1916-04-27

THE DEBATES COMMITTEE.

Mr. SCHAFFNER moved:: That the first report of the Select Standing-Committee on the official report of the Debates, recommending- that it be granted leave to sit while the House is in session, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in .the eighth report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the charge of $200 levied1 on Bill No. 88, letter X of the Senate, intituled, an Act to incorporate the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Bible Society, he refunded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. TURRIFF:: How much was paid to the Victoria Transfer Company, of Victoria, B.C., for services rendered to the various federal departments at that city for the years 1912-13, 1S13-14, 191415, 1915-16?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Customs Department:
Year.
1912-	13	
1913-	14	
1914-	15	
1915-	16	
Marine Department:
Year.	Amount.
1912- 13	 $ 76 20
1913-	14	' 72 011914-	15	
199	321915-	16	
96	95
Militia and Defence Department:
Year.	Amount.
1912- 13	 nil.
1913- 14	$	82 801914-	15	
1,183	821915-	16	
1,988	76
Naval Service Department:
Year.	Amount.
1912-	13	
$331	051913-	14	
473	301914-	15	
330	401915-	16	
112	15
Public Works Department:
Year.	Amount.
1912- 13	$ 8 70
1913-	14	
85	301914-	15	
179	051915-	16	
13	33

Amount. . nil.
. nil.
[DOT]	$136
.	91
Post Office Department:
Under per- Under tem-manent	porary	Total,
contract. arrangement.
1912-	13..
1913-	14..
1914-	15..
1915-	16..

The service to the railway stations is performed under permanent contract, service to the different wharves under temporary arrangement. Owing to the frequent changes in the running of the steamers and the consequent irregularity of the service, it is not possible to make permanent contracts for the services between the post office and
the wharves.
These services at Victoria have Been operated in this manner for over fifteen years.


R. ROBSON BLACK.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: 1.	Has R. Robson Black been appointed inspector of Cadets in Nova Scotia? If so, at what date?
2.	What has been his military experience, his personal or technical qualifications for such position, his rank, and his rate of pay?
3.	How much has he been paid for such services since his appointment?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	He has been detailed to perform the duties, temporarily, of Organizer and Inspector of Cadet Corps, Military District No. 6, from the 18th January, 1916.
2.	Prov. Lieut. (Supy) 14tli Hrs, 24-8-11, G.
O.	111-15. (Detailed temp, as O.I.C.C., 6th Div., 28-1-16, M. O. 66-16). Qualifications: Lieutenant, Infantry, M. O. 485-15. Captain, Infantry, M. O. 542-15. Field Officer, Infantry, M. O. 21-16. Pay $5 per diem; allowances, $1 per diem. Total, $6 per diem. This is the ordinary pay of an Inspector of Cadets (see Article 470, P. & A. Regulations, 1914.)
3.	To 31st March, $444.


OKANAGAN INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has a right of way through the Okanagan Indian reserve been purchased by the Canadian Northern Railway Company?
2.	If so, what was the price?
3.	When was the money paid?
4.	To whom was it paid?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes, by the Canadian Northern Pacific Railway Company.
2.	$4,695.15.
3.	28th September, 1914.
4.	To the Department of Indian Affairs; $4,219.19 was paid out by the department to individual Indians for improvements on

right of way, and $475.96 was placed to the credit of band funds.


ALLEGED ENLISTMENT OP FOREIGN LABOURERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: I would like to draw the attention of the Government, particularly of the Minister of the Interior, to a rather serious matter in connection with a statement alleged to have been made by the American Consul in Vancouver. I shall read a despatch from Portland, Oregon, that appears in a Vancouver paper, which will explain the situation pretty fully:
Portland, Ore., April 18.-The charge that American labourers are being induced to migrate to Canada on the promise of lucrative employment and then are forced by the pressure of the authorities and of the circumstances by which they find themselves surrounded to enlist in Great Britain's overseas army, is made by the United States Department of Labour Bureau of Immigration in a bulletin which was issued here to-day by the local immigration commissioner.
Quoting from the report of the American consul-general at Vancouver, B.C., the bulletin says:
" Special efforts are being made to induce every foreigner of military age to enlist for the overseas service and it is practically impossible for an American to secure employment in any capacity. Several thousands of Americans have gone from British Columbia to the United States during the past year, a majority of whom went for the reason they were unable to do business or secure employment and some because of the endeavour on the part of the authorities to enlist them for military service."
Then the grossly false and misleading statement is made that thousands of men are idle in Vancouver, and that a propaganda is being carried on in the United States to induce Americans to emigrate to Canada for the ostensible purpose of securing employment, etc. The statement made by this American Consul-General at Vancouver that the Canadian military authorities are using undud pressure to force foreigners to serve in what he calls Britain's overseas army I characterize as absolutely false. I wish to draw the attention of the Government to this statement, and to the indignation of the people, particularly of my own city of Vancouver, in regard to the matter. An editorial appearing in the Vancouver World of April 19, referring to this despatch, is in part as follows:
There is only one course for the citizens of British Columbia to pursue in the case of Mr. Rjbrt E. Mansfield, the American consul here -that is demand his immediate recall.
In asserting that American labourers are being induced to come to Canada on the promise of lucrative employment and are then
forced by " pressure of the authorities " to enlist in what he ' erroneously styles " Great Britain's Overseas Army," the American consul states what is absolutely false, what he must know to be false and what is an insult to every true Canadian. The World yesterday invited Mr. Mansfield to explain his assertion, but he declared he had "nothing to say."
* So far from labourers being invited to enter British Columbia, they have been specifically barred out.
The American Consul knows this fact as well as any one. That he should make such a statement as "a propaganda is being carried on through the press and other channels in the United States to induce Americans to migrate to Canada for the ostensible purpose of securing employment ", but really in order to be pressed into " Great Britain's Overseas' Army ", is so preposterous that it carries its own refutation with it.
The people of Canada-and of British Columbia in particular-are always glad to welcome the official representatives of our great neighbour to the South. Almost without exception they have upheld the traditions of their office and conducted their affairs with fairness and courtesy. It has been left for Mr. Mansfield to asperse this country and to misrepresent conditions here in the most glaring fashion. His recall will be the best solution of the very painful situation in which he has placed himself.
I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the Government and to ask if any steps have been taken, or any representations made to the Government at Washington. with a view to securing a correction of these statements, which are grossly misleading and libellous, so far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, and, I believe, are wilfully and maliciously false.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: Mr. Speaker, this matter was
brought to my personal- attention for the first time yesterday, owing to an article that, I believe, appeared first in the Chicago Tribune as the result of an interview with the United States Immigration Commissioner in that city, based upon a circular which he states he received from Washington to the effect indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver. Immediately on hearing of this article the Superintendent of Immigration communicated with our immigration agent at Vancouver, and asked him to interview the United States Consul General in Vancouver as to the accuracy of the -statements attributed to him. He did so, and the United States Consul General in Vancouver refused to either confirm or deny the statements until he saw the particular specified articles based on the statements attributed to him. Since that time our agent has been more than once communicated with, and asked to again interview the Consul General- in Van-

couver, and to obtain his confirmation or denial. The statements contained in the article are certainly not warranted by the facts, or by the conditions in the province of British Columbia. We have communicated, also, with, the United States Immigration Commissioner in Montreal, who does not at all agree with such articles,' and has communicated his views on the matter to his Government at Washington. I understand that a circular was sent out from Washington, said to be based upon reports made by the Consul General located at Vancouver, but as far as unemployment is concerned in British Columbia and Vancouver, our reports are to the effect that comparatively little unemployment existed there. During January and' February, which would be the most likely months, in the midst of winter, for unemployment to prevail, only 285 individuals had applied to the city for relief. This is not more than a normal number during any winter in normal times, in a city the size of Vancouver. I should be very sorry, indeed, to think that the consul representing the United States in Vancouver would be the author o.f these misrepresentations:, and it is only right to afford him a final opportunity of denying or confirming the statements, which, no doubt, by this time have been placed before him. We have had a great demand in western Canada, as well as in eastern Canada, for farm labourers, and the propaganda we have been carrying on in the United States in order to secure these men has been twisted and distorted 'by interested parties in the United States, to prevent their people from migrating to Canada, warning them that if they came to this country they would most likely be subject to conscription, and might be pressed into the army for war purposes. Such are the representations we have had to contend against in the United States for some time past. However, in a day or so, probably to-morrow, we shall have fuller information on the subject. In the meantime we are endeavouring to correct this erroneous impression.	*


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. GRAHAM:: During the debate on the Quebec and Saguenay railway the other evening, in an aside remark which I made, and which evidently did not escape the sharp ears of the press gallery, I referred to the road as the Forget-Choquette rail-

way. To this Senator Choquette takes strong exception, and he assures me that he has no financial interest in the Quebec and Saguenay Railway Company. I make this explanation in justice to him.


BANK LOANS TO FARMERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Thomas White for the first reading of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 33, to amend the Bank Act:
George Perry Graham: What are these amendments?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The Senate has made three amendments of a very minor character. The most important amendment provides that in addition to advertising the sale of the pledged live stock in the newspapers, a notice should also be posted at the post office nearest the place where the sale is to be made. The other amendments are of minor consequence, one of them being to meet the analogy of procedure under the 'Civil Code. The other is merely a verbal change.


George Perry Graham: I presume that the first amendment, which is to- increase the efficiency of the advertising of sale, is of chief importance.


William Thomas White: The amendment reads:
Notice of the time and place of such sale shall appear in a newspaper published in or nearest the place where the sale is to be made, and a notice shall be posted in writing or in print of the time and place of such sale in or at the post office nearest the place where the sale is to be made.
Amendment concurred in


William Thomas White: Subsection 19 of section 2 of the Act provides that the bank shall have authority, in the event of default, to take possession of, seize, and sell the live stock. The words "seize and sell" have been struck out, and the following substituted:
or seize such live-stock and before or after such taking possession of or seizure, to sell.
I think the change was made at the instance of Senator Beiqu-e, who, I understand, is a gentleman of high standing at the Bar, 'and it is evidently to meet the analogy of procedure under the Civil Code. I see no objection to it.
Amendments concurred in.


BOUNTIES ON ZINC.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 94, to provide for the payment of bounties on zinc produced from zinc ores mined in Canada-Sir Thomas Whiteread the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.	-
On section 2-bounty on zinc produced in . Canada -when price is less than £36 19s. 3d. per ton:
William Thomas White: I have an amendment to propose. I move that in line 7, after the word " spelter," the following words be inserted: "in cakes, blocks, or pigs."


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What is the
object of this amendment?


William Thomas White: 
Mr. NESBITT:: That is so far as the
bounty applies to the minimum price.


William Thomas White: Yes:


Mr. OLIVER:: If it is sheet zinc, and the bounty is on zinc, unless it is specifically excluded, it would come under the provision for the bounty.


William Thomas White: I do not quite
understand the point my hon. friend is making. The bounty will apply when the price of zinc in cakes, blocks, or pigs falls below 8 cents per pound. Then there is a provision that the zinc or spelter shall contain not more than two per cent of impurities. It must be produced in Canada and the zinc ores must be mined in Canada. The price of zinc in cakes, Blocks, or pigs is higher than the price of zinc in sheets, and it is only when the higher price falls below 8 cents per pound that the bounty will apply, and then it is to be paid upon zinc or spelter containing not more than 2 per cent of impurities, and produced in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Under this amendment,
we do not apply any minimum price to sheet zinc.


William Thomas White: We are not dealing with sheet zinc. As I have said, the price of sheet zinc is lower than that of zinc in cakes, blocks, or pigs, and it is when the latter price falls below 8 cents per pound that the bounty is payable. I think the Bill is all right.


Frank Oliver: I did not have the Bill
before me, but I thought the point should be called to the attention of the minister. If he is satisfied that the words are apt for the purpose, I am perfectly satisfied.
Section, amended as proposed, agreed to.
Bill reported and amendment concurred in.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
To cover unprovided items, 1914-15, as per Auditor General's Report, part B, page 3 191415, $228,664.18.
['No, the contract has not yet been awarded. My hon. friend is aware of the fact that there has been a great deal of pressure for the construction of this bridge. It has been the desire of the department to proceed with the work, but there was some delay in the beginning of 1914, and from that time on we have not undertaken to let the contract, much as we have been pressed to do so, and much as we appreciate the necessity for this bridge. I hope that the time will not be far distant when we shall be able to carry out this work, but I would not like to promise it for the coming summer.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.\nFriday, April 28. 1916.']
William Thomas White: When this item was under consideration last evening, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) asked me to place upon Hansard an explanation of it. My deputy minister has given me this memorandum on the subject:
In the Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1916, recently brought down in the House, there is an item [DOT] " To cover unprovided items 1914-15 as per Auditor General's Report, Part B, page 3, 1914-15 $228,664.18."
At the end of each fiscal year, when the expenditures under the innumerable appropriations are finally adjusted, it has always been found that here and there throughout the service there have been small over-expenditures. These are all reported in the Auditor General's Report as indicated in the item above, and a sum inserted in the supplementary estimates at the next session to legalize the total amount of these over-expenditures. While in the total appropriations of a department there may be large amounts unexpended, if there is any over-expenditure in a sub-head of the total vote, such over-expenditure is reported by the Auditor General.
The total amount of $228,664.18 is made up of amounts from 43 cents upward. In large and varied services these over-expenditures are discovered too late to enable a supplementary estimate to be taken for the year's accounts in which the outlay has been made. For example, in the accounts of 1914-15, which were not closed until long after the session of 1915, it was impossible to get a supplementary estimate at the time the over-expenditure was discovered. Frequently, too, the circumstances change between the taking of an estimate, and the expenditures occur in such a way as to effect the sub-votes to which an outlay is

charged. The unprovided items are all set forth in detail in the Auditor General's Report, as indicated in the vote in the Supplementary Estimates.
With this explanation the item might be allowed to pass.
Grant to the National Battlefields Commission, $34,160.


William Thomas White: The hon. member tor South Renfrew asked that this item be allowed to stand until to-day. I pointed out last night that provision had been made for maintenance only. A question was asked, I think by the hon. member for St. John, as to why there was an increase in this item. I might point out that the Estimates for 1915-16 included an item of $100,000 to be expended in laying out and constructing a park on the battlefields of Quebec, and other items covering expenses of administration, and maintenance of the Battlefields park and of the Martello tower. This year, on account of the burden of the war and the desire to keep expenses within bounds, we have asked the Battlefields Commission to curtail their expenses as much as is reasonably possible, and as a result we have the estimate contained in this item. It is not the intention of the commission, I understand, to acquire new property during the coming year.


Wilfrid Laurier: This commission has done excellent work so far, and work of extreme importance towards preserving the history of the Plains of Abraham. Every stranger coming to Quebec inquires where Wolfe's army landed, -and where the battle took place. At present it is impossible to get access to the spot where Wolfe's army landed, because you have to go through private property belonging now to Les Dames de la Congregation. I know that the commission has it in mind to acquire a piece of property on which to construct a road along the cliff up to Wolfe's Cove, where the troops landed and climbed up to the Plains. Of course this will cost money, but not very much, and although we must economize in those times, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the longer We postpone acquiring this property, the more we may have to pay for it. I hope my hon. friend will place in his next Estimates the small sum necessary to acquire, that land.


William Thomas White: I am very glad indeed to have the benefit of the views of my right hon. friend, and I shall be very glad to give the matter my attention. After 
all, a few thousand dollars is neither here nor there in Dominion finance, and I am entirely in sympathy with having the work completed. As my right hon. friend says, the place to which he has referred is historic, and there is no desire on my part to curtail the work of the commission. On the contrary I have supported them ever since I have been minister, and our relations have been entirely satisfactory. I had the opportunity some time ago of going over the work, and I was very much impressed with what had been done. I shall be very glad to see whether we cannot act upon my right hon. friend's representations.
Public Works

Cow bay (Port Morien)-repairs to breakwater, $2,200.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I would just like to
say this, for fear that the minister may take our silence as a consent to the passing of all these Estimates, that I and others upon this side of the House have stated our objection, and I do not think it is necessary further to press the objection to these items, but I will give notice that when the resolutions come up for concurrence, there will be a motion moved that the total amount of the Estimates be reduced by $10,000,000. It will save a great' deal of time to make that statement.


Mr. ROGERS:: My hon. friend has already made a motion for the reduction of the Estimates.


William Pugsley: Not for the total
amount.


Robert Rogers: I hope he is not going to press a second one.


William Pugsley: My intention is to move one on concurrence.


Mr. MARCIL:: Does the minister contemplate spending all these various amounts or are they put in the Estimates merely for effect?


Robert Rogers: Probably my hon. friend was not here the other night when we discussed that particular point.


Charles Marcil: I do not want the minister to go over it again; I just want a brief statement.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will observe that in a number of cases the same amount appears * in the three columns and in such cases there is no intention of spending anything. The appropriations were put in before the war broke out and they are allowed to remain.


Charles Marcil: I made this remark because I was not here the other night. I regret that as regards my own constituency with a coastline of over 200 miles not a single dollar has been put in the Estimates for repairs or anything else.


Robert Rogers: I do not remember my
hon. friend asking for anything on behalf of his constituency or suggesting the need of anything.


Charles Marcil: Repairs are needed all
along the coast.


Robert Rogers: I have not heard of them.
East river improvements, $231,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is a large amount. Is it supposed to complete the work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Porter's lake-boat channel to Three Fathom harbour, $10,000.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister be
good enough to explain the expenditure at Porter's lake?


