to apply some of this money to the dredging of that harbour.


William Pugsley: Is Port Credit in my hon. friend's constituency?


Richard Blain: Yes.


William Pugsley: I understood my hon. friend to say that he would not say whether it was a wise or an unwise policy to expend public money on dredging in a private harbour, yet he urges me to do it in this case.


Richard Blain: I think it would be a very wise expenditure, and my hon. friend's supporters think it would be also. My hon. friend has in his department at this moment more than one very largely signed petition, signed by the ratepayers in that section, calling on the government to make this expenditure. I said I did not know whether it was wise or unwise to make it a policy of the government to spend public money on private harbours, but that there were exceptional cases, and I regarded this as an exceptional one. It is a very important point; there is a great deal of traffic between Toronto and Hamilton, and this is looked upon as a natural harbour of refuge. A very small expenditure indeed would protect what has already been expended by a former government in that harbour; but if the harbour be allowed to continue in its present condition, and the condition is getting worse and worse every year, it will become useless. If the government does not very soon make some expenditure of public money there it will be necessary to spend a very large amount. My hon. friend will understand my answer to his question when I say that I have no hesitation in declaring that this would be a very wise expenditure. If, when in Toronto, he would take a run out there and see it himself, or if he would send an engineer to examine it, he would find that I am not putting the case at all too strongly.


William Pugsley: As the matter has a good deal of importance, not merely to Port Credit, but also to other harbours which are similarly situated, I desire to say that I am rather surprised that my hon. friend who is declaring generally that he is not able to state whether it is a wise or unwise course for the government to Mr. BLAIN.
spend money on private harbours, but that, in respect of this particular harbour, which happens to be in his constituency, and for reasons which no doubt are eminently satisfactory to himself, the expenditure would be a wise one.


Richard Blain: I did not say that this was the only case.


William Pugsley: Of course, it is always easy to make exceptional cases and ask for expenditure for exceptional reasons. I am rather of the opinion that it would be very much better if the people living at Port Credit and at other places where there are private harbours, which their owners are not able to keep in repair, would induce these proprietors to part with the ownership of these horbours and hand them over to the government. I have never been able to understand the policy which induced past governments to hand over the control of harbours to private companies. If there be anything which ought to be owned by the public it is a harbour. I would suggest to my hon. friend whether it would not be better for the people to try and induce this company, which apparently is not able to' keep this harbour in proper condition, to hand it over to the Crown, and then I would be pleased to give the matter my most favourable consideration. But even although it is a private harbour, I will not say that I will not make the improvements. I shall have the matter looked into, and if I feel that the work can be done at a reasonable cost, and I can justify it to my colleagues and to this House, I will give it my favourable consideration.


William Manley German: I know something about Port Credit harbour, and under existing conditions I think it would be an exceedingly unwise policy for the government to spend any money on its improvements. It is very currently rumoured, whether the rumour be true or untrue, that this harbour was purchased simply with the view of getting the government to spend money on it and make it more valuable, and then handing it over to the government at the enhanced value caused by this government expenditure.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. gentleman give any reasons for that statement?


William Manley German: I say there is a rumour to that effect, whether true or untrue.


Richard Blain: Who are the owners that are seeking to do this?


William Manley German: My hon. friend must know who thS owners are.-


Richard Blain: I thought the hon. gentleman did not know much about it.


William Manley German: I do not know who the owners are, but I have an idea, however.

There is another point I wish to bring to the attention of the minister with regard to the dredging of harbours, l think that in that connection the government could change their policy to the public advantage. I refer to the manner of letting contracts for dredging work in the various harbours on the lakes on which the province of Ontario borders. The policy of the government is to let contracts each spring for work to he done during the season of navigation, and I would suggest to the minister that a better way would be, in the first place, to ascertain the amount of dredging required to be done in each harbour especially, and then call for tenders for the whole work. Let the whole job to the lowest tenderer, and then he would know that when he got his plant on the work it would remain there until the work was completed. The minister will certainly get a lower price for the work under these conditions than if he only lets it for one season, because the contractor may be obliged the following season to move his plant on to some other piece of work, and to tow it there under very large expenditure and risk. I have heard it said that one reason why the government thinks it necessary to own a dredging plant is to prevent a combine amongst the contractors. But if at Port Hope, or Hamilton, or Cobourg, or Midland, or at Victoria,, the dredging work to be done on these lake harbours was let to the contractor, not for one season, but for two seasons or five seasons until it was completed, then you would have actual competition among the dredge-men, because the fact that their plant would Temain there until the work was completed would be an incentive to them to get down to the lowest possible price. If the minister considers this matter with the officers of his department, I believe he will find that it will tend to the saving of money and the doing of the work more . expeditiously than under the present system.	*


William Pugsley: I entirely agree with the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. German) and I may tell him that the department has adopted that policy and the advertisements now published do not limit the dredging to one season.


William Manley German: That was the system in the past.


William Pugsley: Yes, in most cases, but now we estimate as nearly as we can what quantity of dredging the government is prepared to do in the public interest at these different places, and we call for tenders for the whole work whether it takes one year or two years. I have a remarkable instance of the truth of what my hon. friend (Mr. German) has said in the case of the dredging at St. John harbour,
where, before I became minister the work was let for one season, and 90 cents a yard was the lowest tender, but when I became minister it was given to be understood that the contract would not be limited to the one season and the result was that a tender was received tc do the work which would run over a number of years, at 39i cents per cubic yard, or a little over one-third of what had been previously paid when the contract was let for onlv one year. I believe the adoption of this policy will result in great saving to the country and I shall adopt it as far as I reasonably can.


Richard Blain: I was surprised to hear the hon. member (Mr. German) suggest to the government that it would be unwise to make any expenditure in the harbour of Port Credit, because, as he said, there was a rumour that some company owned this harbour and was desirous of getting public money expended upon it, with the view, I would take it, of making money. Did I understand the hon. gentleman correctly?


William Manley German: You did.


Richard Blain: If that be the case it will be all in his own family and it has nothing to do with any members on this side of the House. However, I think it is rather a vague rumour. I never heard of such a thing in the county in which the harbour is situated, and I do not think that any person else who lives there ever heard of such a thing being suggested. There is only one reason for expenditure in the harbour of Port Credit and that reason is the public weal. If my hon. friend from Welland will look over the harbour I think he will revise his statement and that he will come back here and suggest that money should be expended on that harbour, no matter what dredging company gets the contract. At all events, the government has a precedent because in years gone by public money was expended there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this money to be expended for paying the government dredges or for the letting of contracts?


William Pugsley: Both.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The more business-like plan would be for the government to ascertain how much was to be exnended in each harbour and then submit an estimate to parliament for the expenditure at each place. The present system leaves a great deal of discretion with the government and they can use this money in almost any way they like. It is sometimes uncharitably said that they occasionally use this money for the betterment of their own friends rather than for the betterment of the harbour. I am not saying whether that is so or not, but as the hon. gentleman from Welland (Mr. German) says it is one of the rumours. I know that there ars

instances when, because of urgency, dred-; ging has to be done at a particular place, but in voting these large sums of money for general purposes I do not think we are following a sound princiole.


Mr. JAMESON.: I would like to be permitted at this juncture to supplement the information which I gave to the minister a few days ago with respect to some dredging which is needed in Western Nova Scotia. I may say, with regard to the port of Weymouth, to which I drew the minister's attention at that time, that I have since been informed by some people who are interested in the shipping business there, that there were originally two channels into that harbour, and that during the time the Hon. Mr. Vail occupied a seat in this House-then I think the Minister of Militia and Defence, and representative of the county of Digby-he had one of those channels dammed up with stone with the view of having the other one opened out by dredging. His idea was that a greater flow of water would pass through the wider channel by reason of the closing of the other one. His anticipation in this was not fulfilled, however, and thereafter no dredging was done there, so that what was a fairly tolerable channel at one time has been blocked up, and no other channel has been substituted for it. The old channel gave twelve feet of water at low tide. The present channel does not give anything like that depth, and a small amount of dredging at the bar, as a beginning would make a very great improvement. I merely submit this for the information of the minister, because he was good enough to say the other evening that the matter would have his careful consideration. Now just a word as to the work that ha3 been done at Weymouth heretofore, and as to the revenues which that port has turned into the public treasury. I am informed by people living in that town, who tell me that they are well assured of the accuracy of their statements, that with the exception of this damming of that one channel, no public money has been expended on improvements there since confederation. They further tell me that between $300,000 and $400,000 has been paid into the public treasury in the way of customs duties collected at that port, and they ask in all fairness that a beginning should now be made in this improvement which the harbour needs, and which I have several times urged on the minister to carry out. I trust that with the additional information which I have given him, he will see his wax clear to do a reasonable amount of dredging at that port.


William Pugsley: I can only say, as I said before to my hon. friend, that I will give the matter my best consideration. If it were possible to do what is called the necessary work at a reasonable expense, Mr. SPROULE.
without engaging in the larger scheme, I would be in a different position. Sometimes, when I have done a certain amount of dredging at a particular place, I am told that I should have gone a certain distance, and that unless I carry the work to completion what has been done will be wasted. I want to look carefully into the matter of dredging the mouth of the channel; I cannot say what will be done; but I will give it my very best consideration.


