1923-03-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 49, respecting a patent of Robert A. Campbell.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate the Protestant Federation of Patriotic Women of Canada.- Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 51, respecting a certain patent of James M. Richardson.-Mr. Chew.
[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.-Mr. Mc-Giverin.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING' (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, with the
consent of the House I would move:
That the special committee to inquire into the operation- of chapter 12, 8-9 George V, an act respecting the Civil Service of Canada, pursuant to the resolution adopted by the House on the 22nd February last, consist of the following members, namely: Messrs. Brown, Carmichael, Chevrier, Copp, Drummond, Hughes, Garland (Carleton), McBride, McKillop, McMurray, Malcolm, Martell, Parent, Rinfret, Simpson, with power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its proceedings and the evidence taken for the use of the committee, and to report from time to time; and that rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.

Questions
Mr. SHAW:: Might I ask the Prime Minister if either of the two Labour members is on that committee? I did not hear all the names.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think not.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Well, Mr. Speaker, in my
judgment it is highly desirable that one or other of the Labour members should be on the committee. Some 10,000 of the employees in the Civil Service owe, I think, direct allegiance to labour organizations, and there can be no doubt that other branches of the Civil Service are organized and have affiliation with labour unions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will tell me which one of the two members he would like to have on the committee I shall be very pleased to add his name.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must inform the House that according to rule 11 no special committee may, without leave of the House, consist of more than fifteen members. Of course, if the House agrees to more than fifteen the rule is suspended, and the name may be added.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understood the rule
to be suspended by the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: No. If the House is
agreeable, and if the name suggested is accepted, the motion may be amended.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the matter stand until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might
pass the motion now and add the name later.


Hewitt Bostock: With the understanding
that the name will be added to-morrow, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the motion should pass on any understanding whatever. I have no objection to the motion, but I think when a suggestion is made that a name be added, and the government is willing to agree to the addition, the name should be added at once.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion can only
pass by unanimous consent, anyway.
Motion stands.



REDISTRIBUTION BILL


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) moved:: That the report of the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 15, an act to readjust the representation of the House of Commons, which report was presented to this House on Tuesday, 6th March, be concurred in.


Arthur Meighen: I do not recall any report save one, a report asking leave to report from time to time and to sit during the sittings of the House. If that is the report, I am quite willing that it be concurred in.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carle-ton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, to amend the Act to Regulate the Sale and Inspection of Root Vegetables.
He said: This amendment is not designed to change the act in any way; it is simply to add to it the following clause as section 14A:
An inspection certificate signed by an official inspector, appointed under this act, shall be prima facia evidence of the grade and condition of the root vegetables or packages to which the said certificate may refer.
In the bill that was passed last year-and it was on the whole a very good bill-this clause did not appear, that is, a provision making an inspector's certificate evidence of the grade. I have conferred with the minister and the officials who have charge of the enforcement of the act, and they agree that this provision should be made.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. EVANS:: What steamship lines are subsidized by the Cana-dtan government updating between Canada-and European ports, and between Canada and the British West Indies?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company is paid a subsidy for a steam service between Canada and the West Indies.


ASSIGNMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY
Mr. COOTE:: How many persons, firms or corporations made assignments under The Bankruptcy Act, in Canada, during the years 1916 to 1922 inclusive?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The following are the bankruptcy records for 1916-22 inclusive, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Dun's, and Bradstreet's:
Questions

Dominion Bureau of Statistics	Dun's	Bradstreet's1916.. ..	1,677	1,7721917.. ..	.... 14 "	1,088	1,1091918.. ..	.... 44 "	873	8141919.. ..	" "	751	6251920.. ..	" "	1,034	9661921.. ..	.. .. 2.364	2.379	2.3581922.. ..	.. .. 3,922	3,630	3,185


BUREAU OF STATISTICS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	How many temporary employees are there at present in the Bureau of Statistics, and how many were there at this time last year?
2.	Are these officials selected entirely or nearly from the Ottawa district ?
3.	If so, why are none drawn from other parts of Canada?
4.	Of the male temporaries, what percentage are returned soldiers?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	There are at present in the Bureau of Statistics 312 temporary employees. At this time last year there were 416.
2.	So far as the Bureau is aware, 210 members of the temporary staff have homes in Ottawa; 61 in Ontario, other than Ottawa; 39 in Quebec; 1 in New Brunswick; 1 in Alberta.
3.	All employees of the Bureau except census commissioners and enumerators are appointed through the Civil Service Commission.
4.	Fifty-one per cent.


SALES TAX COLLECTIONS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What are the amounts collected on each of the different commodities as classified by the Department of Customs for customs records and reports up t,o the end of last accounting period under the sales taxes enacted by the legislation of last session?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: The sales tax returns are not compiled for customs records according to the different commodities, and it would be very difficult to give the information asked for. If, however, having regard to the way our books are kept, I can give the hon. gentleman information respecting any particular item, I shall be glad to do so.


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: 1.	What is the amount of fresh American bacon sides, shipped into Canada, in bond, for curing in Canadian plants, and shipped out as Canadian cured American, during the years 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922?
2.	What percentage of this amount was exported to the British markets during these years?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTELS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many hotels are owned by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What was the cost of construction of each of these hotels?
3.	What is the present value of equipment of each hotel ?
4.	How much fire insurance is carried on each hotel and equipment, and in what companies?
5.	Are all these hotels being operated by the railways?
6.	What was the revenue of each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?
7.	What was the expenditure in connection with each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?
8.	In regard to each of these hotels operated by the railways, in each of the last three fiscal years, what was the net profit or loss in connection with the operation, including all charges such as insurance, interest on investment, and allowance for depreciation on building and equipment?



COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the investigation of Combines, Monopolies. Trusts and Mergers; for the administration of the proposed Act by a Minister of the Crown to be named by the Governor in Council; for the appointment of a registrar to receive, register and deal with applications for such investigations, and for the appointment of commissioners from time to time by the Governor in Council to hold investigations; for the payment of the registrar, commissioners and witnesses and to establish such offices, with assistants, as may be required; for power to remit or reduce duties where combines are proved to exist; for the revocation of patent rights in certain cases; for prosecution by the Attorney General of any province, or upon his failure to act, by the Solictior General; and for the imposition of penalties for violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of this resolution and has been pleased to recommend the same to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['Before the item carries I wish to state the position in which the hon. member for Dorchester places himself by declining to withdraw a remark which we are told upon authority is untrue, namely, that of asserting something which he cannot prove.']
Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Car-leton):: On many occasions this session questions appearing on the order paper have been asked to stand as orders for returns. I would like to ask the government whether the answers to these questions, when brought down, appear anywhere on the records of the House, or are they simply handed to the member asking for the return?

Questions Passed as Orders


Mr. GRAHAM:: They appear in the Votes and Proceedings.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: A great many of these questions are matters of public interest, and the replies should be available to hon. members.


Hewitt Bostock: In cases where questions stand as orders for returns, when the information is made available a few days or sometimes a few weeks later, it is tabled, and any hon. member who is interested in the return can get a copy of it from the proper officials.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to corroborate the view apparently held by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). What I understood him to press was this: when questions are made to stand as orders for returns there is no record of the returns in Hansard or in the Votes and Proceedings, and the result of having it so stand is to prevent that publicity being given to the answers which is desirable in many cases. I know it is the right of the government under the rules to have a question stand as an order for return; it is a right that has been very generally exercised-I think too loosely exercised this session. It should be confined only to cases where the record is very long and there is no great importance as to publicity; it should not be done simply as a means of ridding the order paper of the question.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: It was not done under the late government, I suppose?


Arthur Meighen: Very rarely.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The remarks of the right hon. gentleman are correct in every respect except one, and that is that every return tabled in the House is immediately registered in the Votes and Proceedings and can be there found. Then those returns are submitted to the Printing Committee, and the Printing Committee decides which returns shall be printed and which shall not be printed.


Arthur Meighen: It is quite true that a note is made in the Votes and Proceedings when a return is tabled, but the return itself does not appear in the Votes and Proceedings.


Jacques Bureau: But you get it from the clerk in charge of it.


Mr. FIELDING:: I think we might have a useful thought in the matter in this way. Many of the questions that are asked this session are too long, too elaborate, and call for information which I do not think is of
practical value. The right of a member to ask a question we do not dispute, but I would suggest to hon. members who put questions on the order paper that they ought to observe the rule with regard to brevity in a larger measure than they do.


George Perry Graham: If I am not out of order, perhaps I may be permitted to intrude on delicate ground and say that in the case of some questions that have been asked of one of my departments, I have discovered that the member in whose name they stood had not put them on the order paper and had no information concerning them. I think members should not allow outsiders particularly, to put questions on the order paper until after full consultation with them, and until they know what those questions really mean. In the case of some of these questions, one or two of them at least, it would take quite a staff working at least a month to prepare the answer. That is easier, of course, for some outside person, than paying a legal man to get the information and work up the case.
As to questions being changed to orders for returns, questions may look innocent, but when they are taken to the departments it is found that they mean pages and pages of information, and I 'submit that Hansard never was intended to be the medium through which all the records of departments are published. It was intended to be the medium through which the expressions of the members should be recorded, and to give certain other information at moderate length, but not infomation that would cover pages of Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: I do not at all take exception to the general principle the minister lays down, namely, that questions on the order paper should not be used as a means of getting private information merely for
citizens._They should only he used as a
means of getting information in the general public interest, and, further some regard should be had to the time and expense entailed in procuring that information. I never was so impressed in my life with the need of that as three years ago, when one hon. member moved that the government procure from Great Britain a list of all the shareholders and debenture holders in the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which return no doubt cost this country many thousands of dollars, which return came over in a large box, and which box I am informed never was opened.


George Perry Graham: They are still in a box.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I inquire if any
steps will be taken to have this condition

Questions Passed as Orders
remedied; that is where questions appearing on the order paper are passed as orders for returns, will the answers be incorporated in the Votes and Proceedings or in Hansard?-I do not care which so long as we get the information.


Hewitt Bostock: I may inform the hon.
gentleman that no paper is tabled in the House without reference being made to it in the Votes and Proceedings of the next day. For instance, any reports or any returns that were tabled yesterday are mentioned in today's Votes and Proceedings. As to the inclusion of these bulky returns in Hansard, I think it would certainly entail too large an expense and that it is really uncalled for. As the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) said quite clearly a moment ago, the remedy is in the hands of any member who has an interest in any particular return. He can go before the Printing Committee and there move for the printing of the return. I have done it quite often myself when I was on the floor of the House, and it is done, very often in relation to important matters. Surely hon, members null not ask that Hansard be overloaded with bulky returns.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Somebody will have to assume the authority for deciding which returns are to appear in Hansard and which are not. This must not be left to the Hansard staff because it would not be fair to place upon them the responsibility. Either the Speaker of the House, or the Clerk, or Clerk Assistant, or the government, will have to decide which of these returns are to appear in Hansard. These returns sometimes appear as answers to questions. Very often a minister with a lengthy answer will say, "I will not read this but will hand it to Hansard," and then Hansard prints it.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: A return was laid on the Table yesterday in reference to some question placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Carleton relating to a matter of general interest to the people of this country and a matter which has been discussed in the House this session. I tried to get a look at the return brought down, but I was informed that the hon. member for Carleton had it and consequently I have not been able to see it.


Hewitt Bostock: Every member is entitled to get a copy of a return. If he will only apply to the proper clerk here in the department, as many copies can be had as are desired. We have a staff of nearly eighty typists and stenographers who are there for that purpose.


Joseph Archambault: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) stated a moment ago that three years ago an order of the House was passed for a list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk and that it cost the country a lot of money to get this list, that the names were contained in a box, and that that box was never opened. I may say to the leader of the Opposition that he is badly informed. The box was opened, and we found out that the government had not complied with the order of the House, that the list of shareholders contained in the box was not the list as of the date asked for. It was a useless list. So the leader of the Opposition is wrong again.


Arthur Meighen: The box was not opened for some time after it was returned here. I made inquiries and found out. I called the matter then to the attention of the hon. member who moved for the return. Perhaps he has opened the box since, and it is quite evident that the object he had in seeking the information was not shown to be served by the contents when he opened the box.


Joseph Archambault: The box was
opened ten days after it came in.


Jacques Bureau: Another case of misinformation.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: Yesterday I had a question on the order paper that was called by Your Honour, and I think the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) gave an answer to it, but I see no reference at all either to the question or answer in yesterday's Hansard. It was about civil service pensions and superannuation.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not read Hansard. I observe, however, that the reply appeared in the morning paper.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I would rather have the information appear in the official report as the Minister of Finance gave it in the House.
[The question and answer referred to are as follows:
. CIVIL SERVICE-SUPERANNUATION


Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government, during the present session, to bring down legislation with regard to the superannuation and pension of civil servants?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to renew the Calder Act which expires on July 1, 1923, with regard to the superannuation and pension of certain old employees?

Supply-Public
W orks


William Stevens Fielding: The matter is under consideration.]


Mr. HANSON:: What amount was paid for the site?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It was $2,500.


PUBLIC WORKS-HARBOURS AND RIVERS
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The vote is No. 154, to be found at page 36 of the Estimates:
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $293,100 be granted to His Majesty for harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to take each item separately as it appears in the resolution?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Public Works-Annapolis Royal-wharf repairs, $1,000.


Arthur Meighen: This is apparently a new item. There should be some explanation given by the minister.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: The item is for general repairs, consisting of the renewal of fenders and bearing piles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The resolution calls for the expenditure of a large sum of money, $293,100 as compared with $441,420 last year. Some of the items in it must relate to new work and I think we ought to have an explanation from the minister respecting them.


John Warwick King: It was resolved that each item should be considered separately. If an explanation is called for I shall be glad to give it in each case.
Black Point-breakwater repairs, $1,150.


Mr. STEVENS:: Apparently that is a new item and the minister ought to give us an explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are tenders to be called for the work?


John Warwick King: The contract was let in October, after tenders had been called for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape St. Marys-breakwater repairs and renewals, $3,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is also a new item.


John Warwick King: This is to renew the sheathing on the seaward face of the breakwater, and to cover the stringers on the shore end of the breakwater to a length of 200 feet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chapel Cove (West L'Ardoise)-breakwater extension, $7,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that work under way?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is under way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chimney Corner-completion of wharf, $13,400.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Chimney Corner?


John Warwick King: In Inverness
county, Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have tenders been called for the work?


John Warwick King: Yes, tenders have been called for and the contract let.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the contractor?


John Warwick King: This is for repairs Mr. KING (Kootenay): W. E. Landry, Anticonsisting of 120 feet by 241. A section of the seaward side, 20 feet long by 15 feet wide, requires to be constructed from low water up. The seaward face at the outward end needs to be resheathed and ballast placed in various ways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a large sum for a wharf in what must be, I am afraid, a very small community. I must confess that I never heard of Chimney Corner before. How many people live there?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canso-wharf, $7,700.
John Evans: Why was this work not done last year?


John Warwick King: A vote was granted last year for this work, but we had to acquire a site, and by the time the necessary negotiations were completed it was too late to undertake the construction. Therefore we are asking for a revote.


John Warwick King: It is a farming, fishing and mining centre. There were upwards of 2,000 tons of coal shipped from the mines there last year. Some fifteen odd schooners are engaged in the fishing industry and they export fish to the value of $9,400 a year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What mining company operates in that vicinity?


John Warwick King: The Chimney Corner Coal Mining Company, I believe.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: It must be a pretty small mining company to be shipping that quantity of coal a year. I would like to invite the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie), who represents a Cape Breton constituency, to the fact. This company does not seem to be operating one of the large mines he was talking about the other day. This seems to be a large expenditure for a district shipping such a small quantity of coal, even if there are fifteen schooners plying in and out, it is a fairly generous .expenditure for the amount of business indicated by the answer of the minister. Perhaps there is another explanation that could be given for such a large outlay.


Mr. McKENZIE:: If the hon. member appeals to me for information about the matter-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know it will be accurate.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, it will be accurate. I know the place very well and the necessity exists for this work. It is not in my own riding, it is in the fair county of Inverness which is part of Cape Breton Island. My hon. friend will easily find out, as far as coal is concerned, that the northern coast of the county of Inverness from Port Hood to Cheti-camp, about fifty miles, is one solid mass of coal, as yet undeveloped, and we have no railway there-for which I am sure my hon. friend will be sorry-except for a distance of thirty-five miles from Canso down to the town of Inverness. The rest of the coast, covering about twenty-five miles, has no railway at all. The mine in question, although not large, is shipping considerable coal to Prince Edward Island, the distance from Chimney Corner to that market being comparatively short-some thirty miles. The development that is now going on at Chimney Comer is small because there is no harbour. This breakwater is to serve the purpose of a harbour. When the breakwater is extended there will be shelter for vessels coming, in there, and I can assure my hon. friend that, for the protection of the fishermen and the people generally who have to do business at that place, fishing and mining, the extension of this breakwater is most important.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The only difficulty with the answer of the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) is that the breakwater happens to be a wharf.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It answers both purposes. There is nothing to laugh at, I can assure my hon. friend. I see my western friend, who is strong on wheat boards and the expenditure
FMr. J. H. King.]
of money in the West laughs vociferously, at the idea of a few dollars being spent on the coast of the Atlantic to protect our fisheries. I stand up here proudly to say that there is the strongest possible necessity for these developments, and all I have to say is that not enough of this kind of work is being done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to ask the minister a question. I thought I was going to get an accurate answer from my hon. friend from Cape Breton. We are left in a dilemma as to whether this is a breakwater or a wharf. Which is it?


John Warwick King: It serves both purposes.


Mr. BAXTER:: Will my hon. friend tell us whether it is coal or fish that require development?


Mr. DUFF:: Both.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Digby-general repairs and renewals to pier, $3,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the large public wharf where the boats come in?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The estimates indicate that last year there was a vote of $5,000 which was all expended. This is an additional $3,000. Is that under contract? Was there a contract, and if there was a contract were tenders called for, and what were the amounts?
Mr. KING (Kootenay). It was for day labour last year, and a further amount of $2,000 was required for renewal of floors, fenders and freight sheds, rendered necessary by the wear and tear of the wharf.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very important
item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $60,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is one of the general votes for repairs in the different provinces, and always a very interesting vote. It shows that the vote of $60,000 last year was fully expended. This vote is used generally perhaps for unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditures, and I think the House and the committee are entitled to a very careful explanation of what was done with the $60,000 last year, and what is anticipated to be done with the $60,000 this year.


John Warwick King: This is really a
contingent vote-a vote that is used to meet unforeseen conditions that may arise from time

Supply-Public Works
to time. We spent out of the vote last year $46,121, all in small expenditures. There are a great many items, filling two or three pages. 1 do not know whether my hon. friend would like to go into the whole of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give us some of them.


John Warwick King: Some of the
items are:
Amherst Point	 $295
Babins Cove	 499
Bass river	 211
Baie St. Lawrence	 241
Breen's Pond	 410
Burlington Centre	 49	95
Cariboo Island- repairs to breakwater..	124
French river	
26	90Cariboo Island	
77	14Goose Bay	
197Hall's Harbour	
99	23
That is the character of the expenditures made under that vote. The items are all small, none of them exceeding more than $1,000. That is the largest expenditure I see here. Then we have Arichat, $2,095.55. That is the largest expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Haulover-repairs to channel protection walls, $4,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Haulover. What channel?