Robert Rogers: This revote of $10,000 is to be employed in the excavation of a boat channel between Three Fathom harbour and Porter's lake, to prevent the overflow of the lake during the freshet season. The work will be 3,300 feet long by 30 feet wide at the bottom, which will be at the elevation of low water, giving a depth of six feet at high water.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the level of the lake the same as the level of the sea? Is the minister certain that all the water will not run off the lake after the channel is cut?


Robert Rogers: Porter's lake is a long and narrow sheet of water lying nearly north and south, and situated about the middle of Halifax county, or about fifteen miles east of the provincial capital. It is about seventeen miles in length, from one-quarter to one-half a mile in width, and the water is a good depth for almost its entire extent. The lake discharges directly into the Atlantic through a beach of gravel and sand from a hundred to two hundred feet wide, and up to about thirty years ago this outlet was navigable for schooners drawing about six feet of water, but has become impracticable owing to its gradual filling up by the sand and gravel of the beach under the action of heavy seas. The normal elevation of the lake, while it was discharged freely by the original outlet, was about one foot below high water
ordinary spring tide, or five- feet above low water ordinary spring tide. Spring tides rise six feet.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that mean that the minister will have one foot of water after he dredges the channel?


Robert Rogers: No, six feet.


John Howard Sinclair: Does it mean six feet of water at high tide? If five feet runs out after the channel is cut, there will be one foot left.


Robert Rogers: We shall have five feet
at low tide and eleven feet at high tide.


John Gillanders Turriff: Can the minister state
what amount of trade is carried on in that harbour?


Robert Rogers: Considerable traffic was
done from Porter's lake when the outlet was navigable, and there was an export of timber, eordwood, general farm produce and fish. This has ceased and fine farming lands are lying practically fallow owing to the lack of access to the market.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Is it intended to go on with this work this season?


Robert Rogers: No, not this year.


William Chisholm: If I am in order, I desire information with regard to several votes for public works in Nova Scotia. There is a vote of $12,300 for harbour improvements at Tracadie. What is proposed to be done there? .


Robert Rogers: This is a revote. The
money is required for the construction of the following improvements: A block and span wharf with creosoted substructure, 222 feet in length and 16 feet in width, and having a block twenty feet square at the outer end, estimated cost, $4,000; ateo a breakwater 804 feet in length, in three sections, estimated cost $7,000; also reconstructing the superstructure of the cribwork wharf for a distance of 136 feet, estimated cost $2,600; total, $13,600.
Mr. OHISHOLMi:	When did this item
first appear in the Estimates?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that I have not that information here. It has been there for some time.


William Chisholm: Is it the intention of the department to go on with the work during the coming season?


Robert Rogers: No.


William Chisholm: Is it intended to go on with the work at Cribbin's Point this season?


Robert Rogers: No.


William Chisholm: Were tenders called for for the work at Breen's Pond last year or in any other year?


Robert Rogers: No.	_


William Chisholm: Were tenders called for for the work at Delorey's Beach?


Robert Rogers: No.


William Chisholm: That item is not in these Estimates. I observe that the Auditor General's Report shows an expenditure of $1.58 at Breen's Pond and $1.58- at Delorey's Beach, and $31.37 at Tracadie. Of the appropriation for Tracadie $14,268.63 was left unused. As to Delorey's Beach, which the minister will remember, is ancient history, there was $1.58 spent. The minister may recall that there was a byelection in .Amtigonish some years ago, and before the Estimates were prepared it was announced to the public that an appropriation would be available and the money would be spent.


John Howard Sinclair: On whose authority?


William Chisholm: On the authority of the secretary, I suppose. The minister was in Winnipeg at the time. One Buskard wrote a letter stating that an appropriation for this work would appear in the Supplementary Estimates. As a matter of fact, the Main Estimates, to say nothing of the 'Supplementary Estimates, had not even been considered at that time. But the letter was written and was used in the constituency. Why is it that the appropriations for these several works were not used? Why were not the works gone on with?


Robert Rogers: These are like a good many other items in the Estimates. Since the outbreak of the war we have been economizing as much as possible. That is the explanation with, regard to the last two years at all events. I should have to look up records not at present before me as to the period before the war.


William Chisholm: What is the meaning of the expenditure of $31.37 for improvements at Tracadie, also $1.58 for Breen's pond, and $1.58 for Delorey's beach?


Robert Rogers: I have not the explanation of these small items here, but I shall be glad to have it sent to my hon'. friend.


William Chisholm: Perhaps I may give the minister the explanation. Tenders were called for before the war broke out, and these amounts, I think, were paid for printing. I asked a question in the House at the beginning of the session, if tenders had been called for, and received an answer in the negative. I think the department is mistaken, as tenders were called for before the war broke out, but, for certain reasons, a contract was not awarded. I think the minister will find that that is the explanation.


Robert Rogers: That is not in accordance with the information I have from my deputy. I shall be glad to have the matter looked up. The deputy minister believes he is correct in the statement that no tenders were called for, and that seems to be borne out by the records before me.


William Chisholm: These items have been in the Estimates since four years ago. I understand that it is not proposed to go on with any of these works during the coming season?


Robert Rogers: No.
Nova Scotia-Yarmouth harbour-improvements, $64,000.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the item for Cole harbour wharf, $8,300. That item has Deen in the Estimates for five or six years. A wharf at that point, which is intended as a shipping place for vessels carrying cargoes to and from Charlo's cove and Larry's river, as well as 'Cole harbour, is very much needed by the people of that locality. I have drawn the attention of the minister, and also of his predecessor, to the necessity of building this wharf. Every year since my hon. friend's party has been in power I have inquired about this matter, and I was told on various occasions that the work would be attended to later. They say that the Sultan of Turkey is not very easily moved in the matter of granting reforms. When the young Turks ask for changes in the 'Government and improvements in the administration they usually get the answer : " Please God, to-morrow." That is the kind of answer I have been getting from the minister, and his predecessor, in connection with this important work. I hope that this item will not remain in the Estimates forever without being spent. It is the only item in my constituency that has appeared in the Estimates for a number of years. I represent

one of the largest fishing counties in the province of Nova Scotia, where improvements on the coast are very much needed. Any improvements that have been carried out, though not great in number, have been of great service. Some works were built by the late Government that have been of considerable advantage to the fishermen on that stormy coast, giving them protection from the sea for their boats and a steamer service to take their products to market. My hon. friend can hardly realize the importance of a small wharf to this district; 1 am afraid he does not realise what harm he is doing to the progress of that country by not going on with important works of this kind. This is the only item for that county that the minister has been generous enough to retain in the estimates. Most of them were put in before his party came into power, and afterwards were ruthlessly struck out without any explanation and without any promise of doing anything in the future. ,Fo,r some reason this item ihas remained in the estimates, but the money has never been spent. I know that the minister's department is scarce of money, but small expenditures are made in most of the counties and I would suggest to him that this amount would not be too much to spend to afford facilities to this long line of coast which are so much needed by the fishermen of that locality.


Robert Rogers: I understand and appreciate the interest that my hon. friend has in this particular work. Prom what I know of this district, undoubtedly it is important, according to its size. As an evidence of my appreciation of that, I may say that very shortly, before the outbreak of war we attempted to start this work; we had purchased land with the view of going on immediately. As my hon. friend understands, however, since the outbreak of war we have been very slow in proceeding with any of these works. Perhaps this work is in a little better position than some items in the estimates to the extent that the land has been purchased. We will go on with the work at the earliest possible date.


William Chisholm: Have any
steps been taken to acquire land near the wharf at Malignant Cove, in Antigonish county. A petition was sent by the fishermen of that locality to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The Department of Marine and Fisheries quite properly said that this matter did not come within the
199i
scope of their duties; that it was a matter for the Public Works Department to deal with. A copy of the petition was sent to the Minister of Public Works, and about the 30th of March last I received an acknowledgement of it. What is required is the securing of land along the wharf and breakwater down there so that the fishermen may have a place upon which to haul their boats and dry their nets. The cost would be small, and if the minister could make terms there would be no difficulty in expropriating the land.


Robert Rogers: There is no amount in the estimates to provide for the carrying out of such a suggestion as my hon. friend has made, and I have no record of the matter here. If the amount involved is as small as the hon. gentleman states, and if the purchase is as necessary as he thinks it is, I should be glad to see what I can do. My deputy is taking a note of the matter; we will take it up to-morrow.


William Chisholm: I think a mistake was made when the wharf or breakwater was built there that sufficient land was not secured at the time. The fishermen are handicapped by reason of the fact that they cannot haul their boats up there; the owner of the land is somewhat disagreeable with them. The acquiring of land for this purpose would not cost more than $100; probably the cost would be less than that.


Robert Rogers: We will look into it tomorrow.


John Howard Sinclair: In the absence of the hon. member for Pictou I would like to know what progress is being made with the East River dredging. This work, which is of great importance in that locality, seems to be getting along pretty slowly. It started five or six years ago, I think, and is still in progress. Most people think that the time has come when it ought to be completed. I see that there is a vote here for that work; I would like to know whether the work is being carried on and whether it is intended that it should be completed during the present season.


Robert Rogers: I feel that we have made very great progress indeed with the East river work. We have come down to the point now that we have called for tenders for the lock gates. This amount which we arevasking for will be sufficient to complete the work, and it is going on as rapidly as possible.


John Howard Sinclair: This will complete the work?


Robert Rogers: This is supposed to complete the work.
Brudenell-wharf reconstruction, $2,000.


Robert Rogers: I move that this item be reduced to $500. The work progressed more favourably than was expected, and $500 is all we shall require. This will complete the work.


Mr. HUGHES:: This is a re-vote. Was anything spent last year?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we spent $1,500 last year.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $14,000.


James Joseph Hughes: A considerable extension was made to the Souris breakwater over a year ago. In what condition is that work at the present time?


Robert Rogers: We have no item in the Estimates in connection with it, and therefore I have no detailed information before me. If my hon. friend wishes any information we can supply it to him from the department.


James Joseph Hughes: Is this $14,000 intended to make repairs there?


Robert Rogers: This $14,000 would cover
all necessary repairs in the harbours and rivers in Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the minister intend to put anything in the Supplemen-taries for Souris breakwater?


Robert Rogers: I do not think so. I do not recollect anything.


James Joseph Hughes: The extension to the breakwater cost about $144,000 and a very short time after its completion a considerable portion of it was carried away by a storm of no unusual violence, which would indicate that there was something wrong. The work is now in such a condition that if it is not attended to serious injury may result and all of the money that has been expended may be lost.


Robert Rogers: I recollect that there was a certain amount of difficulty there, but I was under the impression it had been corrected. I shall have it looked up and let my hon. friend know what the facts are.


James Joseph Hughes: I wish to bring to the minister's attention the general condition cf affairs in his department in Prince Ed-

ward Island. The fact I have pointed out in connection with Souris breakwater is an indication that there is something wrong. When a work of that kind, costing that much, would not stand more than a few weeks or months after completion, there is at least ground for suspicion. We have this condition of affairs, that under the former management there were three men in the minister's department in Charlottetown doing the work, and there are now seven-and there are eight men on the pay roll.


An hon. MEMBER:: What does the eighth man do?


James Joseph Hughes: The eighth man is superannuated. He was chief resident engineer at the time of the change of Administration. He was a very capable man and his assistant was also a good man. ' Why Mr. Hegan, the resident engineer, was removed has always been to some extent a mystery. Mr. Hegan had been in the service for many years; I think he was appointed away back in the '90's, and I presume he had given satisfaction. He had conducted the business of the department in a businesslike way. But his method of doing business was not satisfactory to some people when the change took place, and it was publicly stated by a man who had considerable interest in politics that he would be removed, and he wa6 removed. He was superannuated while still able to do his work. Several appointments were made. The assistant, Mr. Hyndman, who, I think, is a good man, was made chief. Mr. Hegan was removed from office and several additional appointments have since been made, yet the work is not as well done now as in former years, and it js costing a great deal more. For instance, when Mr. Hegan was there he looked after all the dredging done in the province. But the change of Government took place and a superintendent of dredging was appointed.


Robert Rogers: We are probably doing
a great deal more work there.


James Joseph Hughes: No, you have the same
number of dredges and you are not doing the work as well.


Robert Rogers: I doubt that.


James Joseph Hughes: There are too many men employed. Mr. McDonald was appointed superintendent of dredging, but there was really no work for him to do. When he came to the office there was no room for

him. Yet to my surprise Mr. McDonald now has an assistant; Mr. O'Brien has been appointed his dlerk. Mr. Hegan was doing all the work himself. As a matter of fact, one gentleman in the office, who went to lay off the work for dredge No. 9, at Grand river, laid off the work for the captain of the dredge and staked the ground and put up the beacons; but he put them in the wrong place, and the captain of the dredge was working in the wrong place for some weeks until Mr. Hyndman came down and discovered the mistake. But in the meantime all the work of the dredge had gone for nothing. That is an instance of the work not being as well done as formerly. If the captain, who is an experienced sea captain and who had brought vessels into that harbour on more than one occasion, had been left alone, he, as a practical man, would likely have dredged in the right place, but, of course, having an engineer over him, he had to follow instructions.


Robert Rogers: What is the engineer's name?


James Joseph Hughes: There are so many in the office that I don't remember; I think there are seven, all told.


Robert Rogers: I think there are only three in the office.


James Joseph Hughes: With regard to the breakwater at Souris, of which I have spoken, it is a serious matteT that a work of that kind should break away shortly after completion. There was surely some fault connected with the construction. My impression is that there are so many men employed, and so few who are efficient that the work is not properly done.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: I wish to correct
my hen. friend. He has stated that there are seven men in the office, seven or eight, I think he said. I know for a fact that there are only three 'men in the office. When he exaggerates to that extent with respect to one small item I am afraid we cannot give very much weight to his other statements.


James Joseph Hughes: I must put my hon. friend right. On the 12th April I asked this question :
How many men are employed by the Public Works Department in Charlottetown, P.E.I.
What are the names of the men so employed, what positions do they lil, and what salary does each receive?
What is date of each man's appointment?
And this was the answer:
W. E. Hyndman, district engineer; E. H. Nicholson, sr., assistant engineer; H. E. Miller, clerk; J. C. Milford, draughtsman; John White, general foreman; John N. McDonald, inspector of dredges; and William O'Brien, clerk.
That makes seven, so that my hon. friend who is right 'beside the office is not well informed. Either he has given incorrect information to the committee, or the minister gave me an incorrect answer.


Angus Alexander McLean: The statement my hon. friend made was that there were eight men in the office. There are only three in the office. There are several outside men. The foreman has always been there, and he is not in the office; he travels through the country. The inspector of dredges, who was appointed about two years ago, has done excellent work. Captain McDonald is as good a man as there is in the Maritime Provinces, or outside of them, and bis work has been very satisfactory.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not make any reflection upon Mr. McDonald. I made the statement, which is true, that Mr. Heagan was doing all that work himself under the former Administration, and he did it well. My hon. friend will not say that Mr. Heagan did not attend properly to the work, and he attended to his other work at the same time. Therefore there was no necessity for Mr. McDonald's appointment. Now, Mr. McDonald has an assistant or clerk, a Mr. O'Brien, but I question very much whether the worx is as well done as it was formerly, and I have stated my reason for so Blinking.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend much information as to details. I will be glad to take up the question of the breakwater, and to supply the information which he asks for. I do not have it here. In respect to the number of men employed, the list from which my hon. friend read, as presented to the House, ' is probably a correct list, but my hon. friend behind me (Mr. McLean) is also probably correct in his statement by reason of the fact that the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) included the foreman of the work and some one else who were undoubtedly outside the office. That would account for the difference between them with regard to the number employed.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister is drawing upon his imagination. As a matter of fact, under the former Administration, three men

did the work, and, as a matter of fact, there are seven men doing the work now, while there are eight men on the pay roll.


Robert Rogers: They are doing three times the work though.


Mr. KYTE:: I did not happen to be present when the Estimates for Nova Scotia harbours were under consideration, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works if he has had any request for improvements on the harbour at Glace Bay?


Robert Rogers: We did some dredging
there not long ago, but I have no recollection of any request recently, and the deputy has no recollection of any.


George William Kyte: I have a letter from a citizen of Glace Bay which, as the minister knows, is a very important centre for shipping coal. It has a large population and has therefore to import large quantities of necessaries throughout the year. At the present time the people there are very much handicapped by the fact that the depth of the water in the harbour does not permit the entrance of vessels even of a very light draught. This gentleman writes me as follows:
X think some eight years ago, the Dominion Government spent about $25,000 on the harbour at Glace Bay. Small as this amount was, it was perhaps sufficient at the time to enable light craft to make their way in and out of the harbour. Since that time, the harbour has been allowed to look after itself, until, at the present time, there is barely eleven feet of water at the entrance. The piers are in the last state of dilapidation, the wood-work in a rotten state, and the ballast between the crib-work has been allowed to wash into the harbour itself. This, mind you, is the condition of a harbour that, within my own recollection, was able to boast of 28 feet of water; and where steamers of 4,000 tons could load coal, I, myself, have seen five steamers at one time in this harbour. To-day, I was speaking to a captain who has a schooner of 150 tons. He says that next year he will be unable to make this harbour. The channel will be so filled up. And what this captain says, all other captains maintain. Not being able to get our produce by water, you can realize how vital the matter becomes.
This should not be a thing of politics. Has the attention of the Government ever been called to it? Has the engineer of the Marine and Fisheries Department ever reported it? Have the Public Works Department engineers inspected the harbour in the past three years? Is it the Government's intention to absolutely abandon the harbour?
I quite understand that the Minister of Public Works has not been able to expend as much money in the Maritime Provinces as heretofore, but I point this out for the purpose of urging him at the earliest possible moment to have a report made by the
| Mr. J. J. Hughes.]
engineer of his department; and out of the general vote for dredging in the Maritime Provinces I hope the minister will find it convenient to apply a portion towards deepening the haTbour so that the people in that community will have the advantage of water communication which will facilitate the transportation of the necessaries they require. As I have said, it is an important port for the shipment of coal, and whereas a few years ago, steamers of 4,000 tons were able to load there, now small schooners are able to enter the harbour only with very great difficulty. I am sure that there is no port in the Maritime Provinces that is more deserving of consideration than the port of Glace bay.


