1924-06-13

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 122, an act to provide for the superannuation of civil servants, beg to submit the following as their first report:
Your committee recommend that they be empowered to sit while the House is in session.
I move that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I beg to lay on the Table of the House a petition by depositors -of the Home Bank for the return of deposits.



SALARIES OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very
general dissatisfaction among the postal employees in regard to the new salary schedule,

is it at all possible that the government can reconsider the question?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There must be some final court of appeal for decision in these questions of salary. Parliament has assigned to the Civil Service Commission the duty, amongst other things, of determining the salaries to be paid to civil servants. The government, in order to ensure the fairest possible consideration for civil servants in that connection, required that the Civil Ser-virs Commission should prepare its report in conjunction with the deputy ministers, and also in conjunction with the Audit Board. The government has taken particular care to see that the commission should carry out its wishes in that regard, and has on two or three different occasions referred back the report submitted by the commission to the government, before its final acceptance. I may mention that on the first or second occasion on which the Civil Service Commission submitted its report the report was signed by two of the commissioners. The postal employees requested that if possible the government obtain the signature of all three commissioners before accepting any report from them. The government insisted on that additional step, and the position of matters now is that the report has been made. The government had either to approve it or disapprove it. To disapprove it was to leave the salaries where they were; to approve it was to give effect to such increases as had been made by the Civil Service Commission. Unless parliament is prepared to revise the act which refers these matters to the Civil Service Commission and transfer the authority to some other source, I do not see that it is possible for the government to consider the report further. It would simply mean sending it back to the commissioners who would return it with the statement that that was their final judgment. I may add that they have set out at considerable length, in the statement accompanying the report, the reasons which have actuated them. The Audit Board has also placed its views on record. All these different views have been presented to the House in the papers which I have laid on the Table.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (East York):: I do
not find among the papers that were laid on the Table the correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission. Will the government lay that on the Table?

British Naval Squadron


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I asked the
Civil Service Commission to have us supplied with all the correspondence which passed between the Commission, the Audit Board and the Post Office Department, and my understanding is that that has been done. There may have been verbal interviews a record of which has not been kept and to which no reference is made in the file brought down. But my understanding is that the two returns brought down-I do not know whether my hon. friend has both of them there-include all that there is in the way of correspondence.


Joseph Henry Harris: Do I understand that all the correspondence between the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission has been tabled?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to
the statement of the Civil Service Commission, yes. I have asked the Civil Service Commission for a copy of all the correspondence that passed between the Post Office officials and themselves and the Audit Board, and the return which I have presented is the response made by the commission. But I will have further inquiry made and if there are any other papers I will have them brought down.



VISIT OF BRITISH NAVAL SQUADRON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
direct the attention of the House to a despatch appearing in the morning papers from Vancouver containing a statement made by one of the papers in that city with reference to the forthcoming arrival of the British special service squadron on June 21. The Vancouver paper states that there will be no member of the Dominion government to welcome the ships, and it goes on to say that despatches from Ottawa indicate that members of the cabinet are too busy in the House to come to British Columbia, and that the British Columbia people are not quite satisfied with the situation. It goes on to say:
They recall that when the fleet was at South African ports Premier Smuts extended the welcome. In Australia Premier Bruce met them, and Premier Massey extended a welcome at New Zealand.
It goes on to say that Ottawa has shown little interest in the visit of the fleet, and it continues:
Its grant toward entertainment has disappointed Victoria and Vancouver, and there is a growing feeling that the Dominion authorities are conserving their energies in this respect until the warships reach Halifax and Quebec in August.
I desire to say that this statement is a very unfair one. The attitude of the government toward the cruise of this squadron and its visit to our Canadian ports is one of the friendliest interest, and we are animated only by the desire to extend the fullest and most appreciative welcome to those representative ships of His Majesty's navy. Our friends in British Columbia are hardly right in their reference to the visit of the squadron to Australia. The visit to Australia took place in March last, and the ships first called at the port of Freemantle, where they were received by the Governor of the state, and it was not until they had practically made the round of the island of Australia and came to Melbourne that Premier Bruce welcomed them there officially on behalf of that Dominion, Melbourne being the capital of the state. What we have done in regard to extending a welcome to the squadron has been that on behalf of the government, the officers of the squadron will be entertained on their arrival on the Pacific coast at a formal dinner, and in conjunction with the government of Alberta we have arranged to take twenty-five officers and two hundred and fifty of other ratings on these vessels through to Edmonton, visiting intermediate points, and from Edmonton to Calgary, and then back to Vancouver. We have asked the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia to officially welcome the officers of the squadron to Canada on our behalf, and to preside at the official dinner which is to be given them on their arrival.
The squadron also expects to visit Halifax and Quebec, and I am sure that our friends in British Columbia can feel that there is no desire to discriminate, and there will be no discrimination, in regard to the expenditure of money as between the eastern ports and that great city on the Pacific coast.
As to the question of the right hon. the Prime Minister going out at this time to officially welcome the squadron, I am sure it is the judgment of the House, and that it would be in the judgment of the country, that it can hardly be expected that the House could spare the presence of its leader at this time, no matter how keen he may be to show the greatest possible attention to the officers of the squadron. For a similar reason I think the House will feel that this duty, which might otherwise fall upon me, would be rather difficult to perform at this time, having regard to the important matters before the House. We are looking forward, however, to having the representatives of the officers of the squadron visit the capital of

Gold and Silver Marking Act
Canada in the month of August, when I am sure the country will expect the Prime Minister and other representatives of the government to extend to them an official welcome similar to that which was extended in Australia by Premier Bruce.



GOLD AND SILVER MARKING ACT, 1913, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. LOW (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913, to provide a standard quality for platinum goods.
Motion agreed to' and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. LOW:: This amendment is intended
to provide a standard quality for platinum goods; in other words, to give the same protection to platinum goods that is afforded to gold and silver goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What standard of value does the minister propose to erect? Perhaps he might tell the committee how we are getting along in our production of platinum?


Thomas Andrew Low: My hon. friend is aware that
gold and silver goods are required to be stamped, and a similar provision in regard to platinum has been requested by the Jewellers' Association of the Dominion of Canada. Three or four hundred represents^ tives of that association, sitting in assembly I think in the city of Windsor, passed a resolution asking the government to provide the same protection for platinum goods as is afforded to gold and silver. The bill provides that the word "platinum" shall be included after the word "silver", so that it will read, "gold, silver and platinum goods."


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it the idea
that there should be any alloy of any kind allowed, or is it to be of one hundred per cent fineness, or what?


Thomas Andrew Low: It is proposed to amend the
act by adding the following section:
The word platinum or any contraction, abbreviation or colourable imitation thereof shall not be applied, either alone or in combination with any other word, to any article of merchandise composed wholly or in part of any metal unless 950/1000ths of component parts of the metal appearing or purporting to be platinum of which said article consists are either the pure metal and element platinum alone or in conjunction with iridium.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Low thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, to amend the Gold and Silver Marking Act, 1913.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in. committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-Manitoba-harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: There has been a reduction in this
vote of $5,000. The amount is required to make provision for repairs and improvements to harbour and river works under the control of the Department of Public Works in the province of Manitoba. It is the regular vote.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Where is the money to be
spent?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It is to be spent
on the care of the harbour and river works under the control of the Department of Public Works.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: On the Red river?