Clarence Jameson: I am asking that this government redress the injury dohe by a former Liberal government as a beginning,


Mr. WRIGHT.: Is it the minister's intention that this increase in the vote will be spent at the head of the lakes?


William Pugsley: This has nothing to do with the expenditure at the head of the lakes. That is a special vote on capital account.


William Wright: This will be scattered, then, over the provinces of Ontario and Quebec?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: The minister was going to read a list of the places where this money. was to be expended.


William Pugsley: The estimated working expenses of the departmental plants, which go about from place to place where dredging is required, amount to $199,100, made up as follows:
Dredge ' Challenge ' and plant	$ 8,500
"	' Desehenes '	
6,000"	' International '	
13,900"	' Industry '	
16,900"	' Mattawa '	
8,500"	' Nipissing '	
8,500"	No. 3	
6,000"	No. 2	
6,000"	' Ontario '	
8,500"	'Ottawa'	
13,900"	' Progress '	
13,900"	'Queen'	
8,500"	' Quebec '	
15,000" 'Richelieu'	*	
8,500"	'St. Louis'	
6,500"	' Sir Richard '	
8,500Steamer ' Speedy '	
13,000Stonelifter No. 1	
2,500" No. 2	
1,000Tug 'Storm King'	
2,000"	'Blanche'	
2,000Coal steamer ' Rutherford '	
2,000Coal barge 'Sophie Luff'	
2,000" No.	1	
1,500" No.	2	
1,500Contingencies, towing, piling, &c.. ..	3,000Total	$199,100
These are the expenses of the operating plant in Ontario and Quebec. Then, for the province of Ontario we have under consideration works at the following places: Goderich harbour, Hamilton harbour


Richard Blain: How much?
APRIL 1, 19ro


William Pugsley: I think we have a special vote for Goderich; I should not take that in. At Hamilton we expect to spend $15,000 this year, Kincardine, $24,000; Lion's Head, $24,000; Meaford, $25,000; Port Bur well, Port Elgin, Port Hope, River Thames, Rondeau channel.


Richard Blain: Has the minister the amounts that he expects to spend at each of these points?


William Pugsley: These are amounts which have been given as estimates, but I cannot say that we will expend them. Port Bur-well $7,800. I do not want to give that figure with confidence, because the engineers have gone into the matter carefully and I think it is going to cost a great deal more than that.


Robert Laird Borden: Can you give us the basis upon which this estimate has been made up?


William Pugsley: It has been made up by the clerk who makes up these amounts from estimates given by the. engineering department as to what wo,-k is urgently needed at these places. But when we get into the work we might have to change our estimate very considerably. Then, there are Rondeau, Sarnia, Point Edward, Telegraph island, Nigger island, Wiarton, Waubaushene, Thessalon, Wingfield Basin, Oakville, Owen Sound, Whitby and quite a number of other places along the lakes.


Richard Blain: Are all these harbours owned by the government?


William Pugsley: Not all owned by the government, but they axe public harbours.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend expect that any portion of this amount will be expended on harbours that are not owned by the government?


William Pugsley: None, unless it might be that we might do something at Port Credit. I have not shut the door against it. Then, in Quebec there are Chateauguay, Chicoutimi, Rimouski, River Batiscan, Riviere du Loup en Haut, Riviere du Loup en Bas, Fraserville, Louisville, River God-froi, River Jesus, River L'Assomption, River Maskinonge, River Nicolet, River St. Francis, St. Frangois du Lac Landing, River St. Maurice mouth, River Saguenay, River Yamache, River Yamaska, St. Pierre Becquets, St. Placide, Three Rivers, and other places. There is dredging work required at Valleyfield, and also at St. Louis river. I am not prepared to give all the different places at the present time. We will not be able to do nearly all the dredging that has been applied for, and which has been urgently recommended by the resident engineers. We will require the amount we are now asking m order to do
a reasonable amount of work with the government dredges, and by contract during the coming season.


Clarence Jameson: Will the minister state where he intends to spend this money in the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: I went into that the other evening. There is no need of my repeating it now, because the hon. gentleman will find it in ' Hansard.*


Clarence Jameson: I think he mentioned some places, but he was not prepared to give all the places at which there might be an expenditure.


William Pugsley: I named a large number of places where dredging is required, but I said that I was not able to name all the places. I am not yet able to name them all. We cannot hope to overtake all the work during the present year.


Robert Laird Borden: No, but when the minister is asking $675,000 for the maritime provinces that proposed appropriation must be based on some estimate in the department. I do not suppose that the officers of his department go at it blind in striking an estimate of $675,000, just as their fancy may dictate, but it must be based upon a supposed requirement. I would suppose that that requirement must also be based upon the details of the expenditure proposed at different places. * I think it would greatly assist the committee if the minister would give that information. I can hardly conceive that it does not exist.


William Pugsley: With respect to the different places where dredging is required we have Teports made of the estimated quantities, and from these reports we ask for a certain amount for dredging. The amount we are asking for we know will not do the work at all these places.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, but would not the officer say something like this: Here are twenty-five places; well, there are twenty of them in which we must do dredging to a certain amount at this place; and so he would arrive at the estimate of $675,000? I cannot understand how that estimate is arrived at unless it be by some such method as that or by mere rule of thumb.


William Pugsley: It is neither one nor the other.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, what is it?


William Pugsley: Take the dredging required in the provinces of Ontario, and Quebec to-day, and which might with advantage be undertaken in the public interest, and I am sure it would run up to sev-* eral millions of dollars. But, we cannot



[Stage Direction]
do all that at once. Therefore,. I endeavour to get from my colleagues as much as I can. We have asked for $675,000, and we will have to use this in the places where it is most urgently required in the public interest. If my hon. friend will look through the newspapers he will see that we are advertising for dredging in Ontario, and Quebec, specifying the different places where work is to be done this year.
Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the minister has misunderstood although one would almost gather from his remarks that he had. I thoroughly understand that a great many millions of dollars are probably required for dredging purposes in Quebec, and in the maritime provinces and that the work must be performed in the next ten or fifteen years. But I am not talking now about the cost of work to be done in the next fifteen years; I am talking about this year for which an appropriation of $675,000 is asked, and I am asking what seems to me to be an obvious question-at what places do you propose to expend that, and how much do you propose to expend at each place? I suppose that the appropriation must be based on gome estimate of that kind? If it is not based on an estimate of that kind I will venture to suggest that it must be upon the rule to which I have already alluded.


William Pugsley: I did not mean by the statement I made that this dredging at these different places would not be required for a number of years. What I intended to say was that if we were to undertake to do the work in the different places in Ontario and Quebec, in which at this very moment it would be desirable to do dredging in the public interest it would run up to two or three, or perhaps four times the amount that we_^ are now asking.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that at all. I said that you might profitably expend perhaps $10,000,000 in dredging this year, but you are doing only $675,000 worth. Where are you going to do it, and how much are you going to expend in each place?


William Pugsley: I could give that to my hon. friend to-night because the advertisements for dredging in Ontario and Quebec are actually out.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have it.


Clarence Jameson: If the minister would furnish the same information in regard to the maritime provinces, I would be very glad.


William Pugsley: I have not it for the maritime provinces. We are working at it, but we have not, it completed. It will be ready some time next week.


William Pugsley: 


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the minister to produce that before the estimates are brought up again.


Richard Blain: Would the ^ninister also bring down a list of the newspapers in which these advertisements are inserted in Ontario?


William Pugsley: Probably I could. I can assure my hon. friend they are not inserted in many Conservative papers. In fact, I cannot recall any at the moment.


Richard Blain: Perhaps I could make it easier if I asked my hon. friend to supply the committee with a list of the Conservative papers in which it is inserted.


William Pugsley: I will give that to-night. I think it will be a plain sheet of white paper with no mark on it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister has not brought down the information asked with regard to some scows hired from the government by the Maritime Dredging and Construction Company?


William Pugsley: I got the dimensions, but I will be glad to get the other information, I had forgotten about it.


William Wright: A good deal of objection has been taken to the method of computing the work done by contractors by measuring in the scows, and some people think that the measurements might be made in the ground originally staked out requiring excavation to a certain depth over a certain measured area. If they are measuring by scow, it has been publicly stated in the House that the scows frequently go out with half loads and half measurements, and sometimes without any one making any measurement whatever.


William Pugsley: It would be possible to have the survey made so as to take the measurements in situ, but with the dredging of harbours and rivers, which is done by the Public Works Department, that would involve a great deal of additional labour and expense at the outset. It is done in the Railway Department, in canal work, but there, of course, the dredging is confined to a narrow and well-defined space, and it can be done much more easily than it could be in ordinary harbour and river work. In Tegard to my hon. friend's statement that it is stated that in many cases scows go out with half a load and that there is no proper measurement,
I have heard that statement made, but I have never heard it verified


Robert Laird Borden: We have had one very distinct case.