Robert Rogers: I am reminded by my hon. friend's reading that letter that this question was up some time ago. The difficulty is that the piers belong to the coal company, and not to the (Government, and, of course, the coal company will look after any repairs that may be necessary. I am inclined to think that we have already made some arrangement with regard to dredging. I will let my hon. friend know later on what the facts are.


George William Kyte: The fact of the Dominion Coal Company having some interest in the piers did not prevent the late Government from assisting in harbour improvements there. I think the Minister of Public Works_ might very easily arrive at a similar arrangement with the Dominion Coal Company to improve the harbour facilities.


Robert Rogers: We are improving the dredging.


James Joseph Hughes: Did the minister get any letter or petition from any parties asking for dredging in Bay Fortune harbour, P.E.I.?
Mr.- ROGERS: I -have no recollection of any such request.


James Joseph Hughes: I should like to call the minister's attention to the situation at Little Sands. A year or two ago a wharf was built there, and shortly afterwards a storm carried away the inner portion connecting with the shore. The Government left it in that condition for quite a while, and the fishermen using the wharf put planks on it so that they could get their fish ashore, as it was impossible to take a team out until the wharf was repaired. Just a few days before the provincial election word came that the wharf was to be

repaired, and a number of men were engaged and a large quantity of lumber was purchased. The election was held, but all the men engaged were not employed; that was a 'breach of contract. The effort to repair the wharf synchronized with the holding of the election. When finally the repairs were made the work was not done properly, as it was late in the season, and the money expended was practically lost. The wharf is almost useless now. The foreman is understood to have received word from the department that substantial repairs will be made this spring, but I do not see anything in the Estimates for it.


Robert Rogers: If there is such an item it would be in the Supplementary Estimates.


James Joseph Hughes: The repairs will be
made, L suppose?


Robert Rogers: I cannot say until I look at the Supplementary Estimates.


James Joseph Hughes: You would not leave the wharf unfinished.


Robert Rogers: 1 would not think so.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think the minister has given only a very vague explanation of why more men were put on in, the case cited by my hon. friend. The minister did not say how much more work was being done. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island says that they are doing no more work, and that the work is not so good. Be that as it may, the minister engages seven men to do the work that was done by four men four or five years ago, and I presume their total pay will be just about double. And this is done at the very time when we are told to practice economy. It is just this sort of thing that is increasing the expenditure of every department fifty or seventy-five per cent more than it was a few years ago; and there is no more work being done, and less revenue coming in. If some attempt is not made to establish an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure, where are we going to land? This is just one instance of how the Government is increasing the number of its employees. To-day we have some 12,000 more than we had four years ago, and we can see now where they are, scattered all over the country, where they are absolutely unnecessary. Does not my hon. friend think that in these times only four men should be employed to do four men's work. We shall never economize so long as'we engage seven
men to do four men's work. Unless the Government realize the position the country is going to be in on account of this war, and cut down their expenditures as much as possible, the finances of the country are going to be in worse shape year after year. Here is a concrete case of an increase of seventy-five per cent in the number of employees, and I am sure not a member of this House believes that increase necessary.
I urge my hon. friend to see whether he cannot cut down the number of employees to a reasonable figure.


Angus Alexander McLean: That statement has been made by the hon. gentleman several times in my hearing. Let me say with regard to my own province that Prince Edward Island exported in 1915 fifty per cent more than it exported in 1905. I have those figures from the transportation company that does most of the business in my province. Do you expect, Mr. Chairman, that the amount of business we are doing to-day can be done by just the same number of men that were employed ten or twenty years ago? Ten or fifteen years ago we had three dredges in Prince Edward Island; they were controlled by men living in St. John, who probably visited Prince Edward Island only once in the season, and the whole business was left to the captains, who did practically as they pleased; they neglected their duties and practically no dredging was done. When this Government came into power I asked the minister to appoint a local inspector of dredges. He appointed Captain John A. McDonald, an expert dredgeman, and now the dredge captains are compelled to do the work; they are not allowed to loaf as they did previously to 1911. The people of Prince Edward Island are better satisfied with the dredging than they have ever been before, and I think the appointment of this inspector was the best move the Government ever made, as far as Prince Edward Island is concerned. In fact, it should have been done years ago, because the business was increasing and our harbours and rivers required to be dredged.


John Howard Sinclair: This abuse exists not only in Prince Edward Island, but throughout the whole of Canada. The proof was laid before the House in a return that was brought down last year, but the return did not cover the whole period of the present Administration. The Department of Public Works is one of the worst departments in this respect. I am glad that my hon. friend


John Howard Sinclair: I get them from the
official blue-book published by my hon. friend.


Robert Rogers: He quotes the figures
probably of the expenditure of the depart-

ment, which, he says, in 1910-11 amounted to $8,000,000. I have before me only the figures covering the total expenditure in 1911 under the former Government amounting to $14,338,000, and, of course, the expenditure has increased rapidly from that time on until the outbreak of the war since when we have undertaken to reduce the expenditure very 'largely from year to year. It is true that there is a necessity for an increase in the service. In the inside service at Ottawa we have an additional number of buildings to look after, necessitating the employment of elevator men, etc. As far as the outside service is concerned, the number of public buildings that have been erected in various parts of the country has necessitated the employment of caretakers and others. The additional amount of dredging, etc., that is being carried on has necessitated the employment of extra help. I do not think, however, there is any ground for the statement that there has been any extravagance so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned.
With regard to Prince Edward Island, I may say that we have been doing a great deal of work down there. My hon. friend will agree with me that the building of the Souiis breakwater is probably the biggest public work that has been done in Prince Edward Island for a long period of time, and that work has been going on recently necessitating the employment of additional help. We have been doing a good deal of dredging in Prince Edward Island, and, I am sure, a good deal more work than was done under the former Administration, and pi'operly so, because there was a demand for it and a general development such as was common to the rest of Canada, and Prince Edward Island was getting its full share. I am sorry my hon. friend has found reason to complain, because I would not wish to have in my employ any man who was not earning his wages. I will make a close examination of the statement of my hon. friend, and if it is found that w,e have on the iPrince Edward Island pay-list any person who is not earning his wages, I will see that that is corrected. For the moment, however, I have no reason to believe that such is the case, because we are very careful in that regard.


John Howard Sinclair: If my hon. friend wishes to know where I got my figures, I may say that I have here a Blue Book called "Consolidated Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1915," printed by J. de L. Taehe, Printer to the King's Most Excel-

lent Majesty, 1916. On page 71 he will find a comparative statement of the expenditures on account of Consolidated Revenue Fund for the various years beginning at Confederation and ending at the last fiscal year. In column 6 he will find the figures that I have given.


Robert Rogers: I am not disputing the figures given by my hon. friend. I pointed out to him that I had before me only the totals of Consolidated and Capital Fund Expenditures, and that my hon. friend was quoting from the Consolidated Fund Expenditures, which makes a difference.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. minister says that the department is doing more work in Prince Edward Island now than it did some years ago under the late Administration. The hon. minister does not make that statement of his own knowledge, and he is not sure that it is correct. I am pretty confident that it is not correct, and I will look up the works and convince the minister that there was more work done in Prince Edward Island, at all events during the last few years of the late Administration, than is going on at the present time. I am quite satisfied as to that.


Robert Rogers: I shall be glad to have a statement prepared for my hon. friend just to see who is correct.


James Joseph Hughes: I shall be glad to see it.


Robert Rogers: I will ask the department to prepare it.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member for Queens (Prince Edward Island) made some statement which at the moment can neither be proved nor disproved, but the accuracy of which can be judged by the fact that the hon. gentleman said that only as many men were employed now as were employed under the old Administration. He did not know the facts until I read out the figures and gave him the names of the men employed now. Then he was convinced that he was wrong.


Angus Alexander McLean: I am not convinced that I am wrong.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member has made a statement that reflects very seriously upon the captains employed upon the dredges at the present time, and he has made a statement that is not true in so far as the captains who were employed some years ago. are concerned. :He says that he suggested the appointment of a superintendent of dredging to keep the
captains from loafing, and to see that they did their work properly. That, I think, is quite a reflection upon the men employed at present. I do not think that a superintendent of dredging was needed for that purpose. The men who were doing the work, and who were removed, by the present Government, were men of whom no man in Prince Edward Island would: say that they loafed, or did their work improperly-I am satisfied the junior member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Nicholson) would not say that of them.


Robert Rogers: He did not say that anybody was loafing.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, he made the statement that the superintendent of dredging was appointed to keep the captains of dredges from loafing as they did under the previous Government, or words to that effect. Did not the minister hear that?


Robert Rogers: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Then bis hearing is defective.


Robert Rogers: No.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the statement that was made, and if it is not changed it will appear that way in Hansard. The hon. gentleman may not have desired to make that statement; perhaps he made it without thinking of what he was saying. But the statement is not correct; the captains employed under the previous Government were honourable men, who did their work and did it as well as it is being done now. I believe that the captains employed under the present Government do their work well. But there are too many officials appointed. I shall be glad to see the return showing the number appointed and the quantity of work done in Prince Edward Island some years ago and now. I make an application now for dredging in Bay Fortune harbour, during the coming summer. It is very much needed, and will be of great advantage to that place. Will the minister look into that?


Robert Rogers: I do not see any mention of that harbour in the Estimates.


James Joseph Hughes: I know that.


Robert Rogers: I will look into it.
North lake-boat harbour, $24,000.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the minister intend to spend that money this year?


Robert Rogers: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Why?


Robert Rogers: It is on a par with the other items: they are simply revotes and have to stand until the conclusion of the war.	'


James Joseph Hughes: Were tenders called for for this work last summer?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Were they called for in May or in June?


Robert Rogers: In June. We had six different tenders, all of which
5 p.m. were too high according to the estimate of the engineer and were not accepted.


James Joseph Hughes: They were below the engineer's estimate I think.


Robert Rogers: Apparently one was. But while we intended last spring to carry on certain works, we found that in view of the expenditure for the war it was necessary to cut out other items, and every day economies of this kind were made. This is not any different from others.


James Joseph Hughes: But the war was going on in June last, and was then nearly a year old and our expenditures because of it were increasing. . Yet the minister added to the expense by calling for tenders though he did not intend to go on with the work.


Robert Rogers: Yes, we intended to go on with it then or we would not have called for tenders.


James Joseph Hughes: And then for the sake of $24,000 the minister decided not to go on.


Robert Rogers: We had a general rule on the subject, and dropped many others as well as this.


James Joseph Hughes: Did the department drop many others for which tenders had been called?


Robert Rogers: Oh, yes. We prepared in the spring a programme of work regarded as necessary to be carried out during the summer, and this improvement was evidently one of those to be undertaken. But some difficulty arose about the title to the property that delayed us, or otherwise it might have been gone on with. The district engineer states that at the time of making the survey the property owners affected' by the new opening to be made were asked to sign an agreement relieving

the Government of responsibility for any damage that might be caused to their property by the work, and with one exception they refused to sign. So he did not advise going on with the work until some understanding with the property owners was arrived at.


James Joseph Hughes: Yet in the face of that report the minister decided to go on with the work, and so he must have decided to settle that question.


Robert Rogers: We were in hopes of having the matter adjusted. But we were ready to take any excuse last year for not going on with work.


James Joseph Hughes: And the expense of calling for tenders will be just that much money lost.


Robert Rogers: It may not be lost.- We may be able to go on.


James Joseph Hughes: But the minister said that the tenders were too high.


Robert Rogers: Yes, but I will have to have a report of the engineer on that.


James Joseph Hughes: There is another reason for not going on with the work.
Harbours and rivers-New Brunswick- Bathurst-harbour improvement, $85,000.


Mr. TURGEON:: la it expected that the expenditure of this sum will complete the work of dredging at Bathurst?


Robert Rogers: I would not like to give my hon.. friend a definite answer. He well knows that the dredging work at Bathurst has been a very important undertaking, and a very large one, in view_ of the development going on at that point. There have been very pressing demands for increased dredging. We have spent, as my hon. friend knows, a very large sum of money in connection with that work, and are in hopes that this 'amount will be sufficient to meet the requirements at all events of the present year.


Onésiphore Turgeon: What ie the depth of water at low tide?


Robert Rogers: Seventeen feet.


Onésiphore Turgeon: What is the width of the channel?	.


Robert Rogers: The original plan was 250 feet, but we are doing only about 200 feet at the present time.	-


William Pugsley: When were the plans made for this dredging at Bathurst?


Robert Rogers: I have not anything here that would show that.


William Pugsley: When I was minister, at the urgent request of the people of Bathhurst and also at the request of the hon. member for Gloucester I had plans prepared for the work of dredging Bathurst Harbour and the work was commenced and carried on during the period that I was minister. Has the work been carried on along the lines of the plans which were prepared at that time?


Robert Rogers: The work that we have under consideration was started in 1913, so far as my recollection goes.


William Pugsley: What is the nature of that work?


Robert Rogers: The dredging of the channel and the work on the outside harbour.


William Pugsley: It is the same class of work as was going on then?


Robert Rogers: The same class of work, yes.


Onésiphore Turgeon: It is a continuation of
the work, that was commenced under the preceding Government in 1910 and carried on in 1911.


Robert Rogers: I do not think any work was done on the inside harbour before that time.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The plans had been
made, but dredging was confined to the outside harbour. There was no use commencing work on the inside until vessels could get in from the outside harbour.


William Pugsley: There must be plans in the department for the complete work?


Robert Rogers: There may be.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I believe my hon.
friend has followed the plans made by Engineer Voligny with perhaps some improvements as the development of the work proceeded.


Robert Rogers: I am glad to know that
my hon. friend feels that this work is satisfactory.


Onésiphore Turgeon: It is, I must say. I
give the minister credit for having attended to this work, which is very pressing. Large interests have suffered through waiting for a good harbour at Bathurst. Every year we have shipments of 40,000,000 feet of lumber, and the development of the pulp and
paper business will necessitate not only ample harbour facilities, but deep water as well, so that large vessels can be brought in. If the amount stated is not sufficient, I would suggest that the minister increase the amount at once so that everything possible may be done during the summer to enable larger ships to come in.


Robert Rogers: For the present the pressing work is that of the turning basin. The ships are able to get in now, but there is no way of turning to get to the pulp mill. We are making provision for that turning basin. An item appears in the Supplementary Estimates for the past year, in addition to what appears in the main Estimates, to provide the necessary amount to complete that work this year. We are going right on with it.


William Pugsley: I am glad indeed that the minister is continuing this work which was commenced during the time that I was minister. I took occasion to go to Bathurst and look into the question very thoroughly. I am satisfied that there is no more important public work so far as harbour development is concerned than that which is being carried on there, and I am very glad indeed that it is being proceeded with in such satisfactory manner.


Mr. McCURDY:: May I ask the minister what his plans are with regard to Port Hood harbour development?


Robert Rogers: This, like other matters, has been deferred owing to war conditions. It will be taken up as soon as conditions permit.
New Brunswick-Campbellton-deep water wharf accommodation, $50,000.


William Pugsley: What is being done at Campbellton?


Robert Rogers: We are not going on with the work there at present. It is one of the matters that are standing.
New Brunswick-Cape Bald - repairs to breakwater-pier, $1,500.


Mr. COPP:: What work does the minister propose doing in connection with the Cape Bald breakwater?


Robert Rogers: The amount is required to continue construction of the protective work along the outer face of the approach to pierhead, composed of reinforced concrete caissons filled with ballast, and for general repairs. Estimated cost, ten caissons at $40, $400; labour and services of

diver, $200; concrete and stone filling, $400; general repairs, $500.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What was spent last year?


Robert Rogers: $3,500.
Mr. 'OOPP: Is there a foreman who has charge of the work all the time, and who looks after the repairs?


Robert Rogers: John W. Brien, foreman.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it from his report that my hon. friend is speaking?


Robert Rogers: No, from the report of the district engineer, Mr. Stead.
New Brunswick-Dorchester-to complete wharf improvements, $3,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is that new work, or just to complete?


Robert Rogers: This is just to complete.


Arthur Bliss Copp: $12,000 was spent last year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The contract was for $12,000?


Robert Rogers: The contract price was $15,000.	_


Arthur Bliss Copp: Was that to extend the wharf there, or to build a new one?


Robert Rogers: This amount of $3,000 is asked for by District Engineer Steed to complete payment on the contract for the reconstruction of the old railway wharf, lately completed to rebuild a short section at the upper end of the old wharf, and to remove the yearly accumulation of mud from the vessel beds in front of the old and new wharfs.
Experimental Farm below Fredericton- wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: What is the object of
this wharf?


Robert Rogers: It is for the use of the
Dominion Experimental Farm below Fredericton and about 20 families living within a radius of one and a half miles from the proposed site. It will also be used by the Fraser Lumber Company, whose mill is one mile above the site. The experimental farm is three miles below Fredericton on the west side of the St. John river. The exports will consist principally of farm products, and it is estimated that $10,000 will be shipped-annually from this place. I think, on reading the estimate before me, that this is a work that could very well stand for some time.