John Warwick King: On various rivers.
Last year there were expenditures on the Pas river, the Red river, and Victoria beach.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Portage la Prairie-sewer extension, $23,000.
John Warwick King: I think I shall
give a review of what led up to this expenditure. The matter was discussed very fully in the House last year. In the year 1908 a petition to the Dominion government from a number of people living in the vicinity of Portage la Prairie suggested that the river would be relieved during the time of the spring freshet by the digging of a cut or canal which would straighten the river at that point. The work was undertaken and carried on, and each year during the flooded time it served a useful purpose until 1921 or 1922. The cut then widened to such an extent that it left the bed of the old channel dry, and in that way exposed the sewer outlet of the city of Portage la Prairie. The city complained very bitterly to the department of this condition, which had arisen, as they claimed, from the activities of the department, and last year we brought in a vote for the work. A good deal of correspondence and negotiation took place with the city in order to bring about a condition that would be satisfactory to the citizens. Finally tenders were

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
called for and three bids were received, the prices varying from $76,300 to $99,219. These tenders were above the estimate prepared by the departmental engineer whose estimate was $60,000 odd. We rather hesitated to let the contract on account of the variation between the estimate of the departmental engineer and the contractors' tenders. However, it was claimed that owing to the nature of the soil in that district it was very difficult to ascertain what would be encountered after getting below the surface Experience had shown the contractors that in this deep trenching there was a probability of caving in and great uncertainty, as to what might happen. However, we let a contract in December of last year for the work. It has been proceeded with, and I believe the sewer is satisfactorily installed. Just at this point I wish to state that the fears of the contractor were somewhat realized, because after he had dug this trench. three feet wide, which was the intended development, he found that he had to put in cribbing. This made it impossible for him to place his eighteen-inch sewer pipe and be able to caulk the joints. The result was that he had to move another foot of dirt on one side of the trench for its entire length. I mention this because the contractor has made a claim upon the department for this extra work. The matter is under consideration, and the district engineer has advised that the department should give the contractor consideration as to the actual cost. The committee will be advised if the matter comes up in the supplementary estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
amount of the tender that was accepted?


John Warwick King: It was $76,300.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What was the estimate of the departmental engineer?


John Warwick King: It was $62,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did the minister not
tell us that the tender exceeded the estimate of the departmental engineer because of the uncertain conditions which the contractor expected to encounter? And is it not fair to suppose that his tender was high enough to cover the conditions which he feared might be met with?


John Warwick King: He claims not.
He figured he would get through with a three-foot trench, but such an amount of cribbing was required that he had to enlarge his trench to four feet. The vote we are asking for is to cover the present contract.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Without any extras?


John Warwick King: Without any extras.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has this work
been done to the satisfaction of the town, and will it prevent the flooding that has caused so much damage in the past?


John Warwick King: This work was
done to take care of the sewerage outlet of the city, so that the outlet will be protected We have not done anything to the river itself under this expense.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have a lively recollection of what was said by my leadei (Mr. Meighen) in the House last year on this subject. I am under the impression his lhought was that the department was going to relieve the district from the direct results of departmental work. Now, I understand this work is merely to look after the sewer, and not to provide against the flooding at all.


John Warwick King: We have tried to accomplish what the city desired and I believe the work has been done to its satisfaction.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I may say that I have
heard no complaints, although there may be some which have not come to my attention.


John Warwick King: I think the work
is satisfactory to the city.


Mr. LEADER:: I believe the work is satisfactory to the city of Portage la Prairie, at any rate there has been a statement in the newspapers to that effect: I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister and the government upon taking hold of the situation and putting it back to where it was in 1908. What I mean by that is this:	The
department diverted the water of the river by digging a canal in 1908. Through the subsequent years up to 1922 there was a gradual wearing away of the cut thus creating a. bigger canal. Finally it took the whole course of the river, thereby leaving bare the mouth of the sewer of the city of Portage la Prairie. This created a very disagreeable and very menacing situation and overtures were made to the government on the subject. I am glad to be able to say that the department took hold of the situation and put it back to where they found it in 1908. I believe the citizens of Portage la Prairie duly appreciate the fact and I think I can convey their thanks to the government for their prompt action.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do you think the work has been economically carried out?


Harry Leader: The situation was very unpleasant. It had to be taken care of. Whether the work was economically carried out or not I cannot say, but I believe it is satisfactory.


Mr. MILLAR:: Speaking generally, and
not with any particular reference to this work, does the minister think it is sound business to give such favourable consideration to claims for extra remuneration because of unforeseen circumstances, such as have been referred to in this case? It seems to me it works an injustice to others. What happens in a case like this? Tenders are called for, and one firm puts in a bid that they look upon as final. If their hopes are realized they make a profit, and if not they lose. Another firm puts in a tender a little bit lower and secures the contract, with the intention of making a further claim later on. I am afraid that is often done and I do not think it is wise or fair. If a firm find they have made considerable money, and these unforeseen difficulties did not turn up, they do not refund anything to the public treasury.


John Warwick King: These things come up in regard to the contracts from time to time. I have not made up my mind as to what shall be done in this matter. Representations have been made by the engineering department. I would not suggest that the government go further than the actual mst of this unforeseen work. That is a matter to be discussed when they ask for a further amount later on. Each contract and all the conditions must be considered on their merits. In this case there was a great variation in the tenders, ranging from $70,000 to $99,000,-indicating that in the minds of the contractors there was an unforseen quantity there that was very difficult to judge.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This contractor expected
to take out a three-foot trench and he found he had to take out a four-foot trench. Will the engineers of the department say that the extra foot was necessary? Or was it just a little bit of a job he added?


John Warwick King: No, it was necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
name of the contractors?


John Warwick King: Fowler, Young & Co., Winnipeg.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria Beach-wharf repairs, $4,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that a public wharf?


John Warwick King: This item is for
the following work:
To renew the stringers and decking, also to cut off the top portion of closely driven round pilles-about four or five feet, now rotten and falling to pieces- and replace same with timbers laid longitudinally.


Mr. FORKE:: I understood there was some embankment made on the Assiniboine river to

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
prevent flooding. Has anything been done in that respect?


John Warwick King: Between what
points?


Robert Forke: Between Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie. I understood surveys were to be made of the river and some report made as to whether anything could be done to prevent flooding. A tremendous amount of damage is done every year by the Assini-boine overflowing its banks and destroying highway grades and flooding lands. I have never seen any reports in connection with that matter.


John Warwick King: Surveys have been made and the matter is still being developed in the engineering department. The work involves a very considerable sum of money, and we are not bringing down any estimate for it this j^ear.


Robert Forke: Fortunately the water was
very low this year and there were no complaints; if the water had been high as usual, there would have been a tremendous amount of damage. As soon as one flood passes over people forget about it until we have another flood.


John Warwick King: Fortunately the
floods do not come every year.


Robert Forke: They come pretty frequently.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fort Resolution-wharf, $5,120.
Mr! KNOX:	I call the minister's attention
to the fact that some improvements are required on the river leading from Montreal lake out into lake Laronge, which is an extension of the Churchill river. This is a highway leading into the north. A wagon road has been constructed from Prince Albert to Montreal lake, largely by the provincial government; but, although boats are passing through regularly on the river I spoke of, there, are some obstructions between Montreal lake and lake Laronge, which impede progress very much, and I have been informed it would not require a very large amount of money to remove the obstructions which are in the form of boulders in the river. If this were done the outlet into the north country would be very much improved. Will the minister have this matter looked into and brought to the attention of the department?
John Warwick King: Yes, I shall be
glad to do so.


Mr. COOTE:: Has the minister an appropriation in this amount to take care of the damage at High river.


John Warwick King: There is no special appropriation for that. My hon. friend has made representations regarding certain river banks where work should be done; the department has had reports; and negotiations have been proceeding between the munioi-palitiy and individuals interested, the department at Ottawa and the provincial government. I think there has been a suggested authorization, on condition of joint expenditures by the municipalities and the province.


George Gibson Coote: I understand that the department was willing to expend $2,500 if the municipality and private owners would take care of the balance. I see from a communication in the High River Times that the town authorities think that the amount which was at first estimated as being necessary to cover the cost of the required work might not be nearly sufficient, and they are reluctant to embark on the work until they can have some assurance that this amount would be large enough. I should like, if possible, to have the assurance of the minister that his engineer would visit High river again as soon as possible, and that whatever amount is necessary to take care of the share which the Dominion government is willing to assume will be provided, should that be possible.