William Pugsley: By any one who pretended to know anything about it? I have never heard that any quantities were paid for which were not actually placed in

scows. It may be that that has occurred in some cases, but we are taking every precaution to prevent it. While, no doubt, there would be some advantages in measuring in situ, there would be difficulties in connection with it in river and harbour work, where the areas cannot be as well defined as in canal work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A great deal of it seems to be mere guess work when measurement is done on the scow. Whose judgment prevails as to the quantity on a scow? Take the case cited from the Midland district where the inspector is an employee of the scow company, paid partly by the scow company and partly by the government.


William Pugsley: That is not the case.
Mr, SPROULE. That was the case brought out under oath right in the Public Accounts Committee.


William Pugsley: There might be one case of that kind, but the man would be dismissed the moment it was discovered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was brought out as well that he was not on the dredge at all for an hour or two in the morning. Who measured the scows then? Somebody. It is these things that create suspicion.


William Pugsley: In the case referred to, the inspector wras employed by the dredging company in the winter making some repairs on a dredge; he was not employed by them in the summer. Even that might be considered improper, as it might tend to favouritism. Ordinarily we believe the inspectors do their duty thoroughly well, and, as I have said, we require that the returns must be made under solemn declaration, which is just the same as making them under oath. In one or two instances where the inspectors were not careful they were instantly dismissed the moment the matter came to the notice of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I gave that one case, and my remembrance of it is that the man was employed not only in the winter, but in the summer as well. Then there is another case where an inspector was walking around the city in hotels, etc., while the scow was working. How was the inspection made then?


William Pugsley: Where was that?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was in Owen Sound, and yet that was said to be correctly and properly done.


William Pugsley: That would be said to be most improperly done and the man would be dismissed instantly.
Manitoba, $26,250.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for dredging work in the province of Manitoba.
The dredging there is done by a plant owned by the government, and this is for the purpose of operating that plant.


Richard Blain: In what waters will this money be expended?


William Pugsley: At the mouth of Red river, where it empties into Lake Winnipeg; also some work is asked for in Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis.


Richard Blain: Have advertisements been published in the newspapers in the province of Manitoba?


William Pugsley: There will be none, because this is our own plant.
Dredging-British Columbia, $225,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of operating the government plant in British Columbia. The dredging is to be done on the Fraser river, at Victoria, at Vancouver and at Nanaimo, and a number of other places. There are a number of snag boats working on the Thompson and the Skeena rivers, and dredging will be done upon the Arrow lakes, and probably on the Kootenay and Okanagan lakes. We are also asked to do work on the north arm of the Fraser river.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited-Mr. Pardee.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if it is the intention to go on with this Bill to-night?


Wilfrid Laurier: Unless there i

 objection.


William Sora Middlebro: I was informed there was an understanding that it would not be gone on with to-night. I know that a number of members wish to speak on it.


Wilfrid Laurier: My impression was that it was the Bill respecting the Ottawa, Brockville and St. Lawrence Railway Company that was not to go on to-night. However, if there is any objection it may stand.	'


Mr. LENNOX.: I think it had better stanci, because I understand there is to be an amendment proposed, and we have not yet had an opportunity of considering that amendment.
Progress reported.


RESTIGOUCHE BOOM COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 150) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company -Mr. J. Reid.
William Pugsley: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if this Bill, as it is now printed, was agreed to by all parties before the committee?


Mr. FISHER.: Yes, I think the difficulty with regard to riparian ownership has been completely solved.
Progress reported.


HAMILTON, WATERLOO AND GUELPH RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.-Mr. Harris.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I was informed by the Prime Minister last night that this Bill would not be taken up to-night, and I so notified several members who wished to be present when it was considered.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister evidently thought it was the Bill referring to the Ottawa, Brockville and St. Lawrence Railway Company that was to stand.


John Allister Currie: No, this is the Bill I spoke to him about.


Mr. PARDEE.: Why should the Bill not go through?


John Allister Currie: Because the members for Toronto are not present.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The members for Toronto agreed absolutely to the amendments. I was a member of the subcommittee, and I know the amendments were drafted bv Mr. Bristol.


John Allister Currie: I informed the hon. member for South Toronto that the Bill would not come up to-night, and I think it is very unfair that it should be called after my understanding with the Prime Minister.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. member for South Toronto is in town to-night, and I know that the amendments were drafted by the hon. member for Centre Toronto, who first opposed the Bill strenuously in committee. His amendments were accepted and inserted in the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I would prefer that the members for Toronto should be present, and I certainly understood from the Prime Minister that the Bill would not be called to-night.


William Pugsley: Evidently it was the Ottawa, Brockville and St. Lawrence Bill that the Prime Minister had in his mind.


Haughton Lennox: 


John Allister Currie: Then he made a mistake about it, because I am not interested in the other Bill, and I am interested in Toronto.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know any reason why the Bill should stand over?	[DOT]


John Allister Currie: Because we desire to debate some of the clauses, and only the member for East Toronto is present. Last night I informed the mayor of Toronto that the Bill would not be called to-night and he said in that event he would go home.


Richard Blain: The request of my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) is a reasonable one.


William Pugsley: Oh certainly, under the circumstances I would suggest that progress be reported.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 169) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company. -Mr. Geoffrion.
BilJ .(No. 157) an Act for the relief of Cecilia Marie Pringle.-Mr. Price
Bill (No. 153) for the relief of James Albert Green.-Mr. Prowse.
Bill (No. 158) for the relief of Ada Ann Reed.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 162) for the relief of Alexander A. Barthelmes.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Timiskaming. -Mr. George Gordon.
Bill (No. 167) to incorporate the Montreal, Kapitachuan and Rupert's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Gervais.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 183) to incorporate the Ottawa, Rideau Valley and Brockville Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Protectorate Life Insurance Company of Canada. -Mr. Turriff.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am afraid I cannot let the hon. member proceed, as the House goes automatically into Committee of Supply, which was interrupted at six o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Dredging-British Columbia, $225,000.
['I think we shall take up a number of Bills which stand on the order paper. Private Bills have priority and after that we shall deal with a number of minor Bills which stand on the order paper. If we reach Supply my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will continue. There are several Bills on the order paper which, I think, are hardly controversial and we would like to be able to call up any of them.']
Richard Blain: The minister promised to bring to the committee a list of newspapers in the province of Ontario in which the advertisements were inserted for the dredging that i3 to be done next year.


William Pugsley: I have the list. While we are on the subject of dredging, I wish to correct an error into which I fell'while discussing the cost of dredging phjnt. I was interrogated as to the cost of the dredge ' Industry ', and I stated that the original price as agreed upon was $150,000, and that then a defect had been found, as we thought, in the boiler under the Canadian Inspection Law, and we then offered to the owners of the dredge to take the dredge if $10,000 were deducted for the boiler, we concluding that it would be desirable, if not necessary, to have a new boiler placed in the dredge. The new boiler cost $9,300, and I stated to the committee that the old boiler belonged to the government. In that I was in error. L learned afterwards from Captain Howden, jthe superintendent of dredging, that when the price of the dredge was reduced by $10,000, which was the estimated cost of the new boiler, he agreed that the owners should receive the old boiler, so that when it was taken out of the dredge it was their property, and not the property of the government. I take this, the earliest opportunity, to correct the error into which I fell. My hon. friend wanted a list of the Conservative newspapers in which these advertisements for tenders were inserted. I shall send it to him.


Richard Blain: I would rather my hon. friend made a statement to the committee and it would go down on 'Hansard'. He has handed me what I did not want, and has failed to hand in what I did require. My hon. friend has sent over a blank paper, suggesting that no advertisements have been inserted in Conservative papers in respect to dredgiing. I would rather have a list of the newspapers in which the advertisements have been and are inserted for the dredging during the coming summer.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will remember that at first he wanted that and
afterwards he said the other would do. Finding there were no advertisements inserted in Conservative newspapers, I gave him that.


Richard Blain: Although mv hon. friend says that patronage list has been eliminated from his department, it appears ncv advertisements are inserted in Conservative newspapers in Ontario. The list will include all leading Reform newspapers in Ontario. Take for example the city of London. Why does he insert the advertisement in a newspaper with a much smaller circulation and refuse to insert it in the leading newspaper of that city, the 'Free Press', which has admittedly the largest circulation in London or in the western part of Ontario? The ministers seek to leave the impression that the patronage lists have been eliminated, but it is evident from this that in regard to newspapers he has continued the patronage list.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will see when the list is produced that the circul-t ation of these papers is so large that all possible dredging tenderers would have ample notice of the call for tenders and that it would be a waste of public money to have given any wider or fuller advertisement.


Richard Blain: The only explanation of the minister's course in the case of London is that he inserts the advertisement in papers supporting the government, unless there is some explanation of which I do not know.