William Pugsley: Yes, I think so. There is a railroad running right through the experimental farm.
Green Point (Beresford)-breakwater, $10,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Does the minister intend carrying on this work this year?


Robert Rogers: No, not this year.
New Brunswick-harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $40,000.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What work is intended to be done under that item?


Robert Rogers: This is a general vote
which is taken for each province to provide for incidental repairs that may be required during the year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister has no special expenditure in mind which would be included in that vote?


Robert Rogers: No.
Tracadie-to	construct breakwater and
breastworks, $3,500.


Onésiphore Turgeon: What does the minister intend to do at Tracadie this year? Will this work be proceeded with?


Robert Rogers: This vote of $3,500 is required for the construction of two breakwaters and breastworks. I do not think we will commence,it this year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the minister had any
application or correspondence with regard to repairs to the Sackville wharf in the county of Westmorland?


Robert Rogers: Yes, I think we have.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What does my hon. friend
propose doing in regard to it?


Robert Rogers: I have not any information here to give to my hon. friend.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I wish to bring to the minister's attention the unfortunate position in which Sackville is placed in regard to wharf accommodation. We have had very poor wharf accommmodation there for a number of years. A great effort was made to induce the Government to make some repairs, or to build a new wharf. About 1909 or 1910 w;e got an appropriation and a new wharf was constructed at a point some distance from the site of the old wharf, which had practically tumbled down so that it was impossible for vessels to tie up at it. At the time of the construction of the new wharf there was some friction, as is usually the case where there is any change in the site of a wharf. However,

the wharf was constructed on the new site, 400 yards lower down the stream, at a point where there is a sharp bend, so it is possible for vessels to start out into the stream so as to avoid the difficulty of making the sharp curve in the river on a strong tide. Something like $40,000 was expended, and a very splendid wharf was constructed at this site. It was about completed at the time of the change of Government. A few people in the town were small enough to allow their politics to influence them to oppose any road being made to the wharf, and for some time we had no road. Finally a road was constructed to the wharf. But there is still no railroad accommodation. The result is that last year or the year before some pressure was brought to bear upon the Government and they made some small repairs to the old wharf, but these repairs were only sufficient to enable small vessels to come to the old wharf. The result is that captains in charge of large coasting vessels that formerly came to Sack-ville and delivered and took on cargoes, refused to go there owing to the lack of proper wharf accommodation. It is impossible to ship out timber from the old wharf or to handle the large amount of timber that formerly came in by that wharf, going to the adjoining town of Amherst. We have really mo wharf accommodation, and practically this new wharf is going to pieces without being used.
It seems to me that it is time the Government took this matter up. I think the feeling which arose has been dissipated, and I do not think there would be very strong opposition now from the minister's political friends. It was only -a few who caused the feeling. , Some arrangement should be made between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals so that that wharf, which was intended for the public service, should give the people in that community some advantage for the money that was expended upon it some years ago. Under present conditions it is not worth a five-cent piece to the people of Sackville.


Robert Rogers: How far is the railway from the wharf ?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The railway runs right along, and there is a little spur of perhaps 300 of 400 yards. I think there* is a plan in the Railway Department. Owing to a little local jealously the matter has not been taken up in a business-like way. It is a. splendid wharf, and, while Sackville does
not claim to be a very important community, the town is a growing one and a large amount of lumber is carried for export over the N. B. & P. railway now owned by the Government. At present we have not an outlet for the shipping of that lumber, because the larger schooners will not go to the old wharf. The result is that the shippers have to take the lumber to Dorchester, or Shediac, or somewhere else, where they can load the schooners. I would ask the minister to take this matter up, look into it, and see if some reasonable arrangement cannot be made to give the people of that portion of the province of New Brunswick proper access to the wharf.


Robert Rogers: From what my hon. friend has stated, it does seem too bad that a wharf costing $40,000 should be lying practically idle for the lack of the necessary connection. I have no knowledge of the local conditions, or of the disturbed feeling which he says exists there.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It is not serious.


Robert Rogers: I will be very glad to take the matter up with the Railway Department. I presume that a portion of it would come under the Railway Department, and we would have to make some arrangement with it to provide the necessary connection. The deputy has taken a note of the matter, and we will take it up with the Railway Department and see if we cannot have it adjusted.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec-Bale St. Paul repairs to wharf and retaining wall, $6,500.	'


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that a new work?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we will spend that amount this year.
Cap Chat-extension of training pier, $7,500.


Wilfrid Laurier: I presume
that that amount will not be expended this year?


Robert Rogers: No, that stands.
Cap Rosier-breakwater pier, $10,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That will not be expended, I presume?


Robert Rogers: That stands.
Chandler- wharf, $25,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is in
Gaspe, is it not?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Chandler is
the new name for Pabos, I understand. What is the nature of the work?


Robert Rogers: There are two proposals
in connection with this particular item. One is that there' should be an extension of the old wharf, and the other is that a new wharf should be built. The report states that $25,000 is required for the construction of a cribwork wharf 1,380 feet long, by 32 feet wide, with a depth of 32 feet at low water. There will be 49,959 cubic yards of cribwork at $2.75 per cubic yard, a total of $135,866.72. It is a very large expenditure, but nothing has been undertaken as yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am aware
that it will be an expensive work, but the Government has not decided yet whether it is going to put up a new whaTf, or repair the old one.


Robert Rogers: That has not been decided yet.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Chandler is a new name. A very enterprising American firm from Philadelphia has started there a very large industry, the manufacture of sulphide pulp. I visited the place last summer. They are employing some 800 men at the mills, and I understand that they intend to double that number in the course of the coming year. The pier in question was begun a few years ago. There was an old pier which is used by the fishermen, but the new pier, which was commenced, has not yet been completed. The intention of the company is to ship the pulp from that point. At present, thanks to the Gaspe railway, they ship their pulp from Gaspe basin. This means to them a large expenditure, but they were very pleased to use what facilities they had at Gaspe to ship their pulp to the United States where they have large orders to fill This company has built during the last two years 12 or 15 miles of a railway which goes deep into the woods, and they have built their line as far as the present landing pier. I called the attention of the minister some time ago to the fact that until last year the vessels which they used could anchor near that pier. With the trade increasing as it has increased during the last few months, this pier should certainly be extended. There is an alternative plan, and the engineer of the Department was kind enough to ask the company to point out which of the two would be more in their interests, and I understand their answer will be given shortly. The
[Mr. Rogers. 1
company have expended at Chandler something like $5,000,000 in buildings and other works, independently of the Gaspe railway. The railway that has been built in the last few years is a private owned one. The company has made of that little fishing village a town. I was struck when I visited it last fall to discover a town where a few years ago there were only a few fishermen's huts. I think the Government would do well to consider whether it would not be more in the interest of all parties concerned to accept the plan suggested by the company, rather than that of the engineer of the department. The large amount of capital invested by the company stimulates business throughout the whole district. I think the company's plan would be of great service to the public generally.
Mr. ROGERS-:	There appears to have
been some misunderstanding about the two proposals. The pier that my hon. friend says the company would like would represent a very heavy expenditure, something like $135,000, but in view of the important work that is being carried on by the company-probably as good a work as is being done by any similar company in Canada- there is perhaps some responsibility upon the department to assist them in getting the necessary accommodation. I am in hopes that when we get the report, we shall be able' to meet the company's wishes by extending the present pier. If we can make satisfactory arrangement we may have to expend some of this vote this year in ruder to help the company, which has a large amount of capital invested.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am informed that the alternative plan will be much less costly than the plan outlined by the engineers of the department, and the expenditure will be in the interests' of the public.
Grosse Isle Quarantine Station-extension of wharves, $50,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that to be expended this year?


Robert Rogers: I do not think so.
\
Harrington harbour-extension of wharf, $3,000.


Robert Rogers: As this work has been completed, I move that this item be struck out.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hospital Bay-Magdalen Islands - breakwater, $2,000.
['As this work has been completed, I move that this item be struck out.\t.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this a new wharf?


Robert Rogers: This money is to be expended upon the construction, of cribwork and a breakwater. When completed the structure will be 700 feet long, and will consist of nine isolated triangular cribs.
He Psrrot Siuth-wharf, $1 500.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this to eom-lete the work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Government received a petition or a formal request that facilities be provided for the travelling public, either by the construction of a bridge for pedestrians or through some arrangement with the two railway companies, between the island of Montreal and Isle Perrot, and Isle Perrot and Vaudreuil? Anyone travelling from the island of Montreal to Vaudreuil has to have his automobile or carriage ferried across the river in a scow, and involves great delay and trouble. I know that in years past efforts have been made by several associations to get the Government to provide a bridge, and it seems to me that if overtures were made to the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk their bridges might be used for this purpose. Has the Government ever considered this question, and if so, what decision has been reached?


Robert Rogers: We have had petitions and requests on numerous occasions, and the matter has been especially brought forward by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries), who is very insistent in season and out of season in pressing the necessity for such work as my hon. friend has described. Unfortunately, however, we have no power under which it would be possible for us to build such a bridge. The construction of a work of that kind has never been undertaken by the Public Works Department. It is true that we build bridges across interprovincial rivers, but we do not build bridges across a river all of which is in one particular province, because that comes within the jurisdiction of the Government of the province in which the river is. It will be impossible for me to undertake this work, because I have no power to do it. If my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would assist me in trying to persuade the Senate to pass 'our Highway Bill, then I would undertake to promise him to take up this matter immediately, because I know how much this accommodation is required for the Island of Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is true that at that point the river is exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec, but at the same time the bridge would be a means of uniting the two provinces, because it is practically the only route to Ontario.


Robert Rogers: It is hard to draw the line.


George Perry Graham: The Dominion could give a grant to the province.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has a much more ambitious scheme than that; a scheme that we heard of during the last Chateauguay election. He wants a committee to be appointed to consider the using of the Canadian Pacific railway bridge from Lachine to Caughna-waga as a means of connecting the island with the south shore and also the bridge of the Canadian Northern at Isle Bizard. But really, badinage apart, the whole scheme is very important fo,r the island of Montreal which is practically isolated from the mainland in the west and northwest. If you wish to leave the island of Montreal by automobile or carriage, you have to cross the river by means of the old fashioned scow. If the minister can find a way out of the difficulty, he will be doing a great service to the people in that locality.


Robert Rogers: I quite agree that the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier is a very ambitious representative, and properly so, because he represents a very ambitious constituency, and everything that can be done must be done to assist that hon. member and his important constituency.


George Perry Graham: The fact that a certain
Highways Bill was not passed all the way through Parliament should not be given as an excuse why the Dominion Government will not consider reasonable propositions that might or might not have come under that particular scheme. The Highways Bill was started on its career for a very different purpose from that of building bridges; it was started on its career in the county of Renfrew for the purpose of promising good roads to many municipalities. Men were sent into that county to tell the people that if they did certain things they need not look to the Provincial Government for aid, they could come down to Ottawa and they would get their roads built independently of the provincial aid.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They were injecting a
little poison into pure politics.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact there is nothing in the world to hinder >
this Dominion from bringing in a Bill to aid the Provincial Government to build bridges.


Robert Rogers: That is what the Highways Bill provided for.


George Perry Graham: That Bill provided for
highways. If the Minister of Railways had proposed right away to take the entire grant for a year to build two bridges, he would likely have been opposed by other parts of the province that were entitled to some part of the money for highways. Even if he had a dozen Highways Bills, special provision would have had to be made for special work, because it would not have been practicable to take the entire grant that would go to Quebec or Ontario and expend it all in building two bridges which would serve only a small proportion of the people. There is nothing to hinder the Dominion Government from making, if they wish to do so a special case of these bridges and joining with the Provincial Government, the latter doing its full share in the building of the bridges which, although they do not technically connect the two provinces, would be practically, so far as the highway is concerned, interprovincial bridges, because to get from Ontario to Quebec along the St. Lawrence, one has to cross those two stretches of water mentioned by the hon. member for Rouville. When the time comes for the bridges to be built, as it will very shortly, I think the Minister of Public Works will see that it will be necessary for him to take the matter up as a separate project, no matter whether it be by a High-* ways Bill or not.


Robert Rogers: What my hon. friend has suggested is exactly what was provided for by the Highways Bill, because the Minister of Railways, in whose department the matter was, said that he could not expend a dollar of the money allotted to a province under that Bill without the approval of that province, and I am sure the Government of the province of Quebec, recognizing the importance of uie bridges named, would be very glad to give consideration and assistance in every way possible to the carrying out of the construction of those bridges. If I remember aright, the amount which was to be given to uie province of Quebec

was a pretty large sum and it would probably more than cover the cost of building the bridges as suggested by the hon. member for Rouville. However, this is probably ancient history ana I do not think anything can be done in the meantime.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the meantime, would not my hon. friend study that feature of the scheme as to whether or not the two railway companies could be induced to consider the feasibility of utilizing their respective bridges for pedestrians? I quite realize that any bridge to be built there would cost an enormous amount of money, and I do not see why the two companies could not come to terms with the Ottawa Government and possibly also with the Quebec Government and make arrangements to bring this matter to a head. I can assure my hon. friend that the question has become an acute one not only for the county of Jacques Cartier but for the whole island of Montreal. As my hon. friend from South Renfrew has stated, although the river at the point where I suggest the bridge should be built is exclusively within the boundaries of the province of Quebec, yet it is the meeting point of Ontario and Quebec. I am quite sure that the people of Ontario would appreciate the construction of the bridge or the adaptation of the two railway bridges for highway purposes just as much as the people of Quebec. I would urge my hon. friend to consult the two railway companies as to whether they would not make an arrangement.


Robert Rogers: I may say, that is now being done. 'The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries) had it up some time ago, and he is taking it up with the railway companies. I expressed my willingness to join him and see what can be done in that connection.
Laehine wharf, $11,000.


Charles Marcil: Will that be built this year?


Robert Rogers: No.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Quebec-Laprairie-protection works, $80,000.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Before this item is voted I would like to say a few words regarding the protection wall at Laprairie. I may say, in the first place, that I am in favour of the expenditure. Will the minister be good enough to tell this committee the amount

of money paid to date to the contractors, Messrs. Duranceau and Poupart? Is there any money due to those contractors; if so, how much? I would like to know, also, the cost of the plank road built last spring, the amount of money paid to Arthur Du-fort, the foreman, and the amount paid to Messrs. Viau and Lafrangois. These men were kept on the temporary road to replace the broken planks. I would like to know, also, the amount paid to Duranceau and Poupart to put up the bridge on the St. James river last spring. Did the hon. minister receive tender from Messrs. St. George and Carney, of Montreal, for the making of a macadam road instead of a plank road during last April or May? Is it the intention of the minister to proceed with this work this coming season? If so, will it be by day work or by contract? I assure my hon. friend that if he gives that work to the same contractors good results will not be obtained, because they are not qualified for such work. As I told my hon. friend 'before in this House, Mr. Duranceau is a tinsmith and Mr. Poupart is a retired farmer. Neither of them know anything about this kind of work. I would suggest to my hon. friend the name of a good contractor in my riding, Mr. Chagnon, who has been connected with concrete work in Montreal for the last forty years, and is well qualified to do that kind of work. I met him last week in the town of La-prairie, and he told me that he would enlarge the dyke by ten feet, fill these ten feet with earth, make a six-mile concrete wall and a good macadam road for the sum of $80,000. Will the minister tell the committee whether out of this $80,000 which he asks to be voted any money is to be paid for amounts due to the contractor? I hope the minister will see his way clear to get away from politics in connection with this work. I do not blame the minister as much as I do the member who has had the patronage in the county of Laprairie for the last four years. The minister knows well that Mr. Rainboth of Aylmer, who is a well qualified engineer, tendered for that work at $70,000.51. The tender of the other men, Duranceau and Poupart, was higher by a couple of thousand dollars. Anyhow, they did not sign the contract at that figure; the contract was given at so much a yard, and the result is that nothing has been done, although the department have expended from $80,000 to $100,000, and this year asks the sum of $80,000 to start the work again. 200
As I have said, I do not blame the minister, but I do blame the one who had the patronage for trying to get votes out of this matter. I suppose he was trying to get that work done during the election. After the Liberal Government went out of power in 1911 five-twelfths of the amount voted, $27,000 was spent, and the balance was spent in the next year. During the election in Quebec a local man had the patronage and one of his supporters in the riding appointed at least twenty men as foremen in connection with this work. Some of them were disappointed because they did not get $3 a day as foremen-that could not pass here in Ottawa. A few received $3 a day, and the others $2. They were idle all day; -they did no work at all, and as much money was spent in paying the foremen as was paid to the ones who did the work. I have heard many of my friends say that it was a pity that such a farce should go on in a riding so close to Montreal. I do not want to blame the minister for all that, because he does not know; but if anything 'of that kind happens again I shall come to Ottawa and tell him what is going on in Laprairie.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend in respect to the question before the committee. This, as my hon. friend well knows, is a very important work. It is the main highway between New York and Montreal, and other points, the main highway over which all people travel with their automobiles between the United States and Montreal. I must confess that this very important undertaking has .not been carried out as I had hoped that it would be and as I certainly believe that it should have been. In my opinion the blame should be attached not so much to the contractors as .to the engineers who made faulty plans in connection with the undertaking and who have been dismissed for the mistakes they made in connection with the preparation of these plans. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend all the information that I possibly can. I understand that the amendment asked for in the Estimates is quite sufficient to complete the work and make it a very passable highway, satisfactory to all. The estimated cost of completing the work is as follows: Plans on price of contract, $23,600.46; plans on agreement of temporary road, $850; rebuilding of inner wall, $11,000. (That is the part that gave way through the faulty plan of the engineer, this