John Warwick King: While discussing this item and the reference my hon. friend has made to expenditures at High river, I might explain to the committee the attitude of the government, or the Department of Public Works, in regard to works of this character. There is no legislative authority as to the manner of control of these rivers. The practice followed from time to time in the past where representations have been made by members of parliament, boards of trade, municipalities or provinces, for expenditures, has been to deal with each case more or less as an individual case. We are rather taking the position that in the case of river bank protection, the people who have located on the river bank, who have property there, are the people primarily interested in saving their property. If the project is beyond them and they are in a municipality, we feel that this becomes primarily the duty of the municipality. If it is beyond the municipality and a public interest is involved, we feel that the provincial government should interest themselves. If it is found that the matter is beyond the individual, the municipality and the provincial government, and that there is

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
a Dominion interest, I think the department and the government are willing to consider each case on its merits. It is only fair, however, to say that these expenditures are asked for from time to time, oftentimes without much consideration as to the cost and the effect the work may have on the river generally. This matter which we discussed just a few moments ago was entered into on a petition in 1908, and it resulted in parliament this year being asked for a vote. I am satisfied that if the municipality of Portage la Prairie had been a party to that arrangement and the matter had been done along proper lines, there would have been a different story to tell to-day and we would not be voting this money. We are being asked, from time to time, through not only the prairie country but the whole of Canada, to come to the relief of individuals, municipalities and cities by way of expenditures on river-bank protection. If we could lay down a principle such as I suggest, many of these cases would not come to government or to parliament and expenditures would not be asked for. I am satisfied, if that principle was laid down and followed, a request of that kind would be jointly examined and reported upon, and I believe the result would probably be better than it has been in the past. In the prairie provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where the Dominion government control the natural resources and the land, the case is different sometimes from that in eastern Canada and in British Columbia, outside of the railway belt where the river bank and the bed of the river are owned by the province. At the present time in the Northwest Territories and the railway belt the Dominion government still owns the river banks and river bed. I thought I would just make this statement so as to make clear, if possible, the line that the department is following as regards matters of this kind.


Mr. HANSON:: What does the minister mean by the "bed" of a river? Does he mean that the alveus of the stream belongs to the province, or does he refer to some navigable stream? I can understand, in the case of navigable rivers, if repairs are needed, the Dominion might have an interest, but I do not understand why the Dominion should be called upon to repair erosions of banks of streams merely for the purpose of protecting private property. Such a thing would be unheard of in New Brunswick. In the St. John river, for instance, the individual is largely responsible for the care of his own bank unless there is a highway along the bank, in which case the province takes care of the matter. I have never before heard of the I Mr. J. H. King.]
Dominion being expected or asked to take care of a situation of that kind, and it will be news to the people in the East that that has been done.


John Warwick King: It has been done.


Robert Forke: Both the Red river and the Assiniboine river are navigable streams theoretically. As a matter of fact they are not, but they are considered to be, navigable streams.


John Warwick King: They have a very large quantity of water in them at certain seasons of the year and they become very dangerous.


George Gibson Coote: Highwood river, that is down the river in this municipality, is navigable in certain parts; but at the point where the damage has been done it is not navigable. At the same time I think the municipality is quite justified in asking this government for some assistance. The Dominion government own the water in all the streams in Alberta; they own all the natural resources; they own the land along the banks of those streams. The provincial government never had any jurisdiction over either the water in the streams or the land alongside of them. If the damage is more than the property owners and the municipality can take care of, if any government is to assist those people, it should be, I say, the Dominion government. I do not think this is the first occasion upon which the federal government has been asked for help in such cases or the first occasion that they have given help. Highwood river is a mountain stream and it is subject to very sudden freshets in the spring of the year when the snow on the mountain melts. One year ago the flood was very much worse because we had about two weeks' heavy rain at a time when we usually get high water. The town of High River was flooded. The main street, I think, was under two or three feet of water for days at a time. The river threatened to break through and change its course, in which case probably most of the water would have gone down the Little Bow river. The Irrigation department of the federal government did some work along the banks of Highwood river to prevent the river from changing its course. They did this, I understand, because the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have water rights on Highwood river for irrigation purposes, and if this water were diverted to the Little Bow river the Canadian Pacific irrigation district would go short of water. If the water had been allowed to take its course and go down Little Bow river, it is quite possible the town, of

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
High River would not have been in danger in any way. Therefore, I think there is no doubt that the Dominion government has some responsibility, and the Minister of Public Works has taken a fair attitude in regard to the work at High river.
Many public works entered into in Canada should be entered into on the basis which the minister has suggested. If municipalities in many cases where they want post offices built were required to put up forty or fifty per cent of the cost of the building, the Department of Public Works, I am sure, would not be called upon to erect so many post offices.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. member
think that the cases are comparable? The post oflice in a community such as the one 1 represent is a money-making proposition for the government; a much larger revenue is taken in than the cost involved in running it or the capital expenditure incurred in the building itself. The two things are not comparable.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I might tell the hon
gentleman too that in my own town we have paid in the last ten years over $1,000,000 to the treasury although we have not a public building.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is right.


George Gibson Coote: The town of High River
I have no doubt has contributed a good many dollars to the revenue of the country; I am not saying anything about that. I know, however, that some work has been done under the vote for harbours and rivers in Ontario which would never have been done if the municipalities had been required to bear any percentage of the cost. But I do not wish to dwell on that feature; we could bring before the committee a good many cases in which money could have been saved to the department in this way. But I do ask the committee to take a fair view of the situation in regard to those towns that are exposed to damage from floods. I want to bring to the attention of the minister the circumstances in connection with the town of Blairmore, where last year at about this time the Old Man river overflowed its banks and the town was flooded. A number of the streets were practically washed away; several bridges were destroyed to the value I think of $44,000; several of the houses in the town itself had to be moved back from the bank of the river to escape being carried away; the cribbing along the bank of the river for a distance of 2,200 feet was completely washed out; and altogether the town was severely damaged. That town is not financially able to cope with what I think I might term in this case a disaster. If another flood had occurred this year as bad as that of last year there is no doubt in my mind that a considerable portion of the town would have been swept away. The council of the municipality at Blairmore appealed to this government for assistance a year ago, but up to date the department has not seen fit to grant any money to assist in repairing the damage that has been done. The department did send an engineer to Blairmore and he submitted a very complete report of the situation. I am sure that the minister himself is very anxious to give what assistance he can; at any rate he must certainly realize the necessity of granting some money for the erection of the necessary works in the town. His engineer reported that the cost of the dredging and the cribbing which would be necessary to control the river would total $74,100. I want to ask the committee whether they think that a little town with a population of 2,500 could possibly be expected to bear that cost? The Western Canadian Collieries, whose works are located there, have offered to do the work for approximately $50,000. This company operates large coal mines in the town, which is practically dependent on the operation of the mines. The property of the company has been badly damaged by the flood and for that reason they are willing and anxious to co-operate with the municipality towards the construction of the necessary works so that they will not suffer again in the same manner. I want to point out to the committee, and particularly to bring to the attention of the minister, the fact that this government has collected in coal royalties from this company alone the sum of $46S,400 in addition to lease rentals to an amount of $33,300, and for coal lands purchased by the company to the extent of $128,300. This makes a total of $630,000 which has been paid by this one company at Blairmore. Besides this, the government has received from other companies operating in that district the - sum of $796,000, or a total of $1,426,699 received directly from the operators of coal mines in the district. I believe that the town of Blairmore and the property owners affected are quite willing to provide a percentage of the cost of constructing the necessary works, but they are unable to shoulder the entire expense. It is for that reason that I am appealing to the committee and particularly to the minister to bring down an amount in the Supplementary Estimates to take care of part of the cost of erecting the protection works along the banks of the Old Man river through the town of

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Blairmore. I should like to have an assurance from the minister that this will be done.


John Warwick King: I would hesitate
to give such an assurance. I have contended that in regard to the condition in the town of Blairmore there is some responsibility on the provincial government, who do collect certain revenues from the community and who therefore should interest themselves, along with the municipality, in getting things straightened out. If that were done I would then be more confident in coming to parliament to ask for a vote for this necessary work-for I believe it is necessary. The Old Man river, as has been said, is a mountain stream and in the spring season it very often becomes a torrent at this point and is very difficult of control, so thalt the people of the town are exposed to periodical floods. This condition however is not peculiar to that section alone. Indeed, rivers all over the world get beyond control at times and cause great damage. We are trying to take care of the situation as best we can, dealing with each case as it comes before us.