John Warwick King: It is in the county of Queen's and Shelburne. The walls which are to be repaired are to protect a channel which connects Negro bay with Fort La Tour harbour, saving a distance of ten miles for motor boats, employed chiefly for fishing. There are over 120 in both harbours.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joggins-breakwater repairs, $3,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not on the Atlantic coast; it is away up at the head of the Bay of Fundy, on Cumberland basin, if my recollection serves me right. Is it necesary to have a breakwater there? Have they always had one?


William Duff: High tide.


John Warwick King: This is to repair a section of the wharf 220 feet long, 20 feet wide, by filling in with ballast for its whole length to an average depth of 6 feet and replanking about one-half of its length.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the traffic? Is it coal from the Joggins coal mine?


John Warwick King: Breakwater and
wharf used for the protection of the coal shipping piers at that point. Coal mining is the principal industry of the town, the output
being about seven hundred to nine hundred tons a day, showing that there is a very considerable industry going on there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Judique-Baxter's-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Mr. LEADER:: I see the name "Baxter".
Is that a private wharf?


John Warwick King: No, it is a public wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Leitches Creek-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a new item.


John Warwick King: The top tier of logs, stringers, guard-railing and twelve fenders are now badly decayed. It is really repairs of an old structure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What county?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton
North.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lockeport-wharf, $5,800.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that a new wharf? It is a revote I believe.	,


John Warwick King: This is reconstruction work. There has been a wharf there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ostrea lake wharf repairs, $2,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not like to be too
inquisitive; but surely the minister could give a brief explanation of these new items as we come to them. Over one-half of these are entirely new work calling for votes of considerable amounts-$8,000, $6,000, $5,000, and so on.


John Warwick King: This work is for renewing piles along the face of the wharf, also new caps and stringers; repairs; planks and stringers for the new portion, and new guards all around this work, together with fenders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this work supposed to be done by day labour under the supervision of some appointee of the government, or are tenders to be called?


John Warwick King: It is often very
difficult to get tenders or to let contracts for repair work, and unless - the job is a large one, this class of work is often done by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Port Greville breakwater repairs, $6,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an important job
and the minister has an engineer in charge in this locality. Does the engineer not make a report on the character of the work to be performed, upon which report this appropriation is based? And does he or does he not report as to the way in which the work should be done? I know pretty well how these things are done. As a rule they are farmed out among friends of the administration, and very often value is not received for the money spent. This practice is probably growing.


John Warwick King: This is to rebuild this breakwater to a length of 150 feet, a height of 5 feet and a width of 20 feet, at an estimated cost of $6,000. This breakwater protects the harbour which, without this protection, would soon not be navigable. A very considerable tonnage in lumber goes over this wharf, a total of $175,000
4 p.m. a year being the value. I am advised that this work is on our list with a recommendation from the engineer that the work be done by day labour. His recommendations come to the department calling either for contract or for day labour, whichever in his judgment is best.
Mr.' HANSON: This is to be done by day labour?


John Warwick King: That is his recommendation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yarmouth harbour-dredging, $85,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it proposed to do this work with the government's own dredges, or to call for tenders?


John Warwick King: A contract has been let.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is the contractor?


John Warwick King: Halifax Dredging Company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the contract price per yard?


John Warwick King: It is $1.45 per yard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How deep is it proposed to dredge there?-$1.45 is a very high price.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend should have regard to the nature of the material. This is not considered a high price in the department, because this is largely rock that is being removed from the channel, and

it is expensive work. Twenty-two feet is the depth, to conform with the other portion of
the channel.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is 22 feet at low water?


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is that rock in boulders, or in ledges?


John Warwick King: Boulders, largely.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: When was the work
authorised?


John Warwick King: It was let in August of last year by order in council after tenders had been called for and received.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was no vote for this last year?


John Warwick King: We were doing the work under our general vote and we could probably have proceeded in that way, but it was thought better to vote a separate sum this year for the work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much money has already been spent on it?


John Warwick King: In 1922-23, a total of 16,981 yards was removed, at an expenditure of $24,622.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister expect this appropriation of $85,000, in addition to the money already spent, will complete the contract?


John Warwick King: It is proposed to remove 56,500 yards this year, at a cost of $81,925.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That scarcely answers my question. Will that complete the work, or will further contracts be required later on?


John Warwick King: That completes the work, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister know who compose the Halifax Dredging Company?


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge of that. The information may be in the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The contract should show who the officials are.


John Warwick King: Hon. Mr. Beasley is president of the company, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were tenders called for the work?


John Warwick King: Yes, public
tenders.

Supply*-Public Works


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many tenders were received and what were the amounts?


John Warwick King: Tenders were received from the Halifax Dredging Company, their price being $1.45 per yard; and from the Canadian Dredging Company, their price being $1.70 per yard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just two tenders received. Mr. KING (Kootenay): Just the two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-harbours and rivers generally- repairs and improvements, $14,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent under this item last year?


John Warwick King: To January 31 we have expended $2,660.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswisk-Campbellton-Deep Water Wharf-Repairs, $1,200.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I was under the impression that the Campbellton wharf was part and parcel of the railway. Does the Public Works department control the wharf?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the location of the wharf?


John Warwick King: It is at the end of Ramsay street on the west bank of Bruce river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cumming's Cove-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Mr. GRIMMER:: May I ask the minister if this wharf is in Charlotte County?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Is Leonardville wharf also in the county of Charlotte?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Last session I inquired of the minister if any representations had been made on behalf of the people of Grand Manan and the neighbouring islands urging upon the government the necessity for the construction of breakwaters in all or any of these islands. I was informed by him later that representations had been made, and he gave me the names of the places where works were to be constructed. I am disappointed now to find nothing in the estimates in connection with what I consider were representations made by the patronage committee of my county. As I stated last session, prior to the general election assurances were given the 60
people of the islands that if the present administration were returned to power breakwaters and other necessary structures would be built to help the fishing industry in which the people there are engaged. Does the government intend to adopt any of the representations made? If so, what work will be undertaken this year?


John Warwick King: There are many
works we would like to undertake in the county of Charlotte, but unfortunately the money available is not sufficient. It may be somewhat disappointing to my hon. friend that more items do not appear in the estimates for his county, but we can only carry on such work as in the judgment of the department is urgent. Supplementary estimates will be brought down later, but in their preparation I am not sure what consideration is being given to further expenditures in the county of Charlotte.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Can the minister assure
me that something will be included in the supplementary estimates to carry on a portion of the work covered by the representations to which I referred?


John Warwick King: I am very sorry
I cannot meet my hon. friend's proposal. The matter will be considered carefully by the government when the supplementary estimates are being made up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What representations have been made to the government with respect to the island of Grand Manan? Its population are wholly dependent upon the fishing industry, and I submit that they are entitled to quite- as much consideration as the people in the county of Inverness, where thousands and thousands of dollars are being spent in every little cove; also the county of Cape Breton North and Victoria seems to have swallowed up a very large portion of the vote for Nova Scotia. Here is a population producing, I am satisfied, more fish, than the whole island of Cape Breton, but not a dollar appears in the estimates for their protection.


John Warwick King: The files of the
department would disclose the representations that have been made. Those files are available to my hon. friend if he cares to look into them.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is the meaning of
the term, "patronage committee"?


John Warwick King: I have not anything here on the patronage committee and am not able to answer my hon. friend's question.

Supply-Public Works


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister cannot tell my hon. friend, I can show him a patronage committee in active operation in the county of Charlotte.


William Duff: You are not getting very good results.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Its efficiency is demonstrated by the fact that the new governor, who was defeated six times in that county, has now gone to his reward as a direct result of the patronage committee's work in his behalf. They have a real live patronage committee in that county.


Mr. HOCKEN:: What seems to me to be
more important is whether there is a patronage list in the department.


John Warwick King: I know of none.


An hon. MEMBER:: The old one is there yet.	,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $40,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Would this item cover
some protection work at Salmon river, the necessity for which has been represented to the minister's department?


John Warwick King: I think the expenditure would be too large to be included in this vote.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will the hon. minister in
making up his supplementary estimates give consideration to the protection work that is needed at Salmon river?


John Warwick King: Representations
have been made regarding this work, and we are obtaining a report upon it.


James Dew Chaplin: What amount was spent last year?


John Warwick King: 


James Dew Chaplin: Why is it necessary to have an appropriation of $40,000 when the expenditure of that amount is not contemplated?


John Warwick King: The expenditures last year were in the nature of repairs at Back bay, Bathurst, Bayside, Black river, Burton, Campbelton, etc.-quite a number of small expenditures. Several items are noted for expenditure this year, but only some six or eight as yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I noticed that the premier of New Brunswick was here the other day and I was very credibly informed that one of his missions was to unload on the Dominion the provincial government wharves , in tidal

waters, especially those on the St. John river. I may say that not a cent has been spent on the repair of these wharves since before the war. They are in an extremely dilapidated condition, and if the government takes them over they will be a liability rather than an asset. I will point out further that in many cases there are duplications of provincial and Dominion wharves, especially on the St. John river, and that is something the minister ought to look into before he agrees to have this legacy unloaded upon him. I understand that negotiations are under way between the two governments, and I would like to know what their present status is and what are their prospects.


John Warwick King: I understand from my hon. friend that he is opposed to the Dominion government becoming involved in the provincial wharves in New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that.


John Warwick King: The matter has been before the government for some time. A survey of these wharves was made in 1918 or 1919 and the late government apparently did have it in mind at one time to take them over. There was a similar proposal from British Columbia, and that province was more successful; we did get a transfer of the provincial wharves to the federal government. The government has given the matter consideration but has not yet definitely made up its mind whether or not these wharves shall be taken over. The matter will be under further consideration in the course of the next few days.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister must not misconstrue any remarks I made. I did not either affirm or deny the proposition. I have a very definite opinion upon the subject myself.


William Duff: What is it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister should take over those wharves that are not duplicates of other wharves, but where there is duplication I do not think the federal government should take them all over and maintain two where only one is necessary I think that is a sound position to take, and one that public opinion will support. The premier of New Brunswick went back to the province the other day and said that all he was waiting for was an order in council to put this matter through. Is that correct?


John Warwick King: An order in council would bring the wharves under the supervision of the Dominion government, but

Supply-Public Works
money would have to be voted for repairs and renewals. I assure my hon. friend that a very careful survey of the situation will be made before action is taken; in fact, I think it has already been made by the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has that order in council been passed, or is it contemplated?


John Warwick King: An order in council has not been passed.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: At the time when the Hon. Mr. Carvell was Minister of Public Works, this matter was gone into exhaustively. A list of the wharves was prepared, their values were ascertained by the department, and an order in council was drafted. This will all be on the departmental files. The people of New Brunswick-it does not matter what administration was in power there-were led to believe that the wharves would be taken over by the federal government. There may be criticism on the ground that the provincial government has not in the meantime made any expenditure on the wharves, but the fact is that as a result of the abstinence in that respect of both the federal and provincial authorities, the wharves are, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says, in a pitiable condition. It seems to me that the matter of these wharves is a federal matter just as much as a railway would be, and I would like to see it dealt with on a business basis. It ought to be possible for the two governments to get together. I do not want to suggest anything in the House that will help any sort of political claptrap down in New Brunswick, such as the premier stating that he is only waiting for an order in council. I want to get away from all that political bombast and give consideration to the interests of the people who need the facilities of these wharves, which constitute an important part of the highway of commerce. I would like to see something definite done, and done quickly. I do not think the minister will be subjected to any criticism from those sitting on this side representing New Brunswick if he does act, and we will not find any fault if there should be a little bit of generosity in the action.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year $60,000 was
voted for Nova Scotia under the head of harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements, and the amount is the same this year. The figures for other provinces are as follows: Prince Edward Island, $14,000 last year and the same amount this year; New Brunswick, $65,000 last year, $40,000 this year; Quebec, $75,000
each year; Ontario, $65,000 each year; Manitoba $15,000 each year; British Columbia $95,000 last year and $75,000 this year. If it is reasonable to take $25,000 from New Brunswick and $20,000 from British Columbia this year, why would it not be possible to make a similar reduction in the votes for the other provinces, especially in view of the minister's intimation that in each case a less amount was required during the year than had actually been voted? I am not seeking to deprive any province of what is its just due or requirement, but there appears to be discrimination against New Brunswick and British Columbia in this respect. If a similar reduction is made in the other cases, very substantial saving will result. I would also point out that, deducting the revote, we have new work this year to the extent of $1,289,000, covering all the provinces-a very considerable sum indeed. So I suggest that the minister might make a saving in the other provinces similar to that in the two I have mentioned.


John Warwick King: The vote for New Brunswick last year was larger than was considered necessary for a contingency vote. There was a question at that time of taking over these wharves in New Brunswick. That not having been done, in making up bur estimates this year we deducted the sum of $25,000 from last year's vote. In regard to British Columbia, the deduction is arrived at in this way. The Dominion government took over the wharves in 1918, I think, and since that time we have been putting the former provincial wharves in a state of good repair. That having been done, it was found that this year we could get along with a smaller vote for British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister told us that only $11,000 had been spent out of this vote for New Brunswick. I think that is altogether too small for the province, because I myself know of wharves owned by this government which are quite out of repair and need attention. What is the modus operand! in arranging for these repairs? Does the engineer make regular trips of inspection? I know the engineer on the St. John river very well, and he is a very good man. Does he make inspection trips, and of his own motion make recommendations, or does he wait until somebody draws the attention of the government to some particular wharf, and then act under instruction?


John Warwick King: The district engineer is charged with the responsibility of taking care of these works, and it is upon his recommendation that the expenditure is made.
Supply-Public Works

If my hon. friend has in mind any works that ate in a bad state of repair, he might very well bring them to the attention of the department, and we will have inquiry made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have in mind the wharves at Gagetown and at Oromocto. I ask the question to find out if the minister would take reccommendations from me, for instance, if I called his attention to the matter, or does the engineer himself go round and see what is required?


John Warwick King: He is supposed to make his inspection trips from time to time.


Mr. MacLAREN:: As the minister has reduced this vote by $25,000 this year, that seems to me to indicate that he is very doubtful about taking over these tidal wharves. The amount was larger last year when this subject was under consideration, but now there is a reduction of $25,000. We have heard with interest that British Columbia has had her tidal wharves transferred: I think it was in the year 1919. I hope the minister will keep this matter in view, but it does not look to me as if the transfer of these wharves was seriously contemplated when we see this reduction of $25,000. I hope I am mistaken in that view.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps the minister would reply to the question of my colleague. I hope the government has not determined not to take these wharves over, but if that is the fact, and if this reduction in the estimate points to that, let us have the blow, however bad it may be. I trust, however, that the government has not come to that conclusion, because there are at least two subjects in the province of New Brunswick that I trust some day will be effectively dealt with. One is the taking over of these wharves, and the other I shall not discuss at present; I refer to the taking over of the St. John Valley Railway. I regard these two things as more important than any other matter of public construction in New Brunswick to be taken over. It would be relieving the province of a burden and tdoing a real good to the people. I am not quite so narrow in my political views that I would want to withhold credit from any administration that would grapple with these questions in a businesslike way. If these things were done, I would unhesitatingly say it was a good thing to do them, and that the administration which had done them was entitled to credit for doing them.


John Warwick King: As I have already said, this amount is considered sufficient for any unforeseen conditions that may arise.
{Mr. J. H. King.]
It does not, however, take into account the transfer of these wharves. That is a matter of government policy, and must first receive the consideration of the government. After consideration has been given, if it is decided to take them over, an item could very properly be included in the Supplementaries.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I ask the minister
this? Is it his intention to have the matter disposed of before the Supplementaries are down? It seems to me a question of that, or else of putting a blanket vote here that would be large enough to cover the cost. I would be glad to have the minister's assurance that the matter will be settled before the Supplementaries come down.


John Warwick King: The matter has been held in abeyance for three or four years now. I hope that it will receive consideration from the government shortly, but as to the outcome I am not in a position to speak at tl^e present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the minister's own
attitude?


George Gibson Coote: Is there any generally recognized basis for the granting of money for harbours, wharves and breakwaters? The reason I ask is this: I understand that at some of the ports in New Brunswick, St. John, for instance, there is a harbour commission.
Mr. -KING (Kootenay): Not at St. John.


George Gibson Coote: We have harbour commissions controlling a good many of the harbours in Canada, and as I understand it, they do not get any grant from this parliament; they are supposed to be self-supporting. Is it right that we should grant hundreds of thousands of dollars to certain harbours while other harbours have to be self-supporting?


John Warwick King: We have harbour commissioners in various parts of the country, more particularly at the larger ports. Some of the ports are self-sustaining, such as Montreal and Vancouver. With others, it is merely a matter of control. Some of the commissioners are paid officials, and some are not. There is no fixed principle applied throughout. Some of the harbours are self-supporting and provide moneys for improvements and repairs out of the tolls collected.- Others again, are dependent on the grants received from this parliament.


George Gibson Coote: Are there any tolls collected from the vessels using these harbours for which we are making grants to-day?


John Warwick King: I am not Bure. There are wharfingers at some of these wharves.

Supply-Public. Works
I imagine. These wharves have been turned over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and they would have knowledge of the tolls collected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any toll on coal shipped over the Joggin's wharf?


John Warwick King: We have no information in our department regarding that. That would be in the Marine department.


Hugh Guthrie: What strikes me, in looking over the estimates for harbour and river improvements, is that the minister is asking for more money than he will require. The committee must bear in mind that this expenditure is spread very generally over Canada. Three of the western provinces get very little of it, I refer particularly to the item which is included for each of the provinces.


George Newcombe Gordon: Harbours and rivers.


Hugh Guthrie: Under "Harbours and
rivers generally" the amount for Manitoba is only $15,000, and for the two provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta only $20,000, or $10,000 each. Large amounts are granted for the other provinces. Last year the sum of $60,000 was granted under this vote for Nova Scotia, and the minister says $46,000 was spent. For Prince Edward Island last year $14,000 was granted under this item, and two thousand odd was spent. For New Brunswick $65,000 was voted last year and some $11,000 was spent; and I assume that probably the same proportion will be maintained for the other provinces. There remains in the case of each province a large amount of this money unexpended, which is all to the good and to the credit of the Dominion and the minister, but the point is this: If the minister does not require more than one-half or say one-quarter of this amount why vote it, why put it in the estimates? It will only be a few days, or a few weeks at most, before the Minister of Finance comes to parliament with his budget. He will then tell the House "The Estimates amount to so much, I must raise a certain amount of money, and I must do it by taxation." In the meantime we are voting money-without very much inquiry, I grant-voting money that according to the record of last year was not spent-not nearly all spent. Now, would not the minister think it wise, under these circumstances, to revise these figures for harbours and rivers generally? If the amount is not required there is no use passing, it now. If we pass it now the plea will be, "There is the amount required and the taxes to meet it must be imposed." I should think it would be in the interest not only of the minister
and his department but of the country generally if we would cut these votes for harbours and rivers in each of the provinces by one-third, or even one-half. If an emergency arose, if some storm came up suddenly and washed away a wharf, or something of that kind, during the year the government could always get money, they did it last year; they could get it under Governor General's warrant. But if we vote money, as we propose to vote it now, it has to be made up when the budget comes down and has to be made up out of taxes. I think the minister would do well to reduce this amount.


John Warwick King: In reply to my hon. friend I cannot quite follow his reasoning when he complains that we are not building more wharves and more piers in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. If my hon. friend has travelled across western Canada he will know that the requirements in those provinces for piers and wharves are not very great.


Hugh Guthrie: I made no complaint of that kind. I said those provinces get very little out of this large amount of money.


John Warwick King: That is very true. Naturally they do not require a large expenditure.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that.