causing the difficulty and trouble which arose); erecting the parapet, $23,000; three additional culverts, $5,000; additional inclined roadways, $11,000; extra for asphalted macadam $5,400, a total of $79,850.46. In view of the fact that this dyke is a link of a very important international highway, extensively used by tourists from Canada and the United States, the roadway on top of the dyke cannot be opened to the public until the whole of the work has been completed. This dyke is being built in order to protect the town of Laprairie against heavy annual damages caused by ice shoves and floods, and also to afford better communication with Montreal. These floods have been caused, at least partially, by the construction of different public works which have had the effect of narrowing the flowing section of the St. Lawrence below Laprairie, such as the Victoria bridge abutments and piers, the Mackay guard pier, and the Verdun dyke. The total estimated cost of the work is $158,953. The total amount paid to the contractors up to August 18, 1915 is $56,920. Work on the contract was stopped owing to lack of funds, the vote of $20,000 made last session having been used partly for the construction of a temporary plank road, pending the completion of the contract. The work done during the past fiscal year consisted of the following: (a) 700 feet of the 15-foot road bed was laid and 2,226 tons of crushed stone delivered on the site of the work. Inspector, A. Dufort, at $3 per day. (b) A macadamized roadway, 6,500 feet long, was constructed in order to temporarily accommodate the traffic during the spring season. Stones, already delivered, were spread on the work and covered with crushed stone. Foreman, Roch Lefebvre, at $3 per day. (c) Construction of a plank roadway alongside the dyke for a length of 6,500 feet. This was necessary in order to accommodate the traffic during the construction of the dyke. An Order in Council was passed, December 4, 1913, granting authority to accept the tender of Messrs. Alphonse Duranceau and Noe Poupart, of Laprairie, Que., at unit prices (entailing an approximate expenditure of $72,678.73) for the construction of a protection dyke at Laprairie, Que. Contract No. 9,909, amount $72,678.73 (schedule of prices); contractors, Duranceau, A., and Poupart, Noe, Laprairie, Que., date of contract, January 21, 1914; date of completion, 18 months from 6th December, 1913. The Department of Public Works decided to commence the 
construction of this work with the last 1,400 feet (the wholle work comprising 8,000 feet) and to have this length of the dyke completed within six weeks from the notification of the acceptance of the tender, the intention being to connect, this fall, the provincial road from where it ends along the route of the King Edward highway, as laid out, with the point where it joins the Old Road. This temporary roadway was necessary to accommodate the traffic during the construction of the dyke which was being built on the existing roadway.
District Engineer Michaud, in a report dated 18th April, 1913, states as follows:
In 1910, the Government decided that some steps should he taken to improve these conditions, and the sum of $10,000 was expended to raise the shore road six feet above its ordinary-level from the town of Laprairie towards St. Lambert and use this dyke as a roadway. 3,000 feet of this was filled with earth and riprapped on the shore slope during the year 1910-11.
During the fiscal years 1911-12 and 1912-13, the work was continued and mostly completed for a distance of 7,900 feet to an average height of 13 feet above extreme low water. The shore side of the dyke was partly riprapped and cemented.
The flood of the spring 1913, which was 4 feet above this protection dyke, scored out the side slope which had not been riprapped, and damaged the road bed generally to a great extent.
In order to ensure a greater protection and build a more permanent dyke which must necessarily be the highway out of the town ^ of Laprairie during the flood period, and a link of the King Edward VII Road from Rousse's Point to Montreal, which is undertaken by the Provincial Government with the aid of interested municipalities, the work already performed should be considerably extended. It will be necessary to raise the dyke 4 feet above its present level, macadamize the top on a width of 24 feet riprap and cement both slopes in order to secure permanency of all surfaces exposed to flood.
'''All the low shore exposed on the Laprairie basin for a length of 7,900 feet would be permanently protected, and free access in all times of the year would be provided for the town.
The Victoria bridge and the construction of the guard pier, as well as the execution of large works in the harbour has considerably narrowed the channel of the St. Lawrence river running past the island of Montreal.
The effect of this has been to heap up the ice at Laprairie and along the banks of the south shore of the river, and cause the water to overflow, resulting in great damage.
This is the engineer's report. I think I have covered the points about which Iny hon. friend has asked. If not I shall be glad to supply him with any further information which he regards as desirable or necessary. It is -unfortunate that the work has not been as successful as it should have been and as I should have liked to have seen it, but there have been great

difficulties, due firet of all largely to the fault of the engineer who made the original plans in a faulty manner, for which he suffered the penalty of dismissal. I cannot find any ground for complaint against the contractors, who have endeavoured to fill their contract. If my hop, friend has any information to the contrary I shall be glad to have it, because I recognize the importance of the work and the necessity of having it completed at the earliest possible moment. We found it necessary, owing to the delay, to erect a temporary roadway to accommodate the traffic during the past year; and I am glad to know that the temporary roadway so made was satisfactory. The amount now placed in the Estimates is supposed to complete the work, and I do not anticipate any further difficulty. We expect that the road 60 completed will give satisfaction to my hon. friend and to all the people of that locality. As I understand, many municipalities are directly interested in the success of this work. In addition to that, the fact that it is an international highway, necessary to accommodate the traffic between the cities in the United States and the city of Montreal, renders ite successful completion a matter of great national importance.


Mr. LANG  TOT@: The minister has not giv&n the amount paid to Messrs. Duran-ceau and Poupart to erect the bridge last year for the temporary roadway. I have been informed in this House that some $3,000 or $4,000 was paid for this work. I presume that something was paid to the firm for erecting the bridge in 191S. I also asked the minister how much money was paid to Messrs. Lefrancois & Viau. These men were working on the plank road all summer. I do not suppose they were doing that for their pleasure; they were receiving something, and I suppose they were employees of the Department of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: Mr. Lefrancois was paid $2 a day. I have not the number of days.


Roch Lanctôt: And what about Mr. Viau.


Robert Rogers: I have no mention of that name.


Roch Lanctôt: I know that both of these men were employed on that road, as I have passed there many 'times on my way to Montreal. I do not say that they were working all the time, but they were sup-200}
posed to be working and I have no doubt they received their salaries. Did the minister receive a tender from Messrs. St. George and Carney for the .building of a macadamized road instead of a plank road, during April or May last? I was told that iSt. George and ICarney sent in a tender of about $9,000 to make a macadamized road instead of a plank road. It would have been a greater-benefit to the people of the locality to have a macadamized road instead of a plank road, because a plank road will not last very long. I am sure it will not last throughout this coming summer. The minister did not tell the committee whether it is his intention to start the work in May.


Robert Rogers: As soon as it is possible to start the work we will certainly do so, and we will have it completed as early as possible. That is what we are asking the vote for.


Roch Lanctôt: If the work does not go on this summer, the people will say it is an election road.


Robert Rogers: They cannot say that; we have already spent too much money on it.


Roch Lanctôt: This work has been going on all the time just for election purposes. The minister said it was the fault of the engineer. That may be, but the department has a foreman there who was appointed by the Government, a man named Dufort, who is paid $3 per day. Was he doing his duty in not reporting to Ottawa how the work was going on? What is the use of having a foreman if he does not do his duty ? When the Government took office, Mr. Michaud was the local engineer, and the Tories in Montreal went to his office and told him that they would put him out. He told me so himself. They told him that the Tories were now the masters in Montreal. I do not say that Mr. Michaud did what he should have done. Mr. Michaud should have done his duty first, and then they could have put him out next day. That would have seemed right to me, but the politicians went to Mr. Michaud and told him that he was no longer master in the district of Montreal. The minister states that the local engineer did not prepare his plans. He did prepare his plans, but the contractors did not follow the plans, and Mr. Michaud could not make them do the work according to the plans. The foreman was there, and he should have telegraphed to Ottawa and told the depart-

meat -what was going on; but he did not do so. The department is paying a fore-nfan who did not do his duty.


Robert Rogers: I confess that I have not very much fault to find with what my hon. friend has said. Mr. Michaud, the late engineer, has now passed away, and I do not care to discuss in detail the circumstances surrounding the difficulty which arose in connection with this matter. It is true that we have a foreman there, but, as my hon. friend will understand, a foreman has very little to say, as against the engineer, who prepares the plans; he is simply there to see that the work is carried out.


Roch Lanctôt: When the foreman is
there, and a man puts a stone 12 inches on one side, and 6 inches on the other, and puts some earth in to fill it up, he should know very well that the stone will not stand. That was done at Laprairie; I saw it myself.


Robert Rogers: I am bound to accept the statement of my hon. friend. If he saw that done it was a very bad piece of work on the part of the foreman, who should be condemned.


Roch Lanctôt: The then local member. Mr. Patenaude, saw it too.


Robert Rogers: I will call him to account for it at once.


Charles Marcil: How much is the work
going to cost altogether?


Robert Rogers: About $150,000. We will have it completed this summer. I understand that we are going to have a magnificent job when it is completed, so far as the information we have at present goes to show. It is a very important work, and it is very unfortunate that there was fault in the original plan. We have had difficulty with the work all the way through. However, the fault is now corrected, and the work will be completed at the earliest possible date. We are going to use the temporary road until such time as the work is completed.' The road we built last year has proved as satisfactory as could be expected. That temporary road is in good shape, I understand, this spring, and will be suitable for the traffic until such time as we have the work completed, which, I trust, will be before very long. We are going to put on a special force to hurry the work along.
(Mr. Lanctot.i


Charles Marcil: I am glad that the minister realizes the importance of this work, because, as a constant reader of the Montreal newspapers, I have heard more about that road during the past two years than about any other work in Quebec. There is a large amount of American and Canadian travel that way, and it is notorious that the road near Laprairie is-I do not know what parliamentary term I could use to describe it. The road there is a connecting link between the city of Montreal and New York, and the sooner the minister can complete the job the better. He can do no more useful work around Montreal than to finish it as quickly as possible.


George Perry Graham: This piece of road is important in a good many ways. It is not only important; it is notorious. It is not only important to the city of Montreal, but its completion will be very important to all the towns and cities in the province of Quebec owing to the fact that the Provincial Government is pushing along a system of highways- in that province that is reaching to the city of Quebec. A great many tourists by automobile will come not only from New York, but from various cities via Montreal, and will finally land in Quebec as the end of their tour. I have discussed this matter with a good many New York people who shied off from Montreal during the last couple of years on account of this piece of road. They would go as far as Saratoga and then turn into the mountains to Lake Placid, and down the other way and back to New York, instead of coming to Montreal, though many of them left home with the idea of visiting Montreal. They were warned not to tackle this piece of road, because they would have to get horses to haul them out. I understand that a good many of the farmers in that district did a good summer's work last year in hauling out automobiles. I think the Automobile Association of Montreal waited on the Government once or twice in regard to the matter. I know that some of the officials have abused me about this road. Once or twice I almost concluded that I was still in office. Last year I think I discussed the matter on this item for a few moments. One thing appeared to me to be very strange, if true. I was told by an official of the Automobile Association that the Quebec Government had offered their road-making machinery to hurry the work along, but that this offer was declined and the construction of the road is costing

a great deal -more in consequence. I was told that on several occasions in Montreal, and the minister will know whether the statement is correct. If it is it would show that there has been a serious oversight which will prove rather costly and retard the completion of the road. I think it is safe to say that the city of Montreal, on account of the state of this road, has lost within the last two years- the temporary road helped out a little last year-not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars in tourist traffic. Tourists would set out with Montreal as their objective, but would turn aside when they learned about this road. I am sure that anything the minister can do to hurry up the completion of this road will be welcomed by the people not only of the city of Montreal, but all along the line east of Montreal right through t-he-city of Quebec. Some of our people down there go south for their holidays, but not so many, I imagine, as come from the other side to visit Montreal and other Canadian cities.


Robert Rogers: This is the first I ever
heard of the offer which my hon. friend states was made by the Quebec Government. It may have been made to the engineers, but it never reached the department to my knowledge.


George Perry Graham: The Automobile Association of Montreal is my informant.


Robert Rogers: I never heard of it before. This road along the bank of the St. Lawrence river has been very difficult to construct, the chief difficulty being with the water washing out the walls. I do not at all agree with what my hon. friend has said about the city of Montreal losing so much money, for the temporary road we built last year was entirely satisfactory.


George Perry Graham: I was speaking of the
year before.


Robert Rogers: The year before was when we started the work, and of course we could not be expected to finish it right away.


George Perry Graham: Something or other went wrong and delayed the work.


Robert Rogers: The temporary road we
put in last year was entirely satisfactory. I know that the Montreal Automobile Association was satisfied with it. I admit that prior to last year we had difficulties with the road, but the temporary road will be quite able to .take care of the traffic this year until the main road is completed; and we will have the road completed as rapidly
as possible. I will undertake to put a special engineer in charge of the work to see that it is done in the best possible manner.


Mr. DECARRIES:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I had many occasions to pass along (that road which has acquired quite a notoriety, and judging from what I saw personally, the reason for the delay in completing the work is not due to a lack of equipment, as stated by my hon. friend from Laprairie, but, as mentioned by the Minister of Public Works, to the plans being inappropriate. As I took frequent trips along there in automobile, I noticed that this artificial highway, which is at least 15 feet high, is really a stone wall built with stones gathered from all over and set one above the other. The walls were perpendicular, the space between being filled up with earth and all kinds of rubble. With the spring thaw and freshets, those stones of course fell on each side and the road collapsed. The Government is not to blame; a plan had been drawn, wbicb the minister expected to be satisfactory, as it had been prepared hy an engineer of some repute. The plans were carried out, with disastrous results. I also would aek the Government to complete this work.


Charles Marcil: (Translation.) Will it be completed on the same plans as the old structure?
Mr. DElCAR-RIEiS: (Translation.) I do not think so; experience has shown that the walls should not be made perpendicular, as they would certainly crumple down. The minister stated that the road would be built along lines approved of by competent engineers, and it is absolutely necessary to have it completed at once.
My hon. friend from Laprairie wished to know whether it would not have been better to build a concrete road along that highway? But why a concrete road?
M. LAN'CTOT: (Translation.) I never said anything of the kind.
Mr. DElCAR-RIEiS': (Translation.) I should like my hon. friend to repeat what he said.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) I said
that as a protection for the elevated road, a concrete riprap ought to he built.
Mr. DECARRIElS:	(Translation.) I
I understood you to say that instead of a wooden road, you would rather see a macadamized road.
Mr. (LANOTOT: (Translation.) Yes, as a temporary road alongside.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Why then build a concrete road alongside the elevated road which will be soon completed and will offer a splendid highway? Why a concrete road at the foot of the other one? It would be a perfectly useless and unjustifiable expenditure. As pointed out 'by the minister, the wooden road is excellent; I frequently drove .a car along the road and I say that it is in .good shape for the present. Of course it will not last for years and years; the wood will rot and the road will become impracticable, 'but while the wall is being erected that wooden road is all right. All the autos drive along as fast as they wish, sometimes speeding faster than the law will allow.


Charles Marcil: How long is the
road?


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: I do not exactly
know, but it begins a little to the east of St. Lambert and runs close to Laprairie. It must ibe about one mile long; but the member for Laprairie is better acquainted with the Toad than I am. At any rate what I am saying is for the purpose of showing that the fault does not lie with the Government. Quite otherwise; the Government by that work is 'giving the people of Montreal and surrounding counties, and to the travelling community of the province a road that will take 'them from Montreal right across the different parishes of the county of Laprairie even to the United States with the greatest comfort. The road, which is known as the King Edward VII Road is quite a beautiful highway, and becomes part of the road system which the province of Quebec is 'building, and I think the county of Laprairie has been particularly favoured by the Government in getting from them that hit of road.
For my part, 'as member for the county of Jacques Cartier, I should gladly see the Government spend some hundred thousand dollars in my county to open up new communications between the counties of Jacques Cartier and Vaudreuil either by building a road between the bridges or one connected with the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk 'bridges that cross, the river between Sainte Anne and Vaudreuil. Here again there is room for improvement, and I hope that before long the Government will see its way to granting my request and give the necessary help towards the construction of the road, as it is the only point where communication! can be established between the island of Montreal and the mainland, to cross from the province of Quebec to

Upper Canada. Another road could he built between Lachine and Caughnawaga.


George Perry Graham: You were not
here this afternoon.
Mir. D'ECARRIEIS:	(Translation.) A
bridge could be built in conjunction with 'the Canadian Pacific bridge, as was done for rigs along Victoria bridge.
At any rate, I hope to have an opportunity before the end of the session, to ask the Government some grant for those works, but, in the meantime, I congratulate the Government on what they have done for the Laprairie-Napierville road, t


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) I see that the hon member for Jacques-Cartier did not understand the gist of my remarks. He is inclined to enconomy. Economy is, indeed, a good thing and I approve him, but he made a mistake in stating that a concrete road would be too expensive. I never spoke of a concrete road but of a macadamized road, with broken stone, such as are built in the county of Laprairie. Is the member for Jacques Cartier aware that the wooden road in- question costs at least fifteen, to sixteen thousand dollars, and that a macadamized road would not have cost more than nine thousand dollars ?	*
Now, the member for Jacques Cartier- [DOT]although a lawyer-ought to know that a macadamized road lasts a great deal longer than a wooden road.
Mr. DEICARRIESi: (Translation.) Will the hon. member allow me to say that the wooden road is but a temporary makeshift and that if a macadamized road were built it would make it a permanent road in a way.


Roch Lanctôt: 
George Perry Graham: Who is Mr. Caron?