Harry Leader: I wish to support the minister and the bon. member (Mr. Coote) in the statement that taking care of flooded areas, repairing the dykes on the rivers, and matters of that nature, is a joint responsibility which should be shared by the municipalities and the provinces along with the Dominion. Last year the minister will remember a delegation from Portage la Prairie Waited upon this government and requested either the straightening of the Assiniboine river or the repairing of the dykes in order to meet the situation that develops in that district every feiw years as a result of floods. I stated before that delegation at that time- and my position in this matter
4 p.m. is well known-that in my opinion the province together with the municipality of Cartier and adjoining muncipalities through which the river runs should be prepared to come to the government with a concrete proposal and be willing to assume a certain proportion of the cost required to give the river its proper course. The difficulty, I think, was that we were not in a position to submit any plan of joint action. Fortunately there has been no flood this year, and that explains why the demand upon the government has not been renewed. No doubt, however, the question will come up again in the future; the settlers living in that vicinity are in constant fear of these floods, and the matter is bound to arise 
again. The Dominion government will therefore have to recognize -the necessity for some work being done in connection with this river. If the municipalities directly interested had to put up some money along with the province they would be more careful -about expenditures; there is no doubt about that. Another phase -of the situation in connection with the river seems to be this, that there does not appear to be any one who is right on the job With dynamite to break up the ice jams as they occur and so to prevent flooding. It has happened that in the case of an ice jam occurring on the river, before notification could come from Ottawa to the dynamiting crews the damage had been done, the baulks had -been overflowed and the dykes Washed away. If the municipality had to take its share of the financing it is quite possible that the municipal council would be on the job to repair any damage that might occur. I am not saying they do not do that already, but there is a possibility of their looking to Ottawa to take care of the situation whereas prompt local action might prevent a disastrous flood. Last year $6,000 was provided in the estimates for taking a survey on the Assiniboine river. That survey has been made and I understand the government have a plan in mind for the reclaiming of that great area which is now endangered by periodical floods. No revenue will come to Canada more quickly than that which will result from the reclamation of these valuable lands. The government is getting no income taxes from that portion of Manitoba, now that is largely owing to the floods that have taken place within the last few years. I think it is the duty of this government, the provincial government and the municipalities to join hands with a view to taking care of the drainage situation in that splendid portion of Manitoba.


George Gibson Coote: Just one further word in
connection with the work at Blairmore. The town of Blairmore has been hard hit by the Home Bank disaster. The deposits of the people of that town in the Home Bank amounted approximately to $200,000, and the loans which the bank had there, were $6,000, that is $190,000 more of deposits than of loans. Twenty-five per cent of that has been returned, but the people of the town are still short that seventy-five per cent. The school district of Blairmore, which is part of the town machinery, lost, I think, $10,000 i-n that bank failure. The town has been finding it hard to finance its necessary operations since the Home Bank went under, and that makes it alt

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the more important that assistance should be given at this time. There is one fact I did not mention which might further impress the minister with the necessity of giving assistance to the town in this case. The river runs all the way through the town, following a winding course in several places and making necessary a lot of bridges. In this flood the bridges which were washed out were estimated by the engineers of this government to cost $41,000. These bridges have to be repaired or replaced, in addition to the works that I have already mentioned. It seems to me that the people of the town are very reasonable in asking the government to put up possibly fifty per cent of the cost of the construction of these works. I may point out that the same condition exists at Okotoks. It would seem that the property owners first affected might be the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; if that is the case I presume they are quite able to take care of themselves. But it is quite possible that considerable damage might result to the owners of property m that town if the river should change its course even to a very slight degree. I trust that the minister will see that some appropriation is made under which he could, if necessary, give the town of Okotoks some assistance should they suffer from flood next spring. I would again urge upon the minister the necessity of doing something at the town of Blairmore.


Mr. WOODS:: Are we to understand that
the government is responsible for damage done by freshets and floods where bridges are taken away or land destroyed, and that kind of thing? If so, there will be a lot of requirements in Ontario along the same line.


John Warwick King: No, I do not
think we are responsible in such cases.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I admit I did not know until the discussion came up that the Dominion government was responsible in such cases. However, if they are I want to present a claim of the constituency in which I live.


The CHAIRMAN:: This is.for Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then we will take it
up when we get to New Brunswick. Are the estimates for New Brunswick passed?


John Warwick King: Not yet.


Robert Forke: These prairie rivers are a
little different from rivers in other parts of the country. They run through flat alluvial
plains. The banks are just a little higher at the river than further back and a flood of a few inches will inundate the country for quite a distance back from the river. It will be seen, therefore, that a very small embankment will do a great deal of good. As for the Dominion government paying part of the expense, that is a question for them to decide. In regard to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) as to the Dominion government and the municipalities undertaking this sort of work, I do think, knowing the conditions, that the Dominion government have some responsibility in the matter. But the proper method would be for the municipalities to do the work something after the fashion of drainage districts. The reclamation of a large section would be carried on; the land reclaimed would be owned by several individuals, and the expenses could be charged up against the land benefited. It would not be a question of public charity or of public assistance; a great deal of useful work would be done and the people themselves would be benefited.


George Gibson Coote: I hope nothing I have said
will precipitate a run on the Department of Public Works for assistance to prevent the erosion of banks of streams. But, for the enlightenment of some members, I may point out that in the last ten years, according to a return brought down, there has been spent on harbours and rivers and dredging in Alberta and Saskatchewan the enormous sum of $204,000, while in the rest of Canada there has been spent $82,390,775. Alberta and Saskatchewan have approximately fifteen per cent of the population of Canada, but the amount spent under these heads in those two provinces has been less than one-quarter of one per cent of the amount spent in other parts of the country.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will admit the force
of what the hon. member (Mr. Coote) has just said, but possibly it has not occurred to him that what 'is railway transportation to the prairie provinces is water transportation with us. In Nova Scotia, for instance, there is one main line of railway running through the centre of the province-not a very well constructed railway, and one which does not give a very excellent service, though it is true that it has been better in the last few years. Practically the whole of the traffic is carried on through these harbours and over the wharves around the shores. I have suggested that when the estimates for harbours and rivers for the Maritime provinces come up we might have a map hung up somewhere

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
in the chamber, if the Speaker would permit it, which would show the location of the harbours and rivers and also the location of the railways in those provinces. I am not finding fault with western members, because I know they do not realize our situation as we do ourselves, and I am willing to admit that we do not realize their situation. But if you compare the amount spent on harbours and rivers in the prairie provinces with the amount spent in the Maritimes, and if you compare also the amounts spent on railroads, I believe you will find they are about the same per capita. To take either alone would not give a fair idea of our methods of transportation or of our necessities along that line.


Mr. WARNER:: I should like to point out one feature-I do not know just what there is in it-the provinces other than the three prairie provinces own their own natural resources, and that may make some difference in the obligation the Dominion government has towards them. We would like to have these resources, but we have not got them, and the other provinces have.


Mr. NEILL:: If the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) feels he has a grievance because he has not harbours in his district, I would be very happy to let him have a couple of hundred from my district, with the consequent expenditure involved, and there would still be enough left to bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave getting the government to do justice to what was left.


Mr. HUGHES:: I would point out to the hon-member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) that the prairie provinces, while they do not own their natural resources, get a cash subsidy in lieu thereof every year. It may be that the prairie provinces would prefer their natural resources. We are not arguing that at the moment, but I just wanted to point out to the hon. member that when that arrangement was made the prairie provinces were granted a yearly subsidy in lieu of their natural resources.


Daniel Webster Warner: I would point out in reply-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. It is not in order to debate the question of the natural resources of the provinces on this item, but probably the hon. member might answer briefly if he desires.


Mr. PRITCHARD:: Has the coal mining
business been injured by the overflowing of this river at Blairmore?


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge of that, but I think not.


John Pritchard: If it has been why do the people there wish to build on the bank of a river that is likely to overflow and destroy their property? Is there not room for them to build back from the river?


George Gibson Coote: I might point out to the hon. member that this town of Blairmore is not on the prairie, but in the Crowsnest pass, a pass running through the Rocky mountains. The valley is very narrow, and the only place where they can build the town is in between the two ranges of mountains. The Crowsnest river comes down through that pass. The works owned by the mine, which are on the flat, were very badly damaged, to the extent of a good many thousands of dollars, and the coal mining company has to take care of that damage itself. They are anxious to assist in the work of straightening the river and erecting cribs on each side, backed with rocks, to hold the river from overflowing again and damaging their works. They have a large iron works there, one of the largest, the manager told me, between Winnipeg and Vancouver. They have also sidings leading to their mines. They have a great many buildings on the flat, at the mouth of the mine. These were all in danger, and some of them were damaged. Several bridges were also washed away. This is why the mining company is anxious to co-operate with the government and the town in cribbing the banks of the river to prevent such a thing happening again in the future
I might further explain that the banks of this river in places are not more than four feet high, so when a freshet comes down there is not room in the channel for the water to get away, and last year it spread out all over the flat and flooded practically the whole town. As I pointed out, the Dominion government is receiving a splendid revenue from that little town, and I think it is not asking very much when we ask that the government should meet the wishes of the town of Blairmore in that matter. If I have not explained the situation fully to the satisfaction of the hon. member and the committee, I shall be very glad to do so. I look upon this flood at Blairmore last year in the nature of a calamity which visited that community. The same is true of High River. These are the only two harbours I have in my constituency at the present time. I hope I shall not be looked upon as making undue demands upon the government, but if any member here was to go back home to spend the week-end, and find the town had been flooded three feet deep, and all the bridges had been washed away, and the houses

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
threatened with the same fate, I am sure he would regard it as a calamity, and it is in that light I am asking this government to regard that flood.


