1917-09-04

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
List of shipping, issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, being a list of vessels on the registry books of the Dominion of Canada on the 31-st December, 1916.-Hon. Mr. Ilazen.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) laid on the Table copy of Order in Council, dated 3rd September, 1917, appointing the Deputy Minister of Justice, Oliver Mowat Biggar, of the city of Edmonton; John H. Moss, of the city of Toronto; Louis Loranger, of the city of Montreal, and Lieutenant Colonel H. A. C. Machin, of the town of Kenora, Ont., a council to advise and assist in the administration and enforcement of the Military Service Act, 1917, to be known as the Military Service Council; the Deputy Minister of Justice to be chairman of the council.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Stewart in the Chair.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Ben Eoin-wharf, $2,200.
['I will get the explanation for my hon. friend.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.\nWednesday, September 5, 1917.']
Mr. KYTE:: Is this for the construction of a new wharf?


Mr. REID:: These small items are for repairs at different places.


George William Kyte: When is this money to be spent?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as the vote is passed. In some cases work is being proceeded with now.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister explain why he has dropped certain items that were in the estimates during the last few years and introduced new ones? For the last five or six years there has been in the estimates an item for a wharf at Cole harbour-which is as necessary, in my judgment, as any wharf proposed to be built on the coast of the Maritime Provinces. This item has been dropped from the estimates, and certain other items- dealing with works not nearly so important have been introduced. This is not 'an isolated case; quite a number of projected works in estimates and new items have been inNova Scotia have been dropped from the Estimates and new items have been inserted in their places without any apparent reason. Upon what principle has the minister made up these supplementary estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is required to construct a creosoted timber wharf 175 feet long and 16 feet wide-with a head block 20 by 30 feet-and a small warehouse thereon, 10 by 14 feet. The estimated cost is $1,634.50, made up as follows: creosoted piling, $819.60; native round logs, $25.20; dimension timber, $260; timber, plank covering, $163.20; driving and securing 40 piles, $147; sand and gravel in approach, $34.50; warehouse, $175; land, $10; total, $1,634.50; superintendence, contingencies, etc., $365.50; total, $2,000. Add ten- per cent for advance in prices of labour and material since the report was made, $200. This is really a new work; it is in the constituency of Cape Breton South.


George William Kyte: I understood that this was a new work, and I was rather surprised at the minister saying this item was for repairs.


John Dowsley Reid: I was speaking about the preceding item.


George William Kyte: We are discussing this one. I would like the minister to read the report recommending the construction of this wharf.


John Dowsley Reid: District Engineer Bernas-coni, in his report of March 20, 1915, says:
There are at present seven public wharves on the shores of East Bay, fairly well distributed, with the exception of the shore between Big Pond and the head of East Bay, a distance of 12 miles. The proposed wharf at Ben Eoin would be about midway between these points and would fill the gap and give the required accommodation to the inhabitants of that section of the district. The site for the proposed wharf is owned by Mr. Joseph McLellan, who offers to sell the land required for the sum of $10, which price I consider fair and lust.
That is the official information.


George William Kyte: Will the minister explain why it is that, report having been received in 1915, no appropriation has been placed in the estimates until now?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot explain that. The estimates, of course, were made out by the Minister of Public Works. These are the explanations furnished by the department, and I cannot give any others.


George William Kyte: Does the minister think there is more money with which to build wharves this year than there was in 1914?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not doing any thinking on this; it is an estimate of the Department of Public Works.


George William Kyte: If the minister is not doing any thinking, it would be a good idea for him to do some.


John Dowsley Reid: I am satisfied that the Minister of Public Works would not insert this item unless he thought it was absolutely necessary.


George William Kyte: For election purposes.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


George William Kyte: The Teport says that there are seven wharves already in East Bay. but inasmuch as there is a distance of 12 miles between two wharves, it is important that this wharf should be built. I very much regret that the hon. member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames) is not here. He might perhaps produce the plan which he laid upon the table of this House in 1910 or 1911, and on which he had marked out the number of wharves in the Maritime Provinces built by the late Government, as he said, without any justification. This is another case in which the Government appear to have gone back
on whatever record they made, when they were in Opposition, with respect ito the expenditure of money upon wharves. I am as much interested in the convenience of the people of my district as the acting Minister of Public Works can possibly be, but the people of my district realize the necessity for economy on the part of the Government, and I beg to assure the minister that they understand why this estimate is brought before Parliament at tihe present time. A request was made three years ago for the building of a wharf at that point. That request was not complied with. Year after year went by; estimates were voted by Parliament, but no provision was made for the building of this wharf until the year 1917. If this item had been placed in the main estimates for 1917-18, the Government might stiU be entitled to some credit for discharging a public duty; but inasmuch as provision for the building of this wharf is made only in the supplementary estimates, which came down after it was determined by the Government that there should be an election, we can all realize the motive that actuated the minister. If there ever were a time when provision for expenditure on new woTk ought not to be made, it certainly ought to be now, and I would suggest-and I take all responsibility necessary for making this suggestion-that the minister drop this item out of the estimates.


Mr. CARROLL:: I know something about the location of this wharf, and the engineer who reported to the minister that there were seven wharves in East Bay must have been seeing seven times as many wharves as he should have seen. There are not seven wharves in East Bay. Three years ago I forwarded a petition from the people at the head of East Bay to this Government asking for repairs to a wharf which has been of considerable service to the inhabitants of that place, and which is quite near East Bay church in the vicinity of which the larger proportion of the people live. The Department of Public Works paid no attention to the matter, and, as a result, that wharf is absolutely useless and worthless to the people of that section. Has the minister any plan showing how the people who would be served by this proposed wharf are going to get to the main road? It is about two and one-half miles from the main road, and there is absolutely no communication. If the minister wishes to have a wharf which will be of service to the people, he should repair that wharf which has been

allowed to go to ruin. Instead of there being seven wharves, there is one on the south side of East Bay in the constituency which I represent and another on the north side of East Bay in the constituency represented by my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). There must be some mistake in the report.


Mr. BRADBURY:: That is too bad. So ne more wharves should be built there.


William F. Carroll: I am not complaining about this wharf. Of course, my hon. friend knows all about this wharf as he knows, or pretends to know, whether he does or not, about wharves in all parts of the country. I am simply giving to the minister information which I think he should have. I am not objecting to the item at all.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) asks that this item be dropped.


William F. Carroll: If my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) would attend to his business and endeavour to give information to the minister as I am trying to do, he would get along very well. I do not interrupt my hon. friend when he is giving information to the minister in regard to matters in his riding. The Minister of1 Public Works should investigate this matter and take into consideration the petition sent in to the department three years ago for repairs to a wharf at the head of East Bay. Perhaps the deputy minister will remember about the petition which was signed by a large section of the inhabitants there, headed, I think, by the clergyman in charge of the parish.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no other information than this before me, and the officials of the department have given ,me the report of the officer in charge of that district who recommends that this wharf should be built. As I understand the hon. member, this wharf which it is proposed to be built is in his constituency.


William F. Carroll: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I have the plans here showing the proposed wharf. Do I understand the hon. member 'to say that this wharf is not required and that he wants the item struck out, because if he does I will strike it out.


William F. Carroll: If the minister will
guarantee to me that he will look at the Government wharf at the head of the south side of East Bay, and instead of spending

the money on this wharf, will spend it on repairing that wharf, which will better serve the people at Ben Eoin, I shall be satisfied.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot make any such guarantee, because we cannot expend any amount on repairs on some other wharf unless the item is placed in the estimates just as this one has been. Therefore, if I strike out this item the matter of the repairs to the wharf mentioned by the hon. member will, of course, have to be taken up by the department, and if the situation is as he describes, an item can be inserted in the estimates next session.


William F. Carroll: So far as I am concerned, I would recommend the striking out of this item.


John Dowsley Reid: I will strike it out.


William F. Carroll: It amounts to $2,200. This wharf would not serve the public at that point at all. The minister need not think I am afraid of striking out any item that is not going to serve the people.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not saying that.


William F. Carroll: The engineer may have been misinformed. It would have been better had the department done as it was requested to do, namely, to make repairs to the wharf at the head of East Bay. I see no good in building a wharf at this particular place. I would be glad if the minister would show me on the plan how lie is going to get from the proposed wharf at Ben Eoin on to the main road.


John Dowsley Reid: The right of way is marked on the plan, showing how you can get to the wharf.


William F. Carroll: You will have to buy the right of way.	,


John Dowsley Reid: The man is willing to sell it for $10.


William F. Carroll: That is cheap enough.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister is mistaken when he says he has not the power to change an item in the estimates. I know for a fact that he has done it in reference to a wharf in my constituency. Prior to the defeat of the late government a sum of money was voted for the building of a wharf at Sand Point, on the Strait of Canso. AUore than that, a contract was entered into, and the material collected for the building of the wharf, but when the present government came into power their friends in that locality persuaded them to

change the site of the wharf to another place further down the Strait. The reason for making this change was that the government wanted to purchase a site from a Conservative heeler in that locality, as a reward for his political services. The wharf was built at this new location, and then it turned out that there was not enough water there to make the wharf of any service to the people. The intention was to build a v'harf at which the steamer which plies between Guysborough and Mulgrave could call, but the water is so .shallow the steamer is unable to come in, and consequently the wharf is no good to anybody. The owner of the land got his purchase price for it, and he was the only person who benefited by the expenditure of $5,000 at that point. So there is one case in which the minister changed an item in the estimates, and if he was able to change an item then, he ought tv be able to change one now for my hon. friend from South Cape Breton.
The minister has never answered my question as to the principle which is acted upon in making up the estimates. I have pointed out to him that there has been an item in the estimates for the last six years for the building of a wharf in my constituency at a point where it is very much needed. Time after time the minister and his predecessors have promised to construct the wharf. The point where this wharf is required is not in the woods, where there are no roads or people, but in a thickly settled district, and the people of *Cole Harbour, Charlos' Cove, Cashin's Cove and American Harbour have all asked that it be built. The minister has cut that item out of the estimates, and in its place has an item for the building of a wharf at Ben Eoin, where apparently there are no inhabitants and no roads to give access to the wharf. I should like the minister to tell the committee on what principle he makes these changes in the estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: There are, of course, many wharves in the province of Nova Scotia, and applications are coming in every year for new wharves. Some of these applications are put off from time to time, but each year the minister takes up the most pressing cases, and selects those which he thinks are the most urgent. These items are all small amounts. Personally I feel that the people who have not the advantage of railway accommodation should have the benefit of wharves, and that these should be much closer together than in the older settled parts of Canada where there are
railway facilities. I have never raised any objection, and never will, to giving the people along the Atlantic coast proper wharf accommodation. The hon. member says that he knows of a case where the money was not spent where it was intended to be spent. My information is that the department do not know of a case of that kind, nor do they understand that it is possible to change the location when the vote has specified the point at which the money must be spent. But it may happen that the engineer may move the site a hundred feet or perhaps half a mile if he thinks it will be an improvement, and that is quite within the spirit of the law.


William F. Carroll: But this money has not been voted yet.


John Dowsley Reid: It is in the estimates, and if the item goes through, the wharf will be constructed at that point. Possibly there may be other points in the hon. member's constituency where the need is more pressing; that is a matter of opinion. I have never been in that locality, and my hon. friend knows it better than I do, but the officials of the department down there say that that is the point where this wharf should be built.


William F. Carroll: They are not doing their duty.


John Dowsley Reid: A number of people live in that locality.


William F. Carroll: Not where the wharf is to be; nobody lives there at all.


John Dowsley Reid: Ben Eoin is situated on the southern shore of East bay, thirteen miles southwest of the city of Sydney, which is the nearest railway station. It has a population of about a hundred, whose principal occupation is farming and fishing.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend is referring to East Bay. At Ben Eoin there are only about seven families, and if the wharf is built at that point, it will be right at the bottom of a mountain. Half a mile down the shore at East Bay, where the population is, there has been a wharf for a great many years, perhaps for half a century, and it has been kept in repair by succeeding governments.
It serves the people of East Bay, the 100 families the hon. gentleman refers to, together with the seven or eight families on the mountain of Ben Eoin, four miles from East Bay. Three or four years ago, or more, the wharf got into disrepair, and a petition was sent to the Government to have

it repaired. There was no necessity for buying land there. If the Government spend $500 on the old wharf, which is in the centre of the population, they will be serving the whole neighbourhood. I think it is unfair to the people of East Bay that this wharf should he 'built at Ben Eoin, and that the wharf in their own county should be left to go to destruction. I am taking this point in the interest of the people themselves. I know the locality almost as well as I know this Chamber. I am surprised that any engineer should say there were seven wharves in East Bay, and that this wharf i6 serving 100 families.


John Dowsley Reid: If we put this vote through I do not see that it can be used for repairs to a wharf at some other place,


William F. Carroll: I understood the minister to say he would strike it out, if I recommended it. I would not recommend the striking out of anything that would benefit the people in my riding. I would be a foolish man to do anything which was not beneficial to them, if I intended to go back for re-election. That is certainly logic. I am recommending this item should be struck out because it is not in the publio interest.


John Dowsley Reid: Then we will strike it out.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I remember something taking place about this matter when I was minister, and I remember that I was pressed to take over that old wharf and put it in repair. Does the minister think there is a prominent place in East Bay where the wharf could be properly placed? Why not insert the word "Ben Eoin wharf, at or near East Bay?" We need not strike out the item.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman thinks the wharf should not be built there I do not want to keep the item in the estimates, but I think it would be better to leave it in, and before the department would proceed with it they could look thoroughly into the matter and decide on the proper course. However, I do not think we should waste time over it, and I move that the item be struck out.


William F. Carroll: Would it be in order to make a motion to use $1,600 of this money to make improvements on the wTharf at East Bay?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dugald Stewart):: No.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: This vote is for the construction of a new wharf, and there are several votes under the headings " Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia," for new wharves. The Minister of Finance solemnly promised Parliament, on more than one occasion, during the last two years, that no new public works would be undertaken. The late Minister of Public Works also promised Parliament the same thing. 1 say that on that ground the item should be dropped. This item of $97,000 for new wharves and repairs in Nova Scotia should be struck from the estimates. Every single item of such a character should be dropped, for the reason that the money will not be expended this year. It is practically impossible to effect repairs to wharves late in the year; it will not be possible to place this work in the hands of competent men before October or November, and it will then be too late. Parliament must meet again before March 31 of next year. There will then be sufficient time to vote these moneys, and no useful purpose can be served by voting them now.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I sincerely hope the minister will not yield to request of the hon. member for Halifax. Nearly all these items are for repairs, and a dollar spent now may mean a sarving of a thousand dollars later on, and prevent a good deal of hardship.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We will attend to it next year.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman says this is not the time to spend money on wharves in Nova Scotia. I desire to say that from now to the middle of November is the most feasible and practical time for such expenditure. The farmers are not very busy now, and we are having our best weather. I am absolutely astounded to hear the hon. member for Halifax objecting to a paltry expenditure of a little money for repairs to keep the wharves of that province in proper condition. I believe his statement will be received with a great deal of regret and astonishment by the people of his province.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not at all.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I have no interest in the matter, and it makes no difference to me whether the items are struck out ox not, but I want to say that I represent a constituency three times the size of Nova Scotia, and I have a coast line three times the length and breadth of that province,

and I can assure the hon. gentleman there are no items for new works in my province, the items being all for repairs. I am very glad that the hon. gentleman did not include British Columbia in his request for cutting out the items. Oui waters are infested with teredo, which are very destructive to wharves. I have known, piles 18 inches thick to jbe cut off by teredo in British Columbia in one year. I hope the hon. gentleman from Halifax will not press, his request. When a wharf needs immediate repair it is good policy to attend to it at once, because, by spending a dollar, you save an expenditure of ten or fifteen dollars. I assure the members for the Maritime Provinces that, so far as British Columbia is concerned, there is no necessity for any arguments with regard to new wharves, because all the items in the supplementary estimates for that province are for repairs only. Practically three-quarters of the coast line in British Columbia are in my own constituency.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: My only difficulty in , regard to this question is that all these repairs are required this spring. I called the attention of the Government to several works in my own county, when the general estimates were brought down, and I am surprised that the hon. gentleman from Annapolis did not protest then that these items were not contained in the main Estimates, because, if they had been in thosg estimates, there would be some hope of having the money spent this year.


John Dowsley Reid: The general estimates were
made out last October.


William Chisholm: I can tell the hon.
gentleman that, so far as my county is concerned, all the works provided for in the supplementary estimates were necessary, and this money was required four years ago. The Government has failed, year after year, to put one dollar in the estimates for repairs in the county of Inverness. I can assure the hon. gentleman that all the works in Nova Scotia are in the same position. Here we have $18,000 for repairs -and improvements for Margaree harbour. I succeeded in getting the Public Works Department to look after this important public work in Margaree, but if it had been attended to four years ago an expenditure of $1,800 additional to the amount expended would have been sufficient. I protested against the failure of the Government to look after it, and to-day
we have $18;000 in the estimates to repair the destruction which has occurred in the last four years. The Government cannot say that they did not know the conditions in that district because I warned them continually year after year for four or, five years. I believe they repeatedly found this in that one instance.
There is another item for Port Hood wharf. There is a wharf which-cost this country about $40,000 and the Government let this wharf go into decay and destruction year after year, for five years. I pointed out to the department how this work was going to decay. Neither the Minister of Public Works nor the Government paid any atteention to my warning. The surprise to me is that at this moment, preceding an election, 'I find $6,000 to do a work of repair that will cost -about $35,000 or $40,000. I find the same conditions along the coast from one end of the county to the other. There are seven or eight votes that cannot be spent this fall with any reasonable results, and -the work o-f destruction is going on all the time. Every fall, for the last four years, when (there has been any -agitation around Mar

gane-e with respect to municipal politics, or something of that kind, you would find a dozen of men at work in October or November. The foreman was getting his full time although he did -not put in more -than forty-eight hours a week. I find no fault with the foreman, under the circumstances he could do no better. 'This- was going on during October and November. I told the Minister of Public Works that that was an awfully poor way of spending the money. If they -attempt to get -any work done along our coast after September they cannot [DOT]get -good results. If the foreman were authorized -early to go to work he could get honest results. The timber is grow'ing in the woods yet.


Avard Longley Davidson: Will my hon. friend
allow me

?
Mr. -CHISHOLM : No, I am -not done yet. Let my hon. friend possess his soul in patience and not be in so much of a hurry. With regard to the work which is provided for here, if the minister will give me the -assurance that they will go on with the work immediately, I will -point out several expenditures that he might get results from. But, I anticipate that it will be impossible. 'The Department of Public Works have not the machinery at work to enable them to- put the material out before October. If they cannot get the men



at work by October it is a crime to spend the money there.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. gentleman advocate striking out the items in so far as they' appertain to the county of Inverness?