Roch Lanctôt: Minister of Highways of the province of Quebec, now Minister of Agriculture. This is the correspondence:
Quebec, 21st October, 1913. The Hon. Ilobert Rogers,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Hear Sir,
Will you let me call your attention to the fact that there is still a large amount of work to be done, to complete that portion of the King Edward V11 road under the control of your department in the parish of Laprairie.
No work of any importance has been done this summer and there is no probability that the road will be completed for the beginning of the summer of 1914.
It is not my purpose to reflect in any manner on the reasons which have prevented the work to proceed during the last summer. I wish only to state that the provincial part of the road is very near completion now and will probably be finished in two weeks time if we have fair weather.
The provincial government has spent a large sum upon this road and we are very anxious to have it completed for the beginning of next year,, in order to accommodate the large tourist travel which will come from the border.
I thought that perhaps you would welcome an .offer from my department to complete the road next spring. We have five of our outfits on the ground. Our contractor is there also with a large plant.
I think we could finish the embankment this fall and easily complete your part of the road for the end of June next if your department is willing to enter into an agreement as to the cost with my own department.
I am sure that you sincerely desire to complete this road as soon as possible and we are ready ourselves to co-operate with your department to attain this end if you care to consider our proposition.
Truly yours,
(Sgd) Jos. Ed. Caron.
Office of the Minister of Public Works of Canada, Ottawa,
My dear sir,
October 27, 191-3.
I have your letter of the 21st instant -, in reference to the construction of the King, Edward VII road in the parish of Laprairie, and in reply to the same I might state that the department called for tenders for this work recently and that a recommendation is now before council to award the contract. The contractor undertakes to perform the work in question this fall. Were it not that the proceedings had reached this stage I would have been pleased to take up with your department the work in question.
Your sincerely,
(Sgd) R. Rogers.
Hon. Joseph D. Caron,
Quebec, P.Q.
I would like to know if the minister remembers having received that letter and having sent that reply.


Robert Rogers: I have no recollection of the correspondence which my hon. friend has just read, but which of course, I quite accept as being correct. The correspondence is not in line with what was said by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, that an offer was received from the Quebec Government to supply the plant necessary for the carrying out of the work, which plant I understood him to say was offered while the work was going on. The correspondence which my hon. friend has read speaks for itself. The point in this particular matter was this:	The Quebec Government were
building the King Edward VII highway, and it was necessary for the Dominion Government to undertake this link at a point on the St. Lawrence where we have encountered a great deal of trouble owing to ice-jams and flooding which has caused the delay. My hon. friend a moment ago spoke of the macadamized road and suggested that we should have a macadamized temporary road instead of a plank road, and that we should continue them both. I do not see the necessity of having a double road, and I am glad to see that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Descarries) bears out what I stated this evening, that the temporary road was entirely satisfactory during the past year to every one who had occasion to use it. Now, my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville states that this temporary plank road has cost something like $15,000. I am afraid he is in error because the contract was let for $4,000.


Roch Lanctôt: Not $4,000 for the plank road, but for the road opened in 1914. The plank road built last spring cost more than $4,000, I am sure.


Robert Rogers: The figures I have before me show that a contract was let for a temporary road for $4,000, and we require an additional $850.


Roch Lanctôt: The first contract was let at $4,000 for the building of a temporary road, in 1914; and the $850 is to pay Duran-eeau & Noe Poupart for the building of

a bridge last spring, if I understand correctly. But the plank road was made by day work, not by contract; and I can assure my hon. friend that it cost over $15,000. Now, while I am on my feet I might as well answer the minister. The money spent by the Department of Public Works, o<r by any other department-, is spent for the benefit of the people and not merely to please the department. If you build a plank road for $15,000, you have a good road for one year; but you can build a macadamized road for $10,000 that would be there for all time. So, it seems to me that, for the good of the people, it would be better to have the macadamized road than the plank road. I am not a lawyer but only a farmer, and I understand things that way. When I spend money I want to get, if possible, something that will last for years and not only for six months. 1 think it will take a good many lawyers to prove me wrong in that. Let any of these hon. gentlemen come to my riding and discuss this matter with me-the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Patenaude) for one.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman will remember that there was a very pressing necessity for immediate arrangements to be made for the passage of traffic: the public were suffering for the want of the connection between Montreal and the United States and elsewhere. To construct a macadamized road would have taken a long time, while we were able to lay down the plank road very quickly and so supply the missing link. That is the reason that a temporary plank road was made instead of .a macadamized road. My hon. friend may be correct in his figures of cost; I am not going to dispute what he says, for I have not the exact figures before me.


Charles Marcil: Was the road made by day work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Why not by contract?


Robert Rogers: 
Roch Lanctôt: I have just a few words to add to what has already been said. The minister says it would take a longer time to build a macadamized-road than a plank road. Of course-two weeks more. But is not he aware that we had been in the mud for three years previous to the building of the plank road? And does not he know that in our province as the fall season comes on even a dirt road is pretty good and we get along all right? St. George & Carney told me that this six thousand feet of road could be built in five weeks. Well, suppose you could build a plank road in two weeks. Then we should have to wait three weeks more to have a road that would be good for all time. Is there a man in this House who will tell me that, if the interest of the people is to be the ruling consideration, jt would not have been better to make that permanent road?


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: Who is the owner of the land on which that temporary road is built?	v


Roch Lanctôt: I understand that it is owned by the Beaudry estate and that Mr. Leblanc, Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, has an interest in it.


Joseph-Adélard Descarries: If you build a permanent road you will be* obliged to purchase that land.


Roch Lanctôt: The city of Laprairie could expropriate that little strip of property and build a road that would be good for all time; don't let that worry you.
Malbaie-to complete pier, $17,000.


George Perry Graham: It appears that $17,000 was voted last year and this is
9	p.m. a revote of $17,000. Yet it is said that this is "to complete."


Robert Rogers: Yes, that is a mistake. This work has been completed, and I move that the item be struck out.
Motion agreed to and item struck out.
Murray Bay-to complete wharf improvements, $4,200.


Air GRAHAM:: To what extent does the Department of Marine and Fisheries repair wharves? What is their limit?


Mr. ROGER:: Their limit is from $50 to

North Timiscaming-wharf, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: This work stands?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: No work has been done on this wharf?


Robert Rogers: Nothing.


Charles Marcil: I heard some very serious opposition on the part of the Conservative party some years ago against building Dominion wharves on inland waters. Has the policy of the department been changed in that respect?


Robert Rogers: This wharf is at the head of the lake, and appears to be necessary.


Charles Marcil: I do not say that it is not necessary, but the Conservative party when in opposition opposed the building of Dominion wharves in inland waters, contending that these were purely provincial works. Is it the policy of the present Administration to build Dominion wharves in inland waters?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I would not be an authority on that question. I have never been in opposition, and I hope never to be.


George Perry Graham: That is the best confirmation we have had of the rumour that my hon. friend is soon to be exalted to another position. I will not object if he is, on his own account. The question raised by the hon. member for Bonaventure is one that created a good deal of discussion in the House at one time. After all, we have got to the point where we do shut our eyes perhaps, to certain niceties as to the line of demarcation between provincial and federal authority. Navigation to a large extent is under the Federal authority. Timiskaming and its chain of lakes are very important waters, connecting with the Ottawa river by various outlets. On behalf of the Opposition and the late Government, I am glad to see that the present Minister of Public Works eschews the works of his predecessors when they were in opposition. I maintained then, as I do now, that there are circumstances and conditions under which it would be no infringement of provincial prerogative for the Federal authority to step in and build on these larger lakes, particularly where navigation is of an important character and of no small dimensions, wharves for steamers of a considerable size, quite a number of which operate during the season of navigation.


Charles Marcil: I may say that that was the policy adopted by Mr. Tarte when he was Minister of Public Works; he started
to build these wharves on lake Timis-kamin. His policy at that time was stoutly condemned by members of the Conservative party. I am glad to see that the present Minister of Public Works has adopted a more progressive and enlightened policy in that regard.


Robert Rogers: I am pleased to know that I am a follower of the late Mr. Tarte in this respect. If this was his policy I am glad to subscribe to it, recognizing his progressive work as Minister of Public Works and the manner in which he contributed to the development of the various public works in connection with the department over which he presided.


George Perry Graham: Montreal papers please copy.
Petite Riviere Est-breakwater, $19,000.


Charles Marcil: Has any work been done in connection with this breakwater?


Robert Rogers: No.


Charles Marcil: Will anything be done this year?


Robert Rogers: No, I do not expect that anything will ^be done this year.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $150,000.


Charles Marcil: What has been done here?


Robert Rogers: This is undoubtedly a very important work. I will read the statement for my hon. friend:
This amount of $150,000 is required to continue the harbour improvements at Rimouski. The improvements consist of a timber structure filled with stone, built parallel to the western and northern face of the present wharf, the whole length of the cribwork aggregating 1,458 feet, to be seated, in a trench previously dredged to a depth of 25 feet below low water the dredging of a tidal basin 1,100 feet by 600 feet to a depth 25 feet below low water ; and the filling of the space between the old and hew works. Estimated cost, $350,000'. This work will promote the development of trade in the district. Several important saw, pulp, and other mills are greatly in need of these improvements to facilitate their shipping trade. These improvements will also procure deep water accommodation and shelter for vessels frequenting the harbour and will make Rimouski a very good port of refuge, being protected by St. Barnabe Island and by the wharf. The work was requested by the Board of Trade of Rimouski in a resolution dated
February, 1912.
Expenditure 1914-15, on contract
No. 10,016	$ 55,781 29
Expenditure 1914-15, inspection,
etc	 2,106	84
Probable expenditure 1915-16..	.. 111,000 00

Total probable expenditure up to
March 31, 1916	$178,888 13
Appropriation, 1915-16, $50,000. The appropriation for 1915-16 will be over expended by $60,000.
Probable Cost of Worlc.
Amount of contract No. 10,016.. $355,445 56 Probable expenditure to March 31,
	 178,888 13
Amount asked for 1917

to complete 1916-
250,000 00
Total probable cost	$426,556 37
The work done during the present fiscal year consisted of the sinking of 600 feet of caissons.
The dredging of the caisson berth has been completed. The superstructure of 300 feet ot the c&isson sunk last year has been commenced. Inspector, A. Pineau, $3.50 a day, for looking after the work.
Mr. MARCH.: Do I understand it is contemplated to spend $350,000 at Rimouski?


Robert Rogers: That is the total
amount.


Charles Marcil: To increase the wharf and make a tidal basin?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Is there anything to justify an expenditure of that kind at the present moment-the minister cannot have been there lately.


Robert Rogers: No, I have not. This improvement at Rimouski has been under wav for some time. Rimouski is an important point for the landing of ships. My hon. friend knows that some of the largest ocean liners frequently land at Rimouski, and there has been general complaint that we did not have the necessary wharf accommodation there. This work has been under way now for about two years, and it will take some time to complete it. It has been discussed in the House several times, and in my opinion very few works of the kind are more necessary than the building of the harbour at Rimouski.


Charles Marcil: Is Father Point to be
abandoned altogether? No passenger boats ever stop at Rimouski. What depth is sought to be obtained there?


Robert Rogers: A depth of 25 feet at low water, and the filling in of the space between the old and the new work.


Charles Marcil: What was the tonnage at Rimouski last year and the year before?


Robert Rogers: As far back as 1911 thirty-two ocean vessels, of an aggregate tonnage of 56,757 tons, took their cargoes at Rimouski, although the depth of water at low tide was only fourteen feet. That has been the difficulty at Rimouski, and therefore it did not get the trade to which it was entitled. Ocean liners represented that as the depth of water was only fourteen feet it w'as impossible for them to go there. It is expected that after the completion of this work the trade of Rimouski will develop very rapidly, and that within a very short time it will probably more than double,


Charles Marcil: What becomes of Father Point?


Robert Rogers: We are not doing anything at Father Point in connection with this scheme. It is just left in its present condition.


Charles Marcil: Is it intended that Rimouski is to become a port to rival Quebec or Montreal1, or is it to be a local port of call? There is no business at Rimouski to justify an expenditure of this kind. No sane man in the province of Quebec would attempt to justify that.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will understand that there is a very large lumber business there, and, in addition, Rimouski has always been used as the landing point for the ocean mails.


Charles Marcil: The steamers do not go to the wharf.


Robert Rogers: They could not go to the wharf with a depth of fourteen feet.


Charles Marcil: It would be a great loss of time for a steamer to call at the wharf.


Robert Rogers: Now that we are affording twenty-five feet of water at low water, the ships will be able to land, and it will add to the convenience of the people not only in the Rimouski district, but all over Canada, by giving them their mails twenty-four hours or more sooner than by the present arrangement.
Mr., MARCIL: I am glad the minister is satisfied with his present scheme, because I do not see anything to justify it. No steamer going from Quebec or Montreal wants to waste time going into Rimouski. They -simply stay in the offing and drop the mails, and pick up their pilots at Father Point. As to the lumber trade, 25 feet of water is more than is required for any sailing vessel or any lumber steamer

going in there. I think the minister is going -altogether beyond the requirements. I remember as a boy, in the days of Sir Hector Langevin, that Rimouski was the favourite spending spot in the province of Quebec. More money has . been wasted in the harbour of Rimouski, to my knowledge, than in any other port in Quebec, and I do not see anything to justify the present expenditure. How much is to be spent during the present year?


Robert Rogers: We will probably spend the -amount of the estimate, $150,000.


Charles Marcil: There is to be no economy at Rimouski this year?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid my hon. friend really -does not appreciate the importance of the work.


Charles Marcil: Not to that extent.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid he does not appreciate the importance of the work to the entire people of Canada, who will get their -mail from 24 to 36 hours earlier than they would if this work were not carried out. It is a very important piece of work from that point of view, if from no other. Then, too, passengers going to Europe can take their ship at Rimouski 24 hours later than they otherwise could. It is going to be of the greatest possible convenience to the people of Canada, and it has been strongly pressed on us and is considered as a necessary work. It is true that, in the past, ocean liners could not land at Rimouski and had to pick up -their pilots at Father Point, and therefore the port of Rimouski has been neglected to that extent. This item is in the Estimates for the very purpose of remedying that condition.


Charles Marcil: Has the Marine Association of Montreal, or any of the large shipping companies, asked that work of this kind be done?


Robert Rogers: There has been an expressed desire on the part of everybody I have discussed the matter with for improvements there. They are regarded as a very pressing necessity.


Mr. VERVILLE:: Did I understand the minister to say that the depth at low water would be 25 feet?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alphonse Verville: How will it be possible for a steamer carrying mail and freight to
land at that wharf with a depth of only 25 feet?


Robert Rogers: That is at low water.


Alphonse Verville: I understand that, but suppose that a ship gets in at low water; how will it be able to draw up at the wharf with a depth of only 25 feet of water?


Robert Rogers: There are many ships that do no-t draw 25 feet of water.


Alphonse Verville: Not many mail ships.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister knows that every ship must have two or three feet of water more than her draught before she can move.


Robert Rogers: From 19 to 20 feet is what they usually draw.


James Joseph Hughes: A ship cannot be steered unless she has a few feet of water more than her draught.


Robert Rogers: If 25 feet is not deep enough we will go deeper.


Charles Marcil: As the result of the accident to the Empress of Ireland, what is the rule in regard to the calling of ocean steamers at Rimouski? Do the new rules not keep away those steamers from Rimouski?


Robert Rogers: That question can be answered by the Marine Department. .1 am not familiar with the rules and regulations as to landing; my business is to supply a wharf to permit of that landing, and that is what I propose to do at Rimouski, believing it to be in the public interest.
(Mr. H. BOUL.AY:	(Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether my hon. friend from'Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has grasped the question. I fail +o -see on what grounds he finds exorbitant the expenditure now being made in the harbour of Rimouski; for he knows just as well as I do that it is one of the most important harbours on the lower St. Lawrence.
For many years past, the port of Rimouski has been the centre of an active trade in lumber, and the proposed improvements would enable ships to load right -at the wharf. Heretofore, ships had to take on their cargo of lumber three or four miles away from the wharf, which entailed on the shippers the use of lighters. It is known, besides, that the Price Company has several establishments in the counties of Matane and Rimouski, and, every year, several of their

vessels are plying to and from the port of Rimouski. Here is therefore a requirement of the lumber trade. As regards the mail boats, even should these improvements be carried to completion, they would still be unable to reach the Rimouski wharf; to attain that object, some dredging and deepening of the channel would be necessary. Then again, those improvements would allow of vessels such as the Lady Evelyn, for example, with a draft of twenty feet, and which lands the mails and passengers from the transatlantic steamers, to reach the wharf under all conditions of tide. Moreover, the contract was granted previous to the outbreak of the war, and the work must he carried through. My hon. friend from Bonaventure was not so particular, when his friends were in power, about requesting the construction of wharves in his constituency at distances of every four or five miles. He is not in a position to obtain such favours just now, and that explains the bitterness of his remarks.
The people of the county of Rimouski have been neglected for a number of years, and it is only right that this Government should see to it that we are protected and that we get the improvements which the trade has been in need of for so long a time.


Charles Marcil: 
Charles Marcil: ' Will anything be done here?


Robert Rogers: No, not this year.


Charles Marcil: Is there any general
scheme under way? This has also been described as a port of great importance.


Robert Rogers: This amount of $50,000
is required for the construction of harbour improvements at Riviere du Loup. The proposed improvements will consist of an approach, pier and dredging; the approach to be constructed first and to form a separate contract. It will consist of two parallel lines of close-faced stone, filled timber crib-work laid 200 feet distant from the shore

outward, 610 feet long on the west and 700 feet long on the east side.
Both lines of cribwork to be 17 feet wide on top, the rear faces to be benched, and the space within to be filled with aDnroved material. The top surface to be concrete macadam, laid on a stone surface.
. Mr. MARCIL:	Is a channel being dug
to let the boats get into the wharf?