Daniel Webster Warner: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I would point out to the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes), who mentioned that the western provinces were receiving a subsidy in lieu of their natural resources, that it is not contended by anybody, I think, that that relieves the Dominion government in any way. The Dominion government grants a subsidy in order to hold those natural resources, and we feel that, possessing them, they are more responsible than they would be otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Arrow park-reconstruction of wharf (revote $9,500), $10,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How does this
work stand now? I think it was to be started the year before last, was it not? Has anything been done yet?


John Warwick King: A contract has
been entered into and we are asking for a revote of $9,500. Arrow park is situated on the Arrow lakes, and is a rather thriving agricultural community.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
contract let and how much work has been done?


John Warwick King: It was let in 1923, for $9,450.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bamfield East-reconstruction of wharf, $7,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How does that stand?


John Warwick King: This is a revote.
It is to complete the renewal of the superstructure of the existing wharf approximately seventy feet long by forty feet wide; to extend the face of the wharf into deeper water, and make repairs to portions of the existing structure; to construct floating fenders and a freight shed fifteen feet by thirty-two feet. Tenders were called for last October, and a contract is being let.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of the contract?


John Warwick King: The order in
council was passed on May 14 last.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bella Coola-to renew and extend wharf, $9,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How does that stand?


John Warwick King: This work will
consist of renewing and extending the existing wharf on the south side of North Bentick Arm. The work requiring to be done consists of the removal of the superstructure of the existing wharfhead, together with the removal of a certain number of old bearing and fender piles, the demolishing of the old freight shed, 12 feet by 16 feet, renewing the superstructure of the existing wharfhead, and constructing an extension to the same 101 feet long and 25 to 50 feet wide. It will also be necessary to construct a float, gangway and freight shed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When will
tenders come in?
Mr. KING. (Kootenay):	Tenders were
called for on October 30, 1923. One tender was received but it was considered too high and we are asking for new tenders. This is an important work on the main coast line of British Columbia south of Prince Rupert. It is at the entrance to the Bella Coola valley, it is a large valley in which there is quite a settlement. It is a fishing centre and some lumbering is done.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Why was the work not done two years ago?


John Warwick King: There have been
certain negotiations with the provincial government in regard to roadway construction to this pier. The old pier was a very long one extending out for nearly a mile and a half- certainly a mile at least-and a great deal of pile driving and flooring is required. By its reconstruction we are saving a very considerable sum of money. The provincial government are constructing the roadway to the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bowen Island (West side)-floating wharf, $2,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What about
this item?


John Warwick King: This vote is to
construct an approach 8 feet wide, and 168 feet long, out to low-water mark, a float 30 feet by 40 feet anchored with creosoted piles, and a gangway leading from the approach to the float 36 feet long and 6 feet wide.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has there been nothing done as yet?


John Warwick King: No.



Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: Tenders have
not been called for yet?


John Warwick King: Not yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One might with very great justice observe that we have revotes in the case of the whole of these works-one in the case of a contract made in last November, another in the case of a contract made in May of this year but in two other cases nothing at all has been done. I hope the actions of the department are not to be construed as giving effect to a statement recently made in this House. These works were to be carried out because they are absolutely important and yet they have stood two years. Either the department's ideas were wrong and the works were not necessary, or else there has been grave neglect in cleaning up what was practically described as a necessitous situation requiring immediate action. I do not know which is right.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is hardly fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am stating
facts.


John Warwick King: We got our supplementary votes late in the season in the case of many of these items. Plans have to be prepared, and investigations carried on not merely at one point but at a number of points. Reports had to be made to the department, and specifications prepared. All that takes time. Oftentimes we arrive at the point where the money might be expended in the fall of the year, but that is an expensive period for doing work, and very often we cannot get contractors to bid at that season. The result was that many of these votes had to go over until the following year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burton-wharf repairs, $2,100.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a new
item, will the minister explain it?


John Warwick King: It is proposed to overlay the existing decking, which is in bad repair, with diagonally placed plank. This is one of the most important public wharves on the Arrow lakes. * The only access to outside centres and markets is by steamer. The existing planking has served its life, but will afford a good ground or base for the new diagonally laid planking. It is proposed to replank this structure with 3 inch by 12 inch plank.
rMr. J. H. King.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the work be
done by tender?


John Warwick King: No, by day's
labour I would think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chemainus-repairs to float, $1,450.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Has anything been done about this item, or is it in the same position as Bowen Island floating wharf?


John Warwick King: This vote is to cover repairs to approach and renewal of float and gangway. The total estimated expenditure is $1,450.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ccnvichan lake-wharf and approach, $1,700.
John Warwick King: I am asking my colleague to move that this item be struck out as the work has been completed out of last year's estimate.


Mr. CARDIN:: I move that the item be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Crooked and Parsnip rivers-removal of obstruction, $3,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this work for?


John Warwick King: This is a new vote. There is a good deal of trouble north of Prince Rupert on the Grand Trunk Pacific in the Peace river country. The waterways in use there are the Crooked and Parsnip rivers. Representations have been made by various bodies and individuals that by the removal of boulders and the cutting out of certain brush the rivers would be greatly improved for those who find it necessary to go into that country at certain seasons of the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it proposed to do the work this year?


John Warwick King: Yes, we hope to.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How far on is it?


John Warwick King: The expenditure has not been authorized as yet, we are asking parliament for a vote. We asked for a report from the engineering branch and the estimate is based on that report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How will the
work be done?


John Warwick King: By day's labour I imagine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Deep bay-wharf repairs, $1,850.
John Warwick King: This is for general repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-improvements, $68,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a very important work. How do matters stand now; is the flooding in hand?


John Warwick King: This is not to
provide for direct flooding conditions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this not in connection with the island we had some trouble about?


John Warwick King: No, we will come to that later.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the vote for, then?


John Warwick King: For improvements to navigation. It is for the construction of an extension to the existing north jetty which will direct the current of the stream, and, we hope, will maintain the channel. The expenditure made during the last two years has met with a considerable amount of success. The work is under contract and will be proceeded with.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is it intended to proceed with this work gradually so that eventually the different points further up the river, Port Mann for instance, will be accessible to deep water boats in future, and will the development made proceed as part of the harbour improvements?


John Warwick King: The intention of
the department is to proceed from one stage to the other. The Fraser river near its mouth becomes a very large river, and the spring freshets bring down a tremendous quantity of alluvial and other material which is deposited, oftentimes causing the river to change its course. These jetties are built to control and direct the current in certain channels. We find that very good results have been obtained by the construction of the jetty. A jetty was constructed last year near a place known as the King Edward cut. That work has been closely watched. It is the intention of the department, where the experience of the surveys and examination and watching of currents will show that the construction of these jetties will tend to bring about a correction and make navigable the channel, to put in these jetties rather than to continue the old practice of dredging from year to year. From the engineering point 201* . (
of view I think the work is progressing satisfactorily. It is being carefully watched by the departmental staff.


Alfred Speakman: My interest in this
matter is due to the fact that I looked into that river to some extent while I was in that district during last winter. It is not often a prairie man is very much interested in the rivers and harbours, but I was particularly interested in this point of view: That in my opinion Port Mann on the Fraser river will eventually be the logical shipping point of the Canadian National Railways. The importance of that point can hardly be overestimated, and I certainly hope, as far as practicable, the work will be continued, and that the Canadian National, whose terminus is Port Mann, will be able to utilize the river in their operations.