William Chisholm: My hon. friend in this thinks he is smart. I advocated for the last five years that expenditures should be made every year in order to preserve the public works in Inverness. Had the Government acted upon my advice they would not have had to expend within 20 per cent of the money that they will now have to expend to put these works in repair. I am not particularly worried as to whether we leave these items in the estimates or not if I have not the assurance of the minister that they will be spent because this Parliament will meet again next winter and whether we have these items in the supplementary estimates now or whether they are in the estimates when this Parliament meets next winter, makes very little difference. But, the hon. gentleman does not think I am silly enough to ask that any of these items be struck out. 1 have been advocating for the last five years that these works should be kept in repair.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman
thinks I must be under the impression that I am smart because I asked him to answer a plain, straightforward question. I hope nothing I have said will indicate that I have any great conceit or that I think I am particularly smart. I would think it a fair inference to be drawn that when items are inserted in the estimates, and when an hon. gentleman who is usually silent, gets up and protests, he must want them struck out. That is the only inference I can draw and I am afraid I cannot get very much light from his answer. If hon. gentleman opposite had not consumed so much of the time of this Parliament, if they had allowed the business to proceed more expeditiously, these items would have been passed several months ago and the money would have been available in the early summer. But, I cannot agree with the hon. gentlemen when he says it is impracticable to spend any money this fall. October is a very desirable month in which to spend money. The hon. gentleman seems to be incensed because certain expenditures have been provided for and yet the moment these items are placed in the estimates they meet with a protest from the desk mate of

the hon. gentleman. I can understand why the Government might be a little reluctant to make expenditures in Nova Scotia when the members sitting for these seats themselves are the first to get up and protest. We had a case this afternoon. There is in the estimates an item for .Cape Breton county and a protest against it comes from the hon. member who represents that county. Then, when we come to an item for Inverness county, the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) vehemently protests against any item of that kind being inserted in the estimates at any time during the period of the war. I think hon. gentlemen can hardly expect the Government to be very liberal when their action in this respect meets with so much opposition from hon. gentlemen opposite. If the hon. member for Inverness is anxious to have money spent in his county o.n needed repairs he should desist from criticism of the expenditures.


William Chisholm: I do not want my hon. friend (Mr. Davidson) to create the impression that I protest against these items.. I protest against the idea of placing these items in the -supplementary estimates when it will be impossible to spend the tfioney this fall. And my hon. friend should be able to- understand plain English before he undertakes to put questions which cannot do more than expose his lack of common understanding. I protested that these items should have been contained in the general or supplementary estimates of last year, the year before and the year before that so that something could be- accomplished. My hon. friend twits me because I am not heard very often in this House. I am heard whenever occasion demands it and the interests of my county need attention and my country in my judgment needs my opinion.


Avard Longley Davidson: No, not at all. I did not mean that my hon. friend was not heard from often.


William Chisholm: He is surprised that men like myself who do not often address this House should get up and offer any criticism to items of this kind. The business of this House would be expedited if there were more members like myself and if they possessed a little particle of modesty.


John Dowsley Reid: I could not agree to strike out any of these items.


William Chisholm: I must protest again; I never asked it. He desires to put me in a false light. I want every item and ten

times as many and t-he need of Inverness requires it.


John Dowsley Reid: At any rate the hon. junior member for Halifax said that he thought that they should be all struck out. I am not referring to the hon. member for Inverness. The main estimates were made up in October. These items were all taken up during the winter and this list has been made out. In making out the list of these repairs, the officials of the department take the reports of the engineers in the district and collect the ones that in their opinion are the most urgent. I believe that every hon. member, no matter on what side of the House he is, will admit that the repairs on the list are actually required at the places which are named.


William Chisholm: Certainly.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works, in selecting the places thought to be most urgent, did not select all the places where repairs might be done. He has taken wharves in Inverness, Cape Breton, Cumberland and other counties and he was very fair in making his selection. I agree that there are many other wharves which probably require repairs but some of them are not so urgent as others. Under the circumstances it does strike me that the hon. member should allow these small amounts to go through. As far as completing these repairs is concerned, hon. members know that the amounts are small.
There is no reason why any one of these votes could not be spent this fall; they are for small repairs, and it would surely be better, if these wharves require repairs, that they' should be made and that the people should have the benefit.


William F. Carroll: The minister having
struck out the item for Ben Eoin wharf, to which I objected, I am in accord with everything else that is proposed to be done in my county. The new wharf at Grand Mira is an absolute necessity, and so are all the repairs to wharves in Cape Breton county.


John Dowsley Reid: T think it would have been better to have left the vote for Ben Eoin wharf in and to have carried on the work if possible.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) has made a serious charge against the department: that although he called attention to the need of inexpensive repairs to the breakwater at Margaree harbour five years ago, nothing
337*
was done, and the breakwater has been so damaged that it is now necessary to spend this large amount of $18,000 to make the repairs. If that is true, it is criminal neglect, and some one ought to be held accountable for it.


John Dowsley Reid: Frequently, when statements of that kind have been made in this House, I have found from the reports of the engineers that they are not well founded. The hon. member may possibly have had a report from some one in the locality who wanted a little work.


William Chisholm: When I make a statement I generally know what I am talking about. I live within half a mile of this wharf, and, when the weather is fine, I go down there about once a day. I have gone out of my way to get all the information necessary. I have written the department and interviewed the minister in regard to this work many times, and it will be news to the people of that locality that the minister thinks that right treatment has been given to that public work for the last five years. I venture to say that $38,000 will not fully repair that wharf. In 1911 there was a vote of $10,000 in the general estimates to be spent there, but it was not spent. Small sums were spent each year, in October and November when results could not be accomplished, and that has been the great difficulty.


John Dowsley Reid: I have looked at the official explanation of this vote, and my hon friend seems to be quite mistaken. This $18,300 is not to repair a breakwater.


William Chisholm: I did not say that nor could I, because I do not know yet what it is for.


John Dowsley Reid: He was arguing on the assumption that it was for the breakwater. It is for repairing the breakwater; but, in addition to that, it is for the building of a proposed sand groin 550 feet long and 15 feet wide, a new work entirely.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is this new work a war time work?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for the county will agree that it is necessary to repair this breakwater. The sand groin is erected opposite the breakwater
4 p.m. to protect it from the action of the waves.


Charles Marcil: It is not to protect the country from the Huns is it?


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad my Ron. friend takes an interest in protecting the country from the Huns, and if this breakwater or any other will prevent the Huns from landing there, I am sure every member will support it.


Charles Marcil: We are told there would be no new works during the war.


John Dowsley Reid: This is repairing an old
work. I am sure the hon. member for the county will agree that this sand groin is necessary to protect the breakwater. This sand groin is to be 550 feet long and 15 feet wide, and the estimated cost is $7,500. In addition to that, there is an item for dredging the channel at the entrance, $6,000, which is not applied to work on the breakwater. I mention this only to show that the hon. member did not understand the nature of the vote.


Dugald Stewart: The committee has been discussing the item of Margaree harbour, which we have not yet reached. It would be better if this discussion was discontinued and resumed when the proper item is called.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon, member for South Cape Breton says that the item now under consideration is not necessary; we will strike it out.


Charles Marcil: When an engineer of the department makes a report and the minister accepts it, is it the policy of the department to throw out the item simply because a member says that the work is unnecessary?


John Dowsley Reid: The member for South Cape Breton knows the locality; he says that this work is unnecessary because there is another wharf about a mile from the place where this wharf is proposed to be constructed. He says that this wharf would serve only seven or eight families. Under the circumstances, pending further investigation, I am willing that the item be struck out.


Charles Marcil: Does t'he hon. gentleman not ask that the old wharf be repaired?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but I cannot change a vote for the construction of a wharf to a vote for repairs to another wharf a mile away.


William Pugsley: The report of t'he engineer shows that the wharf is really intended to be at East Bay. The report says that there are one hundred families where this pro-

posed wharf is to be built; the one hundred families are at East Bay, not at Ben Eoin. The member for South Cape Breton does not want a wharf constructed half a mile or so from a settled district where there are a large number of families and where there is already a wharf, although it is in bad repair. If you build a wharf half a mile away from a settled district you create division of opinion in the community; the tendency is to take the business away from the settlement and to establish a little community in a new place, which is extremely objectionable. I have always endeavoured to see that the necessary public accommodation was afforded in-the settled localities.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have no motion before me with reference to this item. The minister .simply said that he was willing to strike it out.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion.	[DOT]


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I cannot receive a
motion from the hon. gentleman.


John Dowsley Reid: I move that the item be struck out.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It would be a mistake to say that the Chairman could not receive a motion from the member for South Cape Breton.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I was mistaken; I had something else in my mind at that moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item struck out.
Boularderie Centre-repairs to wharf, $625.
['I was mistaken; I had something else in my mind at that moment.']
Mr. McKENZIE:: I have no doubt that these repairs are quite necessary; I know the wharf well. A good deal of money has been spent upon a wharf at New Campbell-ton, but the work has never been completed. What was expended will go to waste unless something be done to keep the wharf in repair and to complete the work. I would suggest that the minister get a report on the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall bring the matter to the attention of the department and have the information placed on record when the estimates for next session are being considered. They are generally considered in the month of October.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister could get a little money to put that wharf in repair, he should not wait until next year.


John Dowsley Reid: We might take it out of the general vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Bernasconi, the
government engineer at North Sydney, could report on it. New Campbellton is only a sihort distance from the town of North Sydney.
Cow bay (Port Morien)-repairs to breakwater, $1,800.
Mr.' REID:	Assistant District Engineer
Cooper reported on February 6, 1917, as follows:
The face-timbers on inner side of the head block have been eaten away and the bays back of this face have had the ballast washed out by the under-tow that continually heaves around the corner. The covering and stringers on the outer head are also In a bad condition and to repair this part X beg to recommend placing a concrete block, 25 feet in length and of the dimensions shown on the accompanying plan and in placing a concrete covering over the outer head block.


William F. Carroll: Was any money spent on this work this year?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William F. Carroll: During the last few
years an amount of money has been spent there every summer in extending the breakwater. The tidal water is very strong there; it has been found necessary, to put concrete wings on the breakwater.


John Dowsley Reid: My memorandum shows that this breakwater was built by the owners of the Gowrie coal mine on the north side of the bay, and came under the charge of the department in 1873. It originally extended 1,347 feet, to 17 feet at low or to 23 feet at high water, and was about 44 feet in width. The .area of the basin enclosed between it and the shipping pier of the Gowrie mines, now the property of the Dominion Coal Company, was 17 acres, 10 acres of which had a depth of from 9 to 17 feet at low water. The breakwater was seriously damaged during the gale of August 24, 1873. Large expenditures have been made from time (to time in extending and repairing the work. During the year ending March 31, 1915, the sum of $4,075.76 was expended in completing the placing of concrete blocks for the protection of the seaward face of the work. Work was done by day labour During the year ended March 31, 1916, the. sum of $1,850.54 was expended by day labour on procuring a derrick with winch and in constructing and placing large concrete blocks along the seaward face of the breakwater, over a distance of 53 feet,
thereby completing the concrete blocks' protection on the seaward face of the breakwater.


William F. Carroll: This is a work that
should be una-r,taken Tight away. It is in a sort of a basin in which the wind does not have much effect, and if the work were undertaken now, it could be finished this fall.


John Dowsley Reid: The work will be undertaken as soon as the estimate is passed.
Cribbin's Point-repairs to wharf, $1,500.


John Howard Sinclair: When is it proposed to do this work?


John Dowsley Reid: There should not be any
trouble to do this work within the next two or three months. The work is to be done by day labour; $1,004 out of the $1,500 is for timber and planking, and $200 is for removal of old work.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the material been
purchased?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: No.


John Howard Sinclair: No part of the money has been expended up to date?


John Dowsley Reid: No money has been spent
because the estimate -has not yet been passed, but the intention is to go to work at once on all these small works in these different localities.


John Howard Sinclair: What has become of a number of other items for works in the county of Antigonish? I cannot say from memory the names .of all the places, but a list of them has been put before the House several times by Mr. William Chisholm the former member. They were voted some years ago for the purpose of carrying a local election in that constituency. They were repeated in the estimates for a number of years, and they have now disappeared altogether. Does the minister ever intend to renew those items?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the Minister of Public Works explained', on the main estimates that he had dropped a long list of items for new work that he did not consider it necessary to proceed with during the present season. I suppose the items mentioned by the hon, members were among those that disappeared in that way.
Eastern harbour (Cheticamp) retaining wall,


John Dowsley Reid: This is required to construct a dry rubble retaining wall asked for by the fishermen.


William Chisholm: I have been advocating this work for some time. It is very desirable.
Fourchu-extension of wharf, $4,200.


George William Kyte: When is this work to be
undertaken?


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as the item is passed.


George William Kyte: Is it intended to extend the wharf further out into the harbour?


John Dowsley Reid: We are going to raise and extend the wharf.


George William Kyte: How far is it to be extended? What is more important than raising the wharf is to have some dredging done there, so as to- enable a steamer to call at the wharf. When the wharf was purchased in 1911, it was intended that the steamer which serves the southern shore of Halifax and Cape Breton should call at the wharf for the purpose of giving the residents of that important community connection with their markets east iand west. Unfortunately, since the change of Government, no improvement has been made in that harbour up to the present time. Considerable dredging was done before 1911, but more is necessary at the approach to the wharf. These people are without any communication with the outside world, as the sailing vessel which used to call there was lost some years ago, and they now have to depend entirely upon a small steamer owned by a private company that operates during the lobster season between Fourchu and Louisburg. I would urge the Government to take a portion of the money which is to be voted under the head of dredging in the Maritime Provinces, and do some further dredging in the neighbourhood of the wharf, to give the people in that locality the same advantages that are enjoyed by other ports in the province. It is one of the most important fishing communities in the province of Nova Scotia, and the people are severely handicapped by having no means of exporting their fish to the markets to which fish caught in other parts of the province are shipped. I am very glad indeed to see the Government is going to extend the wharf, but they should not stop there, because extending the wharf will not be sufficient. Some dredging is absolutely necessary in order to give a sufficient depth of water to enable these steamers to call there.	.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: I see by the report that this is a very important matter for the people in that locality, as they are forty miles away

from a railway, and depend entirely on one schooner to carry their fish to Halifax. I shall draw my hon. friend's statement to the attention of the officials, and will see if any dredging can be done.
Friar's Head-repairs to breakwater, $1,000.


William Chisholm: How much has been spent on repairs to this work the last couple of years?


John Dowsley Reid: The breakwater was built of concrete in the year 1901-03, and was 110 feet long, 4. feet on top, and 6 feet on bottom. The total expenditure to March 31, 1916, has been $3,773.76.


William Chisholm: The engineer reported in 1911 that $2,200 or $2,500 was required to make the repairs to this breakwater. This money was provided in the general estimates of 1911 by the late government and should have been spent by the present Government if they had an honest desire to preserve this important public work; but then the Conservative party came into power and very few repairs have since been made. They would not even allow to be spent the amounts provided by the Liberal party. They permitted the work to go to destruction and decay. The destruction of the breakwater has continued right up to to-day, and I find that the same engineer now says that $1,000 will cover the repairs necessaray there. I cannot quite understand that. I know that $1,000 will not begin to do the repairs. I should like to know what particular part of the work is going to be repaired. The repairs are very necessary and should have been made long ago, in order to preserve the work already done there.


John Dowsley Reid: The figures are as follows: 1,200 ft. B.M. scantling for forms at $30, $36; 800 ft. B.M. boards: $30, $24; 3,000 lbs. steel rods reinforcement at .06, $180; 70 cu. yds. concrete at $10, $700; add for omissions and contingencies, $60; total, $1,000.


William Chisholm: That does not complete the work.


Mr REID:: I do not think so.


William Chisholm: It is only $1,000 out of the $3,500 that was granted in 1911 by the Liberal government. That is to say, this Government are giving only $1,000 six years aftej they came to power out of the $3,500 provided by the Liberal party in 1911.


John Dowsley Reid: It is all that is being done this year.


William Chisholm: The other $2,500 has not been spent.
Gabarus-extension of protection works, $750.


William F. Carroll: This is a very important fishing station. But for the protection works the fishermen of Gabarus would have great difficulty in getting their boats in and out of the harbour, if harbour you can call it. I have been in communication with the representative men of Gabarus, and I know they expected a much larger sum than this to be spent on the extension of the protection works. If it was only some small improvements that were required, $750 might be sufficient, tout I think the minister will agree with me that only a very small extension can toe made for that sum. The protection is required for the boats passing in and out of the harbour. The fishermen are -also having difficulty with the sand filling up the channel.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that $250 has already been spent this year on urgent repairs. This $750 is all that it is proposed to spend during the present season.


William F. Carroll: What does the engineer's report say?


John Dowsley Reid: - In a report dated March 30, 1915, District Engineer Bernasconi states that the beach protection! work built has proved very beneficial to the harbour, but it does not extend far enough to protect the whole of the harbour, and it is now asked that it be extended a further distance of 500 feet in a southerly direction. As the work is necessary for the protection of the harbour, he recommends its construction.


William F. Carroll: There is no question as to the necessity for this work, but I think $750 will scarcely Ibuild 750 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: It will build a piece of it.


William F. Carroll: A very short piece. I
should like the department to get a further report from the engineer. I understand that the channel is fast filling in, and that the fishermen have great difficulty in getting their boats in and out of the harbour.
Grand Mira-wharf, $1,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is required to construct a block and span wharf, 70 feet in length and 16 feet wide, with an "L" at the outer end 20 x 20 feet, and extending to 8 feet at low water, also warehouse 12 x 14 feet thereon.


William F. Carroll: This is a new wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Does it say on what side of the Grand Mira river?


John Dowsley Reid: It is asked for on Grand Mira North.
Half Island Cove-repairs to breakwater, $700.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is asked for
by District Engineer Millidge to reconstruct the outer face of the breakwater at the inner end, estimated cost $700. The work is required to prevent further damage to the breakwater during the fall storms.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that amount considered sufficient to put the breakwater in good repair?


John Dowsley Reid: That is what he reports.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the engineer made any report in regard to another breakwater in the locality? I understood there was an application for a breaikwater on the other side, at Half Island cove.


John Dowsley Reid: That may be, hut that would be new work, and we are only taking items for repairs.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend to make the repairs this year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we will proceed with them immediately the vote is passed.