William Pugsley: I do not think that a gentleman with the long political experience of my hon. friend desires any explanation. It is not customary for governments to advertise works in newspapers owned and controlled bv their opponents unless it is necessary in order to give publicity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister not think it is trifling with the committee to present a blank sheet of paper purporting to give information that the House desires? Some members of the governmenti have declared in this House that the patronage system had disappeared and that) the advertisements for contracts were given to all papers, regardless of their political leanings.


William Pugsley: I desire to say that I never made such a statement, and I never heard any such statement made by a member of the government as to advertisements' in newspapers. That I regard as a very different thing from a patronage list. Early in this session, and at all times when I have spoken with reference to it, I have said that if, in my opinion, a sufficiently wide circulation can be given by putting



[Stage Direction]
advertisements in friendly newspapers, I will do that.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister said he did not say that in this House. If I am right in my memory, he sat in his seat when the Minister of Railways declared in this House that he selected no newspapers, and that he defied contradiction to the statement that he had given these advertisements to papers indiscriminately, and that it was a good thing. If it was a good thing for the Department of Railways and Canals, it must be an equally good thing for the Department of Public Works. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) desired to ascertain whether that principle is being carried out, and for that reason he asked questions. Now, had it been carried out, and had a list been brought down showing that those advertisements had appeared in a number of Conservative newspapers, it would have been conclusive evidence that the principle was being carried out. But the minister did not attempt to carry it out, and he is trifling with the House when he brings down a piece of blank paper and says: I have not got the other list here.


William Pugsley: No, I was requested to produce a list of the Conservative papers in which this advertisement appeared.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He was first required to produce a list of all the papers in which these advertisements appeared.
Mr. PUGSLEY, That request was withdrawn, and my hon. friend asked me to bring down a list of the Conservative papers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, the minister is wrong, and is going back on his word.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend has used language which is unbecoming a member of this House in regard to myself; he says I have gone back on my word, and insinuates that I have endeavoured to mislead the committee. My hon. friend surely ought to withdraw that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have nothing to withdraw, because I was listening to what he said. After six o'clock this list was to be produced, but afterwards the order was changed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) states that the Minister of Public Works has gone back on his word, I think that expression would be out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely I ought to be allowed to give the version of my understanding of what the minister said. If he denies it, then I accept his denial. I have given my understanding of what he said, but he afterwards suggested the change, and the member for Peel innocently fell Mr. PUGSLEY.
into it and accepted it, assuming that the principle was being carried out in its entirety; and if that list had been brought down showing that the advertisement had appeared in a number of Conservative newspapers, the fact would be self-evident.


William Pugsley: If, as a matter of fact, these advertisements did not appear in any Conservative newspaper, and if the member for Peel did ask me to bring down a list of Conservative papers in which the advertisements appeared, could I do anything else than give him a blank sheet, if I desired to give correct information to the House?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it was beneath the dignity of any minister of the Crown to mislead any member of this House. Knowing as he did that there were no such papers, he should have been frank enough to tell the House so, and that would have obviated the necessity of bringing down a blank,sheet. By refusing to put these advertisements in leading Conservative newspapers, the minister has caused the country to suffer loss. He gave us to understand some time ago that that system was all changed, and several ministers took credit to themselves for introducing a new and better system. Both the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or the acting minister, gave the country to understand that they had turned over a new leaf, but now we find that they are still adhering to the old and vicious practice, to the loss and detriment of the public service.


Richard Blain: The minister rather questioned my statement when I said that the dredging advertisement appeared in only one of the leading newspapers in the city of London.


William Pugsley: No, I said I did not know myself in what paper it appeared, and I took my hon. friend's statement as being in effect that he had seen it.


Richard Blain: I have before me a copy of the London ' Advertiser ' of March 31. in which I find the advertisement: ' Tenders for dredging-Sealed tenders addressed to the undersigned,' &c. Now, that is a newspaper in the city of London having a fair circulation. I have before me the other leading newspaper of London, the ' Free Press,' which has a very much larger circulation, which is found in almost every home in London and western Ontario. In that newspaper I do not find the advertisement, therefore, I had 'the right to assume that it did not, and does not, appear in the leading newspaper of London, but it does appear in the newspaper that supports the government of my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: And which is a leading newspaper.


Richard Blain: Which is a leading newspaper. Then my hon. friend admits that there is still a patronage list in his department, no matter what may be found in the Department of Railways and Canals? Therefore, we are to understand that the policy of my hon. friend in the future will be, as in the past, to seek out papers that support his government in the province of Ontario, and put them on the patronage list. But any newspaper that does not support this government, no matter how important it may be, will not be given an advertisement by his department. Might 1 suggest to my hon. friend that - he should take a lesson out of the book of his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals, who rather boastingly announced on the floor of the House that a new departure had taken place in his department? How does my hon. friend explain that it is a good thing to abolish the patronage list in the Railway Department and not in my hon. friend's department?


William Pugsley: I think that the patronage list, as we all understand it, has been abolished in the Department of Public Works, fust as it has been abolished in the Department of Railways and Canals. I was not here when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals made the statement which he is alleged to have made, but I must assume that if he did make the statement that advertisements were published in newspapers representing both sides of politics he was referring to special advertisements, such as the time tables on the Intercolonial railway, where it is desirable to give widespread information to the mass of the people. That is a very different thing from publishing advertisements which were intended to reach tlis eyes of contractors. The contractors follow pretty generally the advertising matter contained in all the leading newspapers, and advertising for tenders in more vhfin two or three of the leading newspapers the city of Toronto, for instance, in papers like the Toronto 'Globe,' which has a wide *circulation all over Ontario, and, indeed. I may say all over Canada, and in a number of other leading newspapers in the province where the contracting work is done, gives ample noticei, and it would really be a waste of money to extend the matter further and advertise in papers which are opposed to the government. It is easy for my hon. friend to make these hypocritical speeches, but he knows that if he were in my position to-morrow he would not put a single advertisement in a Liberal newspaper. I know that just as well as my hon. friend does.


Richard Blain: How does the hon. gentleman know it?


William Pugsley: I know it from my hon. friend's appearance. I know it by the
satirical look that the hon. gentleman has in his face, the look of a man who is trying to take a rise out of his fellow man. I know my hon. friend is just joking when he suggests that we should advertise every ordinary contract, such as dredging work and the erecting of a building, in the opposition newspapers. If it should happen that in any locality we could not give an advertisement sufficiently large circulation through friendly papers we would feel it due to the public to give the advertisement to the newspapers of our opponents.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is humiliating to hear such a statement from a minister of the Crown. There is no use of mincing the matter; he states plainly that he has made up his mind that he will not advertise in a Conservative newspaper. The hon gentleman must know that if he carries out this policy he cannot do justice to the public, that the people who are reading the Conservative newspapers are perhaps half of the people of Canada, and if he wants to get the best tenders for the work which he is going to undertake he should advertise in the papers that would be likely to be read by the bulk of the people instead of by a small class. At five o'clock this afternoon I received from the office upstairs a return showing the amount of money that this government is expending on newspapers all over the country. I have not had time to go over it, and I do not see amongst these papers a statement of the money expended by the Department of Public Works. I shall expect to see it, however, before the return can be considered complete. What I asked for, as far as the Department of Public Works is concerned,, was an order of the House showing the total amount paid in each year since 1896 for all printing and advertising done outside of the government printing bureau. Last year the Department of the Interior expended $167,404.84 for advertising in newspapers, not altogether in Canada. This money was distributed amongst nearly 700 firms or newspapers. Perhaps 600 of them would be in Canada. The minister may think that that is a splendid position for the Minister of the Interior to take.


William Pugsley: It has helped to produce splendid results in the way of immigration.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, but how much better might these results have been had that money been distributed in a nonpartisan way instead of in the way the minister would advise the money to be distributed? The same department, for printing, distributed $95,393 to practically the same firms as my hon. friend might see if he went over the list. For lithographing they paid out $4,509. In that department,

$267,307 and $11,620 were expended for foreign printing and advertising. The bulk of that sum was expended in the Dominion of Canada. For what purpose? For the purpose of influencing-may I say-the press of this country, and if you look through the returns which I have here you will find that practically every dollar of that money went to the Liberal press of this country. How can you expect that the Liberal press is going to do justice to what is transpiring on the floor of this House if you are going to give them,, for advertising, printing and lithographing, $500,000 per annum, making a rough estimate? There is $500,000 per annum going to buy up, to a certain extent,, the Liberal press, and according to the statement of the Minister of Public Works to-night, none of the Conservative newspapers may expect, unless they will truckle and bow the knee to this government, that they will get one dollar of the money that is being expended. Is that a statesmanlike position for a minister of the Crown to take? I cannot conceive that one in his position can feel that he is doing justice to his department or to the people of Canada in taking the position that he has taken to-night, and I am surprised to hear him make such a statement. I sincerely hope that before the session closes I may be able to show to his satisfaction that he is neglecting his duty as n minister when he arrogates to himself the right to say that he will distribute the people's money to the press that will support his government, no matter what kind of trickery and corruption they may carry on. I am satisfied that when the people realize that $500,000 of their money is going into the ink pots of the government to bolster up their position they will resent it as well as the statement that he made to-night, that he will not advertise in one of the opposition papers.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN.: Prior to 1896, did the hon. gentleman ever see a government advertisement in a Liberal newspaper? Has he during the past three or four years seen an Ontario government advertisement in a Liberal newspaper?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, sir, the Ontario government advertises in the Toronto Globe.