William Garland McQuarrie: In common with the
hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) I am greatly interested in this matter; and in confirmation of what was said I call attention to the fact that the shipping on the Fraser river has very greatly increased in recent years. During the last year quite a large number of sea-going vessels have come into the river, largely for the purpose of taking out lumber and other products which are manufactured on the Fraser river. The minister has said that the work is proceeding satisfactorily, but I think possibly that statement is going a little far. I do say, however, that the minister and his department are entitled to credit for the work which has been done. They are showing an intelligent interest in the Fraser river, but at the same time I do not think that the people in New Westminster and vicinity are altogether satisfied with conditions at the present time. They do not think the work has been taken up in a satisfactory way. They do not think the department is energetic enough in this respect, and that it is meeting conditions as readily and as speedily as it should. I am quite aware that the minister has studied the Fraser river, and that his chief engineer has also made a very complete study of conditions there. I understand it is the intention of the minister to go out to the Pacific coast during the coming summer, and I think request has been made that he visit the Fraser river again and also that he if possible take his chief engineer out there again. Mr. Cameron is familiar with the location, and I hope the minister will find it convenient to take him to that district. Conditions are not absolutely satisfactory at the present time. The draught of vessels coming into the port is in-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
creasing, as the minister knows. At the present time ships drawing 25 feet of water are making regular trips. I think the}' are carrying ore for the Canadian Pacific or for some subsidiary company of that company and regular shipments are being made. Those vessels are drawing 25 feet of water, and it is absolutely necessary that the channel be at all times kept in such a condition that these vessels can navigate without difficulty, I know that the board of trade, the city council and other public bodies of New Westminster have made representations to the minister that certain work which they consider absolutely urgent at thlis time should be let by contract. The minister has all these facts before him and I suppose is giving the matter consideration, but I know that he thinks that the people of New Westminster are unnecessarily alarmed. He thinks they are exaggerating the difficulties which they think they have there. I can assure the minister that this is not so. These men are all interested in the future, not only of that district, but of Canada. The busi-nes that we do in New Westminster is export and if it is lost to us it is lost to Canada, f am sorry to have to say that at the present time the two dredges which are supposed to be working on the Fraser river have been taken away. I think this is a great mistake, and I have from time to time impressed upon the minister the necessity of keeping the dredges on the Fraser river until we get the channel into such a shape that it will be permanent. The necessity exists at present, and the matter is not in an experimental stage. The business is there and waiting, and it is very necessary that we should be able to accommodate even deeper draught vessels than are navigating there at the present time. The minister knows that some of the Canadian Merchant Marine vessels are of greater draught than can be accommodated in the channel at the present time. Those vessels would like to go in the Fraser river.
Then we have the matter of the shipment d grain. I have taken occasion from time o time to draw the attention of the minister o facilities which the port of New Westminster presents for the shipment of grain. We have asked the government to establish a grain elevator on the Fraser river. That demand has been made on a great many occasions and has been repeated from time to time. The first time I spoke to the present minister in regard to the matter he said, ''The government does not propose to build any more elevators." The next thing I heard was that they were buying the Woodward

elevator, another elevator in Vancouver. I do not say that I object to that. The announcement was made a few days ago that the government propose to build an elevator at Prince Rupert. I am not objecting to that Put I say that the claims of the Fraser river are such that this government should be particularly interested in them inasmuch as New Westminster or Port Mann is the logical point for the shipment of the grain which goes over the Canadian National Railways. As the minister knows, that is assuming very considerable proportions. At the present time great quantities are coming through New Westminster and are taken over to Burrard Inlet. There is no reason why that grain should be taken to Burrard Inlet at all, because the Fraser river is the first point where the ships can come in where grain can be loaded. If is simply throwing away money to take that grain over to Burrard Inlet. The minister must have the facts before him The delegation, referred to by the last speaker, of Progressive members who came to New Westminster last, winter, are familiar with the facts. They at that time intimated -and I think they confirm me in the statement now-that they are interested, not so much in any particular point or port on the Pacific, but in having their grain handled where it can be handled most cheaply. That is to say, they would like to see their grain handled economically. It may be, as someone has said, that it does not really make any difference to the, shipper whether his grain goes to Burrard Inlet or to the Fraser river, because the rates will be the same to the shipper; but as a matter of fact, lif extra expense is involved in taking that grain over to Burrard Inlet, somebody has to pay for that. ' I am informed that there is an unnecessary expenditure of one cent a bushel in taking that grain over to Burrard Inlet and the trade will eventually have to stand that loss. That is what Progressive members are interested in.
There are other considerations. As the minister knows, the port of Vancouver at the present time is rather congested, and it is difficult for them to handle all the grain that may be expected to go through Pacific ports. I understand this last year the shipments will amount to something like 50,000,000 bushels. I am informed by Progressive members who were at New Westminster last year that within a very few yeans at least 200,000,000 bushels of grain will go through those ports. When that time comes, the extra expense will mean something, and more

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
than that, the congestion will, of course, be much more marked than it is at present.
As the last speaker has mentioned, Port Mann is a very desirable place to ship grain from and Port Mann is the freight terminus of the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railways at the present time have in Port Mann ideal sites for the construction of grain elevators, so that no expense would be involved in purchasing sites.
Another feature is in regard to the initial cost of construction. On fresh water the cost of construction of an elevator is very much leas than on salt water. On salt water it is necessary to have concrete construction, and particularly in the port of Vancouver that construction and the necessary excavation which has to be done are very expensive, so that outside of the initial cost of the site, which is very large, of course, at Burrard Inlet because sites there are expensive, the cost of construction of elevators is very much less on the Fraser river than on Burrard Inlet. Not so long ago a prominent elevator engineer, Mr. Howe, who is well known to the minister and also, no doubt, to many members of the committee, reported in favouir of the location of elevators on the Fraser river as against Burrard Inlet. These facts must be taken into consideration, and I think the government are not treating the Fraser river very fairly as regards establishing elevators there.
I am quite satisfied the minister thinks that elevators should be established on the Fraser river and that he is doing what he can to assist in having elevators owned by private companies located there. When the government are going into the business of constructing elevators, they should construct elevators where the grain can be, handled1 in the most economical and cheapest manner. That is what Progressive members are interested in. It comes down to a matter of business, of dollars and cents, and although the cost is absorbed by railroads, the traffic has to bear the unnecessary money that is thrown away in locating elevators on the Pacific coast elsewhere than at New Westminster or on the Fraser river. The minister knows these facts as well as I do, and I have no doubt that if he expressed his personal opinion, he would tell this committee that grain elevators should be located on the Fraser river. Perhaps I have got away from this particular appropriation, and I crave the indulgence of the committee for having done so, but it seems to me that New Westminster and the Fraser river are entitled to a fair deal and I am afraid they are not getting it.
I should like again to impress upon the minister the necessity for keeping the dredges which the department already has on the Fraser river until the work is completed and put into permanent condition, so that the channel there will be assured. If dredging work has to be done in other places-and no doubt there are places where such work has to be done-why not utilise some of the other dredges which the department has out there and which are at present laid up? My idea is that it would pay the department to do a good deal of the work by contract and get the thing finished. This is going to cost money: money is being spent, and I am not altogether satisfied with the results that are being obtained. I believe the business interests in New Westminster are behind me when I impress upon the minister the necessity of considering the advisability of doing more of this work by contract.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
failed to tell the committee that within the last three or four years the channel of the Fraser river has been improved from a depth of 26 feet to a depth of 29 feet. That is a gradual process, and it is well known amongst hydraulic engineers that if you are dealing with rivers of that character, the type of engineering that should be adopted is to build works that will have the rivers cure themselves, and that is the type of engineering which we have adopted on the Fraser river. Building these walls, we find that the current of the river in question is increased and in a little while you have done what my hon. friend would have done next year by dredging. The difference is this, that the river having cured itself through the assistance that you have given it, in all probability you have established what may become a permanent or natural channel, whereas if you were to vote two, three, four or more million dollars-because it would take that much to dredge a channel from the mouth of the Fraser to New Westminster sufficiently deep to allow boats such as we hope to get, to enter the river, probably the thing would be destroyed the next season. So that so far as we are concerned, and in the interests of the people of Westminster, it seems to me that, it would be better to have a little patience now and allow the men who are studying conditions on the spot to move as they think best. We are hoping that if my hon. friend will be patient, with the scientific knowledge that we are trying to bring to bear upon the problem, if we are allowed to advance from stage to stage we shall accomplish something that will be of

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
real importance and of permanency in the channel. I am not coming to parliament asking for large sums of money in order that we may rush in and dig channels which probably will be closed up a year afterwards; I think the better plan is to proceed scientifically with the problem. This problem is a difficult one which has been studied by the department for many years, and as minister of the department I am going to take the best advice I can get. Nothing pleases me more than to have a conference with the hon. member, with the boards of trade interested, and with the people of the district who are anxious to have the work go on. But it is necessary that we should take a fair view of this as of other matters. I believe that if we follow the plan suggested by our experts we shall accomplish something which will be of permanent use and of abiding satisfaction to the people of Westminster. The activities during the last few years have brought about marked results, results that are very satisfactory to the department. Last year witnessed the largest tonnage that ever went through the river, and very little difficulty was experienced, steamers going in and out easily.