John Howard Sinclair: The wharf is in a dangerous condition at present. It is in a very exposed place, and in storms the whole sweep of the bay is breaking against it. It is in such a condition that it may not stand through the winter, if some repairs are not made to it, and I am glad to know the minister is taking some steps in regard to this wharf, as it is an important wharf for that locality. If the work is not done soon it may be all carried away.
Mr. REID. We could not proceed with it until the vote was passed. The deputy had instructions to proceed with all these works at once.
Inverness harbour-repairs and improve-merits, $5,500.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is asked for by District Engineer Bernasconi to effect the following improvements: (a) Repairs to western breakwater, $1,000;	(b) Dredging
the entrance channel and extending th eastern breakwater, $4,500.


William Chisholm: Can the minister tell me what amount of work has been done? They have been doing a little work there this summer. Will the hon. gentleman tell us the nature of the work, and the amount of money already expended?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not a record of the work that has been done this summer. I will obtain the information.


William Chisholm: This $5,500 is for the purpose of continuing the work that has been commenced this summer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Chisholm: Does the minister propose building any new structures there this fall?


John Dowsley Reid: We will proceed with what this vote provides for. It is for repairs' to western breakwater, $1,000; dredging entrance to channel and extending the eastern breakwater, $4,500. The eastern breakwater and the repairs to the western breakwater will bo commenced at once. There is a little dredging in connection with that.


William Chisholm: What is the nature of the dredging? How does the minister propose to have it done?


John Dowsley Reid: The fishermen and inhabitants of Inverness request that a channel be dredged or excavated across the beach into Mclsaac's lake, to a depth of one foot at low water spring tides, fifteen feet wide on the bottom. To dredge such a channel, fifteen feet wide on bottom to a depth of one foot at low water spring tides, would require the removal of about 4,000 cubic yards from situ, to which add 25 per cent for filling in during storms-, or a total of 5,000 cubic yards.
The eastern breakwater as it now stands is 652 feet long, and the bottom, at the outer end, is about 1} feet above low water spring tides. This breakwater should be extended out 175 feet so that when completed there will be at least one foot of water at low water spring tides at the outer end.
I would suggest that a Channel, 15 feet wide on bottom, about 1,100 feet long, be excavated to a depth of one foot below low water spring tides, by horses and scrapers, and that while this work is in progress the eastern breakwater be extended 175 feet long, 15 feet wide, by building a native timber cribwork breakwater, filled with stone ballast, sheathed with native timber and covered with three-inch spruce covering.

The cost of the proposed improvement- is estimated at 14,500, made up as follows:
5,000 cu. yds. dredging at 30 c., $1,500; breakwater extension, 26,250 cu. ft. breakwater at 10 c., $2,625; add for omissions and contingencies, $375; estimated cost of extension, $3,000; total $4,500.


William Chisholm: This work was undertaken seven years ago, and a very considerable amount of money was spent. A very substantial structure was built on the eastern side by creoso-ted timber, the intention being to open up a channel to enable schooners and steamers that ply along our coast to enter. When this Government came into power there was a considerable quantity of that creo-soted timber on the eastern side, intended to be used in continuing the work then in progress, viz., the building of breakwaters on the eastern and western -sides of the entrance, and if I am rightly informed that timber is covered with stones and sand and is not available without, a great deal of difficulty, all the results of the indifference of this Government and their absolute neglect of public property, but I qiuestion Very 'seriously whether the fishermen of Inverness are satisfied with a depth of one foot of water even at low tide. I do not see the sense of it for a moment. The depth of water contemplated -by the original surveying was, I think, ten feet at low tide. The work was initiated with a view of having that depth of water, *and all the work done by the late -Government is evidence of the intention of the late Government. This is, I suppose, one of.the most exposed portions of the province of Uova Scotia, and to think that a depth of one foot of water, at the expenditure the -minister proposes to make there, is going to be of any lasting benefit appears silly to anybody who knows anything at all about cost. In the first place, if he contemplates doing -this work this fall, after the middle of next month he can only work perhaps two or three days in a week, and the work he will accomplish to-day will be destroyed to-morrow, unless he extends that breakwater to the distance contemplated by the late Government. It will be much better to continue the original plan, get that creosoted timber the Government- succeeded in losing through some official's neglect, and put it where it was intended to go first by way of extending this breakwater, which would not cost this country but a small amount compared with the buying of the useless Quebec -and Saguenay railroad or many other indefensible expenditures.

When the Government have accomplished that they can go to work in a common-sense way and do the dredging but to think you are going to dredge a harbour with a couple of teams of horses and a scraper on the north shore of Inverness, is to me an evidence of the weaknese and absolute lack of business qualities of the department and Government. To me it would be as sensible to throw that money in the fire as far as results are concerned. The Government cannot be serious in the handling of this harbour work at Inverness, and I am sure the engineers who advise the Government expenditure of money at the entrance of Inverness harbour in the months of October and November for the purpose of deepening the channel one foot should be inmates of a lunatic asylum, rather than in charge of government works. This is one of the most important harbours on the whole coast of Inverness or the coast of any other county east of Halifax. The town of Inverness is very prosperous, an industrial town of 3,000 souls where a first-class market is available for a quantity of our fishermen's catch, but besides that it is the northern terminus of the Inverness railroad and first-class opportunity is afforded for the fresh fish business with the markets of Canada and the United States. Off this coast we find one of the best fishing grounds in Canada, or I might say, in the world. There are great prospects there for a first-class fishing industry. I have been endeavouring to point this out to the Government for the last five years. In 1911 we had $15,000 in the estimates and a provision made in the general vote for dredging of $42,000. Had that . money been spent in 1911 *; nd 1912 we would have had established perhaps one of the finest fishing industries in Canada, and would give employment to hundreds of our industrious and ambitious young men who could earn a splendid livelihood and would place within the reach of our country the very best of food-fresh fish in the very best of condition at a reasonable-price, which is so necessary at present in view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living. We all know the importance of fish to-day.


Avard Longley Davidson: Why was it not expended in 1911?


William Chisholm: Because the right
party, the friends of the labouring men, were not in power.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am not speaking of the expenditure made before September,
1911. Why did the party then in power leave this till October? _


William Chisholm: The fact is that the Government that was defeated in September, 1911, was carrying on the work of building the piers and had brought there a very large quantity of creosoted timber so as to be in a position to continue this work. The work was in progress in 1911 until the defeat of the late Government. When the party, which is the friend of the poor people, was in power, it continued the work until it went out. Then the friends of my hon. friend opposite came into power and they lost this timber by allowing it to be covered with sand. They did not continue the work for which the late Government provided the money, but allowed the money votes to lapse and never made any attempt to resume the work until now an election is imminent. The timber is there yet. In place of being put where the Liberal party contemplated it was going to be put, that is in the breakwaters, my hon. friends left it there and allowed the sand to cover it. It will cost almost as much to recover that timber as to buy new timber. Now, in the dying moments of this Parliament, to put in a small vote of $5,500 is, in my judgment, bordering on silliness, because they cannot accomplish anything practical with that vote so late in the season. However, as far as it goes, we will be grateful even for small favours, and if they will only expend this money in continuing the work initiated by the late Government, with a view of having substantial and lasting results, it will be continued by gentlemen opposite or by this side of the House as the country may determine in the near future. But I cannot characterize the idea of deepening the channel by one foot as anything but silliness, and a very striking exemplification of the business calibre of the present Government.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman is hardly right when he suggests that nothing has been done by this Government. I find that previous to 1911 a small amount had been expended each year.


William Chisholm: Where?


John Dowsley Reid: In 1908-09, $3,012 was expended; in 1910-11	$13,000, in 1911-12
$3,782.77, and in 1912-13, $2,596.90. Now we are going to expend more.


William Chisholm: We had to fight Mackenzie and Mann for a number of years before we could get the land expropriated.


The vigorous and unrelenting efforts of my predecessor, the late Dr. McLennan, resulted in securing for the county the lands to enable the work to begin. When we went out of power we had all the machinery to continue this work in a vigorous way. If the Liberal party had been returned to power in 1911 they would have proceeded with this work. They provided the necessary money not only for the breakwater but for the dredging, and had secured a very considerable quantity of creosoted timber and were carrying on the work in a manner which assured a substantial structure and the creation of a satisfactory harbour for Inverness.
Irish Cove - reconstruction of wharf- $2,700.


John Dowsley Reid: This work is recommended by the district engineer. The money is to be used to construct a new block at the outer end of the present pier 40 x 20 feet by 14 feet high. The estimated cpst is $2,700.


William F. Carroll: Will this be done by day labour?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Under the supervision of the engineer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William F. Carroll: When this wharf was being built we had a very capable man in that district to look after the work under the district engineer. I refer to Mr. Malcolm McNeil who lives quite near the wharf. I would recommend to the minister that before looking for anybody else to act under the supervision of the engineer he would endeavour to find out the capacity of Malcolm McNeil.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do that.


George William Kyte: When did the minister receive the report from the engineer asking for this expenditure?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the date here.


George William Kyte: I think the minister will find it extremely difficult- to get the work done this fall. It is rather unfortunate that these amounts were not placed in the main estimates so that the work could have been done in the. early part of the season when it could have been done to advantage.
Jamesville-repairs to breakwater, $1,800.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: On this item I think 1 must have a heart to heart talk with *the minister. The estimates of 1910-11 con-

tained a very substantial amount for a breakwater at Jamesville. There is a report from the engineer on file recommending the height and depth of water at the outer end of the breakwater and the general dimensions. Before a dollar of the money was spent there was a change of Government. There is a letter in the department from Mr. McCormick, who used to be my opponent, recommending that this expenditure should not be made. It was dropped and there was nothing done. The minister will find that letter in the department. It was written some time in the fall of 1911 by my good friend Mr. McCormick. I am not finding fault with what he said. Possibly that was his judgment. But, later on, there was a local election in the county of Victoria and gentlemen from outside of the county came in and the announcement was made to the people of Jamesville that although Mr. McCormick had recommended that the breakwater should not be built, something would be done. A second report, now in the minister's department, was obtained from the same engineer recommending a very much smaller amount of money and a very inferior piece of work. They started with that expenditure and they have been doing something for the last two or three years. A frail structure was put into the water and a good deal of money was expended with the result that last fall, when a considerable southwestern breeze was blowing, the whole thing took a notion that it would not stay in the water any longer. It came ashore. The minister, if he went to Jamesville, would find it high and dry, suitable only for kindling wood, at the top of the beach. I would ask the minister to let this item stand until he brings down the reports. This [DOT] is an important work and it should have been done right from the beginning. Putting this small amount of money it is merely money thrown away. If he starts with $1,800 to gather these matchwood pieces from the beach and put the structure out again it will simply come ashore. If the minister will refer to the reports in this department he will find that what I say is correct. It will be very much better to save the $1,800 and to put twice that-amount in the estimates so as to provide something that will be of some benefit to the people.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is in accordance with the recommendation of Assistant District Engineer Cunningham. From his report it would seem that something should lie done, if only to protect the present work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am as anxious as any member to Rave money spent in my riding, and I never object to that; but I must, in all conscience, tell the minister that this thing is absolutely useless. The minister will find that when, Mr. Bernasconi was asked to make a second report for a certain amount ot money he reported that anything that could be erected for the amount specified would not stand, and: what he predicted has come to pass. I would not do justice to the people of Jamesville if I was a party to the rebuilding of this disgraceful thing, which was erected for the miserable consideration [DOT]of trying to get a few votes in that by-election. If this $1,800 is spent in this way it -will be against my will, because after what has been put there it is practically throwing the money into, the water. The only effective measure will 'be to begin anew and erect a proper breakwater there.


John Dowsley Reid: The objection to striking it out is that Mr. Cunningham reports that the work is necessary to protect what is already there. I feel that we should pass the item on the understanding that no work will be done without a thorough investigation by tlie department, and, of course, the engineers will visit the work in their official capacity.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Dowsley Reid: If this should not 'be a sufficient amount to properly complete the work, we might be able to help out from the general vote. Tliere is no desire on the part of the department to spend any money unless the engineers assure the department that the work will be permanent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The original plan is in the department, and if they build according to that there will be some good result.
Jones harbour - repairs to breakwater-wharf, $1,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is asked for by District Engineer Lock to make repairs that are absolutely urgent and necessary at this place at -which there is greatly increased shipping.
L'Ardoise-repairs to breakwater, $2,600.


John Dowsley Reid: This vote is asked for by Mr. Bernasconi to repair several bad breaks caused by windstorms.


George William Kyte: What is the date of that report?


John Dowsley Reid: June, 1917.


George William Kyte: That is another work that cannot be done this year, as it is -at one of the most exposed places on the southern coast of Cape Breton, and any work to be effective should be done early in the season.


John Dowsley Reid: These estimates can he used until the latter part of April, so that it may be done in the spring.
Lingan-repairs to beach protection works, $650.


John Dowsley Reid: This is asked for by the district engineer to make urgent repairs and to raise the beach prolection work to the proper height, which is necessary to the permanence of this work.


William F. Carroll: I think I noticed last summer that much of this brush work had been washed away, or else had sunk into the sand. It has served a useful purpose, as similar work on other beaches
5 p.m. has done. This $650, if it is sufficient, will serve a useful purpose in keeping the road intact.
Malagash-repairs to wharf, $1,000.


John Dowsley Reid: When the ice was breaking
up this spring there were exceptionally heavy storms and the wharf at Malagash was considerably damaged. This is to effect the necessary repairs.


William F. Carroll: Were any petitions sent to the Department of Public Works from the New Waterford fishermen with regard to the necessity for some protection to enable them to do fishing there?


John Dowsley Reid: I will make a note of that
and send the hon. member a letter explaining the matter.
Mr. 'CARROLL:	I have received letters
from two or three fishermen there in regard to this matter and I told them that when the estimates were up I would bring it to the attention of the Government. I think that the department sent ia man, down there; I do not know what report he made as to the feasibility of establishing some kind of small harbour for the fishermen. I should like the minister also to give consideration to the matter of repairs at East Bay. If lie could obtain some money from the general vote for harbours and rivers, dredging, etc., in Nova Scotia, I wish he would take the necessary steps to repair that wharf. At that place they have a
?3 to

steamer service twice a week, but it is almost impossible to land anything at the East Bay wharf. I would suggest that the department get Mr. Bernasconi to make a report on the matter. They do land certain supplies there in small boats, but that operation takes a good deal of time, and the steamers have only a short time within which to make the trip.


John Dowsley Reid: I have asked the deputy
minister to read Hansard to-morrow and take note of what the hon. gentleman has said.
Margaree harbour-repairs and improvements, $18,300.


William Chisholm: I am anxious to get a little more information on this item. Will the minister give me an idea of how this $18,300 is to be expended?


John Dowsley Reid: The amount of $18,300 is required to make the following repairs and improvements to Margaree harbour: (a) construction of sand groin and block, $7,500; (b) repairs and strengthening of breakwater, $4,800; (c) dredging channel and entrance, $6,000; total, $18,300. Tie sand groin, consisting of crib work, will be 15 feet wide on top, extending seaward from the beach, a distance of 550 feet towards the outer end of the breakwater with a solid timber block with creosoted timber substructure, 30 by 30 feet, on top at its outer end; estimated cost, $7,500. During the heavy gales which visited the western coast of Cape Breton Island in December last, a section of the breakwater at Margaree was badly wrecked and in order to prevent a breach through the work it is necessary to repair and strengthen the damaged portion as soon as possible after the opening of navigation in the spring.


William Chisholm: This programme is in line with what was suggested five years ago, as can be seen in the reports in the minister's department. That was my own suggestion after consulting my fishermen; $10,000 was appropriated for extending the wharf and breakwater, and an [DOT] additional amount of $24,000 for dredging. I approve the plan that is to be acted upon; I think the only solution of our difficulties down there is the building of this crib work to the west of the harbour, running at an angle towards the end of the eastern breakwater. But I repeat that the expenditure of $4,500 this fall will do nothing more than perpetuate the conditions that have obtained there during the last five years. The minister proposes to expend this mere pittance to make a partial repair of the breakwater,

and lie is going to leave that structure in such condition that it will be further damaged this winter and next spring. He cannot hope, even if he economically expended this amount of $4,800, to make proper repair of the breakwater. I want to impress upon the minister the fact that this $4,500 will not make the necessary repairs on that eastern breakwater; that is, it will not place the breakwater in the condition that it was in five years ago. The report of the engineer makes reference to the fact that a portion of that breakwater was carried away last fall. The engineer has not made a full report of the conditions in respect of the rest of the breakwater, which is gradually being destroyed. The engineer took care-I do not know why -not to explain that the portion of the breakwater carried away last fall was the work done only the fall before. The new' work was carried away, and it took with it another portion of the breakwater. And I will say this, that if the engineer had consulted his foreman who did the work he would have been informed of the absurdity of the course followed by the engineer. The foreman's judgment, in my opinion, was better than the engineer's with respect to this repair work. If the minister wants anything like a proper repair of the breakwater, he must repair it in such a way that the work will be substantially done and will withstand the storms. The trouble with the work done last fall was that the spikes failed to hold because of their having been driven into old decayed wood making up that portion of the breakwater to which the new work was attached. The old work had been left gradually to fall into decay through the evident indifference of the engineer or the department, or both. In order properly to repair this breakwater, work must be begun at the bottom. If the minister proceeds as the department lias proceeded during the last three or four years, he will simply furnish a number of fishermen with firewood next spring, made up of the wood that he is going to buy, at a good price, no doubt, and put into that breakwater. The expenditure of this $4,000 will accomplish no object, unless it be that of attempting to defeat me at the next election in that district. I promise him that the only way he can accomplish that is to convince the people there that he is honest in his efforts to improve this harbour, and to do this he must change his policy of gr-anti g money at a time when results cannot possibly be secured so far as our harbour conditions go,

and when there is every evidence that the work is not intended to be done. Whether he defeats me or not, the protection of our public works is of more importance to me while I represent my people in this House. It cannot be said by the Government that I have not kept the facts before them year after year; nor can it be said that the Government have, made an honest effort to keep these works in good repair. I am glad that after my continued efforts I have succeeded in convincing the minister of the importance of building this western breakwater and of doing the necessary dredging, and for their .action in the matter I thank the Government. I do impress upon them, however, the extent of their failure to keep up the other breakwater; it is nothing less than a crime, and I also wish to tell the minister that I am doubtful of his sincerity with regard to the expenditure of this money.