John Warwick King: As for the vote, as has been stated before, it is a contingency vote to be used for unforeseen expenditures. As I have already shown the committee the items that make up the total expenditure under this vote are very small in amount, and the suggestion that the minister, or the department should go to the Governor in Council for an order in council for five or six hundred dollars each time an expenditure on a wharf were required would not, I think, meet the approval of the committee. This is the usual vote and it is very necessary to the department to have it. The money is expended with care. As shown by the reports this year when expenditures have not been required they have not been made. I am satisfied, therefore, the committee will be well advised in leaving the estimate as it is. I can assure hon. members that there will be no extravagance in the expenditures, but the money will be there for the use of the department if it is required in the public interest.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister has entirely missed the point of what I said, or intended to say. I did not suggest that there was extravagance in the expenditure, nor did 1
Supply-Public Works

suggest that some vote was not necessary. What I did suggest was, that in view of last year's experience too much money was asked for, I said, lop off one-third or lop off one-half. I cannot see what justification the minister has for asking these large amounts when, according to his own showing, much smaller amounts were necessary last year. I made no suggestion that he is running to the Governor in Council for orders in council to authorize small expenditures-nothing of the kind. I said there was no danger in passing an estimate for a smaller amount because, if storms should arise and cause damage or difficulty occur it was always within his power to provide for such emergencies by a Governor General's warrant. I made no suggestion that he run with an order in council every time he wanted a few hundred dollars; but in regard to the order in council question there is this to be said-that with respect to an item of $85,000 that we have just passed he did proceed, without the authority of this parliament, on the strength of an order in council notwithstanding that he and his colleagues when in opposition so roundly denounced that particular course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Portage River-repairs to breakwaters, $600.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Portage river?


James Horace King: (Kootenay): In Kent county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers, Quebec. Bryant's Landing-wharf repairs and reconstruction, $2,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item, we ought to have an explanation of it.


John Warwick King: The work to be done is the tearing down of the present crib-tvork at low water level and building a concrete wall all round, building a concrete floor on the top of the wharf, and repairing the road leading to the wharf. The estimated total expenditure is $2,700.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it to be done by day work?


John Warwick King: I believe so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. * [DOT]
Cap de la Madeleine-wharf repairs, $3,325.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We ought to have an explanation of this item.


John Warwick King: This expenditure is to renew the flooring of the wharf and approach, and to repair the concrete on the lower platform and on the west side of the approach.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Chicoutimi-wharf repairs and rebuilding shed, $29,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Explanation.


John Warwick King: This is at the request of the district engineer to repair the damage done by fire September 7, 1922. It consists of rebuilding the large shed, "L" shaped, 100 feet each way by 40 feet wide, 19 feet high, replacing crib work and so forth, and moving the temporary shed constructed after the fire.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contrecceur-reconstruction of wharf headblock, $5,500.
Mr. STEVENS; I have asked the minister two or three times if he would spare us the necessity of asking questions. There is no explanation as to what this item is for. I think we should have an explanation of the new items. Was there a tender called for the $5,500? Is it to be done by day work?
John Warwick King: It consists in removing all the decayed timber of the crib down to extreme low water level, building reinforced concrete wall 4 feet 6 inches at the base, 20 inches at the top, all around the headblock, and laying a 1-foot layer of concrete on the ice-breaker, and a 6-inch concrete flooring on the whole surface of the wharf. The total cost will be $5,000. It will probably be done by day work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand the general policy of the government is that all work over $5,000'must, under the statute, be done by contract, but that does not necessarily mean that all work under $5,000 shall not be done by contract. Most of the items amounting to $3,000 or $3,500 could be done by contract to the advantage of the government.


John Warwick King: I explained to the committee a little while ago that in the case of these repairs it is often difficult to let a contract. The work could be done more satisfactorily under a good foreman by day labour. If it is a renewal of work running over $5,000, the department in all cases, I think, try to have it done by contract, but in the case of repairs it is found they can be carried on better by day labour.


Arthur Meighen: The minister pleads violation of the statute in such a simple form as that? The statute is there. To be told: why it is better to do it the other way, is only to be told that it is better to violate the statute. Why is it better? What is the difficulty in getting tenders for repair work on a wharf when the repair work runs to that sum? I do not see any difference be-

Supply-Public Works
tween the difficulty of the tender system as applied to repairs and as applied to renewals. To merely say that it is better is not any explanation to a fairly intelligent man.


John Warwick King: I think the leader of the Opposition is familiar with the construction of a wharf.


Arthur Meighen: Not very.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) = If he were, he would understand that when you undertake to tear down and remove, or to repair, a wharf, you never know what you are going to find. You may think it is only a small job, and when you get into the interior of the wharf you find the decay has gone further than you expected, and that is the reason why it is better to do the repairs under a competent foreman by day labour. It is hard to estimate what the work will cost until you start to take down the structure.


Arthur Meighen: Do you intend to recommend an amendment to the statute, or just to violate it and let it go?


John Warwick King: I am advised we have a right to do it under the statute.


Arthur Meighen: There are certain conditions that have to be lived up to. Does the minister intend to try to live up to them?


John Warwick King: We will try to live up to them.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister know what the conditions are?


John Warwick King: If it is shown the work can be done more efficiently and more economically by the department, we have, I understand, the right to carry it on in that way.


Arthur Meighen: That is subject to certain conditions. I am asking what those conditions are.


John Warwick King: I think those are the conditions.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. Does the minister want to tell us that when we have a statute saying that in all cases where the expenditure is over $5,000 the work shall be done by tender, it is all right for the minister to do it in some other way if he thinks fit? If that is the statute, I think he should introduce an amendment. But that is not the statute. There are some conditions. The minister should know them. I do not know them as I was never in that department, but I remember a discussion and a statement to the
effect that there is some provision whereby the reasons must be set out and must in some way be made known to parliament. I am asking that those conditions should be lived up to.


John Warwick King: I think that is the condition. I think I have shown, in regard to this repair work, that it is very difficult to estimate and to know the cost and to let contracts, and in the discretion of the minister we have the right to carry on this expenditure by day labour, if we think it can be done more efficiently and more economically than by tender and contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give the committee again what is intended by this vote. If he will do so, it will show, I think, very distinctly that his argument does not apply at all. It will show, if I recall it, the construction of a concrete wall and certain other specific works, and the item as it stands is not a repair; it is the reconstruction of a wharf headblock, an absolute work in itself, and certainly should be done by tender and contract. Will the minister be good enough to give the committee, in the light of his rather involved explanation of the statute, the explanation of this item?


John Warwick King: The engineer advised the department that in his opinion this work could be done more economically by day labour. We have not made up our minds in regard to asking for an estimate for the work. I am not in a position to say that tenders will be asked for, but the recommendation of the district engineer is that this work can be done more efficiently and economically by day labour than by contract.


Arthur Meighen: We should know the reason the engineer gave. On the face of it this is reconstruction and not repair. This is the reconstruction of a wharf, taking the old one down and putting up another. The reason the minister gives in the case of repairs would not apply at all. Just to be told that the engineer says so is not helping the committee. We might as well go home and allow the engineer to run the department with out the review of parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the minister give us the engineer's report. He will have it under his hand.


John Warwick King: I do not think 1 have that recommendation here, but I am told that that is his recommendation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the minister give us the engineer's recommendation-his reason?
Sup-ply-Public Works

Give us his whole report, so that we can understand it.


John Warwick King: I have not any reasons, as far as that is concerned. The engineer reported to me that that was one of the works he suggested could be done more economically by day work than by tender.


Arthur Meighen: I think the item should stand till we find out what policy the department has followed. Surely the department reviews the reasons of the engineer, and surely this committee should review these reasons in a case where the committee feels that, on the face of it, there appears no reason in the world for departing from the statutory system. All we have been told, after a long series of inquiries, is that the engineer says we had better not follow the statute and had better do the work by day labour. Each question brings the same answer-"This is one of the cases where the engineer says so." What is the committee for?


John Warwick King: I might ask:
What is the engineer for?


Arthur Meighen: He is there to give his
reasons to the minister, and the minister is here to give them to the committee.


John Warwick King: The duty of the
engineer is to advise the department as to these expenditures, and it is supposed that he is qualified. If not, he should be. On a matter of this kind the department and the minister would naturally accept his advice, unless it was found at times that the engineer was in error or was not carrying on the work properly. As regards the suggestion that the department had adopted a new policy, that is not true. This House has been voting similar supply for many years, and the same manner of departmental treatment has been going on. I do not think we are outside of the statute; I am advised that we are not and that, under the statute, we have power to make expenditures of that character. There is no objection, so far as I can see, to calling for tenders on these items, if the committee should so wish.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister will
assure us of that, that will be satisfactory. The minister asks: "What is the engineer for?" The engineer is there to give his recommendations and his reasons therefor. Ht is the duty of the minister and his deputy to review them and the duty of the minister to give them In the House when they are asked for. If we are here only to hear that the engineer advises this or that, we are superfluous. We cannot deal with every case; but surely this is a case IMr. Stevens.]
which calls for some explanation, and the minister can give the reasons set forth by the engineer. The recommendation of the engineer in this case might, be all right, but we have a right to know what is back of the engineer's recommendation.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I have had a good deal
to do in connection with building and repairing wharves, and if I did not think the engineer or the man who was put in charge of that work was capable of carrying it out, I do not know that X. would have him there at all. If a man gets an architect to draw plans for a house, is the architect not capable of drawing the plans and seeing that the work is properly done? He should
5 p.m. be. If he is not, he is not fit to draw the plans. Last spring, we got some repairs done to the Salmon Arm wharf, and as this is in my constituency, I was there a number of times while the work was being done. If tenders had been called for that work, the man who was carrying it on would have put in a bill for accidents; whereas, as the matter was, the engineer put a foreman in charge of the work; the foreman employed his men, and the work was carried out absolutely satisfactorily.


Joseph Archambault: This work is very important. I have in my hand the engineer's report, which states that, "this wharf is in a dilapidated condition and must be rebuilt from low water level." This wharf is quite important, because it is the only place around that district where the boat calls for merchandise. The steamer Terrebonne calls at Con-trecoeur about six times a week. There is a very heavy traffic from Contrecoeur to Montreal. There are, in the district, two shoe factories doing business to a value of about $350,000 a year, and the raw material received for that manufacture and the finished goods sent out comprise the trade of practically the whole district. There are quite a number of general stores, aDd the farmers, who also send their products to Montreal, use that wharf. The wharf is in a very dilapidated condition, and, as I can assure my right hon. friend, requires repair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We are not questioning
the need for repairs. What we are asking for is information. Would the minister now borrow from his colleague the report of the engineer and be good enough to give to the committee the engineer's report which, the minister says, he has not under his hand? I am sure his colleague, two or three desks away, would be glad to lend it to him.


John Warwick King: I have the engineer's recommendation as to how the work

Supply-Public Works
should be carried on. I have not his report as to how it is being carried on. The engineer recommends that in certain instances the work can be done better by contract and, in others, that it can be done better by day labour. That does not necessarily mean that the work will be done by day labour. That question would be left still, I would think, in the judgment of the chief engineer, who would review those recommendations. For the committee to say that an expenditure of this amount should be by contract and not by day labour would be going a long way, and it might mean that the expenditures of the department would be increased rather than decreased, because it is well known {hat certain of these works, especially these repair jobs, can be carried on more effectively by day labour than by contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister bring down the report of the engineer this evening?


John Warwick King: I think I have given the report that is in the office now. It is just a list indicating his opinion that this work can be done better by day labour or that work can be done better by contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is surely no objection to the committee seeing that report.


John Warwick King: I have no objection.


Joseph Archambault: What does my hon. friend wish to know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We want to know what is in the report.


John Warwick King: The engineer
states:
The following works can be undertaken to better advantage and more economically by day labour than by contract.
And he gives a list in which, I think, is this one, Contrecoeur.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot understand why there is any objection to giving us the report.


John Warwick King: I have just given the committee the report.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister read the report to the committee and the reasons of the engineer, and this will probably save a discussion on other items of a similar character.


John Warwick King: The committee has been given a number of them, but I have no objection to reading the report. The report states:
With reference to your memorandum of the 3rd instant concerning the amounts in the Main Estimates,
and with particular reference to the amounts provided for the province of Quebec, I beg to report as follows:
1.	Work now under contract.
2.	Works for which tenders have been received but contracts not yet awarded.
3.	Works advertised, or yet to be advertised, and for which plans and specifications are ready.
4.	Works which should be done by contract.
He gives a list of those which should be done by contract. Then he states:
The following works can be undertaken to better advantage and more economically by day labour.
And he gives a long list of those.


Arthur Meighen: Does this one appear in that list?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The recommendation does not comply with the statutes at all. The Public Works Act, section 36, has three subsections. The first part of the section provides that all contracts shall be let by tender. Then there are certain exceptions:
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest.
It is hardily suggested that this is one of those cases. I presume the minister claims to come in under (b):
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
Does he mean to say that he is going to do this by the officers and servants of the department?


Mr. CARROLL:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
suggest that that permits day labour and the hiring of men to get the work done?


William F. Carroll: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I think a reading of the next subsection will make it clear that the section does not so permit. Subsection (c):
-where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
There the minister is enabled to get the work done by day labour. But if the cost is over five thousand dollars he can only do the work by the officers and servants of the de* partment That is certainly the intention of section 36. This work runs over five thousand dollars, and if the minister is not -in a position to do it by the officers and servants of the department he must do it by tender. Undoubtedly this means the regular officers and servants. If you say it means every one you
Supply-Public Works

want to employ for this special work, then under that interpretation the whole section is gone. It means work in Ottawa where they have officers and servants already in the service of the department; then they can do it even if it is over five thousand dollars. If it is under five thousand dollars he has wider discretion, but when over that amount he is not allowed to go out and simply hire anybody he wants to get that work performed.


William F. Carroll: Exception number two
does not mean that the officials of this department can go down to the province of Quebec or of Nova Scotia or anywhere else and hire men themselves. They get the work done under foremen. For instance, they have a public works office in the city of Halifax, and I presume they have one or two in each province, and the work is done directly under the supervision of the department's engineers who visit various places where public works are in course of construction. In Nova Scotia there are probably ten engineers whose duty it is to supervise every bit of construction which is let without tender and contract, and in that way I think the minister may come in under subsection 2 of clause 2 of the exceptions, when the work will be done under the supervision of the department's officers.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's interpretation simply repeals the section.


Mr CARROLL:: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know what is left of the section if the minister can simply say to an engineer, "Hire all the men you like and go to work and do that by day labour." If he can still do that, there is no section left. That is not the meaning of the section at all. The section permits the minister, when the work is under five thousand dollars, to do the work by the officers and servants of the department provided the minister takes the responsibility because owing to the nature of the work he thinks it advisable to do it in that way; but if the cost of the work is over five thousand dollars it must be done by tender, unless it can be done, not under, but by, the "officers and servants of the department." The meaning must be the regular officers and servants of the department, not those employed for the special purpose of doing the work. If they are so employed, and that interpretation is accepted, the section is nothing more or less than a farce.


William F. Carroll: Surely the right hon. gentleman does not take the ground that subsection 2 only provides for such work being done

actually by the officers and servants of the department?


Arthur Meighen: Or by tender.


William F. Carroll: How would he get the work done?


Mr MEIGHEN:: By tender and contract.


William F. Carroll: Who would be the tenderer if the work is to be done by the servants of the department? Are the servants of tha department allowed to tender for the construction of public works?


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will read the section he will not so argue. Certainly, if by'tender, the tenderer can hire anyone; but the minister cannot, and his officers cannot. If the work is over five thousand dollars, then the only way he can avoid doing it by tender is by having the work done by the officers and servants of his department under the conditions named in subsection (b). Once the tender system is adopted, the tenderer will employ whom he likes; that is a different thing altogether. But the option of the minister to employ whom he likes to get the work done is confined to works under five thousand dollars.


William F. Carroll: If the minister appoints
one of his engineers in the province of Quebec, say, to do this work, the right hon. gentlemen then will agree, I suppose, that the minister comes within the exception of section 2 of the act?


Arthur Meighen: No, he cannot come
within section 2 and have it done by an engineer who goes out and employs extra help. Subsection (b) covers a case where the work can be done by the ordinary officers and servants of the department. Subsection (c) allows him to go further, but only in cases under five thousand dollars.


Mr. MARTELL:: Will the right hon. gentleman give an example of some work which could be constructed under subsection (b) ?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The Privy Council chamber, for example, a few years ago was repaired by the officers and servants of the department under subsection (b). It was not a case of telling an engineer to go out and hire people to do the work; it was done by workmen in the regular employment of the department. The greenhouse is another example. If the act is to be interpreted in the way the hon. member contends for, then the whole section is utterly valueless.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Cannot the right hon.
gentleman point to instances in the department

Supply-Public Works
when sums over five thousand dollars were spent without tender and contract under the administration of the right hon. leader of the Opposition?


John Warwick King: The Privy Council chamber which my right hon. friend referred to was repaired under the supervision of the architect of the department, who prepared the plans and brought the workmen from Toronto.


Arthur Meighen: He had no right to do so under that section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister send
across the floor the engineer's report that we may have a look at it?
Item stands.
Cross Point-wharf repairs, $3,030.


Arthur Meighen: What are the particulars?


John Warwick King: The vote is to
renew planking of landing slip at outer end of wharf in 4-inch planks; to renew 300 L.F. of cap pieces; to remove ballast from wharf which is lying at foot of slip; to reinforce easterly side of westerly outer wing with pile sheathing and replace ballast which has been swept out through break in sheathing.


Arthur Meighen: Is this by tender?


John Warwick King: None of these
matters have been settled as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Descente des Femmes-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give
us particulars of these repairs?


John Warwick King: This is to renew
six mooring posts, 8,000 feet B.M. of cross ties, 4,000 feet longitudinals, 12,000 feet of stringers, 10,000 feet 3-inch flooring and 2,000 feet of coping.


Arthur Meighen: The name of the place is not very significant geographically. Where is Descente des Femmies?


John Warwick King: It is in Chicoutimi-Saguenay county.


Arthur Meighen: What is the recommendation as to tender system here?


John Warwick King: My right hon.
friend has the recommendation across the way now.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the deputy will
remember.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
East Templeton, Wharf repairs, $1,420.
Arthur Meighen: Before we go any further I may point out that the name of the engineer does not appear in this report. Who is he? It is unsigned but is marked "For Chief Engineer."


John Warwick King: Mr. Cameron.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the official who actually takes the responsibility?


John Warwick King: He will take the responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: I observe that he has a decided leaning against the tender system. Some of these amounts run as high as $29,500, $23,500, $20,000, and so on-all to be done by a foreman, I suppose, who employs whom he likes, when he likes and how he likes. There are only four as against about sixty that he recommends to be done by contract.


John Warwick King: It would be his opinion that the work can be done more economically that way. These are repairs to structures that are in decay.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister intend to recommend the repeal of the statute bearing upon this subject? It might as well not exist, under the interpretation the minister is giving to it.


John Warwick King: There has been no change of policy; the statute is being lived up to as heretofore. The same recommendations were made this year as were made last year and the year before.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a matter of recommendations. It is all very well to make these general statements, but there appears to be a distinct loosening of the tender system going on. The minister says no; but it is pretty well loosened, that is certain-it is pretty nearly abolished. Here we have all but four cases recommended to be done by day labour. Now, the minister says we do not know, but this is the time the committee must know, or not at all; what is the good of our being told next year that it was dona this way or that way? It is too late then; we ought to know when we are voting the money how it is intended to do the work. It is a principle that is at stake; if the department is simply getting rid of the statutory provision, either by slow degrees or fast -and I am inclined to think it is the latter- we ought to know it.