William Melville Martin: That is the only instance.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not at all, they are advertising in other Liberal newspapers. But why should gentlemen opposite be continually bringing up what happened before 1896. If the Conservative government erred then, is that any reason why to-day $500,000 of the money of the people should year after year be turned over to Liberal newspapers in Canada, and as Mr. ARMSTRONG.
every one knows, the minute any one of these newspapers says a word against the government they are shut off from participation in the funds. The minister knows very well that in the city of Halifax gov-emmrfru patronage has been withdrawn from Liberal newspapers that said anything against the government,


William Pugsley: I know nothing of the kind.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why, the minister has told us that if a paper does not support the government it need not expect a dollar in the way of printing.


William Pugsley: I have not said that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister has not said it in so many words, but that is the inference from his remarks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works stated that only time-tables, and so on, were advertised by the Department of Railways in the Conservative newspapers, but as a matter of fact, advertisements for supplies for the Intercolonial are published in the Conservative newspapers. The Minister of Railways told us that he believed it good policy to advertise in all the newspapers, and he intended to do it, and I believe the acting Minister of Marine does the same thing.


Mr. TALBOT.: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would be looked upon as a huge joke all over the country if they saw a Liberal government advertising in Conservative newspapers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not here to judge of jokes now.


David Henderson: If I were to express an opinion on this matter I would differ from the Minister of Public Works, as well as from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong). I do not think that any of us on this side are expecting that the Conservative press should receive any large amount of patronage from the present government, but I do believe that the government would find it a better plan if tenders were advertised for through the 'Canada Gazette,' and if the advertisements were not published in any newspapers, either Conservative or Liberal. If my suggestions were carried out the contractors would all look to the ' Canada Gazette ' for such advertisements, and if the government adopted that system it would be more satisfactory all round. But what I rose to speak about was another matter. The minister was good enough to mention Oakville, in the county of Halton, as one of the places where dredging would be done this summer. As we have passed into the fiscal year 1911, the money is now available for that work, and I would impress upon the minister the great necessity of having the dredging done at Oakville as

early as possible. It is not possible for the steamers passing from Toronto to Hamilton to call at Oakville harbour at present, and it is very desirable that whatever dredging is to be done should be done early in the season. Can the hon. gentleman tell us when we may expect a* government dredge at Oakville?


William Pugsley: I am fully seized of the importance of the work at Oakville, but I regret that I cannot say just when the dredge will be sent there. We have numerous demands from different sections of Ontario, but I may say to my hon. friend that we intend to have the work done at Oakville as soon as possible.
Slides and booms-Saguenay district-new booms, alligator tug, and additional equipment, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of this is for booms, and how much for the tug?


William Pugsley: It is estimated that the tug will cost $3,500, the booms $5,000 and $1,500 for chains and such appliances.


Mr. SMYTH.: What is the capacity of an alligator tug that will cost $3,500?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but I am informed that that is about what we paid for one previously.


William Ross Smyth: I have one of the largest alligator tugs made, and I can tell my hon. friend that I never had to pay for such a tug within $1,000 of what he estimates.


William Pugsley: What is your alligator tug worth?


William Ross Smyth: 


William Pugsley: What is the capacity.


William Ross Smyth: Fifty horse-power, and 1 think 62 feet long. I am doubtful if the minister knows what an alligator tug is?


William Pugsley: The minister knows more than you think.


William Ross Smyth: What is it?


William Pugsley: An alligator tug is a tug that goes over land and water; is that right?


William Ross Smyth: Quite right.


Richard Blain: Who manufactures tugs in Canada?


William Pugsley: I am unable to say. Mr. Howden, the superintendent of dredging, purchased the last one. Of course we will get it at the lowest price possible.
St. Maurice district-improvements to slide and boom works, &c., $40,000.


William Pugsley: Extensive pulp mills and other large manufacturing establishments on the St. Maurice river render these improvements absolutely essential.


William Ross Smyth: Are these cedar booms?


William Pugsley: Some; we use a good deal of British Columbia fir in them. They will be, speaking generally, 3 or 4 ply storage booms.
Chapeau bridge over the Culbute channel of the Ottawa river, $25,000.


William Pugsley: There was an appropriation of $15,000 made for this work at the last session of parliament, 'but we did' not use it. We have now let the contract, and we require this $25,009 to make payment. The province of Quebec contributes $5,000 towards the bridge.


Richard Blain: Is it a new structure?


William Pugsley: Yes, a traffic bridge


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is in the province of Quebec, I understand?


William Pugsley: It is to all intentions and purposes an interprovincial bridge. It is to replace an old bridge which -was built 40 years ago by the federal government and has been repaired from time to time since by that government. The Ottawa river at that point forms the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It happens that the Culbute channel over which the bridge is built is actually in the province of Quebec; but the other channel is in the province of Ontario, and there is a ferry from the island to the Ontario side, so that it is all one system of interprovincial communication.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to it, because if it is an interprovincial bridge, I think that fact would justify the expenditure; but I do not think the minister has admitted the principle that we should erect bridges over streams unless they are required for railways or something like that.


William Pugsley: The principle has been admitted for many years of constructing with federal money bridges which connect two provinces. In some cases the provincial authorities contribute and in some cases they do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that the federal government have granted subsidies, but I do not think they have taken the responsibility of building these bridges themselves.


William Pugsley: Yes, there are two or three on the Ottawa river which have been built by the federal government, including the Chaudiere bridge at Ottawa.
Courtenay bay-Marsh road-to provide for one-third of cost of rebuilding aboiteau on road to protect marsh and Intercolonial railway property at St. John, New Brunswick, the remaining two-thirds of cost to be contributed by provincial government and city of St. John, $8,000.


William Pugsley: This work is to be carried out by the city of St. John, and the cost is to be borne jointly by that city, the provincial government and the federal government, as all three bodies are interested-the city by reason of the bridge being within the city limits, the provincial government by reason of its being interested in the marsh road, which is a public highway, and the Dominion government by reason of the fact that the aboiteau prevents the tide flowing over the marsh and the Intercolonial railway property.


Richard Blain: Are public tenders invited for this work?


William Pugsley: Yes, by the city of St. John, which has awarded the contract accordingly, and when it completes the work we will pay our one-third.


Richard Blain: Has my hon. friend's department any inspection over the work?


William Pugsley: No. It is being done entirely by the city of St. John.
International bridge across the River St. John, between St. Leonard, New Brunswick, and Van Buren, Maine, the state of Maine contributing an equal amount, $37,500.


William Pugsley: This is to construct a bridge which is very much needed in the public interest, as there is a great, deal of intercourse carried on ferries at this point. The legislature of the state of Maine has passed a law engaging to contribute one-half the cost of this bridge, and we have thought it advisable in the public interest to contribute the other half.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this an ordinary traffic bridge or a railway bridge?


William Pugsley: It is an ordinary traffic bridge, and is to be free.


William Ross Smyth: Under which government is it constructed?


William Pugsley: It is to be constructed under a joint arrangement between the Department of Public Works here, and the Public Works Department of the state of Maine.
Interprovincial bridge across River Ottawa at Hawkesbury; the Ontario and Quebec governments to contribute each $15,000, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This bridge has been pressed upon our attention for a considerable time as being very necessary in the public interest. The total probable cost is $116,300.


Richard Blain: Who has charge of the construction?


William Pugsley: The Public Works Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This will be another free traffic bridge?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Yes.
Interprovincial bridge over Restigouche river at Metapedia; the local governments of Quebec and New Brunswick each to contribute $5,000, $25,000.
Mr. PUGiSLEY. Out of this vote we will use $14,705 to pay the Department of Railways for the iron that goes into the superstructure, and the balance will be used towards making a payment on the contract for the bridge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the total estimated cost?


William Pugsley: $62,705. It is a steel bridge with stone substructure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is going to be a free bridge too, I suppose?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Ottawa city-bridges over the Ottawa river, the slides and the Rideau canal and approaches thereto-ordinary repairs and renewals and maintenance, $12,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual amount required to make the ordinary repairs to the four bridges which we maintain.


Mr. U. WILSON.: Does the government maintain all bridges over the canal?


William Pugsley: Not all. The city of Ottawa has some bridges. I think these four bridges are all the government maintain. Of course the Railway Department may maintain some over the canal.


Uriah Wilson: Why do you maintain some bridges and not others?


William Pugsley: The Chaudiere bridge over the Ottawa is interprovincial. Some of the bridges over the canal were built many years ago by the government, and in 1882 an agreement was entered into by the late government that the government *should maintain these bridges; the government has recognized its obligations and has maintained them. As to new bridges which the city might construct a new rule would apply.