John Dowsley Reid: This matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works early in the year by the hon. member, and, of course, it was impossible for him to do anything until he had the necessary amount placed in the Estimates and sary amount placed in the estimates and passed by Parliament. We could not do anything until now.
When the hon. member states that this item is probably put into the supplementary estimates on .account of an election coming on, that is hardly a fair statement, because the minister would have had these estimates before Parliament in February or March if Parliament had not adjourned. For that reason, we were not able to go on with these estimates until now. The hon. member states that we cannot go on with this work this fall. The advantage of having this amount of $18,300 in the estimates is this, that even if we cannot do anything with this work this fall, we have the money with which to go on with the work early in the spring. We can use the amoqnts in these estimates up until the beginning of April, and then we can place in next year's main estimates or supplementary estimates an amount with which to continue and complete it; $18,300 is all that the department estimate they can expend during the present fiscal year. Under the circumstances, as the Minister of Public Works took this matter up when he was making up the supplementary estimates in February last, no such charge can be made against him as that this item was inserted on account of an election coming on. It was put in because there was a
strong petition from the fishermen in the locality that the work should be done and because the officials of the department reported that it was absolutely necessary and urgent. The hon. member agrees with me now that this item is perfectly justifiable. The only claim he has is that the money cannot be expended during this fall. As I have said, this estimate lasts until the beginning of April, and, therefore, if the work cannot be done on account of storms in October or November, the work can be proceeded with next spring. The hon. member has no ground for his suspicion that this item is inserted for election purposes. It was put in, as he himself has admitted, on account of the actual necessity and urgency of the work.


William Chisholm: I must admire the
minister's apparent candour. He tries to convince me that he did all he could do because, forsooth, he put this -item into the supplementary estimates to repair a condition that existed last year, and for the last four years, when he might, if he were sincere in his desire to repair those works, have put it into the main estimatesfl	He had a year before last February to .consider the main estimates, and he had plenty of time during his consideration of the main estimates, to consider these works. Had he included this .item in. the main estimates, he might have been expending the money this fall. The minister tries to .make the committee believe' that because the deputy minister inserted these items, in the supplementary Estimates, he did all that he could do. I have every regard for the intelligence o; hon. members of this House, and I do not believe the minister's representation can possibly make the slightest impression upon any hon. member. I am al6o positive that they will not make any impression upon the people whom I represent, because they are intelligent people.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no doubt that they are intelligent people.


William Chisholm: The minister says that the .amounts in the supplementary estimates can be expended next year. The amounts, if they are included in the general estimates of next year, can be expended next year. It is quite apparent to my hon. friend that he cannot begin this work this fall, and the insertion of this item in the supplementary estimates is in order to hold out hopes to the people of Margaree that this work will be undertaken. What justifica-

tion have the people of Margaree to believe that this work is going to be undertaken next summer, particularly in view of an item of 510,000 which was put into the general estimates in 1011 and which, has not been expended up to this day? When a Government, after money has 'been voted for a particular purpose, neglect to go on with the work, any reasonable person would expect such a Government to continue their indifference to the interest of the people. The Government are not sincere because they will not expend the money during this winter. The majority of the people of this country are convinced that another king will reign next year and that another party will 'be in power who will expend this money, but this Government have no intention in the world to expend it. This Government did not, during the last five years, spend money that was provided by the previous Government, so that it is not very likely,, when they are inserting this item in the estimates in this slipshod manner, that they are sincere and will expend the money at this time. My conviction is that the Government do not. intend to expend one cent of it.


John Dowsley Reid: As I stated a few moments ago, the main estimates were made out in October last, and therefore-


William Chisholm: The need for this expenditure existed six months, a year, two years before that.


John Dowsley Reid: If that is so, I have here the report of District Engineer Bernasconi, which is dated November 22, 1916, or a couple of months after the main estimates had been completed and passed by Council and were ready to be submitted to the House. There was, therefore, no possibility of getting this item into the main estimates at that time. The matter was taken up immediately afterwards and an item placed in the supplementary estimates. The work would have been under way and probably all completed had it not been that there was an adjournment of Parliament, on account of which we could not reach the supplementary estimates. The Government are absolutely sincere in expending this money, but we have been kept here until this late date of the season so that we may possibly not be able to expend the whole amount between now and the end of the season. I am positive, however, that we can expend the amount before the end of the fiscal year, before this appropriation lapses, and it is the intention of the Govern-

ment to do so. The hon. member has stated that there is no intention on the part of the Government to expend this money between now and the end of t'he fiscal year. I promise the hon. member that that will be done and the deputy' minister has instructions, in regard to all these items, that the work is to be proceeded with at once. I take exception with the hon. memher when he states that probably another king may be in power at the next session.


George Perry Graham: T'he minister is wrong about that.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 am satisfied that we shall have the same king that we have now,, namely, the Right Hon. Sir Robert L. Borden, in this House with a larger majority than he has ever had.


William Chisholm: I must say that I am not surprised at the conclusion of the minister. I would have expected no other conclusion. The sincerity in either case is questioned by me seriously. The minister, however, does not understand the conditions at Margaree. He could not do any work there in November, December, January, February, March, or April, and if he does not know that fact he should know it.


Charles Marcil: He does not attempt to know it.


William Chisholm: I know that. He has repeatedly stated that the ex-Minister of Public Works could not include this item in the general estimates. I cannot for the life of me understand what he has in mind. The ex-Minister of Public Works assured me a year and one-half ago that this matter was under consideration.


Charles Marcil: The elections were not decided on then.


John Howard Sinclair: There must be something wrong with the machinery of the Government if an item that comes to their notice in November through a report from their engineer that a public work is disappearing for want of repairs cannot be included in the estimates that are placed before the House in the following January. The matter requires some explanation from the minister.
He says the report of the engineer reached the department in November, and that it was too late then to put an item in the main estimates for this year. If that is so, I must say that the main estimates are prepared very slowly indeed. This is surely not .such a big book that it could

not be put together and printed in a few days. How is it that an urgent request made in November could not be provided for in the main estimates? The minister also promised some explanation why this long delay took plaoe. He has been urged by the hon. member for Inverness, for the last five years I am told, to attend to this work, which has been going to pieces from year to year. The minister has officers down there, but nothing was done, and I think it is up to him to explain who is to blame for this condition of affairs. If it is true that this breakwater could have been repaired four or five years ago at a trifling expense of $400 or $500, and we are now asked to spend $5,500 for it, simply because of some one's neglect in the department, I think the minister ought to explain who is to blame. The responsibility should be thrown on some one.


John Dowsley Reid: The only person I can throw it on, from the evidence I have, is engineer Bernasconi. There does not appear to be any official report earlier than November 22, 1916, but a couple of months afterwards there was a strong petition from the fishermen. I am not finding any fault with Bem-asconi. Of course, I could not censure him at all. The official report I have before me shows why the repairs were not provided for before. I do not wish to throw the blame on any one. I have no doubt at all that the hon. member brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, but that is being done every day by members, and the minister has to consider which works are the most urgently needed. Perhaps Bernasconi did not press this as hard as the hon. member thinks he should have done. Of course, the great storm just prior to Bermasconi's report damaged the breakwater much more seriously than it had been damaged before.


Mr. KNOWLES:: What was the date when the council approved of the estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not say offhand.


William Erskine Knowles: Is the minister sure it was prior to the 22nd of November, when this urgent report came in?


John Dowsley Reid: The estimates were all made out at the end of October by the officials of the different departments, were submitted to council and approved, and then printed.


William Erskine Knowles: If it is to be understood that the Government makes out its estimates in the month of October, and
that no matter how urgent a request may come in in the meantime, no further item will be included, even if the House does not meet till the middle of January, as was the case this year, a greenhorn or layman would come -to the conclusion that the Government was running its business in a very unbusinesslike way. If there is a hiatus between October and February during which no item can be added to the main estimates, the people ought to know that such is the case. On the face of it, it seems absolutely inexcusable, but there may be some technical reason to account for it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that that is not in accordance with the facts. The estimates made out in October are for expenditures to commence from the 1st of April of the following year. The hon. gentleman knows that if any urgent work is required to be done before April 1 an item can be put in the supplementary estimates. He also knows that the House meets in January of every year at the latest, and sometimes in December or November, and that supplementary estimates are always brought down shortly after Parliament meets, to take care of urgent and unforeseen expenditures. The hon. member also knows that the fact of the estimates being prepared in October, and being presented to the House in January, does not delay construction on any particular work for one minute.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not know anything of the kind. I repeat that it is a lamentable condition of affairs if the fishermen are to be deprived of this work because of this lapse of time, during which an item could have been put in the main estimates. The Government may be very busy, and no doubt is, but the Public Works Department is not and has not been; that department has been one of the snaps in public life in Canada since the war broke out, compared with the work required of the minister in ordinary times, because no new works on a large scale are being undertaken. There is no gainsaying that it is a very lame way of doing business if the minister knew in November by an official report that the need for this work was urgent, anl yet did not put an item in the estimates although Parliament did not meet till January. I am not convinced that there is not some explanation, but the explanation the minister has given so far rather convinces me that my criticism was justified. He says that the main estimates brought


John Dowsley Reid: 
William Erskine Knowles: What was the reason
that the main estimates were not approved before last week?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Erskine Knowles: If I am wrong in that, I would like to be shown wherein I am in error. The passage of the estimates has been facilitated. In contradiction of what the minister says, I remember distinctly that a laTge per cent of the -main estimates went through without a murmur on more than one occasion. I think a sixth or a twelfth went through without a vote.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman states that the Government is in control of the House, and should have passed these items before. We are in control of the House, but the hon. gentleman on the other side did so much talking on the other Bills that they delayed these estimates until the present time. That is the reason of the delay in bringing down (the estimates. I am not saying that the Opposition delayed the estimates. It is true we are in control, and we had to take control in order to get through. That is the whole position. We would have had these estimates before us long ago, if hon. gentlemen had not talked so much on the other Bills which came before us.


William Erskine Knowles: 
John Dowsley Reid: I am not saying that there was any too much discussion on any of the items, but I say that, in the discussion on the other Bills that were submitted from time to time since May we have had very lengthy discussions; and if the hon. gentleman wanted me to give him instances I could show him in Hansard-


George Perry Graham: Hansard would be against you. You would find the greatest number of pages filled by speeches of hon. gentlemen on the other side.


John Dowsley Reid: I have gone over certain debates, and I have come to the conclusion that there was more debating than there, should have been. We have a sample of it in the present debate. It is the first time there has been too much debate on any of the estimates. ,1 am not saying that the hon. gentleman has acted unfairly, but this item has been discussed by the hon. gentleman in whose constituency the work is to be performed, and he understands the whole matter. We have had a lengthy discussion, but perhaps not too long, and now the hon. member for Moosejaw proceeds to speak on it, and he does not know anything more about it than I do, and I am just taking the statements of the deputy minister. It looks to me that the course the hon. gentleman is taking in this matter is simply for the purpose of prolonging the debate on this particular item. I may be wrong, but this is my opinion.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Customs, who is Acting Minister of Public Works, said the Government had to take control into their own hands. Does he know that when a certain Bill was being discussed in committee, up to the time the Government gave notice of closure, the Conservative members had spread out their remarks to the extent of 69 columns of Hansard, while the liberals only consumed 50?


John Dowsley Reid: I did not know that


George Perry Graham: That is a fact.


William Erskine Knowles: When the hon. minister said I spoke this afternoon for the purpose of obstruction, I say his statement is not correct. I stated, as a general principle, with regard to repairs, or to public facilities of any kind, if there was to be as much delay as there has been in some cases, the *attention of the Government should be
called to it, and the system should be reformed, so that there could be quicker provision for obtaining money, and that the Government should not be compelled to wait for the sittings of Parliament, which sometimes means that a whole year will be lost. I was not referring to this particular case, but I could refer to Inverness, if I wished, or to the place the hon. gentleman comes from. I am interested in the business management of the affairs of this country, and I think that there should be quicker provision of money, especially with Parliament sitting, in view of the fact that there has been no obstruction from this side of the House.


Mr. WRIGHT:: The hon. gentleman from Moosejaw is a living example of why we are delayed here so long. The same thing would apply to a goodly number of members on the other side of the House. The hon. gentleman from Renfrew points to a certain debate, in which he said the members on this side of the House, being very considerably more in number than the members on the other side, took a little longer in actual debate than the members on the other side. I venture the assertion that the remarks of members on the other side have filled double as many pages of Hansard as the speeches by members supporting the Government. I would concede that, as they are the critics of the Government, it may be their right to talk more than members on the Government side. A certain number of members, particularly from the Maritime Provinces, occupy a considerable amount of the time of the House. I was going to suggest that we institute a little Parliament just for those Maritime Provinces, and I do not think it will be necessary to have a Hansard. Fifty per cent of the time of the House is occupied by members from those provinces by the sea. Many of the members from Ontario and the western provinces have privately discussed this matter and we feel that they unduly take up the time of the House. If all the members would insist upon their rights to be heard in this House to the same extent as some of those hon. gentlemen, we could not get through a session of this House in ten years, and I think some of those gentlemen who are accustomed to talking so much should stop and consider, for a little while, the other members representing constituencies in the Dominion of Canada, wTho should have something to say from time to time. We do not wish to be unreasonable



with them, and I would ask the hon. gentleman who is looking at me just now-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am much interested.


William Wright: -to look up Hansard, and see how many pages he has filled, and compare the number with the number ol pages occupied by any member on this side of the House, and I think he will not have much criticism to offer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
from Muskoka (Mt. Wright) has given us a very timely lecture, but if it takes him three years to incubate a little bit of a speech, that is not our fault. Nature does not always produce in the same way, and, as a farmer', he knows that. The farmers have hens, sheep, and horses that produce in their season, and they have not all the same manner and kind of production.
Hon, members on the other side of the House are of the same class and of the same manner of production. But you must not blame us because we are the Opposition, When my hon. friend was in Opposition I remember him well, and if he will look at Hansard of those days he w'll find that his planting time will be over before he can count his lines and speeches in any one year. He must remember that the side of the House on which we are makes a great deal of difference in the length of our speeches. There are certain, functions and duties devolving upon the members of the Opposition. When an important measure is .to be brought down the hon. member for Muskoka and his fellow-members have had an opportunity of seeing it perhaps a month before we see it. He has had an opportunity of debating and discussing it in caucus, of approaching the minister who is to bring it down, and of knowing all about it before it is brought into this House at all. Thus, to him, there is nothing new about it, but to hon. gentlemen on this side, who see it for the first time, it is altogether new. They are supposed to be the critics of the Government and the protection of the country against legislation introduced by the Government. Therefore, if we on this side take a little longer than the .supporters of the Government, under the requirements of our constitution and form of government, there is a good reason for it. I can assure my hon. friend from Muskoka that there will be no reform on this side of the House wThile such measures as he and his Government produce are incubated and brought forth from that side.
As far as what the minister says about his estimates is concerned, I have had a
rMr. Wright. 1
great deal of experience with the Department of Public Works for the last fourteen years. My idea of what Government officials do is that they report annually to the department before the main estimates are prepared and that anything of an urgent nature contained in the report will be included in the main estimates. The minister tells us that Mr. Bernasconi reported in November last year. It would appear that the report would contain all the principal requirements of his district. The report should certainly have contained a statement with regard to the serious conditions of the harbour of Margaree. I am sure that the committee of this House would not obstruct the passing of any estimate if the minister would tell us that it was urgent. If these matters are allowed to drag along from month to month it is not the fault of 'the Opposition. If the minister has an estimate that he feels should be put through, all he has to do is to stand up and tell us and that estimate will go through if it is a proper one. There is one thing that I have to say about the engineers. Mr. Bernasconi is a very capable man. Perhaps he is one of the oldest engineers in Canada. He probably has three good men in his office. I would wish the minister to impose upon these gentlemen the duty to report upon the works they have to look after. It is in the interest of the country that, once money is expended by the Department of Public Works, that money should not be allowed to go to waste because of the want of proper expenditure for repairs. The responsibility of keeping these works in repair should be upon the engineers of the different districts and it should not be left to members or anybody else to report upon the condition of these works. It could be done by Mr. Bernasconi in my district.
Port Hood-reconstruction of wharf, $6,600.


William Chisholm: What is this vote for?


John Dowsley Reid: This amount of $6,000 is
asked for by the district engineer to make repairs to the present wharf and to provide for the construction of a new block 20 x 100 feet on the southern end of the block constructed during 1914-15. The estimated cost is as follows: 40,000 cu. ft. of crib work, $4,000; clay and stone filling over old work, 2,000 yds., $1,200; superintendence, contingencies, etc., $800.


William Chisholm: Is it the intention to put this wharf in the condition that it was in five years ago?

533 i


John Dowsley Reid: The wharf at Port Hood is an old structure commenced by the local government of Nova Scotia during 1865 and assumed by the federal Government in 1871. The original work was extended, repaired and improved by the Department of Public Works at different times but owing to its being constructed entirely with native timber, the substructure was weakened by the ravages of the teredo and it was found impossible to keep the work in proper repair. The amount asked for is intended to complete the reconstruction of the head on new lines, by the construction of a new block 100 x 20 feet on the southern side of the head, and the filling in of the top of the old work inside of new blocks with stone and clay. This work is not only necessary to meet the requirements of the business of the locality but also to secure the stability of the new work already built.


William Chisholm: There was an important portion of this wharf carried away by a storm some years ago.


John Dowsley Reid: In 1912.


William Chisholm: I suppose this is a continuation of the work undertaken three years ago in order to replace the wharf and to put it in its original condition?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.	.


William Chisholm: Will the work be done by day labour or tender and contract?


John Dowsley Reid: Day work.


William Chisholm: I understand that work costing over $5,000 is done by tender and contract.


John Dowsley Reid: The timber will cost $4,000 and the stone filling about $1,200. Most of it is for timber and material.


William Chisholm: Why is it proposed to do it by day work?


John Dowsley Reid: These very small repairs are generally done by day work.


William Chisholm: Is it the intention to continue the work of closing the northern entrance of Port Hood harbour?


John Dowsley Reid: The only plans we have in view are those indicated here.


William Chisholm: I would like if the minister would give me some information in regard to the work of closing the entrance at Port Hood harbour.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a work which has been under construction for a number of
338J
years, but I could not give the hon. member a statement of policy in regard to it. Of course, I am only acting minister and know nothing about it. I could not state a policy without going into the whole matter and submitting it to council.
Soldier's cove-wharf, 2,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is the minister
departing from his announced policy, in regard to this wharf at Soldier's cove? The ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) told us over and over again that no new works of this kind would be undertaken until those for which votes had been in the estimates for some years many of them when he came into office, had been constructed. But here is a new wharf that is now in the estimates for the first time.