Robert Rogers: We are dredging alongside the wharf first.


Charles Marcil: What is the depth of
water there?


Robert Rogers: About 20 feet.


Charles Marcil: Why is this being done
at Rimouski and not at Riviere du Loup?


Robert Rogers: We had let the contract for the work at Rimouski before the war broke out. Furthermore, we regard Rimouski as a most important point.


Charles Marcil: What trade is intended
to be developed at Riviere du Loup, transoceanic or local?


Robert Rogers: Largely coal for the Intercolonial, and timber.


Charles Marcil: Is Riviere du Loup still
a calling place for steamers of the Canadian Steamship Company and other lines plying down the St. Lawrence?


Robert Rogers: Some of them call there, putting in at the Intercolonial wharf, as the other is not suitable.


Charles Marcil: Do the Government
steamers for Murray Bay call there?


Robert Rogers: I could not say.
RiviSre du Loup en haut-Lock and dam


Charles Marcil: Is that part of the same work?


Robert Rogers: It has nothing to do with it. This is for a lock 400 feet in length by 35 feet wide, on the eastern bank of the Riviere du Loup. A dam with six waterways is to be constructed to regulate the flow of the river.


Charles Marcil: No work has been done yet?


Robert Rogers: No.
Rivifere Laguerre-improvements, $15,000.


Robert Rogers: This is in Huntingdon county; nothing has been done on this yet.


Charles Marcil: Is the object of the work to prevent the flooding of farms?


Robert Rogers: It is to build a canal from Riviere Laguerre through the marshy lands southeast of St. Anicet, south of Port Lewis and west of Ste. Barbe and St. Stanislas.


Charles Marcil: This is to prevent the flooding of the farms in the district. The work has been asked for for many years;


Robert Rogers: Yes. Nothing has been done yet, and nothing will be done on this work this year.


Charles Marcil: This would have been a good place to make an exception in these war times, for the English name of this river is the War river. The farms in this district are flooded every spring, and as the Government are urging the farmers to increased production I think they might very well take some of the money they propose to waste at Rimouski and use it on this work in Huntingdon county, which is one of the most fertile districts in Quebec.


Robert Rogers: We are not sentimental enough to be influenced by names. ,


Charles Marcil: This would be a very practicable work, if I may judge from the Trade and Commerce Department pamphlet.
St. Alphonse-addition to wharf, $25,000.


Charles Marcil: Has anything been done here?


Robert Rogers: Nothing will be done this year.
Ste. Anne des Monts-Landing pier, $35,000.


George Perry Graham: $60,000 seems to have
been expended here.


Robert Rogers: Yes, and $35,000 is required to complete the construction of the landing pier.


Charles Marcil: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 


Charles Marcil: What business is expected to be done at Ste. Anne des Monts?


Robert Rogers: It is largely lumbering and fishing. There are two mills there, but I could not say just what size they are.


Charles Marcil: I would advise the minister to take a trip through that locality this summer, and when he sees the size of Ste. Anne des Monts and the business that is done there-steamers calling there

only about once a fortnight-he will wonder why such an extravagant amount is being spent there in war times, when everything in sight is being taxed, and when next year's Budget will probably be double this year'e. If the minister would visit the place I think he would be a little more inclined to be saving next year.


Robert Rogers: It is quite a good sized place, with 3,000 population.


Charles Marcil: 
Charles Marcil: Has anything been done
here?


Robert Rogers: No and nothing will be
done this year.
Ste. Anne du Saguenay-extension of wharf,
510,000.


Charles Marcil: Will anything be done
there this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes we are going on with this work. The estimated cost is $10,000.
Ste. Cecile du Bic-wharf extension and harbour improvements, $13,000.


Charles Marcil: Has anything been done here?


Robert Rogers: No.
Ste. Croix-extension to wharf, $5,000.


Mr. FORTIER:: Is it the intention of
the Government to build this wharf? The minister has promised to do the work three or four times since he took office.


Robert Rogers: The proposed extension
would necessitate cribwork structure 300 feet long, 200 feet of which would be 20 feet wide and the other 100 feet varying from 20 to 30 feet in width. The estimated cost was so very high that we did not feel justified in going on with the work. The estimated cost of the work, according to the engineer, is $41,580, and as that is a very large sum, the work has been delayed.


Edmond Fortier: 
Robert Rogers: My hon. friend can understand that we are not calling for many tenders, and on account of present conditions we are delaying works that we consider even more important than this one. Hence this work has been delayed. Had the war not overtaken us, the work would have been gone on with two years ago; but since the war broke out we have been trying to get along with as little expenditure as possible, and this is one of the points that is suffering on that account.


Edmond Fortier: I differ with the minister in regard to the importance of the work, because this wharf serves some five or six parishes, as the farm products and merchandise is taken from this wharf to the markets ajt Montreal and Quebec. It is the only way by which the farmer can get his products to the market.


Robert Rogers: I can quite appreciate what my hon. friend has to say about the importance of the work from a local standpoint; but in view of the fact that we are delaying works that we regard as even more important, notwithstanding what my hon. friend has to say, than this one, it happens to be in the list of those that are delayed. My hon. friend, I am sure, can appreciate the reasons why we did not go on with the work two years ago. We will go on with it just as soon ,as possible, because there is no doubt, as my hon. friend has stated, that it is an important work from a local point of view.


Charles Marcil: Ste. Croix is the outlet for the whole county of Lotbiniere. I have noticed many times in going to Quebec that the market boats from that region are very large and carry an immense amount of farm produce. Therefore, I think the small sum of $5,000 is really required, but in view of the generous treatment which Rimouski is receiving, I think my hon. friend should grant this small sum.


Robert Rogers: If $5,000 would complete the work, I would be very glad to expend the money, but unfortunately it would not.


Edmond Fortier: Is the minister soinu to try to do something this year so as to complete the work as soon as possible?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid it will be
impossible for us to do anything this year, because that $5,000 would not be of any

value so far as the completion of the wharf is concerned. It would take about $40,000 to complete it as it should be, according to the report of the engineer, and I do not think we could recommend the expenditure of that large sum of money for the wharf. I would not regard it as being of sufficient importance for the expenditure of that amount. If $5,000 would complete it, I would be glad to see the work carried out. $32,000 has already been expended on the wharf.


Edmond Fortier: The people in my riding are under the impression that the minister is delaying the work until the,next election. I may say to the committee that I do not want the construction of a wharf to be delayed. I recommend that the committee pass the item.
St. Germain de Kamouraska-wharf, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: Has anything been done there?


Robert Rogers: No.


George Perry Graham: I suppose it is among
the items on which nothing is going to be spent this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
St. Irdnde-addition to wharf, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this is in the same class?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: There is a great horsebreeding farm down there.


Robert Rogers: I did not know that.


George Perry Graham: You have not followed the live stock eituation in the country.
St. Jean, Island of Orleans-wharf extension, $23,400.


George Perry Graham: Some money has been expended on that wharf. Is this amount to complete, it?


Robert Rogers: No. We liave not started it. This amount ie just to survey the ground.


George Perry Graham: It is in the same class as the others then?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Ste. Petronille, Island of Orleans-wharf,


Charles Marcil: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been done.


Charles Marcil: Has a survey been made?


Robert Rogers: No.


Charles Marcil: It is a most remarkable state of affairs-two large works of that kind and nothing done; both items revoted several times.


Robert Rogers: This is just like every other item that we are passing in this way. The delay is due to present conditions.
Three Rivers

repairs to wharf, $20,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a new item altogether?


Robert Rogers: The money is to be expended.


Charles Marcil: Is that to complete the wharf or to do some dredging?


Robert Rogers: To repair the wharf at Three Rivers.


Charles Marcil: Has the wharf been
damaged by usage or by ice or how?


Robert Rogers: It has been damaged by usage. The wharf at Three Rivers is used to a very large extent for coal shipments.
Valleyfield-wharf, $5,000.


Charles Marcil: Is that a new wharf?


Robert Rogers: It is an extension to the wharf at Valleyfield.


Charles Marcil: Nothing urgent about it?


Robert Rogers: I do not think so.


Charles Marcil: Before leaving the Public Works Estimates for Quebec, I would like to ask the minister if anything has been done in Paspebiac. Last year an agreement was arrived at between the Department of Public Works and the firm of Robin, Jones and Whitman by which the department undertook to spend two or three thousand dollars on a wharf belonging to that firm. Has that work been done since last year?


Robert Rogers: No, the work has not been done. The deputy informs me that there has been some delay in the transfer.


Charles Marcil: Will the work be carried on this season?	,


Robert Rogers: I do not think so.
Harbours and Rivers-Ontario, $1,051,800.


George Perry Graham: We have here a number of items applying to places near together- Bowmanville, Brighton, Cobourg, Oshawa, Newcastle.


Robert Rogers: To set my hon. friend right, I may say that wherever the three amounts, revote, expenditure for 1916-17, and expenditure for 1915-16 are the same, these works are to stand for the coming year.


George Perry Graham: What I wanted to ask was whether these harbours are now Government harbours altogether. There was an agitation some years ago with respect to these several harbours to have them taken over by the Government, and if I remember well most of them were taken over fro-m private individuals and made Government harbours, and, as a consequence, considerable expenditure was necessary on wharves and other improvements.


Robert Rogers: I think the hon. gentleman is practically correct.


Charles Marcil: I was not here when the Minister of Public, Works made the statement which he has indicated in his reference to the three amounts. Can he give us a plausible explanation of why these items are voted if the work is not to go on?


Robert Rogers: I am sorry my hon. friend was not here when I explained that matter when my Estimates were first taken up, but I may repeat it in a word. Each of the works for which there is an appropriation in the Estimates was regarded as a necessary work, and the vote was asked for in good faith and with the hope of carrying out the work. At the outbreak of the'war we announced in good faith that these works would not be carried out during the continuance of the war; but we retained these votes in the Estimates as evidence of good faith, and as indicating that we proceed with these works as soon as possible after the close of the war.
Fighting- island. (Detroit river)-improvement to channel, $57,000.


Mr. PARDEE:: Can the minister give
some idea of what this improvement is?


Robert Rogers: The purpose is to dredge an alternative channel. District Engineer Lambe states that the object is to double track the existing deep channel in the Detroit river by widening and deepening certain parts on the Canadian side of Fighting island in order to relieve
10	p.m. congestion of traffic in the American channel. The result would be the making of a channel with a minimum width of 300 feet and a minimum
depth of 21 feet, which will be of immense benefit and assistance to traffic passing at this point.


George Perry Graham: There is an agreement, I suppose, between the two Governments on this subject?


Robert Rogers: This is all on the Canadian side.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That work will not be
done this year?


Robert Rogers: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why put in the item?


Robert Rogers: For good faith, as I have explained. This has been in for some time.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry the Minister
of Public Works did not hold the portfolio of Public Works at the beginning ot this Administration. I do not wish to go back into past history, but our late friend and former member for Jacques Cartier, Mr. Monk, was then Minister of Public Works, but 'there were several items for public buildings and other improvements in my constituency that had been put in in good faith, but they were struck out and faith was not kept.


Robert Rogers: That must have been a
mistake.
Fort Frances-wharf, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: I think I am right in
saying that the International Waterways Commission or some other international body had under consideration the question of boundary waters in this vicinity, and there has been some difficulty as to the water-power development. No doubt, the Minister of Public Works will remember the points involved. Can he tell us if an agreement has been arrived at?


Robert Rogers: The International Joint
Commission have had this matter in hand for some time. They have been giving it special consideration very recently and have had engineers from both sides of the line making surveys. I understood a few days ago that they were getting close to the point of fina1 <lecision as to the height of the waters of the Lake of the Woods, which is the point that affects Fort Frances. Everything was proceeding in the most satisfactory and harmonious manner and the final decision was expected in the near future

French River dams-repairs and maintenance, $3,000.


George Perry Graham: Quite a large work was
undertaken in connection with the French river, if I mistake not, *which was announced in a general way to be part of, the Georgian Bay canal scheme. The eastern terminus of that work for the time being was to be North Bay, at the east end of lake Nipissing. What has been done along the line of the development of the French river and lake; what is the nature of the work, and how much has been expended upon it?


Robert Rogers: I will read the information for my hon. friend:
This dam was constructed to regulate the discharge of Lake Nipissing, so that during the fall or low months the water level of the lake may be maintained about elevation 643-5 or about half way between mean summer level and high-water. This will serve the purpose of facilitating the handling of the logs at the different mills on the lake, and also provide a constant depth at the various wharves and harbours where the department has made improvements by dredging. A contract for this work was awarded to J. F. Boyd of Sault Ste. Marie, in January 1911; contract price $13,365, but he gave up his contract in November, 1912. The work was completed by the department and the dam in working order by the first of October, 1913. Total cost of dam at Little ChaudiOre Rapids, $27,719.77. The only departmental work in the locality is the French River Dam Big Chaudiere, about 5 miles away. This dam is at present under construction. The French River dam is situated across the west channel of the Little Chaudiere rapids at the outlet of Lake Nipissing into French River. There is no town near the site of the dam. The nearest towns are Sturgeon Falls and North Bay, each about 42 miles distant.


William Pugsley: Could the minister
state why the contractor was permitted to give up the contract?


Robert Rogers: I do not know; I have no information here as to that.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I did not make my question sufficiently clear. There is another item in the Estimates of $400,000 for the large development work in connection with what we call the French River scheme. My hon. friend will remember that it was announced that that was the beginning of the Georgian Bay canal project. That is what I have in mind; perhaps the minister has not that information with him to-night?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: In the recent negotiations that took place between the Ontario Government and those 'connected with the Seymour Po-wer Company, including the Sun Life, I have been told that the sale included certain rights that the Seymour Company had on the French river. I am unable to find out from the Railway Department from whom the Seymour Company got these rights. The Minister of Railways said that he could find no information in the department in connection with the matter. When the negotiations were in progress one of the parties informed me that the French river property apparently stood in the way of the transfer at first, and finally it was included. Perhaps the information as to from whom the Seymour Power Company or the Sun Life secured the rights on the French river may be in the Public Works Department.


Robert Rogers: The deputy informs me that he has no knowledge of it. I am sure that I never heard of it; it is certainly not in our department.


George Perry Graham: It is possible that these power rights originally belonged to the Ontario Government, and that these people got their original leases, from the province.
Goderich-harbour improvements, $90,000.


George Perry Graham: When will that be completed? That is one of our chief lake harbours.


Robert Rogers: This amount of $90,000 is required for the following works: the completion of the extension to the southwest breakwater, contract with Mr. William Ber-mingham, $74,000; general repairs to the superstructure of the existing structure, $5,000; placing stone riprap for the protection of the river 'breakwater, $5,000; inspection contingencies, etc., $5,000; total, $90,000. The work will be completed before long. My hon. friend knows the importance of the Goderich harbour better than I do. It is a very necessary work. It has been going on for some time, and this completes it.


William Pugsley: When I visited
Goderich some time ago the work of constructing these concrete breakwaters was under way. The breakwaters were constructed in one place and floated into position; then the gates were opened so that the concrete was sunk to the bottom. The scheme had been adopted on the American side in the case of a number of harbours,



and I am curious to know how these concrete breakwaters have stood.


Robert Rogers: So far as the information of the department goes, they have been entirely satisfactory. They are built in boxes, floated to the required point and sunk. They have given entire satisfaction; we have rectived no complaints with regard to them.
Hamilton

harbour improvements, $250,000.


George Perry Graham: Will that complete the Hamilton improvements?


Robert Rogers: This is a new scheme at Hamilton; it has not been started.


George Perry Graham: $60,000 has been expended.


Robert Rogers: The amount spent was for the revetment wall that was built there last year.


George Perry Graham: How much *vill it take to finish the whole job?


Robert Rogers: It is going to be a large proposition to complete the programme that the town- of Hamilton has laid out $250,000 or $300,000.


George Perry Graham: $250,000 will not complete it.


Robert Rogers: It will not complete it, l ut it will do the necessary work until we are able to reach it. I do not expect we will be able to reach it this year. We are going to- do the surveying, and have it all in good shape.


George Perry Graham: It will make a beautiful harbour when completed.


Robert Rogers: It is undoubtedly a verv desirable location, so far as the city of Hamilton is concerned.


George Perry Graham: Hamilton does a good business there'.


Robert Rogers: And they are getting in a lot of outside industries to be built around this particular locality.
Ontario-harbours and. rivers generally- repairs and improvements, $65,000.


Charles Marcil: Is work in connection with the Georgian Bay canal echeme to be stopped altogether during the war, and is this small vote merely for maintenance?


Robert Rogers: The item passed a moment ago completes the work that has been undertaken in connection with the French river, and that is as far as we are going

at the present time, beyond the research for information that is being made by Mt. Sanford Evans and these associated with him. The interim report of that commission, which I placed on the Table of the House a few days ago and which my deputy informs me will be ready for distribution in about 10 days, is replete with valuable information, and I am sure that if any hon. member will read the report he will find that we are receiving a good return for the labour that is being expended in connection with this research. If any hon. member will visit the office of Mr. Sanford Evans and those associated with Queen street, I can assure him that he will find Mr. Evans' conversation as to the Georgian Bay canal and the opportunities for development in that region to be of the very greatest interest. We have not yet reached a point where any definite conclusion or recommendation is made.
Kingston-harbour improvements, $120,000.