Uriah Wilson: The Laurier bridge?


William Pugsley: That was built by government 35 or 40 years ago, and replaced ten years ago.
Dominion traffic bridges throughout Canada, including approaches generally, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual vote to repair works of this character for which there is no special vote.


Mr. BURRELL.: I thought it was the policy of the government not to contribute anything towards bridges except to companies, that is, not to contribute to provincial government bridges. I understood

the minister took that stand in reference to bridge matters in British Columbia some time ago, but it is evident that the government have assumed financial responsibility-on a lot of provincial bridges which the provincial governments have been partially assisting, the great burden of the expense falling on the Federal government. I would like the minister to explain that in reference to his refusal to grant assistance in the British Columbia case some years ago. I think the matter came up in reference to the New Westminster bridge.


William Pugsley: British Columbia in this respect has been treated exactly the same as the other provinces of Canada, there has been no distinction. There have been applications from Ontario and other provinces. I think I remember an application from British Columbia and others from other provinces of Canada, but the government, ever since Confederation, has taken the view that where a bridge is wholly within a province, and cannot in any sense be regarded as interprovincial, it would not recognize that bridge as a Federal work or one that ought to be attended to by the Federal government, but rather that it was a matter for the provincial governments or municipalities to look after. In the case of interprovincial bridges a different view has prevailed. The practice ever since confederation has been for the Federal government to build interprovincial bridges, bridges across rivers connecting two provinces, or in some cases connecting Canada with the United States, the river being a boundary river. All these bridges for which votes have been asked to-night are interprovincial or international bridges. In that respect they differ entirely from the bridge at New Westminster, crosisng the Fraser river, which would be wholly within the province of British Columbia.'
Telegraph lines on north shore and islands of Lower St. Lawrence, &c.-improvement of repair service, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature of this line?


William Pugsley: It is very necessary for the Signal Service with reference to shipping, the weather reports, etc., but the country is not sufficiently thickly settled to make this a good commercial undertaking. The revenue in the province of Quebec last year was $11,168.80.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are other lines besides this?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: What was the expenditure?


William Pugsley: $31,965, that is outside altogether of the services of the cable ship.


Richard Blain: Is the revenue increasing, and the expenditure decreasing?


William Pugsley: It is keeping just about the same on each side.
Telegraph lines-Alberta and Saskatchewan, Edmonton-Athabaska telegraph lines-extension from Athabaska Landing towards Peace River Landing, via south side of Lesser Slave lake, $21,000.


William Pugsley: This is to extend the telegraph service from Edmonton to the north. A good many settlers are going into the Peace river country, and need a telegraph service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How.far did you extend this line last year?


William Pugsley: About 140 miles. It is 290 miles long altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you did 140 miles last year with $10,000, why do vou want $25,000 to do the balance?


William Pugsley: I should have said in the two years. In 1908 and 1909 we spent nearly $10,000, and during the year which closed.yesterday we spent $10,'l94. With this amount we ought to be able to finish it this year.
Moosejaw - Wood Mountain line-branch from Limerick to Gravelburg, $5,000.


Richard Blain: Are these lines constructed by public competition?


William Pugsley: We supply the wire ourselves, and put up the line, but we call for tenders for the poles. The construction is done by men employed under our own superintepdence.


Richard Blain: Would it not be better to ask for tenders for poles and wires, and construct the line?


William Pugsley: It is well to ask for tenders for poles, but I think the work can be done better and more cheaply by our own men. I think that is the way the telegraph companies construct their lines, they have their own crews.


Richard Blain: Are the rates fixed on the expenditure?	-


William Pugsley: We endeavour to fix them based somewhat upon the expenditure, but usually in comparison with what the companies charge on lines similarly situated.


Richard Blain: What is the total revenue and expenditure on all the government telegraph lines?


William Pugsley: The total revenue last vear was $113,175; the total expenditure, including the Yukon, was $474,845.


William Cameron Edwards: Are there any telegraph lines in Ontario?


William Pugsley: We have only one, the Pelee Island Tine, that is a telephone line.


EVVISED EDITION.
William Cameron Edwards: Have there never been any applications for such lines in the outlying portions of Ontario?


William Pugsley: Not since I have been minister.


Uriah Wilson: I want to know how these things are done. Is it by application made by certain municipalities or individuals, and what are the conditions on which grants of that kind are made? I know some outlying districts, for instance in my own riding, which are thirty-five or forty miles from a railway, and a good way from telephone lines. Now is there any possibility that the people of these districts would be'able to get a grant to assist them in building those lines?


William Pugsley: While there is no absolute rule, yet the principle upon which the government began to. act a great many years ago was that it was desirable in the public interest to give telegraphic communication to outlying, and remote sections of the country, more especially in the newer provinces, and in unsettled districts where lines would not likely be built by commercial companies. As to whether an application for a telephone or telegraph line in a well settled district, which is blessed by the presence of my hon. friend, should be granted I would have very grave doubts. I would hardly think that my hon. friend would seriously propose the construction of a line in a locality such as that. But out in British Columbia, in the thinly settled districts, in the Yukon, in the mountains, away down on the lower St. Lawrence, and in districts like that where there is no reasonable hope that at any time in the near future commercial companies will enter the field, the government is giving accommodation to the people.
. Mr. U. WILSON. I have not made myself clear to the hon. gentleman. He has described the conditions in that part of the country to which I am referring where they have no telegraph or telephone lines, where the country is sparsely settled, and the people are put to great inconvenience. This district is about ninety miles north of the county town. They have a cheese factory, and they cannot keep in touch with the prices unless they have telephonic or telegraphic communication. It is hardship enough that they have to draw their cheese thirty-five or forty miles to the railway station in order to get it to market, and if anything could be done to facilitate them in getting the market reports such as this government is doing for other localities, it seems to me that they have a strong claim.


William Pugsley: I suppose my hon. friend would not have any fear that the Mr. PUGSLEY.
question of provincial rights would be raised at once if the Dominion sought to invade that territory by building a telegraph or telephone line?


Uriah Wilson: I do not think that would trouble the Minister of Public Works very much. If it suited his purpose I think he would go on irrespective of provincial rights.	.
Telegraph lines, British Columbia-North Thompson Valley line-land line, Kamloops to Fennels-revote of lapsed amount, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is to construct a telephone line from Kamloops to Fennels on the north side of the Thompson river, sixty miles in length.


Martin Burrell: How much has been constructed?


William Pugsley: There cannot be a great deal, because we have only expended $446.41.


Martin Burrell: Is it expected to go on with the work?


William Pugsley: Yes, we expect to build sixty miles this year. .
Kamloops-Okanagan Valley telephone line - additional wiring between Kelowna and Penticton and overhauling and strengthening line, $7,600.


William Pugsley: This line is 42h miles in length, and it will cost $160 a mile.


Martin Burrell: That is rewiring.


William Pugsley: We want to give a separate circuit independent of the telegraph system. This work has been asked for by the Penticton Board of Trade, and recommended by our superintendent there.


William Cameron Edwards: Are we to understand that this is a very sparsely settled district?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is. My hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Burrell) would know better about it than I. The section is beginning to fill up rapidly.


Martin Burrell: Communication is partly by road, and partly by water, and the situation is extremely difficult.


William Pugsley: You will go many miles there without seeing a house?


Martin Burrell: There was a matter that I brought to the attention of the minister last December that I would like to mention again. I would like to know whether it is possible to have an extension of the Okanagan system or rather to construct a branch from Kamloops over to the Okanagan away entirely from the railway system and over a country that is never likely to be reached by the railway.


William Pugsley: Is that from Kamloops?


Martin Burrell: Yes. From Kamloops, passing through Duck's, Grand Prairie, Glenemma, Faulkland, and Hullcar to the Armstrong district. That is a country in the railway belt that is beginning to be settled and where a large number of people can be served in no other way than by a telephone line. I hope the minister has taken that into his favourable consideration and I trust that there will be a possibility of having that line constructed at the earliest possible date.


William Pugsley: I am impressed with the desirability of this work. I think my attention was called to it by Senator Bos-toek some time ago. As I understand this will give a short cut across the country and give accommodation to a large number of people. Recognizing the possibility that there will be some supplementary estimates I have had this line noted and I am not without hope that I may succeed in getting an appropriation for the purpose and that the work will go ahead this season.


Martin Burrell: 
William Pugsley: The condition of the settlefs in that district appeals to me, but I understand this work would be quite expensive, as the country is very mountain ous.


Martin Burrell: It is not so mountainous there.
Mr. PUGSLEY7. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) that his remarks about the settlers will have my earnest consideration, and it is only the question of expense that would deter me from taking necessary steps to extend the line in that direction.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not wish to be understood as objecting to such expenditure as this, but I do impress on the minister that we have in the province of Ontario numerous instances which are just as much entitled to receive assistance of this kind. In many places in eastern Ontario, the country is Tough and sparsely settled, and there is no inducement for a private company to undertake a telephone or telegraph service. The people are badly in need of such a service, and I may tell the minister that in all probability he will have applications in this direction pressed upon him in the near future.
Kamloops-Okanagan Y'alley telephone line, exchange at Merritt, $2,250.