John Dowsley Reid: We have passed votes for
new works at other points, including Grand Mira.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Those are very small.
The only new one of any importance was Ben Eoin, and that was dropped. There is nothing of any importance in Nova Scotia.


John Dowsley Reid: This is urgently required.
My note says that the residents are engaged in agricultural pursuits and number about 40 families, but the number of familiies here and in the surrounding district who will benefit is about 400. I feel that along this coast, where they have no railway facilities, any assistance in our power should be given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know this place and I do not know what shipping is going there. It is not a fishing point; it is a farming community, and there is abundant wharf accommodation in the district. It is near Red island, between St. Peters and Irish cove.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Howard Sinclair: This item for a wharf at Soldier's cove appears to be a new vote. There was a distinct understanding with the late Minister of Public Works that the items for wharves and breakwaters that were struck from the estimates would be the first to be considered when the Government commenced the construction of new works. In my constituency a number of wharves and breakwaters were provided for
53.38

in 1911 in places where they were very much needed; the items for these were afterwards dropped from the estimates upon the assurance from the minister that they would be taken up first when new works were being considered. The minister has not given any reason why he should make a distinction in the case of Soldier'., cove.
I might refer him to a proposed wharf at Marie Joseph, the extension of a breakwater at Charlos' cove, a proposed wharf at Cole harbour, and a number of other public works of the same nature along the Atlantic coast in my constituency. The objection I have to this item is that it constitutes a breach of the understanding that was arrived at.


John Dowsley Reid: We did pass one or two new items before six o'clock. It is true that the ' Minister of Public Works struck out many items that had been in the estimates; .indeed, there were many applications for new works this year. If there had been many large items for the construction of new works, probably there would he good ground for complaint, but in view of the fact that there were no new items in the main estimates and that, the items for new works in the supplementary estimates are few in number and small in amount, I think that the hon. gentleman should not object. Evidently this work was promised to the people in that locality.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister is not
well instructed as to the prospective usefulness of this proposed wha-rf. Perhaps he will tell us what steamers will call at that wharf after it is constructed, and what outlet it will give to the products of the farmers in that part of the country. A steamer now calls at Johnston's harbour, .a few miles below the place where it is proposed to put this wharf. Why should another wharf be built within a few miles of Johnston's harbour? Moreover, the place where this wharf is to be built is not far from St. Peter's, at the end of the canal, where there is plenty of wharf accommodation. A little farther down is Irish cove, where there is a wharf. During the last fifty years nobody ever suggested or asked for a wharf at Soldier's cove. The minister admitted that it was to he the rule that no expenditure should he made until the items that had been in the estimates at the commencement of this Administration were dealt with. In a place where there is no need for it at all, we are to start in with a new work, while the needs of other places, in respect of which items
fMr. Sinclair.]
have been in the estimates, are not to be considered. It is not a right thing for a minister of the Crown to make an arrangement with members of the House and then break.it without any justification.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nothing could be more absurd; nothing could be so absolutely without foundation, as the petition-whoever on earth wrote it-that my hon. friend has just read. The petition says that this proposed wharf would accommodate the people of Loch Lomond. The nearest wharf to Loch Lomond is. Irish cove; if a man in Loch Lomond wants to ship out any produce, he can send it from Irish cove. Money was voted this evening for repairs to the wharf at that place. But this petition intimates that he will not take his goods to Irish cove. Well, in that case, he can go to Johnston's harbour, a distance of eight or ten miles from Irish cove. But, the petition says, he does not want to use the wharf at Johnston's harbour; he wants to go another eight miles up the shore until he comes to the new wharf proposed to be

built under this item at Soldier's cove. This shows how the minister can be imposed upon by ridiculous petitions. Then we aTe told that the people of Grand river, forsooth, would be served by this wharf. Grand river falls into thei Atlantic on the southern side of the island entirely away from this place altogether. Soldier's cove is on the Bras d'Or lakes.


John Dowsley Reid: How far is soldier's cove
from Grand river?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 'The month of the
Grand river would be about thirty or thirty-five miles from Soldier's cove. The people of Grand river, forsooth, are going to leave their open harbour and splendid shipping accommodation on the Atlantic on the southern side of the island and pull their grain over hill and dale until they come to the Bras d'Or lakes, which they will find absolutely frozen in winter time, and they are going to camp on this new wharf at Soldier's cove until the ioe breaks up in the spring. I know the conditions down there. If the proposition were that this wharf was needed in order that the people might bring in the supplies necessary for their families, there might be some reason in it, but the proposition that the wharf is required in order that grain, etc., may be hauled away in large quantities from Soldier's cove to the markets of the world, is dreamland >so far as I know anything about the matter, and I know the locality very much better than the minister does. Some one has been imposing upon the department. This item is in exactly the same category as the item for the Ben Eoin wharf that was struck out this afternoon. There is a new candidate in that county, a great man for manipulations of this kind, who expects to run in the next election.


John Dowsley Reid: What is his name?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: John C. Douglas.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not know that. I
should have left the item in, and then it would have been all right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He finds these wonderful places. He found this place of Ben Eoin. We have heard wonderful accounts of the condition of things on the north shore of lake Superior, where men have to be tied with ropes when they work on the railroad so that they may not fall into the lake. From the description I have of this place the conditions will be very much the same; the workmen will have to be let down with cables and pulled up with cables.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps they would have to use an elevator.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes. This new genius who has entered into the political life of Richmond county is finding those wonderful developments that can be produced by giving him here and there a few thousand dollars to be spent on day labour in order to make promises and make votes.. The minister can have this item put through if he chooses. He can throw to the winds the honour of the gentleman whom he represents here, who has made a bargain with us that this sort of thing will not be done. I suppose he can secure a majority to smash all those regulations and all those matters of honour that have been agreed upon, if he wants to give Mr. Douglas some thousands of dollars to be spent on day labour and to allow him to promise in advance the wonderful things that are to be done. I cannot protest too vehemently against the voting and expenditure of public money under the present conditions of the country, and against conduct of this kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not heard much of the discussion this evening about this vote for Soldier's Cove wharf, but I trust the minister will agree to drop this ' item. I see the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in his seat sitting close by the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Reid). I said this afternoon that the Minister of Finance, on several occasions during the past few months, solemnly promised Parliament that, during the war, no new public work would be undertaken if it were at all avoidable. Here is a proposal to spend a few thousand dollars in the construction of a wharf at a place at which, I am informed," it is absolutely unnecessary. I understand that efforts were made, during the last twenty-five years, to have this work done by the Government, but all governments have declined to proceed with it or to vote money for the purpose. It is true, there is but a small amount of money involved, but why should we vote even that small amount this year, under all the prevailing circumstances, in order to build this wharf? The minister should not require any argument to induce him to withdraw the appropriation. I should feel inclined to move that the item be dropped, but I hope the minister will follow the precedent which he set this afternoon in regard to another appropriation, and drop this one. There is no necessity for ja. wharf at this place and even if there were,

it can wait until next year. The acting minister surely would like to make a reputation for himself, while minister of this department, so as to leave a good example for the man who will later on become Minister of Public Works. Will the minister not agree to drop this item?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 could not possibly agree to drop this small item. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House when I read a petition from 400 families miles away from a railway, who say that they have agricultural products they want to take out from that place and no doubt they want to bring in supplies required for their own needs. This petition is signed by the people living in that locality. While theje is no doubt at all that the former Minister of Public Works said that he would strike out items and that he did strike out of the estimates items aggregating $10,000,000, he never promised, and no minister would promise, that he would not insert any items. If that petition is correct, 400 families will be accommodated by this wharf. I believe the people who signed that petition are honest people and that they would not sign it unless the work was a necessity and should be done at once. It may be true that this matter has been neglected, that the wharf has not been built before.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Wait until next year.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member this afternoon wanted every item struck out in the way of repairs to and construction of wharves for the accommodation of the people of Nova Scotia; or, in other words, he was willing that all the items in connection with Nova Scotia be struck out, while lie allowed all the items in connection with every other province to pass without a single word of protest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. We have not yet reached the harbour and river items of the other provinces.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that we have passed all the items in the main estimates for the whole Dominion, and during the passing of all the main estimates, the hon. gentleman never raised an objection to an item in any other province, but he now says to this committee: So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, I want every single dollar of expenditure struck out of the estimates, even to the extent of $2,500 to accommodate 400 families in one district. Even though these are estimates for Nova Scotia, and I come from Ontario, I will
[Mr. A. K. Maclean. 1
stand by every item so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. It is not fair for the hon. member to take that position in regard to his own province. The former Minister of Public Works took it for granted that the people were honest in signing this petition; his officials reported that the wharf was required; and I, therefore, feel like standing by this item.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister is trying to make a political speech, and that will do no good here 'or any where else. I will take the responsibility for the decision I took this afternoon. I was quite willing that all these items be struck out this year. I said last evening that three or four pages of estimates of this character might very well be dropped, because I think this is a time when we should restrict our public expenditure as much as possible. Does not the minister agree with that? Now he proposes building a wharf at a place where I doubt very much if it is required, and he gives us as justification a petition. Now a petition never establishes anything. I could go to the minister's own constituency and get a petition addressed to His Excellency the Governor General, signed by hundreds of my hon. friend's own constituents praying that he be removed from office.


John Dowsley Reid: No, it would be the other way.


George Perry Graham: I will guarantee that the petition will be signed, and will send you to the right people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I remember the days when my hon. friend took up considerable time of the House decrying works of this character in Nova Scotia. I have heard him repeatedly say that there was not a spot left where a wharf could be built. If there was any real necessity for this work being undertaken, the Liberal party, which was in power for fifteen years, would very likely have accomplished it. I am informed that requests for this work have been made to successive Governments by two or three people in the district, but the request was always refused by the department. If that was the policy of the department in the past, I submit that we require something more than a petition to justify this vote. Perhaps the minister will say whether any one else besides Mr. Douglas has requested this.


John Dowsley Reid: The petition was" signed by the people in that locality. They are the ones who have requested this work; it is not Mr. Douglas' petition at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood the minister to say that this place was only eight miles from St. Peter's. From St. Peter's to Soldier's cove, from Soldier's cove to Johnston's harbour, and from Johnston's harbour to Irish cove-that is along the southern shore of the Bras d'Or lake-is a very sparsely settled district, and Where the minister can get four 'hundred families in the eight miles between St. Peter's and Soldier's cove to sign this petition, I don't know. He talks about this place being so very remote from a railway. As a matter of fact, there is a railway only eight miles from St. Peter's, and that road connects with the Intercolonial. I represent a county which at its extreme northern end is 110 miles from a railway. Three-fourths of my county is more than forty miles from a railway. But there is no use my talking to the Minister ,of Railways about that, for he won't do anything for me. Then a little below this place is Johnston's harbour, where the boat we were speaking of calls. There is not the slightest reason for this item at all, except to put $2,500 in the hands of the minister's political friends to spend on timber and sticks, and they will promise to give fellows a day's work when the election comes on; that is all this vote is for. The county of Richmond was represented by Liberals practically for the whole fifteen years Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, and if there was any necessity for this work being undertaken the wharf would have been built in our time. One was built at Irish cove, and another at Johnston's harbour, and another at St. Peter's. The minister is well aware of conditions in his own part of the country, where there are farms running down to the lakes, and he knows that if there is a public wharf every eight miles or so the people are doing pretty well. It is only eight miles between Johnston's harbour and this place, and another eight miles to the canal, where there is a wharf. There is no justification whatever for the minister pressing this item through, even if we did not have the promise of the late Minister of Public Works that no new undertakings would be entered upon until financial conditions changed, and I feel confident that if that hon. gentleman (Mr. Rogers) were still in charge of the department he would have kept his word and these new items would not have been put through.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister does not reply, so it is pretty hard to tell what he intends to do about this matter. He has
referred to a petition that was sent to him', but has made no reference to the report of the engineer. If there is any doubt as to the facts the minister should be able to find out the truth in the report of the engineer. The minister knows the usual way of dealing with a petition when it comes to the department. It is referred to the district engineer, who examines into the facts and makes a report to the minister, and I venture to say that it very often turns out that the report of the engineer is very different from the statements made in the petition. The minister has not said very much about the report of his engineer on this undertaking. My hon. friend from North ^Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has pointed out that the district is pretty well accommodated already, and that this wharf will be so far away from the people the minister says it is intended to serve that they will use other wharves.
In explaining to the people I represent why .the various items for works along the coast were struck out of the estimates, I gave the promise of the late Minister of Public Works that whenever the Government began to construct new works those items that were struck out would be gone on with first. Does the promise of the late Minister of Public Works go for nothing? Is the present Minister of Public Works not going to observe it? If new wharves are to be constructed I want to put in a claim for the wharf that was dropped in my constituency, and which accommodates three villages and a large district along the coast. I urge the minister to restore the item for a wharf at Cole harbour, because from what I know of both localities this work is much more important than the other. I should like a statement from the minister as to whether or not he intends to disregard the pledge that was given the House by the late Minister of Public Works.


John Dowsley Reid: I should like to keep this item in, but in view of the discussion I will take this matter up with my officials and investigate it further. If we pass the item, we should then be prepared to go bn with the work, if inquiry justifies it. .


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister let the item stand in the meantime?


John Dowsley Reid: It is only a small item and I think we had better put it through. I don't think my hon. friend should ask me to let it stand. I may have to get a report from the engineer in that locality, and the hon. gentleman knows that, at this late

hour, of the session, it would be impossible to get the report in time. I will ask the deputy to look into the matter thoroughly. After this discussion, they will not pro. ceed with the work, and I am not going to push it. It is not the desire of the Government to expend any money where it is not really necessary. 'It might possibly be that they have been, wrongly informed, but the discussion has brought .the matter very forcibly before the department, and before I undertake the expenditure, I will take the matter up with the engineer and other members of the staff, and go into it thoroughly. I would not like to strike the item out and ascertain later, on investigation, that, in the opinion of the department, i.t should have been passed.


John Howard Sinclair: The late Minister of
Public Works is sitting behind the hon. gentleman just now, and can speak in regard to the pledge given to the members when other items were struck out. If this item is to be struck out, what are you going to do about the Cole harbour item, which has been dropped?


John Dowsley Reid: The only thing I could do
would be to bring down another estimate, but we are not going to present any more estimates, so that I cannot do .anything in connection with that item this session. We have brought all the items we intend to submit this session.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If we are to abandon the position which the minister helped us to take, when he asked us to hold back and say nothing, as there was a strong reason for not going on with construction. What about the next item?
Sydney river-wharf at Perry Lewis, $3,300
What are we to say about .the Sydney river item, if we let the Soldier's cove item go through?


John Dowsley Reid: The discussion brings the
matter to the attention of the department, and if it is found they are not absolutely required the items will stand; but I do not think it is fair to ask us to strike out the items altogether.


John Howard Sinclair: We should all be treated alike.


John Dowsley Reid: These repairs are provided for in every constituency.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman is wrong in saying that we are criticising the items for repairs. They are absolutely necessary, and I have no fault to find with
rMr. J. D. Reid.]
them. Repairs have been much neglected, but repairs and new items are quite different.


John Dowsley Reid: I was not finding fault with the hon. gentleman in regard to his criticism of items for repairs, but I wish to impress upon him that, so far as repairs and a few little items for new wharves are concerned, these are distributed in the constituencies of members on both sides of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. minister provides for three new wharves in the same riding. The item for Ben Eoin wharf is dropped. Soldier's cove is another new item, and the wharf on Sydney river is a third item. There may be more. Why should this constituency be singled out from the others? So far as I know, there is nothing else new in the province.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend says these are all in one riding. Sydney river is in Cape Breton county, and Soldier's cove is in Richmond county.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For the purpose of the next election, they are in the same constituency.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: South Cape Breton and Richmond are the same riding.


George Perry Graham: They are like Leeds and Broekville. [DOT]


Dugald Stewart: Leeds and
Broekville are a combination of two constituencies-a double-barreled constituency.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have the same agency presenting these three items. The gentleman who is to be the candidate for South Cape Breton and Richmond is bringing pressure to bear on the department for these new items. It is not fair to the rest of us, and I am sure there should be some place where we can get a decent show from the Government. The older members, such as the hon. member from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) myself, and others, had items in the estimates in 1912, and they went through while this Government was in power, and when they dropped them they gave us the explanation that the revenue had dropped, and later that the war was on, and, we were to let the items stand. A new candidate comes in among us, and he gets at least three new items in his riding, for the construction of brand-new works, and our old works are to be dropped and nothing to be done about them. I submit it is absolutely unfair, and not the kind of treatment
SEPiTEMBER 4, 1917
that should be meted out to gentlemen who are willing to take the hon. minister's word lor it, and keep absolutely quiet. I wrote to my constituents, saying that, by reason of the falling off of revenue and other great demands on the treasury of the country, these works could not be proceeded with. Now we have a different condition of things entirely. The minister has no reports from his engineers on this matter, and that is another reason why it should be allowed to stand. It was the custom, when I had anything to do with works of this kind, when petitions were presented and letters forwarded, to send these petitions and letters to the engineer, and he would report, and the decision would depend upon his report. Why was this matter not sent to Mr. Bernasconi for report? But we have nothing but this petition, which is of the most absurd character. It says that people from Grand river have to come over thirty miles to this place for a decent wharf. The same is true in regard to Loch Lcmond and other places. It accommodates a few people at Soldier's cove, but accommodates nobody else. I should like to have the minister send that petition to his engineer at North Sydney, and have a report, and if that report is favourable I will not say one word against it; but until he has something tangible I will oppose it.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the minister say to that proposal?


John Dowsley Reid: I will have the petition sent back again to the engineer. I will get his report as to the necessity of this wharf before we proceed with the work. I shall have the deputy minister take up these three items, and unless, upon investigation, we find them to be urgent we will not proceed with them. No one wants to spend money if it is not necessary. But the former Minister of Public Works had a very strong petition asking for this wharf and I feel I should not be justified in striking the item out at this late stage of the session, when I should not have an opportunity to have it reinstated. Therefore, I will have to ask the committee to allow the item to stand in the Estimates on the understanding that we will make a thorough investigation before proceeding with the work.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Finance has been advertising for people of ordinary means to buy war certificates. Suppose he put an advertisement in a paper in Sydney asking for a number of men and women to
buy $100 certificates in order to spend the money on these three new works, do you think he would get eighty applications? It is going to take eighty of these $100 certificates to build these three new works, which the men living in that vicinity say are not needed. The Minister of Finance is asking us to put forth every effort to secure money by the thousands, and down to a hundred and to five and ten dollars. At such a time as this, does the hon. Acting Minister of Public Works think it is fair, in view of the fact that men coming from these constituencies protest that the expenditure is not needed, that the Government should take eighty of these $100 certificates and put them into new work?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Finance, the . Minister of Agriculture, and other members of this House have been urging the people to produce more.