John Warwick King: We have a list submitted by the chief engineer suggesting that these works be done a certain way, and
Supply-Public Works

that list is available to the committee. I will not say the course suggested will be followed; when the matter is finally dealt with it may be considered that many of these works would be better carried out by tender. These are simply the recommendations of the engineer.


Hugh Guthrie: In order that the minister may be on his guard I would like to point out that, whether intentionally or not I do not know, the recommendation of the engineer does not comply with the statute. The object of the law, which has been on our statute book for a long time, is as far as possible to enforce the system of tender and contract, the method of public competition, in connection with these works. A clause was inserted providing that in the case of all works in connection with which the cost exceeded $5,000, the system of tender and contract should be followed.


John Warwick King: With certain exceptions.


Hugh Guthrie: Except in the case of the exceptions noted, and the engineer in this case is evidently trying to come within the language of the second of these exceptions. He has reported to the minister, on an unsigned report made by Mr. Cameron, I understand, that the work can be more advantageously done by day labour. Well, that is not what the statute asks him to certify. The statute says that the work shall be done by contract except in cases, in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department. There is nothing in it about day labour.


John Warwick King: That is all right.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister says it is all right, but I may tell him that when the statute prescribes a certain line of action which must be followed unless certain things happen, those things which happen must come within the language of the statute. The engineer must certify that the work can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department, and I point out to the minister that his engineer has not so certified.


Mr. FORKE:: I am not acquainted with the circumstances, but anyone who has had experience in connection with the making of repairs knows that it is pretty difficult to have a contract on repair work. I have no doubt that for many years past this thing has been done exactly the same way-at any rate, I 
am making a guess; and I would say that if the procedure is contrary to the statute, then some change should be made in the statute. I honestly believe it is impossible in a great many cases-I do not care what line of business it is-to have a contract on repair work.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it would be well for hon. members to know just what that recommendation is, and if the minister will let me have it again I will read it to the committee. In that list we have practically the whole of this vote, about forty items, including several amounts running up to $20,000, $25,000, $29,000. Surely if we are going to open up the way for the carrying out of public works by day labour without tender, without contract and without regard to the statute, it is time we knew it.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend would like the report read, I will read it for him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a long list which I think it would be well for the committee to have before it. I refer to the works that it is proposed to carry out by day labour.


John Warwick King: Batiscan, wharf improvements, $925. That is repair job, and improvements. Beloeil Village, wharf repairs, $700; Bryant's Landing, wharf repairs and construction, $2,700; Cap Chat, wharf repairs, $1,100; Carleton, wharf repairs, $1,950; Cap de la Madeleine, *wharf repairs, $3,325; Cap St. Ignace, wharf repairs, $2,500; Caughna-waga, shelter and wharf repairs, $875; Chicoutimi, wharf repairs and rebuilding shed, $29,500. That vote we passed a little while ago. Fire had destroyed a portion of the wharf and the shed, and this is for reconstruction.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister tell the committee why that could not be done by tender?


John Warwick King: I would be of the opinion that the shed should be built by tender. But there are wharf repairs, too.


Arthur Meighen: They were repairs necessary after a fire.


John Warwick King: Possibly some repairs necessary as a result of fire, others resulting from decay. The engineer sets out here that in his judgment this work can be better done by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that is authority for the minister's so doing!


John Warwick King: Cross Point, wharf repairs, $3,030; Desjardins, wharf repairs, $765;

Supply-Public Works
East Templeton, wharf repairs, $1,420; Fabre, wharf repairs, $600; Father Point, wharf improvements, $5,500; Fassett, wharf repairs, $2,000; Fort William, wharf repairs, $950; Fox river, wharf repairs, $1,900; Grindstone, wharf repairs, shed repairs and breastwork extension, $2,050; Grand Mechins, wharf repairs, $1,350; Grosse Isle, wharf, repairs, $1,250; Iberville, wharf repairs, $850; Lanoraie, wharf reconstruction, $5,500; Lavaltrie, reconstruction of wharf and approach, $2,300; L'lslet, wharf repairs, $23,500.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister consider it reasonable to do that by day work simply because the engineer recommends it in his report? The amount is $23,500.


John Warwick King: It would be a matter for the departmental heads to consider in consultation with the chief.


Arthur Meighen: When will the committee be advised what the department is going to do?


John Warwick King: In the ordinary course that would be next session.


Arthur Meighen: After it is done. It would be valuable then.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend would like to have it appear that we have changed the policy of the department in this matter. That is not true. There is no change of policy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have just enlarged it.


John Warwick King: It is the policy that has been followed, and it would seem to be a reasonable policy. Surely these men that we employ must have some knowledge and should be able to advise us whether it is better to do this work by day labour or by contract. Does my hon. friend require me to continue with this list?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take those above $5,000. We do not object to those under $5,000.


John Warwick King: Pointe-a-Elie,
wharf repairs, $5,850; Riviere Ouelle, wharf repairs, $5,600; Ste. Anne de Chicoutimi, repairs to wharf, $8,500. I think that is all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is $20,000 for wharf reconstruction at Rimouski. Does the minister consider it reasonable to do that by day work?


James Horace King: It would depend on the information we have.


Mr. JACOBS:: I am not advocating the violation of the law which declares that where the work will exceed $5,000 tenders should be
called for, but if we are doing this we are simply following the lines of the opposition when they were in the government, when Mr. Ballantyne was permitted to build his government merchant marine or a large number 'of those vessels, running into millions of dollars, without any tenders at all being called for.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member knows better than that. They were not under the Public Works Act to begin with. They were built in strict conformity with the item which parliament passed authorizing them to be built, and furthermore, were built in the only way they could be built. Anybody knows you could not possibly submit to tender the building of vessels like that, owing to the difference in the facilities of the various docks in this country, and besides, in no country in the world are vessels of that character or vessels of any character built by tender, neither in the United States nor in Great Britain; and that by means of the method adopted there and the conditions that were imposed the vessels were- built on an equality as to price with even those built in Great Britain, built in Scotland on the Clyde, and built at $20 per ton less than vessels of inferior quality were built for at the same time in the United States. The point is this: They could not have been built in any other way. The conditions did not permit it; the act did not call for it. The authority of parliament was strictly complied with in every regard. But in this case we claim that the authority of parliament is not complied with.


Joseph Archambault: How much money was saved to the country by building those ships under that system?


Arthur Meighen: About $20 per ton on sixty-three vessels; the hon. member can compute it for himself. It would amount to many millions, and what is more, they were well built. We are not in the position of the United States to-day of having them up for repair on account of poor construction. The reports show that every one of them was well constructed, and at an average of $20 per ton less than theirs which were poorly constructed. There has not been a better piece of work done by this country in so far as cheapness of construction is concerned.


Samuel William Jacobs: They all went to pieces on the first opportunity.


Arthur Meighen: Not one of them has gone to pieces. I defy the hon. member and his ministers to produce a report to this House of the faulty construction of one of these vessels.
Supply-Public Works


Samuel William Jacobs: Practically half a dozen of them are now at the bottom of the sea, due, it is claimed, to faulty construction.


Arthur Meighen: There are lots of good vessels at the bottom of the sea-the Lusitania, and others as well. That is not the fault of the vessel. The vessels were well constructed, as everybody in this country knows, and what is more, the time will come when hon. gentlemen opposite who derided and decried them will be standing up in this House and claiming to be the fathers of the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine. We have had experiences like that before.
On this item, when the minister makes his very general statement, I think it would be well for him to bring instances in support of it. Of course, I know that items under $5,000 were done this way under previous governments, and that items over $5,000 were done this way, but there was never brought to my attention a case over $5,000 where it was not brought strictly within the meaning of subsection (b). If there was, I would like the minister to bring it forward, and not take refuge behind a Very general assertion. As long as he does that, I take no exception at all. It is not, of course, an argument to say when you are violating the law, that it has been violated before. If the minister thinks that, he should have the law amended. We do not object to ordinary repairs being done that way. Ordinary repairs come under $5,000 almost always.


John Warwick King: Not necessarily.


Arthur Meighen: Pretty nearly always. There may be cases where they go over, I admit that; but there is no great difficulty in getting that work done by tender and contract. When you get away from tender and contract the door is open to abuses of all kinds, and that is why the act was passed, and it is the duty of this House and of the opposition to see that the act is complied with or to get complete reasons from the minister why any exceptions are made and to see that they come within the exceptions as provided in the statute. That is the duty of parliament. That is all we are trying to do. We are not trying to harass the minister, but if we are going to say any time the minister tells us "The engineer told us to do it this way, that is enough for the committee," all well and good. But it is not enough for the committee. We want to know, and it is our duty to know, whether these cases come within the three exceptions the act provides for, and that is all we are trying to do.


Mr. HATFIED:: I think I can supply the leader of the Opposition with a case where there was an item in the estimates of $10,000 for the extension of a breakwater, all new work that was done by day labour under the old administration, and wisely and properly so, I think. That was at Bluff Head breakwater in the county of Yarmouth.


Arthur Meighen: In what year?


Mr. HATFIELD:: I think it was in 19191920.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand River

Wharf extension, $29,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: We ought to have a statement from the minister in regard to this work.


John Warwick King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the work being done by contract?


John Warwick King: It will be under contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An item of $3,000 has been already spent. This is a revote. Has the contract been let? If so when, to whom, and at what figure?


John Warwick King: No, the contract has not been let as yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much work has been done?


John Warwick King: There has been an expenditure of $2,814. I have not the details of that expenditure; I will advise my hon. friend later if he wishes to get that information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is rather a peculiar
circumstance. Here is work to be done by contract and approximately $3,000 has been already spent. The work has been commenced, and is under way, but there is no contract My hon. friend was trying to make a case a moment ago in support of the rather extraordinary stand he took respecting entering into contracts and the difficulty of making them, but certainly he is raising an almost

Supply-Public Works
insuperable obstacle by starting to work spending a portion of the money by day labour, and then saying that at some time when the work is in progress he will ask for tenders and award a contract. That is a most extraordinary course to pursue. It is a large item. The sum of $32,000 was voted last year and $29,000 is a revote. This is certainly work which should be done by contract after calling for tenders.


John Warwick King: I have my notes on this matter now and I see that a small expenditure was made last year with a view to holding the structure together and permit-ing it to be carried over for another year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will tenders be called for?


John Warwick King: It is on the list of works for which tenders will be called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grondines-Wharf, $50,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give us an explanation of this item?


John Warwick King: This amount is required to carry to completion the contract awarded the Doran Construction Co., Ltd. of Ottawa for the construction of a wharf 300 ft. long by 22 ft. wide, consisting of two concrete walls filled with rock, tied together with 1^ inch tie rods and surfaced with bituminous macadam, the whole resting on a solid rock foundation.


Hugh Guthrie: Will this amount complete the work?


John Warwick King: No it will not complete it.
Mr. GUTHRIE1 How much more will be needed?


John Warwick King: It will take about $130,000 to complete the structure.


Hugh Guthrie: When was the work started?


John Warwick King: The contract was let October 7.


Hugh Guthrie: If I understand the matter aright the House last year appropriated $12,000 for this work. Now, apparently, a contract has been let running into how much money?


John Warwick King: The contract has been let for the work that was undertaken last year. There will be a further contract for the amount this year. The contract was let by tender, and there were some nine tenders, the lowest tender being $15,586.


Hugh Guthrie: The whole work when completed will run into what amount of money?


John Warwick King: About $130,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Was the House informed last session that any such work was in contemplation?


John Warwick King: I imagine so.


Hugh Guthrie: My recollection is other. wise.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have tenders been called for the second contract?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: One hundred and thirty thousand dollars is a very large item, especially on a vote of $12,000 for the commencement. I think the minister should give us some explanation as to the grounds upon which this immense expenditure appealed to the department as a necessary expenditure, . what the country is going to get for all this outlay, how much is to be spent each year, and when the work is to be completed?


John Warwick King: This matter has been under the consideration of the department, I think, for some time. The district engineer reports on the subject as follows:
There is no deep water wharf between Batiscan and Quebec; all the wharves in this section are tidal wharves. Therefore it is absolutely important, if not imperative, to have a deep water wharf at this place, for the accommodation of the public, and to facilitate the importation of this important district.
At the present the steamer Etoile, plying between Montreal and Quebec, and the steamer St. Croix, plying between Quebec and St. Jean Deschaillons, land at Grondines when the water is sufficiently high, but do not stop when the water is too low. By this fact, the exporters are never sure whether the boat will stop or not, and very often, this is a cause of serious losses for them when their shipments consist in perishable merchandise such as cheese, butter, meat, etc.
The parishes interested in the general traffic of the proposed wharf are, St. Ubald, St. Marc, St. Alban, St. Thuribe, St. Casimir and Grondines, representing a total population of about 8,500 inhabitants. The welfare of the trade and commerce, and the general production to the above mentioned places depend on the shipping facilities and accommodation by water.
The exports consist of farm and dairy products, meat, vegetables and general merchandise, etc., which may average when a deep water wharf is built, from 3,500 to 4,000 tons per season.
The imports consist of the necessities of life for the above-mentioned population, and average 20 tons per week, but will increase considerably when the deep water wharf is built.
The proposed deep water wharf is a public necessity, and if not built, it would be most detrimental to the general production of this community.
That is the report we have from our district engineer on the advisability and the necessity for this wharf.
Supply-Public Works


Hugh Guthrie: Last year parliament was asked to appropriate for this wharf $12,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: This year parliament is asked to appropriate $50,000, anti of that $12,000 is a revote, so that up to the present time, if I understand it aright, nothing has been spent on the vote.


John Warwick King: A contract has been let for $15,000 odd.


Hugh Guthrie: When the vote was before parliament last session, did the minister give any information at all to the House or the committee as to the extent of the work on which he was starting, or which he had in contemplation, when the vote of $12,000 was passed? The minister will understand that an item of $12,000 might go through with very little discussion or consideration on the mere statement, but when we know that the contemplated work will run to $130,000 or $150,000, a much more serious condition arises. Did the minister, when the $12,000 was voted last year, inform the committee or the House of the expenditure which he had in contemplation? My recollection is that no information was given.


John Warwick King: If my information is correct, this matter was in the supplementary estimates last year, and I do not know that we were asked for an explanation.


Arthur Meighen: The minister surely
would not need to be asked to let the House know the significance of a vote when the consequence was so vital as that. The House naturally assumes that what is asked for is all that is wanted, unless the House is informed differently.


Hugh Guthrie: But the point is this: Does the hon. minister think it proper practice, or is it treating the House or committee with proper respect, to allow an item to appear without giving us information? A very small sum might be placed in the estimates, say $1,000, for what might appear a very ordinary work. The results would be that it would not be very much questioned. No question at all might be asked, but the government or the minister might have in contemplation a work involving millions of dollars. In the interval, contracts could be let in respect to the money voted, not confined to the item voted. Last year we voted $12,000 for this item, but in the interval the minister has let a contract for $15,000, exceeding the amount voted, which I complain of, and which I think the House has a right to complain of. We were evidently enter-
IMr. J. H. King.]
ing into a work of some significance, involving a very large expenditure of public money, at a time when we were all assured in this House and in the newspapers that this economic government was not launching on any large or any new expenditures for public works. This is the way in which this matter was launched by an innocent, insignificant $12,000 with no information, and consequently little discussion and no inquiry. I protest, Mr. Chairman, that that is not treating the House or the committee with proper respect.
I appeal to the minister to know whether in his own opinion we should not have had the fullest information, if he had at that time in contemplation a work of this magnitude.


John Warwick King: I might say I had the information last year, just as I have now, when the vote was before the House. I do not think any explanation was asked for or offered. There was no desire to mislead the House. The work is important and necessary for the district which is a large farming district. It is required in the public interest. It is true we are not voting the total sum. We would like to do that if we could, but we vote this year an additional sum, and hope to come to parliament next year for a sum to complete it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says he has no intention of deceiving the House, but the House is inevitably misled through the omission of the minister. When a $12,000 item appears in the estimates, the presumption is that that is what is required for the work. Now, we are told it is going to cost from $130,000 to $150,000.


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the amount?


John Warwick King: I said $130,000.


Arthur Meighen: That is one of the figures I mentioned. I fancy $150,000 will likely be next year's figures, but taking $130,000, that is ten times the amount, that was voted last year. Why should we have to ask for something that the minister obviously should tell the House? If he does not tell the House, the House is misled. The House had no reason in the world to assume that that was the commencement of an undertaking that would cost $130,000.


William Duff: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know just why hon. members opposite will inject into the discussion to-day a debate which occupied the attention of this House time and again, and which I think, all fair-minded people will agree was settled without any discredit whatever to the then government. As a matter of fact, this discussion took place in the House on two or three occasions. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), the hon. Speaker of the House (Mr. Lemieux) then, a very prominent member of the opposition, my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), I think, and two or three other very prominent members on the other side of the House, commended the government. The former leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) was a member of the government when the contract was entered into. The war was proceeding at the time. The only possible reflection, or excuse for a reflection, upon that Contract was that the war collapsed, and because the war collapsed sooner than people expected the ships were not then as much needed as when the government undertook their construction.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that the contracts for those ships were let after the war?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Every one of those contracts was let before the conclusion of the war.


William Duff: The hon. member is absolutely wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is true the construction of ah the boats was not commenced until after the conclusion of the war; of that there is no doubt, but that has nothing to do with the question before the House at the present time. If we are going to have a debate on that whole question, let us have the debate with
all the facts before us. Let us discuss the important question if it is necessary to do so, but to raise a remnant, in a distorted fashion, of a debate held two or three or four sessions ago, in order to protect the minister on the item we are discussing to-day, and discussing, I think, in a fair manner without any intentional recrimination of any kind, I think is very poor tactics indeed. Now in regard to this item we have before us, the House was asked for a vote of $12,000. No explanation, as far as we can learn, was given to the House at the time. The minister replies "Well, I do not remember any explanation being asked for." Three or four times this afternoon I have had to suggest to the minister, in the most courteous possible way, that he should give to the House as we go along a general outline of what these new items are for. The minister did not give an explanation unless we persisted in asking for it. We were quite willing to facilitate the passing of the estimates; but now we are confronted with what certainly appears, I think, like a lack of courtesy to the committee. That is what occurred last year, and we do not know but what in these items which we have been passing, similar incidents will occur or will be discovered next year. The minister should certainly give the committee a more complete explanation of this appropriation than he has already done. There is a contract for $15,000. Will the minister explain what the contract is and what portion of the work is included in that contract?


William Duff: I think I was quite justified
in making a comparison between the way in which this government was letting those contracts or doing the work and that of the old government. The leader of the Opposition * brought the matter up. We on this side of the House did not bring it up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member's hon. friend across the floor brought it up.


William Duff: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) made the remark that all the contracts for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were made when the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne brought down his first estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that at all.


William Duff: What did the hon. member say? That is exactly what he said.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I did not.


William Duff: The hon. member said that all the money was voted and the contracts let and brought down when the first vote was asked for.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: I made no such statement.


William Duff: The truth is that the last contract was made in 1920 and the first vote was asked for in 1918. It seems to me that there is absolutely no difference except that on that occasion the total amount was $80,000,000, and the total cost of this work is $130,000.


Arthur Meighen: I do not like, when I am chasing a bear, to be diverted by a rabbit trail-


William Duff: My right hon. friend would run from a bear.


Arthur Meighen: But in this case the distinction is important to the House.