Martin Burrell: I suppose that this work will be gone on with this summer?


William Pugsley: Yes.
National Art Gallery, Ottawa, including the purchase of paintings by the Advisory Council of Art, $10,000.


Richard Blain: How are these pictures purchased?


William Pugsley: By the Advisory Art Council, which did consist of the late Sir George Drummond, Mr. Byron Walker and Senator Boyer. On the death of Sir George Drummond, Dr. Shepherd, a very eminent surgeon of Montreal, and who is, I believe, a very good judge of paintings, kindly consented to take the vacancy. These gentlemen give the benefit of their judgment and knowledge to the country free of charge.
Monument to the memory of the late Hon. George Brown, $10,000.


Uriah Wilson: Where will this monument be placed?


William Pugsley: In Ottawa, but we have not yet determined on the locality.


Richard Blain: You have been neglecting the memory of this gentleman for many

years. Why was nothing done when the money was voted last year?


William Pugsley: The sculptor is at work, but we did not make any payment last year.
Monument to the memory of the late Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, $10,000.


David Henderson: Can the minister say whether this statue will be placed on Parliament hill, or near the Laurier hotel. I see the volunteers' monument is to-day placed at the rear oi the hotel, and I impe these statues will not be given any such \ site as that.


William Pugsley: These monuments will be located on the advice of the Advisory Art Council. It is rather believed by myself and the members of the government generally that the monument of the late Thomas D'Arcy McGee will be placed on the proposed plaza which is to be built between the two bridges, opposite the station and hotel.


David Henderson: I suppose that D'Arcy McGee being an Irishman, you are following the example of the city of Dublin which placed the statue of Daniel O'Connell in the middle of Sackville street. But, I should think that the services rendered by D'Arcy McGee entitled his statue to a better location than in the middle of a street.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The new statue of Shakespeare, one of the finest in Paris, is right in the middle of a street.


David Henderson: Well, I am not sure that it is always safe to take Paris as a model.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The statute of Lincoln in New York is in the middle of a street.


David Henderson: I never was in New York, and I only speak of what I know. It is quite possible that the statue may be placed in the middle of a street, but for my part I would rather see the monument of McGee on Parliament hill.


William Pugsley: The plaza will be very beautiful, and I think it will be a good location for that statue.


Mr. BLACK.: I think we should follow the example of some of these eminent statesmen and not talk so much, and let us get through the business of the House.


David Henderson: I did not hear what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) said; did he reflect in any way on the statement I made?


Judson Burpee Black: Not at all. I think Thomas D'Arcy McGee was entitled to whatever honour we can do him.


William Cameron Edwards: Notwithstanding what the hon. member (Mr. Black) says, I Mr. BLAIN.
think this is a matter of sufficient importance to occupy us for a few moments. The name of Thomas D'Arcy McGee is inseparably connected with the history of Canada, and he is -worthy of any honour we can confer upon his memory. In view of the political services of Thomas D'Arcy McGee to Canada and his high position as a statesman, it seems to me that his statue should be erected upon Parliament hill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In suggesting that D'Arcy McGee's statue should be erected on the plaza opposite the post office, there was no ! idea that it would be in any less distinguished position than if it were erected on Parliament hill. For example, in London, on Parliament square, which is across from the parliament buildings, there are a great number of monuments of the most din-tinguished men in the history of the empire. There are at present a good many monuments on Parliament hill, and in my view it is quite possible that the plaza opposite the post office, being in the most frequented part of the capital of the Dominion, is a no less distinguished position. I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) that Thomas D'Arcy McGee was one of the most distinguished men in the history of our country, and that the tragic manner in which he met his death in consequence of one of the most patriotic stands that ever a statesman took in the history of Canada, entitles his memory to the highest repect we can pay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am afraid that if the hon. minister carries out his intention he may find himself somewhat in the position of the tourist, who, when driving around the Lakes of Killarney, asked the cabman what was the height of a particular monument, and the cabman replied: 'I think it is the height of damn nonsense to put it there,, because I run against it every time I drive around it.'
Monument to the memory of the late Sir L. H. Lafontaine and the late Robert Baldwin, $20,000.


Mr. McCALL.: Is it the intention of the government to honour other Canadian statesmen, and if so, to what extent?


William Pugsley: I should think that from time to time it would be the duty of this government or of any government which might be in power to do honour in the same way to other eminent statesmen.


Alexander McCall: Is it likely to include the men of to-day?


David Henderson: The Minister of Public Works, for instance.


William Pugsley: I would rather hope that my hon. friend would become so distinguished in the service of his country that he would be deemed by the govern-

ment of his country worthy of a high place on parliament hill or on the plaza.
Grant towards the erection of a memorial at or near Brantford to commemorate the invention of the telephone, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much are these monuments expected to costr


William Pugsley: The amount fixed in the contract for the monument for Hon. Geo. Brown is $10,000. It is expected that this monument at Brantford will cost about $40,000. Our contribution will not exceed $10,000.


William Cameron Edwards: Of the other monuments, the government is bearing the whole ccst?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If $10,000 will build each of the other monuments, how does this one come to cost $40,000?


William Pugsley: We have nothing to do with that. The people of Brantford, taking a pride in their fellow-citizen,, Prof. Bell, who invented the telephone, and desirous of erecting a monument in commemoration of his great work, estimate that it will cost about $42,000.


Richard Blain: When will it be completed?


William Pugsley: I presume that it is very nearly completed, because the secretary of the committee has called on us for the payment of the last half of our contribution.
Contribution towards the erection of a memorial to Sir Leonard Tilley at St. John, New Brunswick, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is being erected by a committee of citizens, who received subscriptions. The provincial government is contributing $2,50(1 and we think it not unreasonable that we should make a contribution of $4,000 towards this monument in memory of one whose public services were so great and who occupied such a commanding position as Sir Leonard Tilley.


David Henderson: I confess that when I read the words, 'a contribution towards the erection of a monument,5 I did not like it. It seemed to me that, considering the great work of Sir Leonard Tilley in this country, he had just as much right to be remembered by this parliament as some of those whose names have been mentioned, and I would have preferred to have seen this government erect a monument to the memory of Sir Leonard Tilley. He has erected a monument for himself, a monument that will last as long as this country lasts.


William Pugsley: I ought to explain, for the information of my hon. friend and the
committee, that this work of erecting a monument to Sir Leonard Tilley was taken in hand a few years ago, and it is intended to erect it, not here in the capital of the country, but in the city of St. John; and the chairman of the committee communicated with this government and asked us to make a contribution. We are doing exactly what the committee appeared to prefer that we should do. I think it would not be doing justice to the feelings of the friends of Sir Leonard Tilley if we were to attempt to take the matter out of their hands.


Richard Blain: Did they name the amount?


William Pugsley: Yes, and we quite fulfilled their expectations as to that; we have even done a little better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This monument is in Sir Leonard Tilley's own province, but I think he was a man prominent enough in the history of his country, and he did sufficient in his day to entitle his name to be honoured by the erection of a monument here at the capital, where he did his great work, and where he was one of the prominent figures in the .national life of this country.


David Henderson: If the city of St. John is erecting a monument to Sir Leonard Tilley, I think the minister might well consider the propriety of erecting one at the capital.


William Pugsley: The matter is worthy of consideration, and I have no doubt the government will carefully weigh the suggestion of my hon. friend.
Construction of water-storage dams and regulation works on the Upper Ottawa river and tributaries, $175,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the very important work of erecting storage dams upon the head waters of the Ottawa with a view to holding back the flood waters in order to increase the flow of the river Ottawa during the dry season. It will greatly increase the flow past the city, add very largely to the water-power, and greatly improve the navigation.


Uriah Wilson: Is there not plenty of water-power now?


William Pugsley: Not at low water.


Alexander McCall: At what points is it proposed to build?


William Pugsley: We are building dams at the foot of Lake Timiskaming, on Lake Keepawa, on Lake Quinze and on two other lakes, and we have under consideration a project of diverting into the Ottawa valley system one of the rivers which now flows northwards. I believe a great increase of flow can be got from that source


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the whole undertaking expected to cost?


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $600,-
000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that you spent $65,000 in the current year. How has that been spent?


William Pugsley: Under contract, after public tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And I presume it is intended to spend the money now being voted in the same way.


William Pugsley: Yes, on the contracts now let.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $170,000.


William Pugsley: This year we require $25,000 more than we took last year, owing to the increased number of employees, as well as some increases in salaries. The work of the department is growing very rapidly.


Richard Blain: What increases in salaries are there?


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me to give him the detail of that at a later date? I haven't it to-night.
Deep Waterways Commission, inclusive of payments authorized to Wm. J. Stewart, chief hydrographic surveyor, Department of Marine and I'isheries, as member of the Board of Commissioners; also for the definition and demarcation of the international boundary between the United States and Canada from Pigeon river to St. Regis, as provided for by article 4 of the treaty of April 11, 1908, $50,000.