George Perry Graham: And to save.


John Dowsley Reid: And to save. We have been urging the people to raise more agricultural products. They say: We are producing more, but we require better transportation. Then, having asked them to produce more, shall we refuse to spend $2,500?


George Perry Graham: It is $8,000 for the three items.


John Dowsley Reid: Here is one item with regard to which 400 families represent to us that they have taken the advice of the Minister of Finance and produced more. If they have produced $300,000 more in agricultural products surely we can spend $2,500 to get the products out. All over this country we are extending railway sidings and helping people, when they do produce, to get their products out. With this expenditure of $2,500-


George Perry Graham: Eight thousand dollars for the three items.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but the larger expenditure accommodates more families.


George Perry Graham: It is not the amount
particularly, although these small amounts combined form a very large sum. The members of this -House who are responsible to these people tell the minister that the petition is not well founded and that several of the localities mentioned in the petition are nearer by eight miles to a wharf already constructed than they are to this point. Many of those who, the minister says will be accommodated will have to pass one wharf and some of them two. Some of

them will have to leave a wharf on the Atlantic coast and go 25 miles back to the Bras d'Or lakes. Surely a member of Parliament living in the vicinity knows what he is talking about. If I were the minister and. a member for the constituency said: " Leave it out," I would leave it out so quickly that it would surprise him. But the fact is that it is a man not in this House who is urging this and you have three new items in one constituency amounting to $8,000 which the men- representing that constituency in this House say are not needed. Surely the minister has every reason to strike them out, if it be not that in the political sense they are going to help somebody. In these times we have to drop that kind of thing.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member (Mr. Graham) suggests that the members representing the constituency have said that it is not a necessary work. If my memory serves me, the member representing that constituency said that every work provided for in the constituency was an absolute necessity. Even the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) did not say that this was not necessary; he said that these items were necessary. Is it fair for the hon. member (Mr. Graham) to ask me to strike out this item because members in other constituencies say it is not necessary? The hon. member is hardly fair when he says that members residing in the constituency have asked me to strike it out,


George Perry Graham: Here is a member (Mr. McKenzie) who is right adjoining and he knows all about it.


John Dowsley Reid: But that is another constituency. The member representing the constituency said that every item was a necessity.


Mr. McKENIZIE:: The mill to which they would send the grain is in my constituency and I am sure that I would be willing to draw grist to my own mill. If there was any grain at Johnston's harbour or at Soldier's cove across the lake,' that would come out by this wharf, it would have to come to this provincial mill in n v constituency and I	would be
very sorry to say a word against it. There are wharves at Irish cove, Johnston's harbour and St. Peter's, and I will give the minister $5 for every bushel of grain that any one ever sold at any one of these wharves that were built fifteen or twenty years ago. The statement in the

petition is absolutely false although the minister may believe it in preference to my word if he likes.


John Howard Sinclair: It is quite clear that the minister is not going to regard the promise made by his predecessor. He is apparently willing to treat it as a " scrap of paper." The main question before the committee is:	Are we going to keep faith with the
members of this House when a promise of that kind is made?
I have put up with items for my constituency being struck out, on the ground that every dollar was required for other purposes. I submitted to the proposal of the late minister that these matters should lie over, with the distinct understanding that when new construction was undertaken they would have precedence of all other claims. The minister has not dealt with that point. He says this is a small item. But it is not small when you consider the promise made to the House. There is no question that promise was made; the minister does not deny it. If his only reason is that this will help some one politically, that is a very poor reason indeed at a time like this. This Government has the reputation of being very partisan, and they need to do something drastic in order to convince people that they are not thinking all the time about keeping themselves in power, and that they have some regard for the public interest. I put it to the minister that he ought to do this for the reputation of the department and for the reputation of the retiring minister, who gave us that pledge. Is he or is he not going to keep that promise? There are other similar items in the other provinces. The minister said that we had passed one already, but the fact that we passed one without any one noticing it is no reason why we should pass these items. If he can justify these items, there is no reason why he should not build a new wharf in every constituency where a Conservative candidate asks him to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. There is no danger of any more wharfs or other work being proceeded with than are provided for in the estimates. I do not think the exminister promised not to go on with any new work, as that would prevent his acting in cases of urgency. Nor do I think it would !be fair to strike this out when the member for the constituency has agreed with the late Minister of Public Works and has said that every one of these works is necessary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is not in Mr. Carroll's constituency now, although it will be for the election for which this vote is intended. If the minister will consult his files ,he will find that no one asked for this except Mr. Douglas, who is not a member but will be a candidate in this election. Have we the promise of the minister that he will obtain a report from the engineer at North Sydney and submit it to the House before proceeding with this work:


John Dowsley Reid: I shall tell the deputy minister now to write to the engineer instructing him to investigate and see if the work is urgently required, and we will act on the report of the engineer in that district.
South Side (Donald's Head) Cape Sable Island-breakwater extension, $1,800.


John Dowsley Reid: This is asked for by Engineer Lock. It is for an extension 40 feet long, 30 feet wide and 17 feet high to the outer end of the breakwater. It ie required to enable coasting steamers to call at all times of tide.
Sydney river-wharf at Perry Lewis, $3,300.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is another stormy petrel, and if the minister gets it through to-night it will be as much as 1 can promise him. This is in the city of Sydney.


John Dowsley Reid: This is for a wharf at Perry Lewis.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is practically in
the city of Sydney. There is a Government wharf in the city of Sydney already. The shore of the harbour is lined 9 p.in. with wharves. Why in the name of anything that is sensible are we going to put another Government wharf in the city of Sydney? The thing is most absurd.


John Dowsley Reid: The report I have says that Assistant Engineer MeKeen says that Sydney river is a settlement on the southern arm of Sydney harbour, at the mouth .of Sydney river. The site is three miles from the city of Sydney, about 500 feet below Gibbons' bridge. The settlement is the centre of a flourishing district and there are quite a number of summer cottages owned . and occupied in summer by Sydney residents. The residents applied for the construction of a wharf so that steamers plying on Sydney harbour might be induced to call for passengers and farm products, etc. Then it would also be used by picnic parties. During the past years steamers carrying parties were compelled to carry a scow or scows and transfer their passengers at high tide.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Three miles from Sydney ! I hope there is somebody here who knows Sydney. That place is not more than a quarter of a mile from the city limits, if it is not within them. The city runs about two miles along the water front and here we have a representation that this is three miles from Sydney. There is only one solitary merchant in that vicinity and you are going to give him a wharf. The Intercolonial passes right by his door and there is a siding at Gibbons' bridge, 500 feet away. No boats .pass this point, as Gibbon's bridge is the end of the harbour. This man Lewis is doing a little business up there, and if the Government build him a wharf they will find that every merchant in the city will want one also. They have just as much right to it as Perry Lewis has.


John Dowsley Reid: The only information I have in regard to the matter is that which has been placed at my disposal by the department. In view of the statement that has been made by the hon. member, we will not proceed with the work unless, after investigating the matter, we find that the work is absolutely necessary. In view of the representations made by the department with respect to the alleged necessity for the wharf, I cannot understand how the conditions can be as the hon. member states.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister is going to make inquiry into the matter, he ought to inquire what steamers are to call at that wharf. The bridge across the river 500 feet further up is the end of navigation on Sydney harbour. The main post road bridge, or Gibbons bridge, and the railway bridge cross there side by side. There is no draw on the railway bridge, and I do not think there is any on Gibbons' bridge. The minister may be under the impression that quite a number of steamers pass up and down there and call at that wharf. If steamers do call, what are they going to call for? For passengers? Where are the passengers to come from? There is only one merchant there; I suppose we are going to build a wharf for him. The Intercolonial passes at his door; there is a small station at the end of Gibbon's bridge, 500 feet away. Moreover, there is a Government wharf in the city. The member for Lunenburg (Mr. D. Stewart) calls out "carried." If items affecting the county of Lunenburg were under consideration, l should have very little to say, but when the hon. member calls "carried" at this rime he does not know what he is talking

about; he does not know anything about this vote. If he is here as the speqial agent of John C. Douglas, I can understand why he is parroting the word "carried" every time an argument is advanced from this side of the House.


Dugald Stewart: I was not aware that I had opened my mouth, much less said anything. On a previous occasion the hon. member accused me of interrupting him; I can assure him that I was not conscious of having interrupted him to-night. I know very little about this matter. I do know something of the locality affected by this vote, but nothing that would be of any value to the minister or to the committee. I rise merely to correct the assertion of the hon. gentleman that I interrupted him, for I had no intention of doing that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say that the hon. gentleman was interrupting me; nor did I regard the remark as an interruption. But he is continually crying out "carried" when I am trying to explain to the minister the conditions in my own constituency, with which I am familiar. I do not regard it as courteous for an hon. member who knows nothing about the situation to be continually crying out "carried."


Dugald Stewart: I did not even use the word "carried." I had not opened my mouth to speak-I may have opened my mouth, but not to speak. I was not interfering with the discussion, for the reason, as the hon. gentleman says, that I know very little about the matter under consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not answered the contention that this place has already sufficient accommodation. He has struck out several items in respect of works on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, where there is no accommodation-places situated fifty miles from a railway, where a public wharf would afford, the people their only facility for the shipment of fish, the landing of coal, etc. He appears to be willing, at the instance of the Conservative candidate, to build a wharf at a place which is close to a railway station and which has ample accommodation-a place occupied by only one merchant. I should like him to justify that if he can.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman, who lives in the constituency, knows the locality better than I do. Evidently the former Minister of Public Works, when he made out these estimates, considered, in view of the information before him, that this work 
was necessary. I feel, therefore, that rather than strike this item out we should take the matter up again with the officials at Sydney. If the statements made by the member for North Cape Breton are in accordance with the facts, we shall not go ahead with the wharf. It would be absurd to build a wharf at a place where only one man lives and where there is practically no freight. I have instructed the deputy minister to take this matter up with the engineer down there and to refer him to the statements of the member for that district. Unless he can show that the statements made are not in accordance with the facts, I would not proceed with the work.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it correct to say that Mr. John C. Douglas asked for this wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. John C. Douglas has asked for work in that constituency. But, besides Mr. Douglas, other persons have made application; petitions have come in from other sources.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not care anything about other petitions; who asked for this work?


John Dowsley Reid: Supposing it was Mr. Douglas-


Mr. BUREAU:: Who is Mr. Douglas?


John Dowsley Reid: He is a member of the provincial legislature; he represents the constituency in question.


Jacques Bureau: Is he a Tory?


John Dowsley Reid: He certainly is, so far as I know, but the fact of his being a Tory is no reason why he should not look after the interests of the constituency he represents. He is a member of the local legislature. I think, therefore, he is perfectly justified in asking for anything he thinks is absolutely required. His constituents would no doubt intercede with him in his capacity as their member and endeavour to. have their requirements brought before the proper department at Ottawa.


Jacques Bureau: Is Mr. Douglas a candidate for Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: He is a member of the local legislature for that constituency and has been for many years.


Mr. ROSS:: Is he a candidate for the Federal Parliament?


John Dowsley Reid: I live in Ontario, and I know only the candidates in that province. I cannot say anything as to the candidates in Nova Scotia.


James Hamilton Ross: Will the minister consult the sitting member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) in regard to this expenditure?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say whom the exMinister of Public Works consulted. I am consulting the hon. member for the constituency now and will deal with the matter afterwards.


James Hamilton Ross: It is rather late now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the minister will give us some dimensions in regard to this wharf. What is the length? What will be the depth of water at the outer end, or at the side? Has he procured the site, and how much is the site going to cost?


John Dowsley Reid: It is proposed that this wharf shall be 100 feet in length and 20 feet in width, with an "L" on the eastern side of the outer end. The amount asked for the lot is $300.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister did not
answer the question as to the depth of water he will find at the end of those 100 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: The plan shows that there is twelve feet- three inches of water at the "I" and sixteen feet nine inches to seventeen feet six inches of water at the outer end.


John Howard Sinclair: At low tide?


John Dowsley Reid: The plan does not say whether this is at high tide or at low tide. Does the hon. member know what the rise and fall of fide is there?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There would not be very much tide there as it is well up the river. I wish again to point out to. the minister that it is rather extraordinary for the Government to start building in Sydney river a wharf 100 feet long in order to get to the centre of the river for some depth of water when there is plenty of accommodation a little further down the river where the real harbour is. A few years ago we had a very interesting lawsuit i'n Sydney in which it was attempted to be proved that Sydney river was not- navigable above Wentworth creek, which is about two miles nearer the harbour than the proposed site of this wharf. We mow have the Government going two miles further up the rivier and building a wharf 100 feet long to reach the channel, as the only depth of water is in the channel of the river where it comes under the 'bridge. That is a most extraordinary thing to do, and the minister will find, if he will inquire info the matter that everything that I say is correct. In this city there is a very distinguished gentleman
who was interested in this lawsuit, who is now chairman of the Pensions Board. I refer to Mr. Ross, who was then living in Sydney, and who will tell the minister, if he chooses to- inquire, that Sydney river is not navigable beyond Wentworth creek, where his dwelling was located. I cannot too strongly protest against this expenditure.
New Brunswick-Grand Anse-repairs to breakwater $2,000.


John Dowsley Reid: 'This amount is to repair the breakwater and complete groyne.


Mr. TURGEON:: Is the work to be done at once?


John Dowsley Reid: I have told the deputy minister to proceed with the work at once.
Shippigan-wharf improvements, $2,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is to close pile one or both sides of nine 25 ft. blocks of the approach of the Shippigan public wharf and the outside of the ferry landing to enable additional bertha to be provided by dredging. For some time complaints have been received as to the lack of room at this wharf. The Gloucester Navigation Company's steamer, making .two trips daily, has often difficulty in discharging freight and passengers for this reason, and wheh the fishing fleets come in to unload their catch or take in supplies every week or fortnight, the wharf is crowded. More shipping would use the wharf if there were room.
St. John harbour-extension of and repairs to Negro Point breakwater, $250,000.
'Mr. REID:	This amount is required
towards the construction of an extension and repairs to the breakwater at Negro Point. The probable cost of the work is as follows:	Negro Point-Extension of
breakwater, $400,000; Negro Point-General repairs to breakwater, $15,000; total $415,000. Tenders for this work are now in. District engineer Goodspeed submitted a report estimating the cost of the proposed extension at $920,000.


Mr. CARVELL:: Perhaps the minister will give some reason for launching on sucii an expenditure as this under present conditions. The harbour of St. John has been in existence for a great many years, 150, 1 suppose, and has been doing a lot of good work. Why is it necessary to start out on an expenditure of nearly .$1,000,000, one quarter of which is to be called for now? The minister states that tenders have been called for; they have been advertised in the newspapers, and I presume they are now

in the department. I know the faithful in St. John who always get their hands in the public till have been very busy during the last few weeks figuring on these tenders, asking certain people to tender, and keeping other people from tendering. We have had some revelations in New Brunswick recently as to how they keep people from tendering on public works down there, and drive everybody out except those who are wanted to get the contract. I imagine the same thing is happening this time, because I have heard something of what has been going on in St. John during the past couple of weeks. Why is it necessary, with the enormous financial problems Canada has to face at the present time, to start on an expenditure of this kind at St. John?


John Dowsley Reid: This is a protection for the new wharves that have been built at St. John. It is claimed that this protection is an urgent necessity on account of the flow of water around the new wharves. The Secretary of the St. John Board of Trade writes as follows under date March 31:
The experiences of the past winter have so strongly emphasized the necessity tor the extension of the Negrotown breakwater to Partridge Island that the council of the St. John Board of Trade has directed me to ask you whether it is the intention of your department to proceed with this work during the coming spring and summer, so that it may be ready for next winter. Not only are the new government piers endangered by the undertow which sweeps through the west channel at times, but shipping at these and other piers has been imperilled and in some instances damage has resulted.
The extension to the breakwater has been asked for by H. B. Schofield, harbour commissioner of St. John, in a letter dated July 31, 1912. Tenders for this work were only received last Monday.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And the gentleman who is here hopes to get the job.


John Dowsley Reid: Well he did not get it if it is a St. John man you mean.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is. .


John Dowsley Reid: They tell me an Ontario firm is likely to get it, they are the lowest tenderer, we will put it that way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is some comfort
in that statement. I am very glad indeed that the gang in St. John, who have been manipulating the thing for the last three or four years, won't get their fingers in the pie this time. But while it may be an Ontario firm by name, I think you will find the patronage committee in St. John will

be in it just the same. You cannot eliminate them as long as this Government continues to be run as it is. But that is not the point I am making. There is no doubt that under certain conditions it might be an advantage to have the breakwater extended; I believe it would be. But all this talk about the new wharves being undermined is simply nonsense. The new wharves are I should say about half a mile up the harbour from the point under discussion. Partridge island is out at the mouth of the harbour, 'and there has been a breakwater extending towards Partridge island for a great many years to keep the water from going up to the wharves. If my hon. friend has a plan, he will see that it is a long way from those wharves down to the breakwater, and much farther down to Partridge island. No doubt some silt may be drifting into the channel, and if that passage were closed up it might be of benefit to the channel. But why should the minister expend this enormous amount just now when an election is coming on? Down in New Brunswick whenever an election is coming on friends of my hon. friend always get busy. Let me give him a little illustration. An election was brought on last February and a contract was made to build a railroad. The contractors had a valid contract and agreed to build the road on certain plans and at certain schedule prices, but no tenders were called for, and no notice of the work was given. Four days after the House was dissolved in February a new agreement was promptly executed with the same contractors, by which the price of a small branch line twenty-five miles long was boosted by $76,000. The day after the contract,was signed, the contractor paid $20,000 over to a gentleman named Tennant, a director of the St. John Standard and a member of the patronage committee. Two days after that Tennant cashed the cheque, and paid $20,000 to Mr. Thomas Bell, another member of the patronage committee, and a director of the St. John Standard, just a little ring that manipulates things in St. John


Air. LEMIEUX:: The Standard Railway?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: iNo, the Standard newspaper, the organ of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Another election is coming on, and these same gentlemen are showing the necessity of some public work, in order to get funds. They were very open about it, and paid the money over to the patronage committee, and distributed it around. Knowing as I

do what is going on in St. John, and in New Brunswick generally, and knowing the barefaced way in which they take money voted for public purposes, I cannot view this vote with anything but suspicion, based upon almost actual knowledge that an election was coming on. I do not know what the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) may say, and do not care very much, nor do I care what the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries may say, but I protest against this Government entering into a quarter million dollars expenditure for election purposes in St, John under these conditions. No man need tell me it is a prime necessity to have the breakwater extended. I admit that the extension would improve the harbour of St. John. In time it should be extended. The present channel between the breakwater and Partridge island should be filled in, and it would be a great benefit to shipping; hut they can handle the shipping there just as well next year as they have done for the past five years, and last year there was more tonnage out of St. John, by twenty-five or fifty per cent, than ever handled before. They are supposed to have one or two berths in commission this year that were not in commission last year. There is no>
doubt they require all the berths they have got, and probably more, and if my hon, friend were building wharves, I would not say anything about it, because, under present conditions, with the enormous amount of traffic going from this country across the water, and with the necessity of making the harbour of St. John as convenient as possible, and rendering all the necessary aid to the exportation of our products, and it being the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway on the Atlantic coast, it is all right to build wharves. But when they commence to talk about the breakwater, which has been discussed since I was a boy-I can hardly remember a time when they did not talk about extending Negro Head breakwater-it looks to me so much like election campaign matter that I cannot help voting against it. The minister should consider carefully before rushing the country into an expenditure of a million dollars-it may be two million dollars; they admit a quarter of a million for a starter. I protest against it, and I believe the vote should be dropped.