William Duff: He would scare the bear.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want any member of the House to feel that I am saying that in bringing down every estimate, you should bring down the whole amount required to complete the work for which that estimate provides. I am not saying that at all. The invariable practice of parliament has been to bring down the amount required for the year, but to state to parliament the total commitment the government is entering upon, toward which this is a contribution. In the case of , the mercantile marine the government came down in 1918 with a programme for a certain construction and not for the whole amount of money required for that construction. The government got the amount of money required, told parliament exactly the number of vessels, the tonnage and the estimated cost. Then in 1919, the government deciding on an extension of that, got the unanimous approval of parliament, without a single criticism, for a further programme and secured the vote required for expenditure that year. In 1920, there was some little objection; but the great row was raised in 1921, when the vessels were nearly completed, no further contracts being asked for, and no further programme, but merely a completion of what parliament had unanimously agreed to. What I am emphasizing is this: In every case the government told parliament the whole commitment into which parliament was entering when asking for the amount that would be required for that year.
I am complaining that the minister did not do that last year. It is impossible now to remedy that default; but I would impress this on the minister, that he should never come to parliament and let the House assume that that is all the commitment of the country that we are entering into in relation to' that estimate, merely taking refuge under the fact that no

question was asked. It is his duty to let parliament know the significance of an estimate. I ask the minister if that is not reasonable. I am prepared to let this go if the minister will agree to that. He should let parliament know the significance of an estimate whether questioned or not.


John Warwick King: I quite agree with my hon. friend. That is true. The expenditure, last year, of $12,000, with the $15,000 tenders received, will construct the first section of this wharf. The additional sum asked is to carry on and continue another section. This is a large structure. We did not go beyond our authority in the vote given us last year. I quite agree with my right hon. friend that it would have been better-and I would have done so if the matter had occurred to me-to have informed the committee as to the commitment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me read to the committee what occurred last year when these estimates were up:
Harbours and Rivers, Quebec-$236,785.
Sir Henry Drayton: Just one question. I take it from what my right hon. friend has said that these are for essential repairs. You are not going on with new works?
Mr. Mackenzie King: There may be one or two very small exceptions, but the votes would be for work that has been long standing and should really have been undertaken before this.
Sir Henry Drayton: There are some extensions here- $32,000.
Mr. King (Kootenay): Not extensions, but necessary additions. It is not new work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The opening was there for the explanation; the request for information was all there, and yet that was the answer-that no new work was being undertaken, no extensions, but just ordinary repairs.
Samuel William Jacobs: Is that the $1?,000 item?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the item included in the supplementary estimates.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Newcombe Gordon: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering the item on page 37 of the Estimates, Grondines wharf, $50,000. Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) had the floor at six o'clock. I think he intended to make some severe strictures on the government in connection with this item.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I suggest we let the item stand for the present.


Hugh Guthrie: I find the minister was right in stating that last year the item of $12,000 for this wharf did not come up in the supplementary estimates. Unfortunately the supplementary estimates for harbours and rivers, Quebec, amounting to $236,785 went through with very, very little discussion, but what discussion did take place would certainly lead one to believe that no new works of any importance were contemplated by the government. The discussion will be found at page 3545 of the Hansard of last session. The item was called in the lump sum, and the discussion was as follows:
Sir Henry Drayton: Just one question. I take it from what my right hon. friend has said that these are for essential repairs. You are not going on with new works ?
Mr. Mackenzie King: There may be one or two very small- exceptions, but the votes would be for work that has been long standing and should really have been undertaken before this.
Sir Henry Drayton: There are some extensions here- $32,000.	.
Mr. King (Kootenay): Not extensions, but necessary additions. It is not new work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Warwick King: What item were we referring to then?


Hugh Guthrie: The whole item in the
supplementary estimates for harbours and rivers, Quebec, involving a total of $236,785, tfie particulars of which are to be found at page 9 of the supplementary estimates of last session. In that list is the item of $12,006 for this particular wharf. ' I submit, Mr. Chairman, that when that item came before the House last session with the practical assurance of the Prime Minister, who happened to be in the chamber at the time, that no new works of any importance would be undertaken, any one then present would naturally conclude that this was one of the small works in his contemplation when he replied to my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton), or that it was merely a repair or extension of some old work. There was nothing in the information given to the committee by the Minister of Public Works, there was nothing afforded by the discussion, to lead us to believe that we were launching on a work of considerable magnitude. I am not in a position to judge whether this work is or is not a proper work for the locality. I heard the statement from the minister this afternoon that it would serve a scattered population of about 8,500.
61J


John Warwick King: I made the statement that it would serve an agricultural population of 8,500.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, if it is an agricultural population I may assume it must be a more or less scattered population. It is not a population contained in a town or city.


John Warwick King: No.


Hugh Guthrie: To serve that community of 8,500 a proposal such as we had last session to expend $12,000 would certainly not be inappropriate. I am inclined to think that when the minister brought down his estimate last session he himself felt that $12,000 would be about the right amount for a wharf for that community. After having obtained the authority of parliament to expend that money, in the interval he has let a contract for $15,000 for this work, which is not very far wide of the mark; but he comes to parliament this session with the first information we get on the subject, namely, that the work is or soon will be under construction and will cost in the neighborhood of $130,000. That is a large expenditure for a government that announced that it was . not going to spend large sums on new works. It may be a proper expenditure; I am not in a position to judge that, but the manner in which the vote was passed last year could hardly be called a proper one. Hon. members are entitled to be given the facts in regard to these matters; surely the committee is entitled to know what is in the minister's mind when he launches a proposal of this kind. If, as I believe, the minister contemplated last session an expenditure of only $12,000 on this work, his course to-day should be to say so rather than to put in $50,000 for this year and then say that the ultimate cost is to be about $130,000. We know that these estimates are generally overrun; in all probability even that proposed expenditure will be increased by another 25 per cent for additions, extras, and the like, before the work is completed. I want to register my protest in respect to the manner in which this matter was brought before the House and dealt with last session, without a single particle of information to enable us to judge whether we were voting correctly or incorrectly or whether we were spending money wisely or unwisely. I have no desire in any away to reflect on the minister in 'this matter, but I do not want to see such a system gain ground in this House, and in order to make my protest as strong as I can I propose to move that this item be reduced to the sum of $15,000, which is the amount for which I understand, a contract has been let.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I quite agree, as I did this afternoon, with the statement of the right hon. leader of the Opposition that an explanation should have been given to parliament last year, but in the rush that took place the statement was not made. Not one dollar of the $12,000 that was voted last year has been spent. A contract has been let. It is in the province of the government to cancel it and pay damages to the contractor. But we are in a position to-day to give the explanation that shotdd have been given last year; in fact, I did give it this afternoon. This work is important to the community it will serve, and the government believes it is justified in asking parliament now for another $50,000 with which to proceed with it. Nothing having been so far expended, the whole matter is open for discussion and review, but from the reports we have in the department I submit that this is a necessary public work and that it should receive the support of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute that the work may be of use, but is there no relationship between use and cost? At first sight, passing by entirely the question of the way the vote was obtained last year and accepting the minister's statement that it was not obtained in the proper way, that is to say-


John Warwick King: I did not state that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not mean improper in the moral sense, but that it was not obtained in the right way; an explanation should have been given and the facts made known to the House. I accept the minister's statement in that regard and pass it over. But on the surface it does not look justifiable to have a $130,000 wharf when, according to the minister's own statement, there are only
8,500	people in the community it will serve, and they not engaged in anything that particularly requires ocean transport. I do not say that the community does not require a wharf; no doubt it does. But the amount suggested is about $13 or $15 per head for the wharf alone. If the minister goes on that principle, how much is it going to cost to string the whole province with wharves? Will the minister make it clear just what facilities these people have now? What have they been doing all along to get their produce to market? What is going to be the saving to them per annum on account of the wharf being built, taking into account, of course, the fact that they will still be at some expense? Will the

minister tell the circumstances as they exist without the wharf and then state the advantages that are expected to accrue to that small number of people from the building of it?


John Warwick King: I think I gave the information to the committee this afternoon. My hon. friend speaks of 8,500 people. It is true that it is an agricultural community, the shipments from it being largely the products of the farm. They are a great distance from their markets, Quebec and Montreal. They have been using a wharf which serves at certain heights of water, and it is proposed to build a wharf that will afford them communication with these large centres during the summer season. We have investigated the matter very carefully since last session and we are satisfied that the proposed expenditure is a proper one.


Mr. CANNON (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken on the motion of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I wish, as a member for one of the ridings of the Quebec district, to express my great astonishment at the sense of economy displayed by the ex-Minister of Militia just at a time when it is proposed to carry out public works in the province of Quebec. I should have liked, and I think the majority of the members of this committee are also of the same opinion, that this sense of economy, no doubt inspired by the public interest, should have rather existed in the hon. member at the time of the general elections in 1921. Indeed, very large contracts suddenly became necessary in the riding of the hon. member at the last general election, and, if I am not mistaken, a sum of almost $50,000 was spent during the campaign so as to enable the hon. member to further represent his electors. I might suggest to the hon. member not to try and economize always at the expense of the same people, but to allow the government to make the expenditures which are actually needed. Grondines is one of the most flourishing parishes of the beautiful county of Portneuf, and if the hon. member for Wellington were to visit that place I have no doubt that he would be the first to withdraw his objections. Those places are highly populated and prosperous, they are parishes where the wharves are of the greatest usefulness and all expenditure made there at present is in the interest of the public. Certainly, like the hon. member, I favour & sound economy, but economy in the public interest is part of a reasonable and sound policy, and it would be useless for the government to try and practise economy

Supply-Public Works
by not spending a few thousand dollars where it is necessary to keep in repairs wharves for which large sums have been spent. I think the hon. member could, during the present session, practise his sense of economy to a greater advantage if he proposed, for instance, to decrease the expenditures which are made in the harbour of Toronto, where there will never exist a satisfactory harbour, rather than oppose expenditures on public works in the province of Quebec, for the parishes bordering the St. Lawrence river, where the wharves, as I mentioned a few moments ago, are necessary and useful and where this expenditure will evidently be for the public welfare.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member persuaded the minister to give us the information we asked for?


John Warwick King: I hope my right hon. friend is now convinced that this public work is a necessity.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry that I could not follow my hon. friend for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) in the remarks which he has just made, but this I was able to gather, that he is in some way or other under the impression that my objection to this particular item was that 'it pertained to the province of Quebec, and I think he said it would be better if I directed my attention to Ontario.
The only criticism I have offered on these estimates so far has been in respect of the harbour improvements generally in the Maritime provinces. I am not objecting to the item as an item, nor do I regard the fact as important whether it applies to Quebec or any other province. What I am objecting to is the principle. I am afraid that a system may grow up or is growing up whereby a minister or a government can pass an insignificant vote through parliament and start some considerable work, and then come back to parliament the following year and ask for more money to carry on the work, whereas had parliament had full knowledge of the situation when the first vote was asked it might never have been authorized. The same thing applies to half-a-dozen items we have passed this afternoon for public works. They are evidently new works. Nothing was voted for them last year. We have passed them in the belief that the two or three or four or five thousand dollars which is presented in the estimates was the final amount required. Now it may be that some of these items are only the entering wedge, the beginning of a heavy expenditure.
What I wish to point out particularly is this, that if the minister at the time he brings in his estimates has in contemplation the expenditure of a large sum of money on any public work, he should first make the facts known to the House when he asks for the initial amount required. In this case that was not done. I am satisfied that in this case the House voted $12,000 last session believing that they were voting that sum for a wharf for this particular locality, and I believe it is news to every hon. member on this side of the House that the $12,000 was only the beginning of the matter and that it is going to cost at least 1130,000 before this wharf is in place. It matters not whether it is in Ontario or Quebec or any other part of Canada; the place is a matter of no consequence.


Lucien Cannon: Is not the item under consideration Item No. 157?


Hugh Guthrie: No. It is Grondines wharf, $50,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: The first item on page 38, resolution No. 157.


Lucien Cannon: And that resolution covers the province.of Quebec.


Hugh Guthrie: I am only objecting to the first item at the top of page 38 of the Estimates. I am not criticising the other items. I am directing myself entirely to this one, and to a practice which has sprung up, and which I trust will not go any further. As I said in my opening remarks, it is to protest against that practice that I move that this vote be reduced.


Mr. POWER:: If the hon. member objects to the principle involved in the vote of this money, and not to the particular item, why does he not move that this whole resolution for harbours and rivers be struck out? Then he would not be in the position of having the criticism made that he has selected a particular place in the province of Quebec and made that his target. .


Lewis Herbert Martell: He does not like Quebec or Nova Scotia.


Charles Gavan Power: Why does he not move to cut out the whole resolution? .


Hugh Guthrie: Because I do not think the whole of it is objectionable. I have agreed to pass item after item.


Charles Gavan Power: But it is a question of principle.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think any one either in the government or outside can con-
Supply-Public Works

scientiously support this practice. The minister has to excuse it himself. He says the vote last year was rushed through in the last days of the session.


John Warwick King: Did you not agree to it?


Hugh Guthrie: I did through ignorance because the information was not given me at the time. That is what I complain of. I say that the principle is a bad one. We have passed item after item to-day and the same thing may occur next year with regard to them. The minister may come back next year to say that parliament authorized these expenditures of two or three or four thousand dollars this year and that that was only the beginning. I know it is the practice of the department and has been for twenty-five years, whether the practice be good or bad, that when a vote for a public work passes this House the department goes ahead and lets contracts irrespective of the amount voted by parliament, the assumption being that the House has committed itself to the principle of the work, and if we vote ten or twenty or twenty-five thousand to-day the department will go ahead and let contracts for $100,000 or $150,000. That has been the practice for the last twenty-five years to my knowledge.


John Warwick King: That has not been done in this case. If there is any objection to this particular item, the matter is in the power of this House. We have only let a contract for $15,000 on a vote of $12,000 passed last year. We have not abused our privileges. We have inquired into the matter and satisfied ourselves that this is a proper vote.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister will see this, that if on a vote of $12,000 you can let a contract for $15,000, surely the same reason applies and you could let a contract for $50,000 on the same vote.


John Warwick King: But it was not done.


Hugh Guthrie: I know, but during the last twenty-five years it has been done time and time again on the assumption that when parliament votes the money it approves the work. Then the department goes ahead and carries out the work. If that is a good practice, and it always has been the practice in my time at least, then on each of these item3 for two or three or four thousand dollars, contracts might be let and new works undertaken and the House in the meantime have no knowledge of what the ultimate expenditure is going to be. W'hat I complain of is that what we did, we did in the dark. We should

have had the information. The minister should have come down to the House with a new proposal and candidly said: This is a new proposal to complete a work which will ultimately cost $130,000.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon. friend, who claims that this is a matter of principle and that his criticism is not applied to any particular province, I would draw his attention to this fact: Resolution No. 154 "Harbours and rivers" applies to Nova Scotia. This was passed without any objection, I understand, from my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no; it was not, I criticised it.


Lucien Cannon: Resolution No. 155 "Harbours and 'rivers" applies to Prince Edward Island; resolution No. 156 "Harbours and rivers" applies to New Brunswick; resolution No. 157 "Harbours and rivers" applies to Quebec and is now under consideration. The most peculiar feature of the case, however, is this: My hon. friend professes a desire to protect a principle in the public interest, but his objection to the conduct of the Public Works department is only awakened or aroused when we reach this particular item No. 157 which covers public works in the province of Quebec. If my hon. friend really wishes to fight for a principle why does he not, as suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Power), move an amendment which would apply to all the items generally, so that a reduction of expenditure would be required in all cases and not simply in the case of the province of Quebec? If my' hon. friend does that he will have a better chance of making good his claim that he is fighting for a principle, and not merely trying to reduce public expenditure in the province of Quebec notwithstanding the smallness of the amount involved.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Dorchester is an intelligent man.


Lucien Cannon: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he could have been in the House for any very considerable length of time prior to six o'clock or he would not have made this address. I do not think it is worthy of him, endeavouring to make out of this instance a case of prejudice on the part of members of this House against his province.


Lucien Cannon: If my right hon. friend will allow me, I am not trying to make a case, I am trying to help my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) to modify his position so as not to lend himself to misinterpretation.

Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: I want to assure the hon. member that when his ingenuity is applied to the creation of that misinterpretation, it would take a very skilful man indeed to find a method of avoiding it. He argues that because we apply our objection to this resolution 157 we are consequently animated by prejudice against his province. The objection raised, and the point has been conceded by the minister, was against the practice which developed only in this single instance applied not to resolution 157 but only one' item in it namely: the Grondines wharf. In relation to that the minister admitted that he obtained last year a vote of $12,000 without giving to parliament, or to the committee of parliament, the vital fact that the $12,000 was only for a commencement, and that the whole work would cost $130,000. The protest of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is against that fact. It has not been revealed that that practice was adopted-it may have been but it has not been revealed that it was -except in regard to this Grondines wharf and objection could not be applied to other items in resolution 157, or to resolutions 156 and 154; the ground of objection relates only to the one item. Objections in relation to the Nova Scotia estimates were taken on other grounds and protests were made. It is only in connection with this particular item that we object on the ground stated; and I find some hon. members, in more articulate and dignified form, or more frequently, protesting that we are prejudiced against Nova Scotia. How foolish this is. We object to such a practice. I must commend the minister. He was rather frank in the matter; he admitted it was not the right practice. I accept that statement and only hope it will not be repeated.


Charles Marcil: I have
personal knowledge of what took place when the item for this work was voted last year because I happened to occupy the Chair at that time. The item came up in the Supplementary Estimates in the closing days of the session, and with the exception of one or two questions the whole of the items were adopted without discussion of any kind. It has been the experience for many years when these things are done, that a certain amount is voted to begin the work, and the work is continued the year following, and so on, until the contract is completed. It has been suggested here over and over again that we might adopt a system, which I am told exists in England, by which when the estimates are prepared and a new work is undertaken a statement is made out showing the details of the work, what it will cost and so on, and
the members can see at a glance exactly how the matter stands. If members will look through Hansard in past years they will find that with respect to any particular item very little information is given unless a question has been put concerning it; and the estimates themselves only state the amount to be expended during the year, or the amount voted the year previous. Whether there should not be a change in our present system is a matter which is well worth consideration.
With respect to this particular item I can say with respect to Grondines, which is forty miles from Quebec, that there is there a tide of fifteen feet, and a twelve or fifteen thousand dollar wharf there is out of the question entirely. It is a place much frequented during the summer season by the market boats of Quebec, and by the boats running to the south shore of the St. Lawrence. It has a population of over 8,000 people and is one of the most productive districts situated near the city of Quebec. Not far from Grondines is Donnacona where there is now one of the largest pulp mills in the province. The district is developing very rapidly, and if anything of substantial value in the way of a wharf is to be provided at that particular point, we must construct a wharf that will stand. The tides of the St. Lawrence at that place are tremendous, and a twelve or fifteen thousand dollar wharf is out of the question there.


Arthur Meighen: Does the pulp mill to
which my hon. friend has referred use this wharf ?


Charles Marcil: lit is a
benefit to the district I am told. Grondines is the nearest place to that settlement. As a result of the erection of the pulp mill the whole district is developing very considerably.


Arthur Meighen: Will the pulp mill use
this wharf?