Mr. McBRIDE:: The minister is absolutely right when he says that the proper thing to do is to keep the water of the Fraser river within the channel and let it cut its own way out to the gulf. I remember in 1909 there was a great deal of dredging done on the north arm of the river; in fact, that year there was spent I think about $100,000 on this work. Three months after the dredge 'eft the channel I happened to be going up o-' a steamer, and -where the channel had been dredged the steamer ran aground. She was a twin screw and broke both propellers. The current in this river is of such a nature that if it is Lot confined to the channel it is apt to fill in where the dredging has been done. In my opinion one dollar spent in putting down mattresses is worth five dollars spent in dredging in the Fraser river.


William Garland McQuarrie: My hon. friend knows
that the vote we are dealing with refers to the main channel; he was speaking of the north arm of the river.


Thomas George McBride: The same thing applies
to both.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was going to request the minister to take the chief engineer with him when he goes out.


John Warwick King: Yes I hope Mr. Cameron will be able to visit the Fraser river this year.


William Garland McQuarrie: He has been doing
good work there; he was there a few years ago and the people are anxious that he should come back again. They hope that he will come this summer if possible to continue his investigations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
Mr. HUMPHREY:: I want to call the
attention of the minister to a condition at Revelstoke in connection with the river bank protection on the Columbia river. I am fully aware that the minister knows a good deal about this particular matter, but I want to impress it upon his attention. I am informed that there are two places in this locality where there appear signs of erosion into the bank. In past years a certain amount of work has been done at this place. At one particular point there has been done considerable mattress work and at a point further down the river a wing dam was constructed under previous governments, in an effort to change if possible the course of the river to prevent its cutting into the bank. As is well knowm, the Columbia is a large navigable river; it is by no means a small stream, and at certain times of the year, particularly at
5 p.m high water time, the current here is pretty swift. In fact, at all seasons there is a very swift current and the conditions are such that the river bank is being constantly encroached upon. I do not think that the work done in previous years in the construction of this wing dam has accomplished the purpose it was intended to serve; and from the information I have received within the last year or so and from personal interviews I have had with the district engineer I understand that, as a result of the gauging of the activities of the river in cutting into the bank, it has been decided that something should be done to keep the river in its course or at least to change the course if possible in order to stop the erosion. If there are any further developments there is a possibility of the stream cutting straight through into the town of Revelstoke; at any rate, if it does not go into the town the cutting into the bank will destroy many well-advanced and improved farms and ranches. I was wondering whether the minister could give us any information regarding the work of the department in this respect.


John Warwick King: The district engineer last year made a careful examination of conditions at Revelstoke on the Columbia

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
river and plans were prepared and suggestions submitted for improvements to prevent bank erosion. So far we have not decided to make the large expenditure necessary, believing that further study should be given to the currents there and further reports considered. The flood season will probably have passed in a few days and we hope there will not be any great damage. We shall have further inquiry made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Hardy Bay-wharf replacement, $19,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a new
vote.


John Warwick King: This is for the
construction of a creosoted pile wharf 50 by 100 feet, with an approach 480 by 16 feet and a freight shed 15 by 28 feet, a slip 9 by 30 feet; and launch landing steps. The proposed wharf will be constructed on the west side of the bay and will replace the old structure on the east side which collapsed in 1918. With the construction of a roadway by the provincial government the people will have access directly to the wharf which they have not had heretofore.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What town will
this serve?


John Warwick King: Hardy Bay, near
the northern end of Vancouver island. A landing point there gives access by road or trail across to Quatsino harbour on the west coast of Vancouver island. The work is an important one and, as I say, it is being carried out in conjunction with road work undertaken by the provincial government. Item agreed to.
New Westminster (Poplar island)-fisheries patrol station, $16,500.


John Warwick King: This is being constructed for the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They have a fairly large amount of work in that vicinity, requiring a station on Poplar island, opposite the town of New Westminster on the Fraser river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nicomen island-protection work, $25,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: How is this work
getting on?


John Warwick King: This work was
undertaken by the government in conjunction with certain work that the provincial government undertook to do. Nicomen island is on the Fraser, river below Chilliwack. It is a very fertile island and has been settled for
some years. After the war, when the reestablishment of returned soldiers was under consideration, certain lands were bought there and returned men placed upon them; I think about $140,000 was spent for that purpose. For many years the department has been spending money in the building of wing dams and dredging, amounting in all to some $158,000, to protect this point in the river. Two years ago I asked the provincial government to make a joint survey with the Department of Public Works to see if some scheme could not be evolved that would give protection to the people on the island that would be permanent in its character. After careful consideration of the matter and the making of surveys, the engineers reported that by putting in certain bank protection work we could deflect the current from this point and thus secure the land from damage. Prior to that the river had worn in and destroyed a section of the dyke, which left the area open to flood in high water. The provincial government closed that area, expending some $30,000 in the work, and we have carried on this protection work with some degree of success. Part of it has been done by contract and part by day labour. The department have been utilizing what is known as retard dams, a method adopted on the Mississippi with very good results. Large trees are brought into the bank and piled with brush; the ends extend out into the current and that brings about a retarding of the water and silt and the settlement of material. The figures would indicate that last year the bank built up very satisfactorily in that area. It is to complete the contract we made last year that we are asking for this sum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pender harbour (Donley's Landing)-enlarging float,
William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister explain this item?


John Warwick King: This is to construct an addition 35 by 50 feet to the existing float. Pender harbour is one of the islands lying between Victoria and Vancouver. There is quite a settlement there. It is a farming community and some lumbering is carried on.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not think there
is any farming there; it is mostly fishing and logging. How many wharves are there in Pender harbour which have received assistance from the government?


John Warwick King: I think this is
the only one.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


William Garland McQuarrie: Is there not one near the principal store almost directly opposite this wharf, at Gonzales and Dames landing, right across the harbour?


John Warwick King: We are not maintaining that one. There is a store at the float my hon. friend speaks of, owned by Mr. Donley, and the telegraph office is there. It is a general meeting place for half the citizens of the harbour.


William Garland McQuarrie: Donley's?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: I think the minister
is mixed up; the telegraph office is at the other place. It is at Gonzales and Dames landing where the hotel is, and the big store. I know the place very well. The reason I mention the matter is because when I was there last summer my attention was drawn to the fact that where the business is done, at the regular calling place for steamers, where the telegraph office is, where the hotel is, and so on, the government will not do anything to assist in keeping up the float and the wharf is in rather bad shape. The member for Comox-Alberni will be able to confirm what I say, namely, that most of the business in Pender harbour is done at this place across from Donley's. I am not objecting to this vote to Donley's; in all probability it is necessary, because a great many fishermen make Donley's float their headquarters.
I am simply calling the minister's attention to the necessity for taking care of the other wharf as well. If he looks into the matter I think he will find that the information which is before him is rather misleading.


Alan Webster Neill: The last remark of the hon.
gentleman is perfectly correct. The information that is before us is misleading-that is the information he has furnished us with.
I fear he has been taking a political view of the atmosphere in that district. A telegraph office does not necessarily need a large wharf, a summer hotel may, to a larger extent, but what wharves are generally used for is loading and unloading freight, and that is what this float is required for. I may mention incidentally that if he looks up the public accounts of last year he will find that a considerable sum was spent in fixing up the wharf at the place he mentioned.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister said that nothing had been spent.