William Pugsley: I presume the committee are very familiar with the work of the International Waterways Commission. This amount has been asked for by the commission who state that it will be all required during the current year.


Richard Blain: What salary does the chairman receive?


William Pugsley: Fifty dollars a day for the days he is actually engaged upon the work.	[DOT]


Richard Blain: How many days was that last year?


William Pugsley: I have not the amounts paid to the different commissioners, but the total amount paid as salaries to all the commissioners, and to the secretary was $9,948.47.


Richard Blain: I think the chairman received about $3,000.
International Commission, River St. John, New Brunswick, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is to pay the expenses of a commission sitting jointly with Mr. PUGSLEY
a commission appointed by the government of the United States to consider the question of obstructions to the St. John river, made by a company incorporated by the legislature of the state of Maine. Since the commission was appointed the scope of their inquiry has been enlarged, and they are considering the question of the feasibility of storing waters at the headwaters of the River St. John, and its tributaries with a view to improving navigation, and to see if by means of improving the navigation the injury caused by obstructions, booms and piers, on the American side, might not be obviated or lessened. They are also dealing with the diversion of the waters of the Allegash river from the St. John river into the Penobscot river, which was done some years ago by people in the state of Maine. The work of the commission is very important, and we are asking this amount towards paying their expenses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they considering how far those obstructions are a violation of the Ashburton treaty?


William Pugsley: That comes within the scope of their duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they any power to determine matters that will be binding on their government?


William Pugsley: No, their report would not bind the governments, but no doubt it would have''great weight with the two governments, particularly if it should be unanimous. The primary object of the appointment is of course to inquire into all the facts so as to present a full report, which could be relied upon, to the government of the United States, and to the government of Canada.
Lake Nipissing-water level controlling dams -to provide for payment of claims for flooded lands, $10,000.


William Ross Smyth: Is that at the lower end of Lake Nipissing?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Has the minister made up his mind as to whether he is going to do that little bit of dredging work over at Wolfe island?


William Pugsley: No, I have not,


William Cameron Edwards: Would the minister say whether he is likely to make it up in the near future?


William Pugsley: That is a difficult question to answer. The work asked for i3 essentially an improvement of private property, dredging immediately in front of a privately owned dock. My hon. friend will see that if I were to do that I would not be free from criticism from his own side of the House, unless he exercised a very

controlling influence over some hon. gentlemen who sit near him.


William Cameron Edwards: I think I can give an assurance that he will not be severely criticised from this side of the House. While I do not profess to control members, I think I can give that assurance with every confidence. As to its being a private wharf, the minister is right to a certain extent; it is private owned, but it is used by the public to a very great extent. The advantage to the public would be about sixty cents or seventy cents a ton on all the coal they use. I understand the municipality would go to the expense of putting up a coal shed so that this little bit of dredging, costing $200 or $300, would enable the coal barges to unload right at the wharf. I do not think the minister would be criticised from this side, he certainly would not receive any severe criticism from the people in that locality if he made that expenditure.


William Pugsley: While I have every confidence in the good faith of my hon. friend, it would give me more confidence in the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite if I were to hear from the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) because he is leading the opposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can assure the hon. minister he will not encounter any criticism from the hon. member from Grey regarding it.


William Pugsley: We have advanced quite a long distance. I find hon.. gentlemen opposite are quite prepared to support the expenditure of government money on what are absolutely private wharfs, and certainly, that being so, I will be called upon to give the matter even more careful consideration than I have done hitherto. I cannot promise my hon. friend, but I will take the matter into consideration.


David Henderson: I do not wish to raise any objection to this expenditure, but I think the minister is putting a wrong construction on what is said by the member for Grey, and the member for Fronte-nac. What they referred to was this specific case, not generally speaking.


William Pugsley: A principle is a principle. If it is good for one case, it is good for another.


David Henderson: Providing the conditions are always alike.


William Pugsley: If a wharf is a privately owned wharf.


David Henderson: Used by the public.


William Pugsley: Yes, every privately owned wharf is used by the public.


William Cameron Edwards: Without tolls, largely without tolls.


William Pugsley: Largely without tolls. There is a modification there.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to be fair, and I think there have been many instances where grants have been made for which there was less justification than in this case.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that it would be a new departure on the part of my hon. friend if an expenditure of this kind were made?


William Pugsley: There would be ground for criticism. It would not be unreasonable that I should be criticised for making improvements to what w'as really a private wharf owned by a private individual, who often collects tolls for the use of that wharf. It is often difficult to diraw the line. There would be criticism in this case, because the work is not a large one, and the public might well say that the owner of this wharf might have this dredging done at his own expense, that it was only a matter of two or three hundred dollars, and why should the government spend public money to improve this property? That is the criticism that would be made. But it has been done in cases where the public receive larger accommodation, as, for instance, improving a channel in front of a railway wharf, there, of course, the interests of the railway company come in, and the transportation interests in which the public is concerned. However, in this case the wharf is owned by a private individual, and he would receive the benefit of the government's expenditure. The amount is not large. I say again in perfect good faith that I am considering the matter, and I have not yet decided whether I can do it or not.


William Cameron Edwards: If we can get an assurance, or a written undertaking, from the owner of this wharf, that no toll will be charged to coal vessels, that is to say, that that part of the wharf will be absolutely free-


William Pugsley: What about the rest of the traffic?


William Cameron Edwards: That is unloaded on a different part of the wharf. I have no doubt the owner of this wharf will sell to the government at a very reasonable figure, yet it is a government owned wharf. It would be rather a unique experience for that part of the country.


William Pugsley: No, in Ontario there is a large number of government owned wharfs.	,


Richard Blain: My question was as to whether the department has not in the past expended money upon private wharfs in the province of Ontario and other parts of Canada.


William Pugsley: I thought I answered that fairly. ^


Richard Blain: My hon. friend made an explanation, but failed to touch the point. I will repeat the question. Has not his department in the past expended money upon private wharfs, both in Ontario and in other provinces?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of the government expending money on private wharfs in the sense in which this is a private wharf. Would my hon. friend point out a particular instance?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a case at Sault Ste. Marie where the government has done dredging in front of a wharf to allow vessels to get up to the wharf.


William Pugsley: In that case the wharf was bought by the government, and improvements were made after the government became the owner of the property. That is what the chief engineer tells me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell both the chief engineer and the minister that money was spent there several times before the wharf was owned by the government.


William Pugsley: That might have been under the old administration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there is a case at Orillia, and another in front of Barrie, and I think there is another at Little Current, or some where on the Manitoulin island.


William Pugsley: A short time ago I had an application from an owner of a wharf in or near the city of Ottawa to do some dredging, and I said I would do it if the owner would pay so much for the dredging. I think I gave directions to the chief engineer to charge a reasonable price for the work. I happen to have owned, with two or three other gentlemen, a wharf in the city of St. John; we wanted some dredging done by the government, and we had to pay the actual cost of operating the dredge, I think some $40 or $50 a day, while the dredge was doing work in front of this wharf.
Compensation to Sydney J. Dale in full of all demands for injuries sustained by him on the government dredge ' Nakusp,' in June, 1907, whilst employed as deckhand-revote of $500 lapsed, $1,000.


William Pugsley: I asked for a vote of $500 in 1908, but Mr. Dale, acting on the advice of his _ friends, declined to accent it. After looking carefully into the circumstances of the case I have decided to recommend a vote of $1,000 to this unfortunate man.


Richard Blain: j Mr. EDWARDS. To what extent was he | injured?


William Pugsley: When he was working on the dredge 'Naskusp', at Revelstoke, he received such injury to his arm that it had to be amputated. On the occasion of the same accident Captain Baker lost his life. It occurred whilst the crew of the dredge were installing a new main guy line. Of course, the question arose as to whether there was liability on the part of the government and on looking into the whole case and after consulting with the deputy minister and the chief engineer I decided that it would be right to compensate this man to the extent of $1,000.


William Cameron Edwards: Do I understand that on looking into the matter you considered the government was liable and that an action for damages might be made good by this'man?


William Pugsley: Mr. Dale did commence suit by petition of right and on looking into the matter I thought the case was, at all events, so doubtful as that it would be in the interest of the public that we should make a settlement. I also felt that even if we might defeat the man's claim in a court of law, he had a strong equitable claim. He probably had a legal claim, hut he certainly had a strong moral claim.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume this man is the head of a family and that his family depend upon him for their living. If the government considered thev were liable for the damage done to this man I think it is dealing in a pretty small way to give him $1,000 compensation for the loss of his arm. A man's arm ought to be worth more than that to him. It the government are liable at all he should receive more than -$1,000.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


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


William Stevens Fielding: I think we shall take up a number of Bills which stand on the order paper. Private Bills have priority and after that we shall deal with a number of minor Bills which stand on the order paper. If we reach Supply my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works will continue. There are several Bills on the order paper which, I think, are hardly controversial and we would like to be able to call up any of them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p. m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 4, 1910.