Charles Marcil: I cannot
state that, but I do know that the whole district has benefited very considerably from the erection of the mill in question. I think the committee should adopt this item on the assurance which the minister has given that the matter will be thoroughly investigated, and if the expenditure is not justified no other outlay will be involved except that under the contract now entered into. At a subsequent session, when a further amount will be necessary if the work is to be pursued, the committee with fuller information will be in a position to pass judgment on the matter. I think we should not hastily pronounce on it now with the limited information in our pos-
Supply-Public Works

session, especially when the minister has assured us that the whole matter will be thoroughly investigated.


Hugh Guthrie: With that understanding I have no objection to withdraw my amendment.


Robert Forke: I think the manner in which this vote has been submitted to the House is wrong both in principle and in practice. However, the Minister of Public Works has admitted that it was not a right thing to do and I think we should accept his explanation. I would like to add that I believe the leader of the Opposition and the. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) have done a good service in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee. As I said before I believe it is a wrong practice. I can easily see where the principle might be abused and work carried on from year to year in an irregular manner, if the appropriations could be obtained in such a way without parliament being cognizant of all the facts. I should like very well if the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) would withdraw the amendment, because I will vote for the item as it stands in the estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: I will withdraw it.


Mr. DELISLE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the atttention of the committee to the fact that this wharf will be built in the interest of the agricultural class. Not only the farmers of Grondines have signed a petition requesting the building of this wharf, but also those of the parishes of Deschambault, St. Gilbert, St. Marc des Carrieres, St. Casimir, St. Thuribe, St. Ubalde, and even those of Ste. Anne de la Perade in the adjoining county; as it is far more advantageous for the farmers to carry their products by water than by rail.
I reiterate my statement that the construction of this wharf will especially be to the advantage of the farmers and I express the hope that the committee will approve of this item.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grosse Rouche-wharf repairs, $3,500.
Arthur Meighen: Is this a similar case to the other? I see the item is $3,500, and it was $1,350 last year. What is the estimated expenditure, and why was it not given when the vote was asked for last year?


John Warwick King: The vote last year was for urgent repairs. We are completing a certain amount of work this year to renew
[Mr. Maroil.l
the superstructure of the wharf for the top three or four feet and paint the shed shelter and railing.


Arthur Meighen: Was the work expected to be completed with the $1,350 last year?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: The House should have been informed on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much w7as spent of the $75,000 voted last year?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur Meighen: What was it spent on?


John Warwick King: On small repairs to various structures throughout the province. It is a very long list.


Arthur Meighen: What is the largest
item?


John Warwick King: The items vary from $85 to $916.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
La Malbaie-wharf, $12,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: We should have some explanation of that. Is that in the same category as the Grondines wharf? It is a large sum.


John Warwick King: No, I think not. This is for the construction of a crib and span wharf 299 feet long by 16 feet wide, including the headblock 24 feet by 36 feet.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the work under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is under contract?


James Dew Chaplin: Who is the contractor?


John Warwick King: J. O. Poliquin.


Arthur Meighen: Were tenders called for?


John Warwick King: Yes, this was the lowest tender. There were some eight tenders in all.


Arthur Meighen: How much was the contract for? What is the estimated cost of the entire work?


John Warwick King: The contract is for $10,889.45 and inspection and contingencies $1,100, making $11,989.45.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Lavaltrie-reconstruction of wharf and approach, $2,300.
Arthur Meighen: Last year's item was all spent, was it?


John Warwick King: The expenditure last year was $2,796.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lanoraie-wharf construction, $5,500.
Arthur Meighen: Is this by tender?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


James Dew Chaplin: This is one of the items the minister said it was proposed to construct without tender. I would like to ask if he is ready to reconsider that proposition.


John Warwick King: No, I could not state that I am. The report that I have would indicate this work can be done better by day labour, and pending further inquiries I am not sure that I could suggest that a change should be made. That is the recommendation I have before me.


Arthur Meighen: It is reconstruction-no difficulty in telling what is to be done. It may be better politically, but not better commercially.


John Warwick King: I think that is hardly fair. This work consists in the removal of timber all around the headblock down to extreme low water level, in building a reinforced concrete wall all around the head-block and in laying a six-inch concrete flooring on the whole surface of headblock and bridge. It is a question of removing old work and renewal. I imagine that as the work progresses there will be an opportunity for the engineer in charge to guide his expenditure by what he finds in the removing.


Mr. BOYS:: Where is the wharf and what vessels use it?


John Warwick King: It is in the county of Berthier. Besides the Rita B and the Three Rivers, which stop there occasionally with excursionists the steamboat Soulanges calls regularly twice a week and colected during the last navigation season more than $2,500 in freight. Several barges of hay are also shipped yearly from this wharf and during the last few years many barges of stone and gravel have been unloaded there every year for the maintenance of the Quebee-Mont-real highway.


William Alves Boys: Is this inland or tidal water?


John Warwick King: It is on the St. Lawrence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L'Islet-wharf repairs, $23,500.
Arthur Meighen: This is apparently a remarkable case. Last year the vote, without explanation too, was $1,500. Now the minister asks for $23,500. Why was parliament not informed that the appropriation involved this expenditure?


John Warwick King: Last year, we made just small repairs to the flooring of the wharf. The report of the engineer this year would indicate that it is necessary to replace 80,000 feet of face timbers, 60,000 feet of cross ties, 15,000 feet of longitudinals, 65,000 feet of stringers, 100,000 feet of 3-inch flooring, and 500 square yards of gravel surface.


James Dew Chaplin: This is another case similar to those as regards which the minister told us a little while ago the work would be done by day labour. This is surely a work that should be done by contract.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, allow me to add a few remarks in regard to the vote for repairs to the wharf of L'lslet. It would astonish me if the House paid more attention to statements emanating from a member who resides hundreds, nay, thousands of miles distant from my county, rather than be guided by information which I can personally extend. The leader of the Opposition, just now, told us that the vote of $23,500 was a similar case to the one of $50,000 asked for on behalf of Grondines. Well, Sir. if parliament is called upon, to-day, to vote such a large sum, it is due to the fact that the government, while the leader of the Opposition was at the helm, neglected to carry out the necessary repairs to this wharf. The wharf at L'Islet dates back over a hundred years. It serves as a refuge harbour and is utilized by three or four hundred farmers. Goods to the amount pf a $1,000,000 consisting of farm products and lumber are carried over it each year. At present five parishes handle at this wharf both the products they ship and the goods they import. The public works could, I think, economize considerably, and, one of the first ways to do so would be to carry out the necessary work at the proper time and thereby not allow public property to deteriorate as it has unfortunately happened during a certain number of years, especially down on the lower St. Lawrence. One of the reasons why this work is so costly is that the government is obliged to buy its lumber in the summer season. If it was possible to have the
Supply-Public Works

lumber prepared by the farmers in winter, it would not only be an economy but at the same time a help to the rural class. Not only the present system of carrying out the work is of a more costly nature but it has for effect, in many cases, to delay the work for more than a year.
I sincerely regret that the majority of my hon. friends on the other side are not able to understand me; but I can assure them that my remarks have been made in a very good spirit, and that the money that will be voted for the wharf at L'Islet will be spent as economically as possible.


William Alves Boys: I have had a little experience in my part of the world as regards the construction of wharves, and I know the most costly wharf we have, one of very considerable proportions, cost from $12,000 to $15,000. Now we find an appropriation of $23,500 asked for, not for construction, but for repairs only. I should think that would not repair,
9 p.m. but construct a fairly large and very substantial wharf. We ought to know something of the size of this wharf, the nature of its construction, whether tenders have been called for and, if so, the amount of the tenders.


John Warwick King: The wharf is 1,104 feet in length. The work comprises:
Gravel surface, 500 sq. yards, at 50 cents per
yard	 $	250
Face timbers, 12 x 12-80,000 ft. board measure
at $80	 6,400
Cross ties, 12 x 12-60,000 ft	 4,800
Longitudinals, 10 x 10-15,000 ft	 900
Stringers, 9 x 12-65,000	ft	 3,900
Flooring, 100,000 ft	 5,000
Total	 $21,250
Contingencies	 2,250


William Alves Boys: What is the width of the wharf?


John Warwick King: The report of the engineer reads:
After consulting a number of merchants, I have come to the conclusion that the traffic from May to November
will be as follows:
Drygoods	 $550,000
Pulp wood	 90,000
Firewood	 75,000
Agricultural	products	 125,000
Bricks	 25,000
Miscellaneous	 15,000
Total	 $880,000
All going over the wharf.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the government get any wharf charges for this traffic?


John Warwick King: Wherever a wharf is turned over to the Marine department and a wharfinger is appointed, some revenue is collected. I have not that data here, and I am not sure as regards this wharf.


James Dew Chaplin: A little while ago I asked the minister if he would reconsider his determination and allow this work to be done by tender. I did not receive an answer.


John Warwick King: In view of the discussion which has taken place to-day, I purpose reviewing the situation; but the recommendation I have before me from the chief engineer is that this work can be done more economically and better by day labour than by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Matane harbour improvements, $100,000.
William Alves Boys: It must be apparent that hon. members should receive the very information which the minister gave us regarding the last item. I personally thank him for giving that information. It has an effect on me at once and I realize that the wharf at L'lslet is one of very considerable importance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Alves Boys: This work of improving the harbour at Matane is of considerable importance, and it is surely not the desire of hon. members opposite that these items should be rushed through without any information being given.


John Warwick King: I was on my feet about as soon as my hon. friend, with the intention of giving some information regarding this matter. This expenditure is required towards a fairly large project-the improvement of the harbour at Matane. It has been under the special study of an investigating board of five Public Works' engineers in charge of the assistant chief engineer on the understanding that if it were found practicable to build the harbour required we would ask for an estimate. The board of engineers have reported favourably. It is not a new project, it has been before the department for some years, but it has always been considered as a very large expenditure for the public benefit' to be gained. Representations were made again last year. They were not entertained. But during the interval between last session and this session one of the large would-be users of this proposed harbour-the Hammermill Paper Company who are operating large pulp limits in this district-advised the department that they were prepared to contribute practically 50 per cent of the cost.

Supply-Public Works
Matane is situated between Rimouski and Gaspe, a distance of about 150 miles, on a very bleak coast, and it is important that we have a harbour of refuge to accommodate that extensive coast line. Large undertakings in the way of fishing and lumbering are being carried on and there is a very heavy marine traffic on the river. Having received a bona fide proposition from the Hammermill Paper Company to pay to the government $10,000 a year for twelve years towards the cost of this work-estimated to amount to about $210,000-or to pay a lump sum of $100,000, we carefully investigated local conditions and fully considered the offer. As a result it is felt by the department and by the government that in the interests of the community at Matane and of the mariners who use the river, it would be good business for the people of Canada to supplement the cash offer and construct a harbour at Matane. Matane itself is a prosperous community.


William Alves Boys: What is it, a village or a town?


John Warwick King: A small town of
3,500	people, but there is a scattered population throughout the parish of approximately 7,000. Large lumbering operations are being carried on in the district. The Hammermill Paper Company have a very large pulp mill at this point and intimate that they will carry on operations over a term of twenty or twenty-five years, paying in wages some $300,000 per annum. In addition to its local industries Matane is the base for the operations of the big pulp and paper companies on the north shore. The St. Lawrence broadens out at this point and there is a very large expanse of water down beyond Rimouski, so that it is very important for the men who earn their livelihood along this bleak coast line to have a harbour of refuge between Rimouski and Gaspe.
This matter has been carefully considered not only departmentally, but by the government and by special committee of council, and the government has reached the, conclusion that arrangements should be entered into with the Hammermill Paper Company and the work undertaken. So far as the company are concerned, they have already deposited $35,000 in cash and given a bond for the balance, the money to be paid over by them as the expenditure is made from time to time by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no natural harbour at this point as I understand from the minister. Are the Hammermill Paper Company actually in operation?


John Warwick King: Yes, the government have a harbour there. Last year $15,000 was voted for improvements, but this larger project having been put forward we have only expended $11,000 of that amount.


William Alves Boys: Was last year's the first expenditure for harbour improvements at this point?


John Warwick King: The work has been going on for many years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister give the committee an outline of the proposed new works?


John Warwick King: There will be considerable dredging at the entrance to the channel, 134,000 cubic yards, estimated to cost $60,000; dredging at the turning basin, 155,000 cubic yards, estimated to cost $69,750; extension to eastern breakwater $40,320; dredging for crib seats, 1,000 cubic yards, estimated to cost $450; foundation crib for beacon, $2,550; crib work wharf connecting old wharf and western breakwater, $26,000; pile protection work, etc., $2,500. The total expenditure will amount to $201,875.


Mr. PELLETIER:: This item refers to work in my riding, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to add a little to the information which the hon. minister has so well conveyed to the committee. We have no place where vessels can shelter between Rimouski and Gaspe, and this has resulted in considerable loss of life and property year after year. The various companies operating on the north shore are: Ontario Paper Company at Franquelin, Shelter Bay and Maniquagan; North Eastern Pulp and Paper Company at Maniquagan, which has bought 3,000,000 acres of land and intends to build a pulp mill at a cost of between $6,000,000 and $7,000,000; Franquelin Lumber Company at Franquelin; St. Regis Paper Company at Godbout; Gulf Pulp and Paper Company at Clarke City, and H. F. Amory at Mingan. Several of these companies are waiting for the construction of this harbour in order that they may be able to bring their product across and ship it by rail from this point. The construction of this wharf will afford better transport facilities; it will increase the traffic of the Canadian National Railways as well as of the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway. The minister has mentioned the Hammermill Company; I may say that Price Brothers are also operating at Matane and I know that Sir William Price himself is in favour of these harbour improvements. The minister has fully explained this vote and it it not necessary for me to repeat what he has said.
Supply-Public Works

Mr. HANSON1: Is it intended to do any export business here, or will it be local traffic along and across the St. Lawrence?


John Warwick King: It will accommodate both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What export traffic will there be?


John Warwick King: Pulpwood.


François Jean Pelletier: Price Brothers are exporting.


William Alves Boys: Is this expenditure dependent upon an agreement between the company and the department? In other words, is it stipulated that the company must pay $10,000 annually for twelve years as a condition of this vote? To what depth of water is the dredging to extend at low water? Was this work the result of a request by the company, or did the government itself feel that harbour improvements at that point were necessary? It is a little unusual that important works of this kind should be undertaken by the department at the instance of a company who, naturally, would want the work done for their own private, gain. I can appreciate, on the other hand, the fact that such work might be warranted on account of the magnitude of the proposed operations of the company.


François Jean Pelletier: I have been asking for improvements at that harbour since 1917; I have repeated my request every year, but have up to' now been unsuccessful. Petition after petition has been filed each year with the Department of Public Works, but without avail. These petitions were signed by the people of Matane, Ste. Felicite, St. Luc, St. Leandre, St. Ulric, and other communities whose merchants receive their goods through - Matane harbour. There is no proper accommodation for the vessels, and I have seen them at times riding at anchor six or seven abreast. It is high time that something was done to provide proper facilities at that harbour. I have endeavoured for years to have something done in this line, and I have finally succeeded in arranging for the payment of a certain sum by a company interested in development there. As my request year after year met with refusal, I came to the conclusion that if I could not get some assistance from other sources it would be impossible for me to succeed in the object I had in view. So I made a success of it, and I sincerely hope that the item will carry.


William Alves Boys: I am glad for my hon. friend's sake that he has at last found a sympathetic ear. I am not surprised to learn that he did his utmost to secure a grant in the past. For

some eight or ten years, being a supporter of the late government I made many similar requests on behalf of my riding, but as that government was a most economical one, I was unsuccessful, and I am not surprised that my hon. friend also was unsuccessful. It is quite evident now that he is making up for lost time, for he is getting a pretty good chunk. I should be glad, however, if the minister would give us the information we seek.


John Warwick King: It is proposed to have a channel of a depth of nine feet at low water. A great deal of credit is due the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Pelletier) in the matter of securing a contribution from the Flammermill Company; it is due entirely to his efforts that this arrangement has been made. The government like to help those who help themselves. There are times-they rarely occur, of course-when an industry is so interested in development that it can be prevailed upon to contribute something toward the cost of a work like this. The hon. gentleman has succeeded in going much further than is usual in negotiations of this kind. The company will carry on extensive operations, and they believe that with proper harbour facilities their undertakings wTill be successful. The government are taking advantage of their offer and are supplementing their contribution with an equal sum. We believe the result will be to afford a harbour of refuge not only to the people of Matane, but to those of the surrounding country as well.


Donald Sutherland: How much has been spent up to the present time on this harbour?


John Warwick King: Over $121,000 has been expended since the inception of the harbour some years ago.


Donald Sutherland: The minister stated that for many years it had been considered that this large expenditure would not be justified. The hon. member for the constituency makes a very strong plea respecting the need of refuge at this point. But has there not been a harbour there sufficient to give that accommodation to the people?


John Warwick King: No.


Donald Sutherland: The expenditure
seems very large, considering the depth to be obtained in the harbour-nine feet.


John Warwick King: The present harbour could not afford refuge to the larger craft.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the depth now?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Not more than four or five feet, I am advised.


William Alves Boys: Is it hardpan, rough bottom or mud?


John Warwick King: I think it is mud-soft material.
' Item agreed to.
New Carlisle-wharf repairs, $1.200.


James Dew Chaplin: How much was expended on this last year?


John Warwick King: The amount expended last year was S999. The present amount required is to renew 8,000 square feet of three-inch flooring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Peribonka-wharf repairs, $4,650.
Donald Sutherland: I think the committee would like to have some information with regard to these various votes for wharves. I was not aware that there were so many ports in this particular locality. Would the minister give some information to the committee as to what the money is needed for as the items come up?


John Warwick King: I shall be glad to give any information that is requested, but I do not want to block the work of the committee by interjecting unless it is necessary. This expenditure is recommended by the district engineer in order to lower the wharf approximately two feet, to cut some piles that are decaying, replace stringers and flooring. Apparently it is a necessary expenditure.


Donald Sutherland: Is the work to be done by day labour or contract?


John Warwick King: This being repair work, I presume it will be done by day labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Going back for a moment to the harbour improvements at Matane, is that work to be done by tender?


John Warwick King: Yes. The contract has not yet been let.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. [DOT]
Piche Point-wharf repairs and improvements, $1,500.
William Alves Boys: What in the world is wrong with all these wharves? Are they all going to rack and ruin since my hon. friends opposite came into power? There are no less than forty-nine votes for wharf repairs or improvements, aggregating $572,785. What is the trouble? Why is it that so many of these wharves are needing attention all of a sudden?


Mr. CAHILL:: We were in opposition before.


Mr. BELAND:: There is such a river as the St. Lawrence.


John Warwick King: I do not think the list is larger than usual. These are not new works.


William Alves Boys: I do not suggest that they are new. They are repairs.


John Warwick King: These items are mainly for repairs and maintenance. There is an annual upkeep in connection with these wharves. It will be remembered, of course, that during the war many of these works were allowed to go without the usual repairs and we are now getting them back into a normal condition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Point au Pic, Murray Bay-wharf repairs, $18,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this for the large pier at Murray Bay? Is that pier owned by the Dominion government?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There must be a very considerable revenue from that wharf.


John Warwick King: I have not the information as to the revenue. This work is owned by the Dominion government. Large steamers call at the pier.


Hugh Guthrie: Is it proposed to do this work by day labour or by contract?


John Warwick King: Apparently we
have not received a recommendation from the engineer with regard to this work, so I am not in a position to say. It is a large amount, and evidently it would be preferable to have it done by contract.


Hugh Guthrie: I would think it would be preferable, but some works for which we have passed large amounts the engineer is evidently of the opinion should be done by day labour. Murray Bay is a place of considerable importance, particularly in the summer time, and there must be many competent contractors there. It is a place of fine residences and fine buildings. I think at a point like that the engineer should not hesitate to recommend that the work be done by contract.