William Pugsley: Before deciding the motion of my hon. friend and before passing the vote, it would be only right that some information should be given. There is no doubt that for many years there has been
an urgent demand from some quarters for the extension to Partridge island. When I was minister I had plans prepared, after consultation with those acquainted with the harbour which included two things-building the breakwater from Partridge island eastward, and filling up the gaps between the present breakwater and Partridge island. There was quite a difference of opinion at that time as to whether it was desirable to extend the breakwater or not, because the space between the breakwater and the island was used quite largely by small vessels coming into the harbour, and there was also the objection that if the breakwater were extended, and that channel filled in, the result might be to cause a current from the harbour directly outward to the Bay of Fundy; but I think, upon the whole, the people who are best qualified to judge are of the opinion that it would be desirable that the breakwater should be extended and this gap filled in. My own judgment is that the work of building the breakwater from the island is equally important, if not more important, and of course would cost very much less than I understand this work is going to cost. But there is nothing that I can say which would induce the minister to make provision for the immediate construction of the breakwater from the island eastward. The vote could not be changed to accomplish that, and, therefore, the question is, whether or not it is desirable to go on with the work. There is no doubt the condition of affairs in the harbour of St. John has been greatly changed by the dredging out of a very large area on the western side of the harbour, and I believe it is true that in times of storm there is considerable danger to shipping on the west side which it is thought would be obviated if the gaps were filled in. Would the minister tell me/ what is	the difference between
the estimated	cost at the	present
time, certain changes having been made, and the cost under the previous plan? Plans were called for some time ago, and I believe the minister at the time was of the opinion that the cost was tpo great, and a change was made in the plans which, it was supposed, would greatly reduce the cost. I am rather surprised to find that the cost is going to run as high as $900,000. I was of the opinion that, with the changed conditions, it would not exceed $500,000. Having called for tenders, before asking for the vote would it not be reasonable that the minister should lay on the Table the tenders received, so that the
5.350

committee would act with a full knowledge of what is being done? If the amount is going to run into a million dollars, I would not be disposed to urge the passing of this vote, hut I rather think a smaller amount could be better expended by building a breakwater from Partridge island eastward, which would protect the buoys on the western side of the harbour from eastern storms. Many people who are quite familiar with the harbour of St. John are of the opinion that the breakwater ought to be first constructed. A good deal would depend on the relative cost of the two works.


John Dowsley Reid: I have before me the estimates the engineer in charge of the work at St. John gave to the minister.


William Pugsley: What was the lowest tender for the work previously?


John Dowsley Reid: I was going to say that this estimate that he gave was $400,000 for the extension of the breakwater, and general repairs to- breakwater, $15,000, or $415,000, of which he wants $250,000 this year. Coming to the tenders that were called for-I suppose it is this same work-on October 7, 1914-


William Pugsley: That was the time.


John Dowsley Reid: There were two tenders then. The tender of the Maritime Dredging and Construction Companv, the lowest, was $769,860.


William Pugsley: That was thought to be entirely too high, and it was supposed that after the change in the plans the work could be done at much less cost.


John Dowsley Reid: There were two tenders, the other tender being that of S. Pearson, Son & Partners, Limited (Canada), the amount being $1,233,720. The Board of Trade of St. John have been pressing for this construction. These tenders were received on Monday. They have not been laid before me in order that I might examine them. There are quite a number of tenders, but I have not seen them. The deputy minister has given me a little information.


William Pugsley: What is the amount of the lowest one?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is fair to give out the amounts of the tenders when I have not seen them or submitted them to Council. The lowest tender is very much in excess of the lowest tender of 1914.


William Pugsley: Very much higher?


John Dowsley Reid: The lowest is over $700,000. In view of the statements that have been
 .
made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to-night, I would ask that the item stand, so that I may have an opportunity of looking over the tenders and coming to some decision as to what action the department will take. The very fact that the engineer reported $400,000 and that we have got tenders at almost twice as much, is certainly one that calls for some consideration.


William Pugsley: I think it would be well to allow the item to stand. Every large amount that is voted for any community is naturally charged up against that community in asking for other appropriations. I think it is very desirable, particularly at this time, when money is- scarce, that any constituency should have the most effective work done with the appropriation that is made. I think that the minister ought to look into the matter, see what the tenders are, and then bring it to the attention of the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I will give the committee full information and I will bring the item up when both these hon. gentlemen are present.


William Pugsley: I understand that under the new plan a large amount of stone is to be used and it is proposed to get that stone on Partridge island, where officials of the department were making borings. Partridge island, I understand, is owned by the city of St. John, and I suppose the city has agreed to allow the stone to -be quarried there. I understand that' the stone is to be cut upon the island, carried by an overhead apparatus and dropped into place in the harbour. If that is so, one would suppose that it would cost very much less than under the previous plan, and, therefore, I am greatly surprised to learn that the previous tender is exceeded by $750,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do the present plans call for the complete filling up of the channel between the lower end of tie present breakwater and Partridge island?


John Dowsley Reid: I am informed by the deputy minister that they do call for the complete filling up of the channel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So that the opening from the Bay of Fundy into the harbour will be completely filled up?


John Dowsley Reid: Absolutely.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not an engineer and I have never gone over the ground

particularly, but it would seem to me that under ordinary conditions that would be a benefit to the harbour. What 1 am protesting against is embarking on a work of this kind under present conditions when it has been mooted for years and years. I can hardly remember when they did not talk of filling that channel so as to prevent the silt filling up the dredged area. I notice that my hon. friend referred to the fact that the Maritime Dredging company had tendered on this work.


John Dowsley Reid: That was in 1914.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do hope the Maritime Dredging company will not have any hand in this. If the minister does not know about the Maritime Dredging company, I might explain that it took a big part in the elections of 1911. In the Public Accounts Committee we spent three weeks talking about the Maritime Dredging company and its enormous profits. About ten days after the election I was in St. John and I saw all this crowd that had been running things go into a room in the Royal hotel and they simply took over the Maritime Dredging company and changed it from a Liberal organization to a Tory organization. Of all the raw deals that this Government has been the victim of since 1911, none could exceed the deals that have been put over by the Maritime Dredging company. There is nothing that they have not had a hand in around the city of St. John. They bought out the plant and contracts of the old Maritime Dredging company. The Conservative members of this House, and even my hon. friend the present minister, went around talking themselves red in the face before the elections about the iniquitous prices that were paid to the Maritime Dredging company, but when the new organization took charge they went right on and paid the same prices and extended their contracts; no tenders called for. There was nothing going on in St. John that they did not take a hand in for the purpose of making money. They even built wharves. And such a mess as they made of it! They had a contract to build a line of wharves and they built berth No. 17. They built a concrete wharf in the harbour of St. John, You could stand at one end and look down the line, 700 or 800 feet long, and it looked just like the waves of the sea, going three or four feet in and out. It wa6 all level at the start, but it had no foundation and it went up and down. I was down there about a year ago and I 339
went out on the wharf. They were taking hundreds of thousands of yards of spoil from Courtenay bay, for the dredging of which certain people had been paid a large price, and they were dumping this spoil in the middle of the wharf. When they got a certain amount of spoil in the middle of the v/harf the walls began to bulge out. Then they put some hawsers across, reminding me of the way in which a farmer fastens his sled stakes with hay wire. But the "hay wire" did not hold. Yet they paid the Maritime Dredging company for putting this stuff in. If there is anything that is vicious in connection with the Public Works Department it is its connection with the Maritime Dredging company and with this whole St. John business. There never were any wharves needed worse in the whole British Empire during the last two or three years than these wharves have been. Hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars have been spent in order that this crowd in St. John might make money, and any man who knows anything about the record of this company gets a little suspicious about any further work being done in the harbour of St. John. If the minister ever decides to let this work, I suggest to him that no St. John men be connected with it, especially the St. John men who were up here in the last eight or ten days. I saw them here and I know who they are. They are the men who were in the Valley railway contracts, they are the men who handle the money, and it naturally makes one suspicious.
However, if the item is to be allowed to stand, I think I have said enough to point out to the Minister, who is new on the job, some of the pitfalls standing in his way. I have tried to put him in a position where he will be protected from his friends, and the Lord knows that if ever a man needed protection, the present minister does when dealing with certain friends in -St. John.


John Dowsley Reid: We will let the matter stand. At all events, there are not any St. John firms or men who are the lowest tenderers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You want to watch very carefully.
Mr. RlEID:	We do not want to go into
a million dollar expenditure which is not necessary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We thought there were
no fit. John men in these Valley railway contracts, but they were there. They know all the tricks of the trade. There is nothing in the way of getting inside of contracts that they do not know all about.


William Pugsley: I think my friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) has been a little too broad in his remarks upon St. John men. I can assure you and the committee that we have in the city of St. John men who are as good contractors, as honourable contractors, as can he found anywhere. My hon. friend refers to the attacks made upon the old St. John Dredging company by reason of high prices. I think that when the contract was taken over it was generally recognized that the prices which the previous Government was paying were fair and reasonable. I think they were prices that everyone familiar with dredging in such a place as St. John, where the tides are very high and the difficulties considerable, regarded as fair and not too high. There is no question that the work done in connection with the wharves is justly deserving of the criticism which the hon. member for Carleton has levelled against it. There is a strong feeling in St. John that the work of building the wharves was badly done, and a great many people think that the fact of the minister having allowed dredge material to be dumped into the crib work, instead of insisting upon the cribs being filled with stone-as 1 think, the contract called for-was a great mistake	and	no	doubt hada great deal	to	do	with	the
subsidence or bulging of one at least of the wharves on the western side of the harbour. I trust that the minister will not for a moment hesitate to go on with his work simply because it may be undertaken by Pt. John contractors. All we ask is that the contract, if given, should be given to the lowest tenderer, provided he is a responsible man and puts up the necessary security. I certainly hope that the
10 p.m. cost will not be as large as the minister intimates. I hope also that when the vote comes up again the minister will inform us of the names of the tenderers. The committee would he entitled to that, because ordinarily, when a vote is asked, the names of the tenderers ore brought down. I do not suppose the minister would bring them down until he had decided whose tender was the lowest and who was entitled to the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. member was here when the hon. member foT Carleton made his remarks about St. John, because I think the censure was more on the previous Government than on this Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no.
fMr. Carvell.]


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that the Maritime Dredging company was in existence during the term of the previous Government, and that when this Government came in the Conservatives simply took over the Maritime Dredging company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Took their place, yes.


William Pugsley: They simply bought them out and formed a new company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They called it the
Maritime Dredging company.


John Dowsley Reid: What the member said was that this Government simply continued extending the contracts made by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) when he was Minister of Public Works.
Mr. CARVELL? So far as dredging is concerned.


John Dowsley Reid: And these men had the contracts and were subscribing to political campaigns. The contract was made, as I understand, after tenders were called, legally called, by the member for St. John when Minister of Public Works, and this Government simply extended the contracts at the prices under the tenders called for by the hon. member for St. John. Where we have got into difficulties is by carrying out the contracts made by the member for St. John when Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: Oh, no, that is not the charge. The charge is that the Maritime Dredging company extended their activities and went into all kinds of contracts outside of dredging.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the member to say that he blamed this Government for extending the contracts made by the hon. member while Minister of Public Works. Again we got into trouble in this way. It is complained by the member for Carleton that this work has not been done properly, that is that the contractors have built it in such a way


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In 1911 the Maritime
Dredging company simply had a contract for dredging certain areas in the harbour of St. John, and that was the extent of their operations. When the reorganized Maritime Dredging company came into existence, they not only carried out that contract-the Minister of Public Works extended their contract without tender-.but that would not have been so had if they had not gone into, wharf building. They went into all sorts of things.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose they were the lowest tenderers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There were no tenders about it. The Government simply kicked Mike Connelly out and put them in. They put them in on a contract basis in some things, but mostly under the system of cost plus percentage. I should like to know how much they paid the Maritime Dredging company for putting the spoil in the wharf. They got paid first for the dredging, and under the dredging contract they were compelled to carry the dredge material two miles out to sea and dump it. But instead of taking it two miles out to sea, they were paid another enormous price for dumping it in these wharves, and then, when the thing commenced: to spread, the Government had to turn around and pay another big price to have it taken out and have the wharf filled with proper filling. It would be interesting to know how much the Government paid the Maritime Dredging company for dredging, for dumping the spoil in the wharves, and then for taking it out again.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps that is too big a
matter to take up to-night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am pointing out the
class of people he has to deal with in St. John and cautioning him to be very careful.


John Dowsley Reid: We will watch them this
time.
Item stands.
St. John harbour-Partridge island-rebuilding extension to low-water landing, $1,400.


John Dowsley Reid: This is required towards the construction of a cribwork wharf filled with ballast, 224 feet long on the centre line on top and 30 feet wide on top, the basin to be dredged 12 feet below low -water. The proposed wharf is to permit of landing at both high and low water. The wharf at which boats now land in low water is in exceedingly bad conditions. There is no wharf at which boats can land at low water except a small block 16 feet square. This work was asked for by Dr. Montizambert.
Quebec - Cap Chat river - improvements, $5,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This is for the construction of a dam and the making of an excavation as a means of diverting the river back into its former channel, which it is leaving through erosion caused by the swift current of the river.
339i


John Howard Sinclair: What interest is served by this proposed work?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: The facts are as represented by the minister. The current of the river at its mouth is very swift, and a large part of the land has been eaten up. If these works were not carried out, a very serious condition would result. I myself sent a petition to the department in respect to that work.
Cape Cove-repairs to pier-further amount required, $500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This wharf is much needed for the fishermen, hut the principal wharf in that district is at Perce. The Perc6 wharf has been broken by the sea, and it has not been repaired. Will the minister do something next year with that wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: We will have to take it up next year. It will cost about $45,000 to do the work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The wharf is a very useful one; it cost the department nearly $100,000.
Chicoutimi-repairs to wharf, $2,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope my hon. friend will not overlook the importance of performing certain work at Ha-Ha bay, near Chicoutimi. A big chemical pulp plant is being put up at that point by London interests. Lately they have started the construction of a large building. They are constructing also a wharf at their own expense to be used for the shipping of their products. Some dredging, however, is needed around the wharf. Last year a dredge was sent to that place but it was not suited to the work and had to leave somewhat early. T hope that this year a suitable dredge will be sent so that the'work may be properly carried out.


John Dowsley Reid: I know the place quite well. The dredge was there this spring, but the company had not proceeded with the wharf at the time, and the dredge was taken away. The department will renew the dredging and go ahead with the work when the company is ready.
Laprairie-repairs to wharf and completion of approach, $4,000.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Is that the wharf at the town of Laprairie or at Cote St. Catherine P


John Dowsley Reid: This wharf is the public structure at Laprairie and should be completed to facilitate the freight and passenger traffic from Laprairie to Montreal and other points.


Roch Lanctôt: Is the minister aware
that we have had no boat there for the last seven years, and that there is no probability of our having a boat for another twenty years, if not for a century to come? This is not the time for spending money on that wharf, and I cannot understand why the Government should ask the people of this country to spend $4,000 more on it. I move that the item be struck out.


John Dowsley Reid: These repairs are asked for by the district engineer. Does the hon. member say that no boat has been coming to this wharf in seven years?


Roch Lanctôt: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Then we shall let the item stand until I can get further information.


Roch Lanctôt: Is work going on at the protection wall or dyke at Laprairie?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not very familiar with the work to which the hon. member refers. I understand they are rebuilding the dyke along the roadway. Is that what the hon. member refers to?


Roch Lanctôt: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I can remember, that work was let to one contractor who failed. We advertised again for tenders, and the Carleton Construction company of Ottawa took over the work. They failed, and we are now having the work done by Quinlan & Robertson. That is the firm who were recommended to proceed witli this work and complete it at once.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they at work now?


John Dowsley Reid: They are going to work at once. Both ends of the road have been completed, but the contractors have not proceeded with this part, and they are going to proceed with it at once. We are confiscating the $8,000 deposited by the Carleton Construction company, and we are going to have the work done by force account.


Roch Lanctôt: This work is more urgent than the repairs to the wharf at Laprairie


John Dowsley Reid: I am letting the item for the repairs to the Laprairie wharf stand until I can get further particulars.
Three Rivers-repairs to wharf, $9,500.


Jacques Bureau: What wharf is to be repaired and what repairs are to be made?


John Dowsley Reid: This revote of $9,500 is asked for by District Engineer Tourigny to complete repairs to the coal wharf at Three Rivers. He reported, on April 13, 1917, that he did not apply for the insertion of this item in the main estimates because of the policy of strict economy decided on in the Public Works Department and because there was, at that time, no immediate necessity for the execution of the work. Since then, however, a new washout has occurred, which imperils the stability of the wharf and is very prejudicial to the coal business. He, therefore, urges that the amount requested be inserted in the supplementary estimates.


Jacques Bureau: Have plans been submitted of the work to be done? This is the wharf that was constructed by Collings & Giroux.


John Dowsley Reid: I have the1 plan here.


Jacques Bureau: An additional amount was voted to complete the work, and it seems

to be in perfect shape now. It was filled up with quicksand. That was washed out and it was refilled, branches, dirt and sand being put on the top. I do not see where the work is now required. They have been putting stone on the end of the wharf that faces the current and that meets the ice jams in the spring.