William Pugsley: What is the nature of
the improvements to be made at Kingston?


Robert Rogers: This amount is required
to complete the improvements in this harbour, which consist of improving the wharves and roadway approaches, under contract with the Thunder Bay Construction Company. Two steel truss roadway bridges and one steel bascule bridge are to be' constructed, under contract with the Hamilton Bridge Company. These improvements were originally asked for by the Kingston city council, by the Dominion Marine Association and by the Kingston Board of Trade. In 1913-14 $55,000 was spent and * in 1914-15 $104,000. The work of constructing the wharf roadway was transferred to the Thunder Bay Construction Company shortly before the beginning of the year.


William Pugsley: What will be the cost
of the bridges?


Robert Rogers: $114,000.
* Mr. PUGSLEY:	I have seen in the
papers, and I have also had other information, that there has been some difficulty in connection with what is known as the Cat-araqui bridge. Is this the same bridge?


Mr. EDWARDS:: This is the same bridge. This was originally a wooden bridge, built very many years ago, from one shore to the other with an ordinary swing bridge over the canal part. That is being replaced by a permanent structure which is filled in for all the distance except three openings

over which there are two steel truss bridges, and a bascule bridge for the passing of boats. It is alii one structure, with three openings.
Mr. PUGnSLEY:	Will the minister say
why the very exceptional course has been pursued of building bridges wholly within the boundaries of a province? It is contrary to the usual practice, all such work being left to the municipalities and the provinces.


Robert Rogers: I agree that the building of bridges is an unusual undertaking for the Dominion. It would not have been done in this case were it not that this is a combined wharf and bridge that will be of great advantage to the Royal Military College, in which the Dominion has such interest. It was owing to this condition that some years ago this work was undertaken. It has not yet been completed.


William Pugsley: Was the bridge that
occupied the site of the new bridge originally a toll bridge owned by a private company?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes. This bridge was originally a company bridge, and was owned by what was called the Cataraqui Bridge Company. The city of Kingston held part of the stock in that company, and when it became apparent that a new structure would have to be built, and when harbour improvements were contemplated, the city bought out the stock that was held by the private company. The Government had been using the bridge and paying some $1,400 a year for its use for military purposes. The building of this structure, as I understand it, was part of the general scheme for harbour improvements. That was . the reason why it was filled in, the filling in taking the place of a wooden structure and acting as a breakwater, or protector, of the harbour to the east. One might say it is right at- the entrance of the lake.


William Pugsley: All I asked was whether this bridge was owned by the private company.


William Cameron Edwards: At one time it was owned partly by the private company.


William Pugsley: I only wanted to know if it was the same bridge.


William Cameron Edwards: I hope I have made myself clear.


William Pugsley: Absolutely clear.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume I may exercise my privilege as a member to speak to this work irrespective of what my hon. friend might want to know. I think that this structure is different from an ordinary bridge. I do not think the Government is open to criticism for building this bridge. It is a structure which is absolutely necessary in connection with the harbour improvements. It is taking the form of a bridge or roadway, for that is really what it is. In other words, if a bridge had been constructed anywhere else than where this work is going on; if, for instance, the structure had been placed further east, the Government would have been obliged to build a breakwater. So it is really a breakwater that is being constructed, and it takes the form of a roadway having three openings covered by bridges.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong when he suggests that I was criticising the building of the bridge. I only asked the minister to explain the exceptional circumstances, which no doubt exist in this case, to justify a departure from the ordinary rule. When I was at Kingston some years ago, I inspected the harbour, and met with a good many of the principal people of Kingston, and I was impressed with the strong claims resting upon the Dominion Government. But, if I remember rightly, what influenced me most was the fact that the bridge led to the military grounds, to the property which is owned by the Government, and I thought that that was a good reason for treating the work differently from an ordinary bridge. I would ask the minister whether or not there has been some trouble in connection with the construction of the bridge, whether a number of dismissals have taken place in connection with it.


Robert Rogers: There were errors in connection with the work, and on the part of the engineer, Mr. Pense, which caused considerable difficulty. Mr. Pense was dismissed as the result of an inquiry. The information in his plans was inaccurate, but it has been corrected, and the difficulties are past. If my hon. friend wishes a detailed statement of the circumstances we wiM be very glad to supply it.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the deputy
will furnish it to me.
Leamington-repairs to wharf, $1,500.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will this vote finish tho work?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Port Dover-harbour improvements, $50,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Nothing has been done at Port Dover yet?


Robert Rogers: No.
Manitoba-Red river-improvements, $11,-<000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What are the improvements at Red River?


Robert Rogers: This is for an ice-breaker.


Charles Marcil: I notice that there has
been a lot of flooding in the Red River district this year. Is any protection contemplated to prevent such flooding in future?


Robert Rogers: The question has not
arisen up to the present.
Red river-St. Andrews lock and dam- improvements, $15,000.


William Pugsley: Has the elevated roadway, which was contemplated when I was minister, been completed?


Robert Rogers: It has been completed,
and is very satisfactory.
Winnipeg harbour-wharfs, $35,000.


William Pugsley: This is for wharfs in
Winnipeg, itself, I suppose?


Robert Rogers: In Winnipeg itself.
Sturgeon river-improvements, $9,500.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This is only a creek.
What work are you doing there?


Robert Rogers: We are making the river navigable. __


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You could not navigate
anything bigger than a shingle on Sturgeon river.


Robert Rogers: It also serves for drainage purposes. This amount is required for the removal of weeds and log jams, and the construction of a dam on the Sturgeon river. There is a growth of weeds in the Sturgeon river that requires to be removed, and also a log jam in the same river, in the vicinity of Devil's lake, Onoway, and Lac Ste. Anne that will also have to be removed in order to create a current and thereby reclaim haylands for the settlers. The dam is proposed to be built about dne mile east of St. Albert, a village on the Sturgeon river, and is for the purpose of raising the water in the river and in the Big Lake, a couple of miles west of the village, so that navigation for pleasure craft may be had at any time during the {Mr. Nesbitt.]
open season. The work is necessary in the interest of navigation on the Sturgeon river, which under the existing conditions is at a very great disadvantage, and it has been asked for by the district engineers.
Fraser river-improvements, $450,000.


Robert Rogers: This is for dredging and the completion of the North Arm Steveston jetty.


William Pugsley: It occurred to me when I had the pleasure of visiting Vancouver a few years ago, when I was minister, that there was a magnificent opportunity for creating a harbour on the north arm of the Fraser, where there is a very great frontage of land well adapted to the establishment of industrial enterprises. I do not think the expense of making such improvements as would be required would be very great. I understand that a board of harbour commissioners called the North Fraser Board of Harbour Commissioners, has been created, and I am informed that some plans have been submitted to the Government for approval, going in the first instance to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. 1 think it would be desirable to encourage as far as possible the operations which the Board of Commissioners have in mind, not authorizing, of course, any very great expenditure at the present time. Will this $450,000 be limited entirely to the jetty, or will it be used in connection with the dredging of the north arm of the Fraser in the vicinity of Burnaby, Point Grey, and South Vancouver, which are the three municipalities, I think, more especially interested.


Robert Rogers: We have had a petition from the North Arm people, but in view of the amount of work that we are doing in Vancouver and Victoria, we did not feel that we could take on this extra work just now. The matter is under consideration, and as soon as we feel justified in the expenditure of a further sum of money on the Pacific coast, we shall take up the work.


George Perry Graham: I promised the hon. member for Edmonton that I would ask that one item be allowed to stand, so that he might have an opportunity of speaking on these Estimates.


Robert Rogers: That will be all right; he can speak on any other item.
Stewart-repairs to wharf, $1,700.


George Perry Graham: This work is under contract?


Robert Rogers: Yes, and in progress.
Stickine river-improvements, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: What is going to he done on that river?


Robert Rogers: Owing to obstructions in the form of snags, etc., it has been impossible to run the steamers more than one trip a year on this main artery of travel for prospectors going from the coast into the Interior of northern British Columbia. This amount is required for clearing the obstructions and making the river navigable. The work will benefit the whole interior.


George Perry Graham: Will $10,000 complete the work?


Robert Rogers: It will enable us to make a start.


George Perry Graham: Which end are you going to start at?


Robert Rogers: The mouth of the river.
Surf inlet-repairs to wharf, $6,800.


Robert Rogers: I understand from the officers of the department that this amount is not required, and I therefore move that the item be struck out.


William Pugsley: That is an important locality; large operations are going on there now. Perhaps the wharf has been entirely washed away. Is that the reason for striking out this item?


Robert Rogers: There is no justification for the reconstruction of this wharf. The only people who use it are a few prospectors and one large mining company, which is at present developing a gold mine seven miles from the wharf. The report I have here says:
I consider that a wharf would be unnecessary at the present time. The amount of $6,800 was included in my Estimates for the ensuing year to cover the construction of a wharf at this point, but I would respectfully request that it be cancelled in view of what I have just learned of conditions in that locality.


William Pugsley: I happen to have met only a very short time ago the president of the company which is proceeding as rapidly as possible with the construction of a mill, the creation of water-power, the development of electricity, and the expenditure of $750,000 or $1,000,000 at this very place. When that report was made, it might have been justified, but I do not think it will be justified now. My information is that the company intend during
the coming summer to employ in the vicinity of 500 men, so that the work would be entirely justified. Some few years ago a wharf was built there by the Government, and I understand that this vote is simply for repairs. I would like if the minister would reconsider the matter, because I think it would be quite a disappointment to these capitalists if they found that the Government was not disposed to give them any encouragement even to the extent of repairing a Government wharf. The result, I am sure, will be that they will have to spend the money themselves, because they have the capital; they are arranging for a large development, and they are actually at work to-day. They will require to take in a large quantity of machinery which, of course, they cannot take in unless they have wharf accommodation. Perhaps the minister would allow the item to stand, and then he can treat it like other items and go on with the work or not, as he may be advised later. I am sure my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) has heard of the company which is proceeding to operate now on a very large scale.


Robert Rogers: with large capital, and who intend erecting, not only a wharf, but stamp mills, power plant and residences near the location of this wharf, and they are plenty able to provide for themselves without the expenditure of any public money for their benefit; and as matters stand now a wharf built at this point would be practically of value to themselves alone. It is for this reason that I requested the cancellation of the Estimate sent in in September.
Fisherman running into this place for refuge do not need a wharf as the anchorage is good and will protect at all times from storms, and there is no doubt that should they desire to tie up the Development Company will have no objection to their doing so to the Company's wharf after it is constructed.
I am informed by the manager of this company that they intend filing their plans almost immediately for the approval of this structure. J. B. Hunter, Esq.,
Deputy Minister,
Department of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Therefore they are undertaking the work themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally, $40,000.
George Perry Graham: 1 suppose this is an item to do things for which you have no regular appropriation?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.


George Perry Graham: It covers work throughout the whole of Canada.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: After you exhaust every other appropriation you resort to this one? It is a sort of reserve fund?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George Perry Graham: It is the court of last
resort.
New dredging plant-Ontario and Quebec, including Victoria island shipyard, $35,000.


George Perry Graham: What will the new
dredging plant include?


Robert Rogers: Construction of new tug to replace Marie Louise, $6,000, the hull and boiler of this tug have been condemned by the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; track extension for derrick hoist from wharf to machine shop at Victoria island shipyard, $3,000; lengthening large shipways at Victoria island shipyard, $2,000; installation of a hand.elevator, and altering shop for storage purposes at Victoria island shipyard, $1,000; one Daniel's plane, or equal, with motor at Victoria island shipyard, $1,500; one circular saw. complete, motor driven, at Victoria island

shipyard, $1,000; four 25-ton Norton ball bearing jacks for Victoria island shipyard, $400; six oil tanks, 60 gallons' capacity each, at Victoria island shipyard, $300; one double end punching shear for Victoria island shipyard, $2,250; to provide improvements to different units of dredging plant fleet in Ontario and Quebec, $10,000; amount approximately required for unforeseen improvements to the Victoria island shipyard, $7,550; total, $35,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I call my hon.
friend's attention to the fact that dredging is needed at the entrance to Ha Ha bay on the river Saguenay? There is a large pulp mill established there. I understand that the company is building a large pier out of their own sources and they expect that the Government will help by doing some dredging. I am told the dredging is very much needed at the present time because they have four ships loading at this period of the year and they ship pulp to England, France, and the United States. If they could use the Government wharf which is near at hand, they would not require that dredging; but after several years of experience they find that the ordinary traffic on the river, the Richelieu company's boats and the other boats, tax the capacity of the wharf and they therefore have decided to build a wharf themselves, and they require a little dredging there. They expect the Government to start work as soon as possible in order that they may be able to ship their pulp to Europe and the United States. I would urge upon my hon. friend to take up the matter immediately.


Robert Rogers: This matter has already been discussed in the department. There is a pressing necessity for the dredging that the hon. gentleman suggests, and an engineer has been sent to make a report. As soon as that report is received I shall be glad to supply the information.


George Perry Graham: I have a suggestion to offer. In dredging generally there has been a reduction from $2,307,000 to $1,703,000. The item for slides and booms generally is $5,000, the same as last year, and the item of Dominion bridges generally is $5,000, which is very small. The interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa at Hawkesbury, for which $80,000 is asked, will probably not be gone on with, and the same with the international bridge over the St. John river. Unless some hon. gentlemen wish to discuss some of these matters, I suggest that

after a word about the vote proposed here for the North Timiskaming bridge over the Quinze river, we might pass all down to and including item 150, and adjourn. What does the minister think of that proposition?


Robert Rogers: That will be quite satisfactory. The North Timiskaming bridge is over the Quinze river, and it is estimated that $55,000 will complete it.


George Perry Graham: Is the Quinze river in Quebec or in Ontario?


Robert Rogers: It is in the province of Quebec.


George Perry Graham: And I see that the Quebec Government is to contribute $15,000. So here is a precedent for carrying out works on the plan to which I called attention this afternoon. The structures at Ste. Anne's and Vaudreuil would be in the same position.


Robert Rogers: This North Timiskaming
bridge is only about a mile from the boundary.


George Perry Graham: But it is not so much of an interprovincial nature as bridges at Ste. Anne and Vaudreuil would be. This is a precedent for what I suggested this afternoon-the building of works of importance by co-operation of both Dominion and Provincial Governments even though the works be all in one province.


Robert Rogers: It is quite possible, of course.


George Perry Graham: I would suggest further, with the minister's consent, that item 151 be taken up, as one of our friends from Prince Edward Island wishes to say a word upon it.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Prince Edward Island-for half cost of reconstruction of telegraph lines jointly owned by the Anglo-American Telegraph Company and the Dominion Government, $17,000.


James Joseph Hughes: Is this work to be done during the coming summer?


Robert Rogers: This is a jointly-owned line, as my hon. friend understands, of the Government and the Western Union.
We have been awaiting an aril p.m. rangement with the Western Union which, I understand, has now been arrived at and the work is pro-oosed to be carried out at once.


James Joseph Hughes: Has the Anglo-American sold to the Western Union, or has it sold to the Great Northwestern?


Robert Rogers: To the Western Union.


James Joseph Hughes: This is the land line?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: The Government is bearing half the cost of reconstruction, apd there is a subsidy as well, I believe, of $8,000 or $10,000.


Robert Rogers: There is a subsidy for the cable service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, but not for this particular reconstruction.


James Joseph Hughes: These people are very economical in their service in some places on the island.


George Perry Graham: In their service or in their rates?


Robert Rogers: The purpose of the vote is to correct that.


James Joseph Hughes: For instance, the company gets the services of operators free, for the railway station masters act as operators, and the only compensation given is that the telegraph company carries the railway messages free. In the town where I live the company is so economical that they will not even provide a boy to carry the telegraph messages, but the railway officials have to deliver the messages whenever they get time from their regular duties. I should think that a company that is receiving so many advantages ought to be compelled to give a better service. And when the last train has left-I think the latest train is about six o'clock-the station master closes his office and you cannot get a message through afterwards. Sometimes he generously keeps the office open when he knows that there is business to be done, but the company give him nothing for the extra work. I call the special attention of the minister to that. I think something should be done to compel the company to give a better service. At Charlottetown, perhaps, they give a service more suitable to the place, and at Summerside. But at Souris, for instance, where there is a good deal of business done and where a considerable portion of the time of the railway officials is taken up with telegraphic work, as I have pointed out the company will not even provide a boy to deliver messages but throws that work all upon the railway officials.


Robert Rogers: The object of this vote
is to correct the very conditions to which my hon. friend refers. The details that are being worked out now will .give an extended telegraph service to the locality and provide also for the delivery of messages as my hon. friend has suggested. Such service as is given by the telegraph lines in other portions of the Dominion will be applied in Prince Edward Island as well.


James Joseph Hughes: Will an extended service be given at Souris?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: That is much needed.


Robert Rogers: Delivery of messages will be provided for and other details of a similar character.


Mr. PROULX:: I would like to ask the
minister if he intends to have anything done this year with regard to the construction of the interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury?


Robert Rogers: No, I do not think it
will be possible to do anything this year.


Edmond Proulx: I understand that a contract has been awarded for the construction of the substructure?


Robert Rogers: No, the contract has not yet been awarded. My hon. friend is aware of the fact that there has been a great deal of pressure for the construction of this bridge. It has been the desire of the department to proceed with the work, but there was some delay in the beginning of 1914, and from that time on we have not undertaken to let the contract, much as we have been pressed to do so, and much as we appreciate the necessity for this bridge. I hope that the time will not be far distant when we shall be able to carry out this work, but I would not like to promise it for the coming summer.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
Friday, April 28. 1916.