John Warwick King: I would imagine it will be done by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-fuoiic Works
[Stage Direction]
Pointe a Elie-Magdalen Islands-wharf repairs and improvements, $5,850.
James Dew Chaplin: How much of last year's vote of $11,400 was spent? It looks to me as if these wharves were getting worn out very fast. I wonder if it is because of all the shells and boxes that are being moved over them.


John Warwick King: The amount expended last year was $9,000.


James Dew Chaplin: And it is proposed to spend nearly $6,000 this year. What is in contemplation? Is there any more to follow next year?


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge of that. Apparently they are trying to get the wharf into a state of repair. It is proposed to build a shed, and to extend the breastwork for a length of 150 feet, and to renew the stringers.


James Dew Chaplin: Is this work to be done by tender or day labour?


John Warwick King: It is recommended that it be done by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe aux Trembles-wharf repairs, $15,200.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this one of those cases where a large undertaking was started without information being given to the House as to the ultimate cost? I do not think there should be much criticism of the previous item for repairs to the wharf in the Magdalen Islands, for anything we can do to better the condition of these people should be done, as they are very isolated. But that is not the case with the item under consideration. This is a very large amount. You must be rebuilding this wharf, or building two or three wharves, judging by the amount. You are spending $40,000 in two years. It does occur to me that some very considerable explanation ought to be given to the House as to why $25,000 was asked and probably spent last year, and why it is necessary to ask for almost as much again this year. The money is being largely wasted, I presume.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend has not got that right. If he will look at the vote again he will find that we are asking for a revote of $15,200. The contract was let for $21,266 and there are contingencies, $2,234, making a total of $23,500. The probable expenditure for 1922-23 is $8,300 on the contract leaving a balance of $15,200 as the revote this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To complete the work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The vote last year was $25,000 for this. It is all marked for repairs?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How could the repairs to a wharf cost $25,000. The wharves that have been brought to my attention, seemingly pretty -large ones, cost about half of that to build new. Is it not merely a re-constructed wharf?


John Warwick King: It is not. .


Arthur Meighen: It is not? How much has this wharf cost up to date, how much has been the capital cost to the country of this wharf up to the present time?


John Warwick King: In June 1904 a contract was entered into for the construction at a cost of $33,775. The construction cost $32,944, and since that date $14,308.75 has been expended in repairs.


Arthur Meighen: There has been $46,000 spent on it up to this new venture in repairs?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Forty-six thousand and $25,000 more, seventy-one thousand odd dollars in capital cost outside- of interest. Now, will the minister tell us how much revenue has ever been collected from it?


John Warwick King: I cannot tell, I have not the information. That might be secured, but these wharves are not revenue producing, as a rule, as my hon. friend knows.


Arthur Meighen: I am not saying anything as to that now but I would like to know the exact situation. Commencement was made apparently in 1904 and up to now, including the repairs under way, it has cost $71,000. Could the minister not give us an approximate estimate of the revenue collected from that wharf?


John Warwick King: The Department of Public Works would not know what the collections are. I will inquire from the Marine department what revenues they are collecting.


Arthur Meighen: Would it amount to anything appreciable at all?


John Warwick King: I do not think it.


Arthur Meighen: Practically nothing.


John Warwick King: Not very much I think.


Arthur Meighen: Now, let me put this to the minister: Does he know of any reason why public works of this sort, that are utilized in trade, should not pay a reasonable interest on

Supply-Public Works
the cost? Does he know why they should not when, say, government elevators that are utilized in trade are compelled to pay interest on their cost? Will the minister explain the principle that distinguishes the one class from the other? What is the reason for applying one yard stick to one class and a different kind of yard stick to another?


John Warwick King: I have no objection to my hon. friend making representations of that character. He knows well that his government-


Arthur Meighen: I know that.


John Warwick King: - did not advocate such a policy, and this government has not been carrying out a policy of that character either. It is a matter of policy. We know that in many of these country communities it would be subjecting the people to great hardship to collect wharfage charges for package freight.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am very much interested in the minister's statement because our farmers in New Brunswick pay wharfage charges for loading their potatoes on the wharf at St. John, and I do not see why we should have to pay such charges if farmers in other places are not paying for the same service. In this connection, Mr Chairman, it is just possible I am hardly in' order, but due to the fact that I was serving on a committee which sat this afternoon I was not in the chamber when the estimates for New Brunswick were under consideration, and therefore I would ask the minister if it is proposed to bring down any estimate for the breakwater in St. John harbour called the Negro Point breakwater. This is a very great necessity. It is not, like some of the works we have had under consideration to-night, a local work. St. John is the winter port of the East for the whole shipping of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, Halifax.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend called attention to Halifax. Well, there is a little place called Halifax from which they ship a few apples. But I still contend that St. John is the winter port, not because it is a bigger place or that the harbour is possibly better than that of Halifax, but due to the fact that St. John is nearer the bulk of freight that is sent east for ocean shipment. We have a condition there of such a character that unless this breakwater is built we shall not benefit from the wharves constructed by the government. There is a dock already constructed, I think it is dock 17, on which there is no building as yet, and it will be useless to
construct sheds on that dock to handle traffic until the breakwater in question is built. The government have already constructed the foundation but the wharf is so exposed to the weather that until the Negro Point breakwater is built it will be very little used as a freight handling proposition. I do hope the government will bring down a supplementary estimate to take care of the Negro Point breakwater.
Now as to the point I spoke of first: Our farmers this year have been getting only a dollar a barrel for potatoes that cost them $2.50 a barrel. We have been getting less than 50 per cent of the cost of growing, and still we have been paying wharfage on our shipments over the wharf and through the shed the government provided for us this year and which we appreciate, I can assure the minister. Still I would like to insist that if this kind of traffic is not charged for over other government wharves, we should be refunded the money that we have paid this year and be relieved of the charge in the future.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend is probably under a misconception. In the larger ports undoubtedly there must be wharfage charges made. It is in the small outlying communities w'here the individual brings his package to the wharf, or takes it from the wharf, where fees are probably not collected. In the case of the larger ports charges must be made for the freight or traffic going over the wharves.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I realize that it is
the practice but I am still not convinced of the justice of it. It is the same class of freight absolutely, and I doubt if there is very much freight handled out of Canada to-day that is paying the producer as little as potatoes are paying the New Brunswick farmer. As I said before we have not received over a dollar a barrel of 165 pounds for our crop of potatoes this year and it cost us $2.50 to grow them. Still we are paying wharfage fees when farmers who happen to live at smaller points of shipment apparently are not paying these fees.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the practice outlined by the minister is all right. The two cases are not analogous at all. The one case is the case of a small farmer bringing down his little cart load of stuff to send to the market, and the other case is that of a great export trade which runs into hundreds and thousands of dollars. As a matter of fact you never could collect wharfage on these little shipments, and nobody would ever be foolish enough to try it.
Supply-Public Works


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is a matter of principle.


James Dew Chaplin: In the case of the particular item under discussion, what is the nature of the traffic over this wharf? .


John Warwick King: There are about
5,500	inhabitants. The exports are largely farm products; there having been exported last year 75,000 bushels of potatoes and 20,000 bushels of other vegetables; 80,000 pounds of butter; 800 head of cattle; $100,000 worth of pork, and 80,000 baskets of fruit.


Mr. MILLAR:: I believe there are thirty-five of these wharves items in which money is expended to repair wharves. In some cases it is mentioned as "wharves repaired"-just a little variety. How many of these have had to pay any interest at all? I was thinking it was rather strange that so much money was being expended without any thought that the people using those facilities should pay the interest thereon, as has been pointed out by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. In the case of grain elevators and similar facilities we expect to pay a rate that will enable them to pay their way. An hon. member on the other side was referring to the fact that he had asked the government on several occasions to have these improvements made, and now that he had succeeded in his request I could not help thinking of the times that the farmers in certain districts-not one but many-have asked for branch lines that were already graded to be completed. In many cases the ties and rails were lying there ready to be laid down, and yet they ' have been refused. Surely it is not good business. However, I will not discuss that matter now, but I hope the same generosity as is shown by the government at this time, in going forward with new work because it seems to be needed, will be exhibited when the Minister of Railways brings down his estimates and we take up the discussion of branch lines.


Lucien Cannon: Do the railways ,out west pay any more interest on the capital invested than the railways in these other provinces?


Arthur Meighen: The western railways pay all right, but it is the hon. member's "idols of the past" built in between that do not pay.


John Millar: I assure hon. members that the railways in the West are the railways above all others in the Dominion that help to make the dividends.


Mr. PARENT:: Is that the case of the Hudson Bay?


John Millar: Yes, there has been a grant set aside for the building of that line for many years back.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I can give my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) a case in which one of these wharves has brought some revenue to the country. We have a small wharf in my own constituency that cost the government $22,000. It was built 21 years ago, and since that time it has afforded free wharfage to 1,500 fishermen. It has been the means of bringing to the railways of this country an average of 365 carloads of freight every year. This shows what a small wharf built in a fishing section can bring to this country in the way of revenue. I believe that, so far as wharf accommodation is concerned, it should be left free to the fishermen. I think the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has overlooked the fact that for the past 50 years, in fact since confederation, the fishermen of this country have enjoyed free wharfage on all the wharves built in the Dominion of Canada, and I believe that money spent for the building of wharves at the gateway of the country is money spent, to the advantage, not only to the fishermen of eastern Canada, but of the agriculturists of western Canada and all the provilnces of this Dominion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am not rising to criticize the estimates at the present time, but to make a suggestion, which suggestion was made and acted upon in this House two years ago, when the little group I belonged to occupied a small pen down in the corner, where they could not hear anything when the estimates were going through.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member calls it a pen.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: At that time we asked that the minister when putting through his estimates might move down nearer the middle of the chamber. The "not still small voice" at all, but the voice of New Brunswick reminded me that some hon. members down in that end of the chamber do not hear a word of what is going on up here, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works, and the other ministers who still have their estimates to put through, if they would adopt that suggestion. We in this section of the House are entitled to hear everything that is going on, but a great many hon. members do not hear anything at all.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite aware that the government is only practising what has been practised since confederation, but inasmuch as of recent years we have extended

Supply-Public Works
government activities into other spheres of public utility, such as grain elevators, it would appear to me pretty hard to account for treating the two cases differently, and if it is essential for the wharf to be maintained, it looks to me as if that principle can fairly be extended to government elevators. Those elevators feed the railways, as well as the wharves, and infinitely more so, in fact. When I was a minister and was asked to explain why we adopted a policy, I at least tried to do so. I am afraid the Minister of Public Works has felt himself unequal to the task on this occasion. He has sought rather to jockey his estimates through without giving us an explanation.


Jacques Bureau: That is hardly a fair statement.


John Warwick King: I hardly think
that is correct. I have made myself very clear. In the larger sections where we have a wharf there is a charge made, but in the smaller districts it would not pay the government to hire a wharfinger to collect the charges, and it would only be a source of annoyance to the people, and I do not think he will recommend such a policy to be adopted throughout the country.


Arthur Meighen: Is the charge in the case of large wharves representative of the interest on the cost at all, or is it merely negligible?


John Warwick King: I am not advised as to that. The matter of charges is in the Marine department. I have no doubt that information could be had, but I have not got it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe Shea (Amherst)-Magdalen Islands-repairs to pier, $5,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: No, it is not under contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Repentigny-wharf improvements, $3,400.
Arthur Meighen: What is this?


John Warwick King: It is a repair or improvement to the old construction. The old crib structure will be protected by dumping stone on each side of it. The top of this stone will be hand rip-rapped on a slope of one in one from the new slope built along the approach up to the headblock. A concrete wall three feet thick at the base and
eighteen inches at the top will be built. The
estimated cost is:
Stone	 $1,650
Concrete	 600
Riprapping	 700
Demolishing of concrete, inspection and contingencies	 440
Total	 $3,390


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski wharf reconstruction, $20,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this under contract? Last year $15,000 was voted. Will this appropriation of $20,000 complete the work of reconstruction? What is the nature of the work?	[DOT]


John Warwick King: This expenditure is required to rebuild upon its whole side and for a length of 115 feet, the easterly wing of the old wharf which was destroyed by a storm in September, 1922. The construction is to be " closed face," and its easterly face pile sheathed. The work is to be done by day labour.


Donald Sutherland: Where is all this labour being obtained? Is any attempt being made to bring labourers into this country to do all this work?


John Warwick King: I think the work is being done largely by day labour.


William Alves Boys: I should like to make a little correction. A few minutes ago, in speaking of these estimates which I observe total $572,000,
I mentioned that the total number of items was 48. I observe now that was the number on page 38 of the Estimates and the total number is 75, or, in other words, one item for every single member and senator from Quebec. It is evident that most of these hon. members are in their places, and I congratulate them on their splendid attendance to-night. I notice, as certain items are passed, certain gentlemen leave the chamber. By the time we reach the bottom of the list, I do not believe there will be a quorum on the other side of the House.


Lucien Cannon: Would the hon. gentleman point out any item in my constituency?


William Alves Boys: No doubt the hon. member's turn is coming.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is being overlooked.


William Alves Boys: In this proposed expenditure amounting to over $509,000, there must be something entirely wrong if there is not an item for the hon. member. I understood that

Supply-Public Works

this was a time of economy, and that this government of all governments was proposing to practise economy. I have before 10 p.m. me the estimates of this department for the province of Quebec in the year 1921-22, and I observe that the total then was 8303,000. In the estimates before us the total is $572,000. In Ontario, a somewhat important province, in the year 1921-22, the total was $370,000. The total for 1922-23, or last year, when the government got its first opportunity of practising economy was $643,000, and this year, it is $463,000.


Lucien Cannon: A decrease.


William Alves Boys: We may be getting economy in some departments although we have not seen it yet, and it is quite evident that economy does not exist in this department, certainly not in connection with the province of Quebec. Item agreed to.
Riviere du Lievre- Lock and dam-reconstruction of protection walls, $10,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this to be done by day labour? It occurs to me that if the country knew that so much of this work was being done by day labour, in face of protestation of hon. members opposite when they were in opposition, the country would be greatly shocked. I have an impression that a very large portion of this expenditure is wasted on account of the work being done under that principle. I do not say that there is any corruption or anything of that sort; but we all know that under day work for governments, you do not get a good day's work for a day's pay. The minister ought to direct his attention to endeavouring, especially on these larger items, to see if he cannot get this work done by tender. I had some experience in municipal work in days gone by, and I would not think of spending sums amounting to from $18,000 to $25,000 on reconstruction, without seeing first what could be done by way of tender.


Frank S. Cahill: What province was that in?


Richard Burpee Hanson: New Brunswick.


Lucien Cannon: The boys like it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the secret of the whole situation. The hon. member for Dorchester has revealed the whole scheme.


John Warwick King: This particular item is under contract. I do not think it would be wise for me to repeat my argument in reply to remarks which the hon. member has made on numerous occasions this evening.
I know that in the case of renewals and re-
pairs, the department can, at times, do work more advantageously by day labour than by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roberval wharf repairs, $4,000.
Donald Sutherland: Would the minister give the committee some information regarding these matters? Those of us who live in some of the other provinces are not familiar with these localities and their requirements.


John Warwick King: This is in the
Chicoutimi-Saguenay district. It is recommended by the district engineer. The work comprises:
Renewal of flooring, 30,000 feet, board measure $1,500
Renewal of 10	x	10-stringers,	15,000 ft	 900
Renewing 12 x 12 cross ties and longitudinals,
15,000 ft	 900
Repairs to hoist	apparatus,	painting	 200
Contingencies	 500
Total	$4,000


Donald Sutherland: What is the nature and volume of shipping at this point?


John Warwick King: Roberval is situated on the west side of lake St. John and has about 2,000 inhabitants. It is the business centre of the region.


James Dew Chaplin: Is this work to be done under contract or by day labour? Straight work, such as the minister has described, is eminently work that should be done by contract.


John Warwick King: I think this is recommended for day labour.


Donald Sutherland: What rate of wages is paid, by the day or by the hour?


John Warwick King: The foreman is,
I think, paid by the month and labour by the hour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What wages is the minister paying for ordinary labour on work like this?


John Warwick King: That depends on the locality. We pay the prevailing wage in the district.


William Alves Boys: Does the minister pay more
for day labour in one part of Canada than another?


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend understands that contracts for public works have a clause Btating that the prevailing rate is paid, and that is the rate that is paid by the government.

Supply-Public Works


James Dew Chaplin: Some work was done on this last year, so that the minister can surely tell us the wages paid on the last job and the prevailing rate.


John Warwick King: I have not the wages paid, but I can assure my hon. friend they were at the prevailing rate in the district. The work included renewal of floors and stringers to a length of 250 feet. The foreman was paid $5 per working day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Anne des Monts-reconstruction of training pier, $11,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is a training pier?


John Warwick King: A pier to train or direct the current.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is this place, and what does the work consist of?


Frank S. Cahill: Carried.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. We are not unduly critical, we are mindful of the "boys," but we want a little information.


John Warwick King: It is in Gaspe county. The pier is also used by coasting schooners and lighters in shipping lumber. Four steamers ply weekly between Quebec and the principal ports of the Gaspe peninsula. The lumber shipments alone amount to $800,000.
Mr. CHAPLIN; How much of last year's vote of $8,600 was spent?


John Warwick King: The whole amount was spent-or probably will be spent.


James Dew Chaplin: Will this $11,000 complete the work, or is it just a regular hand-out year after year to the "boys" that we hear about?


John Warwick King: That is an unfair and improper statement. These works are necessary public works,'and I am informed by our officials that the expenditure is proper. The information I gave a moment ago should indicate to my hon. friend that this is not a hand-out. When you get $800,000 worth of business going out of a harbour, it is certainly important that that harbour should be kept in shape.


Charles Marcil: It is only fair to the county of Gaspe, represented by His Honour the Speaker, to say that Ste. Anne des Monts is the largest settlement on the south shore of the St. Lawrence in that county, with a population of over 2,000. It is a rough mountainous country, without-communication except by the maritime road which skirts the shore and which
62i
was built and is maintained by the province.
I think this small grant is money well employed, especially when it is remembered that the locality is deprived of all railway communication, the nearest railway station being at Matane, thirty miles away. I think if the Speaker were here he would be able to convince the committee of the wisdom of this expenditure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much money has been spent at this point in the last twenty-five years?


Lucien Cannon: It may be well to mention that this place has been known as a harbour for several years-Jacques Cartier landed there.


John Warwick King: The amount expended is $172,000. I do not know whether that dates from the time Jacques Cartier landed there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: During the last ten years?


John Warwick King: During the last thirty or forty years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: During the last two years the equivalent of a bonus of $5 a head has been handed to the 2,000 people in that locality. On the' same basis it would have cost this country millions of dollars to look after the rest of the people on the St. Lawrence river.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for York-Sunbury should remember that these people have, no railway communication whatever. They have seen railways spring up all over Canada, and have contributed their share of the building costs, without receiving any direct benefit. The nearest railway point is Matane, thirty miles away, and this small wharf is the only facility they have for carrying on their business. If the hon. member resided at Ste. Anne des Monts I am confident he would consider the money well spent,


William Alves Boys: What bothers me is this: The minister asked last year for $8,600 for repairs . to this pier. I presume inquiry was made at that time and it was found that that expenditure would complete the work then contemplated. If that estimate was accurate, I cannot understand why the minister now asks for another $11,000 for the same work. Are we to understand that this is not a sufficient sum to complete the repairs and that next year the minister will come back for a further sum to finish work that perhaps should have been completed this year? There have been a number of items of this kind, and if the work is properly estimated I cannot see why
Supply-Public Works

there should be any necessity for these further expenditures. One can understand a fourth or fifth of this amount being required, but this is quite a large item.