John Dowsley Reid: We will let this item stand until I can get further particulars.
Verch6res-partial reconstruction of wharf, $4,700.


Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:: The department knows that there are two wharves, both of which have been broken by the ice. Which one is to be repaired?


John Dowsley Reid: The memorandum does not say what wharf it is. I can show the hon. member the plan. There is a stone approach from the lighthouse. Does the hon. member say that the repairs to this wharf are not required?


Louis Audet Lapointe: No, the wharf should be repaired.
Ontario-Bruce Mines-dredging, $21,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is required for the dredging of a basin in front of the Bruce Mines Trap Rock Company's wharf, to permit vessels to use the wharf, which, under existing conditions it is very difficult to do. The estimated cost is as follows: 6,500 cubic yards, class A, at $3, $19,500;
5,000	cubic yards, class B, at 30 cents, $1,500.


George Perry Graham: Do other vessels stop there, besides the Bruce Mines vessels? The hon. gentleman referred to a certain company's wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: The work is in front of the company's wharf, and all vessels stop at this wharf, so the deputy minister tells me.


George Perry Graham: Who has the contract?


John Dowsley Reid: It is not under contract yet.
Burlington! channel-In full and final settlement of all claims of D, G. Stewart in connection with his contract for construction of revetment wall, $10,441.


George Perry Graham: When was that contract completed?


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is required to pay Mr. D. G. Stewart in full of claims in connection with the construction of a revetment wall at Burlington, as authorized by Order in Council of 15th May, 1917. On August 3rd, 1915, while the work was in progress, an unusually violent storm occurred, the gale reaching a velocity of 48 miles an hour. Extensive damage was done to the revetment wall. The contractor filed a claim with the Department of Public Works to be paid the sum of $18,377.43, in addition to what was paid to him under the contract. The chief engineer gives each item in this memorandum. This claim may be summarized as follows:
1.	Making good damage done by tbe storm of August 3, 1915. This amount includes $1,064.21 for injuries to a derrick and scow... $14,77S.18
2.	Change in location of cross cribs
at openings, and concrete work. .	1,326.25
3.	Additional cost for placing talus stone in the year 1916, 2,273
cubic yards at $1 a cubic yard. ..	2,273.00
The auditor of the Chief Engineer's branch, after a careful examination of the contractors' books, pay-sheets, accounts, etc., covering repairs made to the damaged portion of the work, found that the total cost to the contractor for making good the damage caused by the storm amounts to $9,896.16.


George Perry Graham: Would not the terms of the contract made originally include everything of that kind? When the contractor tendered for this work, did he not, ae a matter of fact, take all the chances himself as to what condition should arise? It is customary where work is being done in a dangerous place for a price to be fixed accordingly, and the contractor takes all the risks of what may ensue.


John Dowsley Reid: This was a most violent
storm. The deputy tells me that where a contractor has met with a very heavy loss on account of serious storms, such as sometimes occur, the department have not taken advantage of the terms of the contract, and after they have gone into the matter thoroughly, they have paid claims of this kind.


George Perry Graham: If, for example, down on the Atlantic coast, the Railway Department would do this, it would be in trouble all the time, because the -work at times is very difficult on account of the storms that may arise. Contractors invariably figure on the situation, and the conditions that are likely to arise, when they .make their tender. I understand a man could put in a lower tender if he did not take into account this kind of thing, if he were sure the department would come to his rescue in case a storm destroyed his plant. I think a claim of that nature has been standing for many years in the Department of Railways and

Canals, in reference to something that occurred along the coast of one of the Great I akes, 'but the department contended that the contractor had taken all the risk himself, and tha other contractors had tendered higher, hut that he had received it on account of his lower tender, and that when he came to add the amount of his damage to the amount of his tender, his tender would be really higher than, the tender which had been rejected.


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy tells me it was an exceptional thing. Mr. D. G. Stewart, of Ottawa, was the contractor, and I understand that where a storm of very unusual violence destroys the contractor's work and causes an enormous amount of damage, so that the contractor does not make anything out of his contract, the department have paid. And so they have decided to pay this claim.
Collingwood - harbour Improvements- (revote, $72,000), $75,000.


George Perry Graham: Is that a continuation
of the work?


John Dowsley Reid: The district engineer recommends the following improvements:
(a)	The construction of a wharf 800 x 55, having cribwork substructure and concrete superstructure, and the dredging of a slip and turning basin at Beech street, estimated cost $196,016.86.
(b)	The reconstruction in concrete of the superstructure of the west breakwater, 700 x 22, and of the east breakwater, 1,815 x 24, $200,615.
It is estimated we would spend about $72,000 of that this year. This work has not been commenced.


Mr. PARDEE:: It was voted last year,
and why was it not commenced?
Mr. CURRIE-: It was voted for an elevator.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why did they not spend it last year?


John Dowsley Reid: Because they had not started the elevator.
Port Dover-repairs to piers-revote, $6,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why were those piers not fixed last year?


John Dowsley Reid: In a. memolandum dated 6th June, 1917, the chief engineer states that tha cost of the necessary repairs will be from $2,500 to $6,000, and that the exact amount cannot he estimated until such time as the repairs are actually commenced. Acting district engineer Stevens in a report dated May 5th, 1917, states as follows:

The entrance piers to Port Dover are in a very dilapidated condition. If these piers are not to be rebuilt during the present fiscal year, it will be necessary to provide money for patching and renewing portions of the superstructure of both the east and west piers.
Port Hope-harbour improvements, $13,500.


George Perry Graham: What is the explanation of that item ?


John Dowsley Reid: It is for the renewal of
100 lineal feet of the revetment wall on the west side of the harbour in front of the Brandon Shell Company's factory at $55 per foot, $5,500.


George Perry Graham: Has this repair anything to do with that shell factory? [DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: No.


George Perry Graham: The company has gone
out of business. I understand the ferry which carries coal across the lake lands at Cobourg, and not at Port Hope.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: Some person told me
that the ferry landed at Cobourg rather than at Port Hope, on account of the inefficiency of the harbour and poor landing at Port Hope.


John Dowsley Reid: The Grand Trunk have their own landing at Cobourg. They have been there for years, and they never really started at Port Hope. Port Hope people were fighting for the traffic but they did not get it.
Manitoba-Little Pembina river-diversion into Pelican lake, $12,500.


George Perry Graham: What is the explanation?


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is asked for by Acting District Engineer Taylor for the construction of a small diversion dam in the Little Pembina river and the excavation of a channel with stop-log control from the Pembina river to Pelican lake, a distance of 4,500 feet.
Selkirk - shipyard, including arrears of rental and interest thereon, $7,200.


George Perry Graham: What is the explanation?


John Dowsley Reid: This amount of $7,200 is required to pay for the purchase of land which is being used as a ship yard by this department at Selkirk and is made up as follows:
Purchase of land from Mr. T. A. Burrows as per Order in Council of June 21, 1909, $5,000; rental for same:	12 yearly instalments of $140 with interest at 5 per ' cent (simple), $2,142-$7,14-2.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What kind of boats do
they build there?


John Dowsley Reid: This is where we lay up our dredge.


George Perry Graham: Does the minister pretend to tell us that the department let the rental run for twelve years and now proposes to pay interest on irt?	[DOT]>-


John Dowsley Reid: This land was purchased by Order in Council in 1909. Mr. Burrows could not give title and that is the reason why payment is delayed. They had to pay him rent until he gave title. If they had paid for the cost of the land there would not have been interest upon it. The amount of $2,142 is less than the interest would have been on the money for that time.


George Perry Graham: Why could not the rent have been paid every year?


John Dowsley Reid: They were waiting for the '
title.


George Perry Graham: They did not need any title to pay the rent.


John Dowsley Reid: No, but they purchased the land and instead of settling for the interest they gave him a rental.


George Perry Graham: They did not give it to him; they promised it.


John Dowsley Reid: He was entitled to the
money by that Order in Council 1909.


George Perry Graham: I am pointing out the
slipshod way of doing business.


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy minister tells me it was Mr. Burrows' fault. He could not produce the title until this time. Instead of paying interest they paid him a rental.
British Columbia-Fraser river-dredging in North Arm, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: - This is a big item.


John Dowsley Reid: This dredging will be 150 feet wide, carrying a depth of 10 feet at low water from the end of the present Channel at Iona island to the city of New Westminster. The work is asked for in a resolution passed at a joint meeting of the South Vancouver Board of Trade and Municipal Council on April 16, 1917, and in a letter, dated May 9, 1917, from the corporation of the district of Burnaby. The object of this dredging is to give a channel 10 feet deep at low tide from Iona island to the east boundary of Burnaby to serve the industries that are situated on the north arm of the Fraser river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In what way is this different from the item in connection with St. John harbour that was held up a while
ago? No doubt, in ordinary times it might be of some benefit to industry in that province, but it does seem to be an inopportune time to spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars on dredging in the north arm. There is also the next item on "improvements and repairs." I do not know anything about the location and therefore I cannot discuss it intelligently, but it is going into a pretty big expenditure and it seems to be a new work. Unless there i3 some explanation this item should stand.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a new work. New Westminster is growing very fast and it appears this work is necessary. However, the item is large and perhaps I had better let it stand until I get further information.


Mr. TAYLOR:: This is not a new work. This is a continuation of a work commenced about four years ago and which was finished about three months ago. One contract was let for the larger part of the dredging necessary the channel being part of the entrance to the north arm. This is for a continuation of the large contract amounting to $850,000 and running up towards the city of New Westminster. The urgency which caused the board of trade and council of the two municipalities concerned to pass the resolutions referred to arose from the letting of a contract for the building of ships for the Imperial Munitions Board to a yard in South Vancouver. They realized that when they launched these ships they would not be sure of being able to float them unless the dredging under contemplation by the department were proceeded with. That is the reason why these two bodies acted together and urged on the Government the continuation of the work that has been going oil for three years past.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand the
hon. member to say that they are building ships at Vancouver, and that they require dredging at New Westminster, 14 or 15 miles away, to enable them to launch those ships?


George Taylor: It is not at New Westminster. The location of the shipyard is at South Vancouver, four miles from the end of the present dredging, and about ten miles below New Westminster.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why all this dredging if it is below the city of New Westminster?


George Taylor: There are two channels in the Fraser river between the mouth and New Westminster. The dredging of the north arm was undertaken a few years

ago because that is the channel most commonly used by the traffic between the west coast of British Columbia and Fraser river points, the distance through the north arm being from 8 to 12 miles, according to the draught of the vessel, shorter than through the main channel into the Fraser river. Another reason is that the main river is so *much exposed to storms that very serious loss occurs in the towing of booms of logs that are used in the mills on the Fraser river. Besides the reasons connected with the towing of logs, the district along the north arm of the Fraser is regarded as the main industrial location for what is known as Greater Vancouver, being away from the congestion of Vancouver city and offering very unusual facilities for industrial enterprises of all kinds. They already have two lines of railway along the shore line there hut for the want of proper connection at all stages of the tide there has been great reluctance to locate industrial establishments there unless the owners of these establishments were assured of the dredging. The city of New Westminster, about fourteen years ago, obtained the services of the eminent engineer, Le Baron, who made very complete plans showing how the river might be developed. It is on these Le Baron plans that this Government plan has been prepared. As a matter of fact, the work was promised by the late Government but only put into effect since the last general election. It is part of a well designed and well considered plan made by Engineer Le Baron so long ago as 1904, and has been part of the fixed policy of the two Governments from that time until the present.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend's explanation does not sound as well in Parliament as, perhaps, it would in his newspaper.


George Taylor: So keenly interested are the people of the district in this matter that, on a recent occasion, when the candidate of the hon. gentleman's' party for the district bordering on the north arm returned to that district from Ottawa, he announced in Vancouver, as one of the triumphs of his visit to Ottawa, that he had called at the Public Works Department and there secured an appropriation of $100,000 for this dredging, which was so necessary to his constituency.


George Perry Graham: What is the candidate's name?


George Taylor: C. E. Macdonald.


George Perry Graham: He is on the food controller's staff?


George Taylor: He says so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has given another reason why this should not go through, because if a Grit politician can come down to Ottawa and pull off a stunt like this it seems to me the matter is open to very grave suspicion. I have no doubt that ultimately this work ought to be done. Would the hon. member state as a fact that vessels could not be launched and taken to the Fraser river without this dredging? We get suspicious sometimes when we hear these loyal reasons given for certain things. I do not think the hon. member would go so far as to say that the Imperial Munitions Board has been foolish enough to let a contract for the building of a ship in a yard from which it cannot be taken to deep water.


George Taylor: I said that was the occasion of the resolutions of the two councils mentioned by the minister. The firm in question was Harrison & Lamont. In addition to moving the councils, they sent me a very urgent telegram. I do not know either of these gentlemen, but as one of the two members interested, my district being on one side of the channel and Vancouver on the other, they urged me to do what I could for this dredging.
(Mr. CARVELL: No doubt hon. members supporting the Government have received urgent requests from all over Canada, and quite proper ones. I am not finding any fault with the expenditure of public money on public works, but I do not think I have to go over again the very very serious financial problems we are facing in Canada at the present time. If I can believe what I am told, that the problems are so serious that it is a question whether Canada will be able to carry on her full duty in this war, on account of financial matters-I am not going into that part of it, it would not be right to do so.


Mr. CURRIE:: You could not help but say a mean thing about it, could you?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What has got wrong
with the hon. member?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He is crazy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh no, he is not crazy; he is just devilish. He has these fits every once in a while, and when they come on him it is like a brainstorm.


John Allister Currie: Not at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not craziness, it is a brainstorm, and he is not responsible for a short time. But the brainstorm passes away, and after a while-he is a very genial fellow. I was pointing out that the financial affairs of this country were serious, and I do not think we are justified in making an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars on the ground that it would be of benefit to the locality, as I believe it would. It is just like the expenditure in my own province. While I believe it would be of great 'benefit and should be carried out, I do not think this is the time for it.


Mr. TAYJLOR:: The item before us is not for a quarter of a million. The next item item is different. That is the main channel.
Mr. 'CARVELL:	I am not finding the
fault that it would not be a great improvement if carried out, but it does seem to be that, under present conditions and under the policy that has been laid down by the Government, this item should be dropped, and we should not go on with a work of this kind, because if we spend $100,000 this year it will develop into $200,000 or $300,000 next year, and so on.


George Perry Graham: I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) that these items are not identical. There are certain lands along the north arm that would become valuable for industries if this dredging were done and a good channel put through there. The next item is for the main channel which is used all the time and stands in a different position from this particular item of $100,000, which I think might well stand for further investigation. The item in reference to the main channel is in a different position. Any necessary repairs to that channel ought to be made.


George Taylor: What will the hon. gentleman say to Mr. Macdonald?


George Perry Graham: He did not communicate with me on the subject. If I get into the Government I will have my answer ready.


John Dowsley Reid: I was at this place and I really think that this main channel work is one that must be carried on. Perhaps I can get some more information about this other item, and let the $100,000 item stand.
Item stands.
Revelstoke-extension of wing dam, $20,000. Mr. REID: This is asked for by District Engineer Ford to build an extension to the
wing dam to divert the main current from flowing over against the wharf, threatening its destruction.
Resolution stands.
Dredging in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec-further amount required, $50,000.
British Columbia-further amount required, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: Are these items taken every year in addition to the specific items ?


John Dowsley Reid: This is required in addition to the amount in the main estimates to carry out dredging at various places in these provinces.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are these amounts for dredging required to finish up present contracts?


John Dowsley Reid: We have plants in all the provinces; this is to carry on the work of the dredges that are being used. Many dredges have been laid up during the last year or two.


George Perry Graham: Do you intend to keep all the dredges busy?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Are there any dredges along the river St. Clair that are not being used at present and that are available for small works?


John Dowsley Reid: The deputy tells me that there is one in that district.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is there one near Chatham?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I think there is one there not in operation.
Slides ' and booms-Gatineau river-new boom, $11,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the minister explain this item?


John Dowsley Reid: The present boom has been in use since its construction in 1874. After a long service of over forty-two years, it is not to be depended upon to the same extent as in the past. Each additional season that the old boom is used, the risk will be increased. Some of the timbers are decayed, especially on their outer surface. Others appear to be sound, but altogether the boom shows evidence of having been subjected to severe strain.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it possible that the federal Government is providing booms for lumbermen?


John Dowsley Reid: The Public Works Department have always provided booms on the

Saguenay, the St. Maurice and the Gatineau rivers. They charge tolls; quite a large revenue comes from the lumber men in respect of these booms.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even though this practice has been followed for forty-two years, surely it is time for the Government to ask the lumbermen to look after their own booms. 1 do not understand upon what principle the Government of Canada should build booms for lumbermen on ithe Gatineau, the 'St. Maurice or any other river.


John Dowsley Reid: This boom was built many years ago. These works were started to help the lumber trade; they have been carried on ever since; there has been no change.
Roads and bridges-new bridge to replace present Union bridge over Ottawa river between Ottawa and Hull, $120,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This amount is required to replace the present steel span bridge over the Ottawa river, between Ottawa and Hull.


George Perry Graham: Where is this bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: Between Booth's and Eddy's.


George Perry Graham: Does the Dominion Government build the bridge in its entirety?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. It is an interprovincial bridge; it was built in 1889 by the^Dominion Government.


George Perry Graham: The Dominion Government does not build all interprovincial bridges.


John Dowsley Reid: They built this one, and now we have to rebuild it,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the Dominion Government charge the Street Railway company anything for the use of the bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a great thing to live in Ottawa.
M.r. GRAHAM: It is news to me if the Federal Government builds any of these bridges in their entirety. It is very rarely that the Federal Government give aid to an entirely provincial scheme, although it has done so under exceptional circumstances. 'The Federal Parliament has quite frequently granted aid to interprovincial bridges, but here is a case where both provinces are relieved and the federal authority assumes the entire responsibility. If Ottawa and vicinity were made a federal district, as has been suggested, the federal authority would be expected to do this work. But, unless there is some arrangement between 
the province and the federal authority, I cannot see why this Parliament should be asked to pay the entire cost of a bridge between the two provinces.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. gentleman that, this being an interprovincial bridge, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario should pay for it, assisted, perhaps, by the Dominion Government.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does this amount cover the whole cost?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The engineer condemns the bridge, and it is necessary to proceed with a renewal of it at once.


George Perry Graham: Will the minister make inquiry, and when his estimates come up again give us an explanation of his? This is establishing a precedent; if we build an interprovincial bridge here we could build one elsewhere


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the explanation for my hon. friend.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Wednesday, September 5, 1917.