John Warwick King: Urgent repairs
were made last year. It is proposed this year to build the shore end of the training wall- a different portion entirely.


William Alves Boys: But was not that as necessary last year as this year?


John Warwick King: The engineer did not report it as necessary last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have we any assurance that this vote will fix the pier up for some years, or may we expect a request for another handout next year?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Alexis-wharf repairs, $8,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that a contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: Was the $15,000 in last
year's estimates also under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes. $3,500 has been spent on the contract. This is a re-vote of $8,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Charles-wharf reconstruction, $1,300.
Mr. SUTHERLAND f- Where is this wharf located?
John Warwick King: St. Hyacinthe-
Rouville county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Jean d'Orleans-repairs to wharf, $2,250.
James Dew Chaplin: How much of last year's
estimate was spent?


John Warwick King: We spent $3,008.50.


James Dew Chaplin: Under contract?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
ISt. Michel de Bellechasse-repairs to wharf, $16,000.
William Alves Boys: Last year $40,500 was voted for this work, and this year the vote is $16,000, of which only $4,000 is a revote. That makes $52,000, which seems to me to be a very large sum for repairs. The committee should have some information regarding this large expenditure.


John Warwick King: The amount asked for this year is to complete a contract entered into last year for $31,111. To that we add inspection and contingencies, $3,100; total,

$34,000 odd. The expenditure on this contract in 1922-23 was $18,500, and $16,000 is now asked to complete the contract.


William Alves Boys: Surely the minister must be wrong there. If he was able to secure a contract for $32,000 when the cost was expected to be $40,500, I congratulate him, but if that was the case and the money was not spent, the minister actually had more money than he needed, and the whole of this item should be a revote. The revote, however, is stated here to be only $4,000. Moreover, if the minister has $40,500 already voted, he has until the 31st of March to spend it, and if the contract calls for only $32,000 he should have a balance of $8,000 on hand and should not now be in need of anything.


John Warwick King: The explanation here is not quite as clear as it might be. 1 find that there were two contracts, the first for $31,111 and the second for $18,600. The second was necessitated through recent damages to the wharf.
Mr. BOY'S: That information satisfies me at once. That shows a total of about $49,600, and the difference between that and the $52,000 of which I spoke is made up by extras. In other words, instead of getting the contract for $32,000, the minister has entered into two contracts totalling $49,000, and finds he still needs another $3,000 to clear himself.


John Millar: I have been tempted to ask a question, and I hope the minister will not think I am offensive in doing so. It is addressed more particularly to hon. members from Quebec, and I hardly expect an answer to it. I was wondering whether the excessive moisture in that province owing to the lack of prohibition had anything to do with the rapid decay of these many wharves. I would like to ask the minister if in view of the large expenditure on many of these wharves this year, it will be possible to make heavy cuts in expenditure next year?


John Warwick King: The work being done should be of a permanent character, but my hon. friend will realize that these structures are subject to very great pressure from ice runs in the spring and often great damage is thus caused.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Omer-wharf reconstruction, $6,600.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Ville Marie-wharf repairs, $1,450.
James Dew Chaplin: I notice last year we voted 82,400 for this work. Will the amount asked for this year complete the work?


John Warwick King: This is the amount the engineers are asking for repairs. It is to be used for 20,000 feet of new flooring, and to supply wheel guards for two lines of traffic, and to paint the wharf capping.


Donald Sutherland: What body of water is this wharf located in?


Frank S. Cahill: Lake Timiskaming.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario harbours and rivers-Bayfield-repairs to piers, $4,750.
Arthur Meighen: What constituency is this in?


John Warwick King: South Huron.


James Dew Chaplin: Is this work under contract?


James Horace King: I think it will be done by day labour.


James Dew Chaplin: How much was expended of the vote last year?


John Warwick King: 84,034.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: Who had the overseeing of the contract last year?


John Warwick King: Murdock Ross was the foreman last year.


Donald Sutherland: How far is this
wharf from the city of Goderich, and what is the nature of the shipping at this point?


George Black: I might tell the hon. member that nine fishing fleets go out from Bayfield harbour to fish on the lake. A year ago part of this wharf was taken away.


Arthur Meighen: What took it away?


George Black: A storm.


Hugh Guthrie: Is this to complete the work started last year or is it additional work?


John Warwick King: It is to complete the reconstruction of the inner pier and also for repairs to superstructure requiring 4,080 . feet, board measure, lumber costing 8480. To complete the reconstruction of the inner end of the pier will require 84,250.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the amount asked for this year be sufficient to complete the whole job?


John Warwick King: That is the report of the engineer.


Donald Sutherland: How much of this is for dredging?


John Warwick King: It is not for dredging.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Big Bay Point-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Hugh Guthrie: I think we ought to have some explanation of this item.


William Alves Boys: We have now come to the garden of Eden. This wharf is in the well-known county of Simcoe. All I am concerned in is to find out whether or not the item provides for the removal of a sunken vessel about which I have had occasion to write to the department. There is a sunken vessel there which has been a source of danger to navigation and certainly should be removed, and if the item provides for that


John Warwick King: It does.


William Alves Boys: I am glad to hear it.


Hugh Guthrie: Upon whose recommendation is this expenditure made? Is it asked for by the member or the engineer?


John Warwick King: The engineer
makes the recommendation.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the recommendation?


John Warwick King: This amount is asked for by District Engineer Wilson to repair damage done wharf by ice pressure and sunken wreck, and to reqiove this wreck.


Lucien Cannon: Does the department draw any revenue from this wharf?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Blind River-wharf reconstruction, $21,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this to be done by contract?


John Warwick King: It is suggested that it be done by contract. .


Arthur Meighen: In what constituency is it?


John Warwick King: In East Algoma.


Lucien Cannon: How are ships steered up this Blind river?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cobourg-breakwater construction, $25,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this work being done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9S2
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally, Ontario-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
Hugh Guthrie: How much was spent on this harbour last year?


John Warwick King: The expenditure amounted to $21,669.


Hugh Guthrie: May I again call the
attention of the minister to the fact that in every instance he is asking amounts far in excess of what he spent last year for what is described as a contingent vote. I think I am within the mark when I say that he did not spend last year more than 50 per cent of the amount he is asking for this year, and as the Finance Minister has to raise by taxation the money we now vote why not reduce the item? The minister cannot get into trouble if he does that because if money is needed for an emergency he can always get it. Surely it is in the interest of the minister and the government to have the estimate reduced.


Lucien Cannon: Why does not the hon. member move for a reduction?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend was not in the House this afternoon when I went pretty fully into this matter and did suggest a reduction in item after item. In the case of the estimates for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Northern Ontario I did suggest that the resolution in each case might be reduced and reduced with safety. If, owing to storm conditions, or something of the kind, larger amounts are wanted they can always be got. I would think it was in the interest of the department and of the government itself to keep the estimate down. Not more than half of the amount voted was spent last year and therefore why not cut off some of it?


Mr. MANION:: Before the item carries I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that a wharf is required by the farming section at Cloud Bay. I may say that I have already written to him on the subject. I think that when such a sum as $65,000, or any part of it, is being spent, the interest of the farmers in the section referred to should be considered. Like the northern part of the province of Quebec, northern Ontario is a bush farm country and those who go out into such districts to do pioneer-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking of the districts represented by my hon. friends. As I say it is a bush farm country and those who go into such districts to do pioneer work deserve the consideration of those of us who

do not follow suit. Therefore, I hope that when the minister is looking over the expenditures for the coming year he will give due consideration to the farmers in the Cloud Bay district who have no railway accommodation and who require needed assistance. I hope that he will take their case into consideration when the proper time comes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kincardine-repairs to piers, $10,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this work under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is under contract.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the amount of the contract?


John Warwick King: The amount is


Hugh Guthrie: Last year, evidently, there was an expenditure of $24,000, or was that the amount of the outlay?


John Warwick King: No, there was an expenditure of $14,000 I think, last year.


Hugh Guthrie: And $10,000 is a revote? Will this amount complete the work?


John Warwick King: That is the expectation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Current-dredging, $38,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is the contemplated expenditure here, and for what purpose?


John Warwick King: It is a dredging contract.


Arthur Meighen: Is Little Current in Mani-toulin Island?


John Warwick King: No, it is in the constituency of East Algoma. The amount of $38,000 is required to provide for a contract to dredge a through channel 150 feet wide to a depth of 22 feet, averaging about 125 feet long. The lowest tender for rock was $4.95 and for clay and boulders, $2.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chatham-repairs to revetment wall and sheet piling, $16,000.
Arthur Meighen: In whose constituency is this?


John Warwick King: It is in Kent county, I think.


Arthur Meighen: That would be the constituency of the Minister of Labour?


John Warwick King: I think So.

Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: Is this new work?


John Warwick King: It is to tear down and reconstruct for a length of 182 feet the present concrete revetment wall at the junction of McGregar's creek and Thames river, Tecumseh park, Chatham.


James Dew Chaplin: Is the work being done under contract?


John Warwick King: It has not been contracted for yet.


Arthur Meighen: What is the intention of the government as to this work? Is it to be done by contract or by the more popular system?


John Warwick King: The recommendation is to carry it out under contract, I understand.


Donald Sutherland: How much has been spent on this work?


John Warwick King: Previous to March, 1923, a total of $62,884.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meaford-repairs to pier, $5,400.
James Dew Chaplin: There was an item for this * work last year of $5,100. Now there is another item for the same work of $5,400. Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: It is a continuation of a work undertaken last year. The sum of $5,281 was expended of last year's vote.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the present estimate complete the work, or will a further vote be needed next year?


John Warwick King: I presume this will complete the work. It is all that has been asked for by the engineer in charge. In his letter he asked that the work done in 192223 be continued to completion. So I take it this estimate will complete the undertaking.


William Alves Boys: There is no contract?


John Warwick King: No, I think not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Midland-repairs to wharves, $9,400.
Hugh Guthrie: Did the department spend $3,000 at Midland last year?


John Warwick King: $2,999 was expended last year.	*


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Burwell-repairs to harbour works, $17,000,
James Dew Chaplin: Is this item under contract.


John Warwick King: Yes, it is a contract to repair damage to piers and break-* water occasioned by storm in September 1921.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the amount of the contract?


John Warwick King: 


Donald Sutherland: What is the volume of traffic at Port Burwell?


John Warwick King: It is very large- a great coal centre. The revenue at this port 31st March, 1921, was $2,211,908. The revenue for the fiscal year ending 31st March last would add $200,000 to it. That is the duty on coal coming in. There has been a large expenditure on that harbour from its inception up to March 31st. The total freight carried by car ferry from 1906-1907 to 1921 amounted to 6,171,799 tons. There are three car ferry routes for the transport of coal and other merchandise across lake Erie from New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio points to Ontario. This combined lake and rail route offers a considerable reduction in the freight which has to be paid on coal and other commodities necessarily imported from the United States.


William Alves Boys: The contract calls for $38,000. Why is the total vote $42,000; that is $17,000 plus $25,000 voted last year?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: There is an item for inspection and contingencies, $1,939.


William Alves Boys: Is the difference made up of extras.


John Warwick King: I think it is just inspection and contigencies.


Donald Sutherland: The item is very small considering the importance of this point and the volume of shipping. It is a main point on lake Erie and the transport of coal from this point is very great. The harbour is not in a very good state of repair at the present time, and a considerable amount of work should be done. I think the item is barely large enough to meet the requirements at this point. The figures just given the committee indicate the importance of this place. It is the main coal receiving point on the Canadian side of lake Erie. The Canadian Pacific Railway make this their chief point of entiy for coal brought across the lake, and I am afraid that the amount in the estimates is not going to meet the requirements of that port during the present year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rondeau-repairs to piers, $10,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this work under contract?
Supply-Public Worts


John Warwick King: It is not under "contract.


Donald Sutherland: Will the minister
inform the committee of the volume of shipping that is done?


John Warwick King: It is an important coaling station. The exports and imports during the year 1921 were hs follows:
Imports-	Cars
Coal imported	 5,129
Steel	 143
Miscellaneous	 60
5,332
Exports-	Cars
Scrap steel	 6
Miscellaneous	 30
Total	 36


James Dew Chaplin: What is the nature of these repairs?


John Warwick King: General repairs
to timber sections of both piers, $7,600; 48 fender piles, 45 to 50 feet long along west pier, $1,200 and 52 sheet piles $1,000, incidentals $200, making $10,000.


James Dew Chaplin: Could this not reasonably be let by contract?


John Warwick King: It is apparently recommended for day labour in the discretion of the engineer.


Arthur Meighen: This is in Kent county also?


John Warwick King: I believe it is.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the engineer who recommends day labour work in Kent county?


John Warwick King: District, engineer Craig.


Arthur Meighen: John Craig?


John Warwick King: No, it is Hugo Craig.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Southampton-breakwater repairs, 16,000.
James Dew Chaplin: Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: No, recommended for day labour.


James Dew Chaplin: Tell us the nature of the work.


John Warwick King: East breakwater, renewal of face timbers costing $560, and west breakwater, renewal of face timbers, crossties, sheeting, stringers and decking, $5,280, incidentals $160, total $6,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Thames River-repairs to lighthouse wharf, 41,000.
Donald Sutherland: Where are these repairs to be made?


John Warwick King: Thames river in Essex county, I think. The note I have is, "Renew the south side wall for length of 100 feet."


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto Island-breakwater protection, $30,000.
Lucien Cannon: What is the reason for those expenditures. Was there any report made and if so by whom?


John Warwick King: This is to complete a contract entered into with the Randolph Macdonald Company for the construction of rubble mound breakwater 1,700 feet, and for repairs to the old breakwater by depositing at various points along the face, large stones. The total cost is $30,000.


Lucien Cannon: When was the contract first let?


John Warwick King: May, 1920.


Lucien Cannon: How much money * has already been expended?


John Warwick King: 


Lucien Cannon: What is the nature of the shipping there?


William Duff: Why was all the money not voted at one time?


Arthur Meighen: Maybe the minister could give the corresponding figures for Montreal and Quebec.


William Duff: We are discussing Ontario now.


James Dew Chaplin: Are the parties that have this contract the same parties that had the original contract?


William Duff: They are the same Tories.


John Warwick King: They are the same firm.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I hope the minister will be able to give us some assurance that the recommendations which were made to him regarding the large work that the government has contracted with the city of Toronto to perform, will be carried out, in a measure at least, by a larger appropriation in the Supplementary Estimates. The minister has inspected the work to be done, and I think he fully realizes the need for it. I
11 p.m. think he is advised also of the Privy Council Order, I believe, No. 1426, wherein the government contracted with the city of Toronto to do a certain work.

Supply-Public Works
The city has gone ahead on the basis of that contract; it has expended very large sums of its own money, and having faith in that contract, the city is looking forward to a larger expenditure in connection with completing the breakwater, which is an absolute necessity in view of the work that has been done. I feel that Toronto has the sympathetic consideration of the minister in this matter, and I hope he will realize, in pursuance of the undertaking, the contract already entered into, the necessities of the case as regards Toronto.


Lucien Cannon: Will this $30,000 enable the government to complete the work?


John Warwick King: It will complete the present contract.


Lucien Cannon: Will the present contract-finish the work?


John Warwick King: There are in the department recommendations for further work at that point; but we are not providing for any further expenditure at this time.


William Alves Boys: Are there any extras in connection with this large contract?


Lucien Cannon: I am sorry to see that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is not in his seat. This is certainly an item where his economy would be applied to good purpose. This money is not being spent to improve shipping facilities or to help trade; but hon. members will, no doubt, be surprised to learn that this is for an amusement park at Toronto, and I do not think this government should provide amusement places, even-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will the hon. member pardon me? I should like to ask him where he gets his information that this is for an amusement park. I may tell the hon. member that not one dollar nor one cent of the money that has been spent or that will be spent by the Dominion government will go towards the end he suggests. The fact of the matter is that the city of Toronto has spent in the neighbourhood of $22,000,000, and I will admit that some of that money has gone into making a very beautiful city; but not one dollar of" the money that the hon. member is so careful about in this item is going in the way he suggests.


Lucien Cannon: What is the use of this government spending $246,000, if it took $20,000,000 of the money of the city of Toronto to try to make a harbour and they have not yet succeeded? Everybody knows about this
amusement park. My hon. friend wants to know my sources of information. I read the Toronto papers very carefully every day.


George Perry Graham: Including the Orange Sentinel.


Lucien Cannon: Including the Orange Sentinel. That is where I get my information.
I am very sorry the hon. member for South Wellington is not present. I should like to have him repeat, in connection with this item, the lesson in economy which he gave us earlier in the evening. Moreover, is Toronto a fit place for the government to build an amusement park? It is altogether immoral to do so. It will disturb the population from its religious and holy thoughts.


Arthur Meighen: I do not like to appear in the role of a pedagogue towards the government party; but I really think it would contribute to the usefulness of this Chamber if the government would see to it that some little preliminary instruction was given to its members on the facts associated with the government's estimates. The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr." Cannon) has clearly been under the influence of a delusion for some time. There has never been a dollar of public money spent towards any amusement ground in Toronto, and I do not think there is in this Dominion a city that has itself contributed so much towards those purposes for which, in other places, the Dominion government provides, as has the city of Toronto. ^ If the hon. member will commence his oration by showing that a dollar has gone to any amusement purpose in Toronto out of the treasury of Canada, from that on there will be an intelligible lesson to be drawn from his remarks. But the onus is on him to show that, and it cannot be done. Not only can he not show that; but he cannot succeed in showing that the city of T oronto itself has not done very much that, in other places, has been wholly done by the Dominion government in the way of navigation and port facilities.


Lucien Cannon: I withdraw absolutely nothing of the remarks which I have just made, notwithstanding what the leader of the Opposition has said. As to the lesson which he has intended to give me-


Arthur Meighen: I meant that his minister should give it.


Lucien Cannon: -I might say to the right hon. gentleman that I know parliamentary rules and customs well enough to dispense with any lesson from him. I have shown this on former occasions, and if my right hon.
9S6
Supply-Public Works

friend again uses towards another hon. member in this House the fatherly language which he has just adopted, he may find that I am a rather unruly child.


Arthur Meighen: That the hon. member is an unruly child, I have found out already; I do not need that lesson again. I did not suggest that he did not know the rules of the House. I know he does. I suggest that before he endeavours to raise some fun at the expense of Toronto by intimating that it has received special favours, he owes it to this House to prove that the money of Canada has gone to afford amusements for the people of Toronto. That he has not done, and that he cannot do.


Mr. SPENCE:: It is a pity hon. members are not better posted when they get up to speak. I would tell my hon. friend across the way that this is not to add to the harbour, but to protect the eastern entrance to the bay, which is government property and the city gets no benefit from it whatever.


Lucien Cannon: Is not the bay in the harbour?


David Spence: No, sir.


Lucien Cannon: Or the harbour in the bay?


David Spence: The harbour is on this side of the bay. If my hon. friend will come to Toronto-


Lucien Cannon: I am going next week.


David Spence: -and see what sports we
have there, he will be very well satisfied.


Mr.   RACKMAN@: Before the item carries I wish to state the position in which the hon. member for Dorchester places himself by declining to withdraw a remark which we are told upon authority is untrue, namely, that of asserting something which he cannot prove.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Friday, March 9, 1923