Alan Webster Neill: This year.


William Garland McQuarrie: Any time.


Alan Webster Neill: There was something spent,
and a lot has been spent in years gone by. and on the principle of fifty-fifty perhaps it is time there was something spent at Donley's float. This float was put in some years ago, and it developed a very considerable trade in fish, so much so that it was found not big enough to take the fish off from day to day. You will notice the vote is for enlarging the float. It had worn out in course of time, and was in such a condition that the fish and other products on it would be sinking below the level of the water. A man named Donley maintained, at his own cost and charges, a float there for some years, and the general public, including the fishermen, took advantage of it and had the use of it, on account of the government float being so small and inadequate. Donley's float is now practically worn out, and the government were asked to extend their float so that it would be big enough to handle the traffic that has been done there for at least five years past on this other man's privately owned float. There is no intention, I think, on the part of the government to discriminate against the summer hotel; it is largely used in the summer time. I myself was there last summer. I examined the wharf and I spoke to people, and I heard no complaint of its condition at that time, nor do I think any application has been made this year for further repairs beyond those undertaken last year. While the minister may say he has no record of a vote, possibly something was done out of what is known as the general vote. I am not very sure of the amount. But at any rate there is no absolute need for any repairs at the present moment on that side of the harbour, and there is urgent need for this other work in order that the people who try to make a living by taking the fish out of the water and sending it to Vancouver may have some place on which to land it.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am afraid I shall
have to put the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in the same class with the minister so far as his information is concerned. I have always heard that he did not like to cross the water, because he got seasick every time he did. I thought that he would come fairly before this committee and correct the misinformation of the minister.


John Warwick King: May I interrupt
my hon. friend for a moment? Apparently he is seeking for information, and it probably would be just as well to give it to him. He has a local knowledge which some of us do not enjoy, and probably he can play upon that to some extent. Apparently there are two floats, the government float and the private

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
float owned by Mr. Donley. I have the following information with regard to the situation :
The steamer always landed at Donley's when we had a large float there, and as at that time very little use was made of the government float by the public, it was decided to move the float, which was 40' x 50' to Pope's landing. After a while the people asked for a small float there, as the only school house in Pender harbour was situated close to Donley's and it was claimed that a large percentage of the children had to go to school in boats, and there was no place for them to land except at Donley's private float, and the small boats were in the way of the steamers and fishing boats, for which purposes the private float was built. It was sufficient at the time, but I think that the fish business has grown, and that as Donley's float is getting old the department would be warranted in building an addition to the present float, which would relieve Mr. Donley from the necessity of keeping his float in repair. The Union Steamship Company will then be able to call at the government float, but they will naturally tie up to the float that has the most freight on it to load.
The existing float was built in 1913-1914, and was repaired and moved to Pope's landing in 1919-20. A new float was built at Donley's landing in 1920-21, and this vote, I understand, is for enlargement of the present landing.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	There is another
float at Pope's landing, is there not?


John Warwick King: There may be.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: The statement I made was that the telegraph office was at Gionzales and Dames landing, not at Donley's. The minister had it placed at Donley's landing. I thought the horn, member for Comox-Alberni would be fair enough to confirm my statement, but he does not seeim inclined to dio so, although he knows it is perfectly correct. He has also spoken of a summer hotel. If he has information that this is merely a summer hotel, his information is very defective. It is a hotel that is run all the year round, and one that has been used for a great number of years. It is not a summer hotel proposition at all.
As to the quantity of freight that is handled at Gonzales landing, I would say that at least ten times, and possibly more, is handled there than at Donley's. Another point that I took exception to in the minister's statement was in regard to whether the government had done anything for the other wharf, and I understood him to Say that the government did not assume any responsibility at all in reference to that other wharf. I think he was wrong in that; the information which he had was not correct.
The minister seems to complain now because I have some local knowledge, and as he says, have played on it. I do not see
how that is really a matter of censure so far as I am concerned. When I find that the minister has not correct information I think it is my duty to supply him with reliable information when I happen to have it, and I know this place very well.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said something about politics. There is no politics in this so far as I am concerned. The place is not in my constituency, but I happen to be a land owner in this particular neighborhood, and I happen to go there quite frequently. I am not objecting to this particular vote for Donley's landing at all, and I think I made that perfectly clear, but I did say to the minister that I thought the other landing required attention. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni said that he was there last sumimer. Well, I have no doubt he would not go there in the winter, because he would be afraid of being seasick; he does not like to cross the water in the winter.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. I want to know what on earth the state of my stomach has to do with Donley's float?
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	The point is this,
Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni said he was there last summer, and had not heard any complaint about the condition of the wharf at Gonzales landing. 1 do not know how that happened at all, because when I was there I did hear complaints, and many of them. I was told by these people that they had been very unfairly treated, that they were not being taken care of at all, and that their landing was the place where the business of the harbour was being done, where all the steamers called regularly, and where the great part of the freight for that harbour was handled. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni had better make another trip up there and get his information more up-to-date. I mentioned this particular case to the minister in good faith, and I certainly resent any criticism from either the minister or the hon. member for having done so. The hon. gentleman should have no particular objection to my mentioning a matter of this kind. If I happen to be a constituent of his at certain times of the year when he is not looking after his duties as he should, and see some things that should be attended to, surely he should welcome my assistance.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall make it my business
to inquire into this matter carefully and in particular ascertain the location of the hor gentleman's townsite lot.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not say anything about a townsite lot. That is another insinuation which I resent.


Alan Webster Neill: If my hon. frien4 takes exception to that term I will apologize and use the word "property," an expresion he himself employed. Surely he will not object to that. When I get the information as to the location of his property and bring it to the attention of the House hon. members will be in a better position to gauge the value of my hon. friend's statements.


William Garland McQuarrie: It does not make any difference to me, as far as my property is concerned, which one of these wharves is fixed up, not in the least, so that the insinuation which has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is absolutely unwarranted. There is no foundation for it at all. It does not make a bit of difference to me which wharf is repaired; I want to see them all fixed up. As a matter of fact I could tell my hon. friend that Donley's wharf happens practically to adjoin the property that 1 have there, and I use his wharf just as much as I use the other.


Thomas George McBride: I may say that I know
Pender harbour fairly well-in fact I ran a steamer in there for some years-and the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are absolutely correct. I think this money should be spent on Donley's wharf. I was up there last summer, and there were a number of people who desired to get off at the wharf. Some remained on board while others were going ashore for fear the wharf would turn over if too many landed at the one time.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


William Garland McQuarrie: May I ask the hon.
member for Cariboo how the business done at Donley's wdiarf compares with that at Gon-zale's and Dame's wharf?


Thomas George McBride: When I was up there
all the business was done at Donley's wharf.


William Garland McQuarrie: That shows the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni does not know anything at all about the matter. He is making reckless statements that have no foundation in fact at all.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman is getting mixed up. He means the hon. member for Cariboo not the member for Comox-Alberni.


William Garland McQuarrie: I see neither rhyme
nor reason for the attitude assumed by the hon. member for Cariboo because evidently

he does not know anything about the position of affairs. He has made a statement which is absolutely misleading and he knows it.


Mr. LOVETT:: I suggest that the hon.
members who are exchanging these compliments should settle their differences outside the House. We do not want to sit here and listen to such remarks which are altogther irrelevant to the matter at issue.


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not see anything
wrong with the discussion.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: I would advise my hon.
friends to go outside and settle their differences.
Mr! McQUARRIE: I take exception to the remarks of the last speaker, there is no reason for them whatever. I do not think I have occupied very much time during this session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas George McBride: You have occupied more
time than any other member of the House.


William Garland McQuarrie: Here is the hon. member for Cariboo again. He says I have spoken more than any other member in the House. Now he knows that is an untrue statement.


Thomas George McBride: I do not.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is absolutely without any foundation whatever.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: I do not take exception
to the hon. member's talking in a businesslike way when he adheres to the item under discussion, but I do object to the irrelevant talk that has been going on for some minutes especially when we hope to make progress and finish up very shortly.


William Garland McQuarrie: If estimates are
brought down at the end of the session we will rush them through, I suppose?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: These estimates were
brought down long ago.


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. gentleman
is most unfair in suggesting that I have been wasting time in discussing this item.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Discuss the matter in a
businesslike way and confine yourself to the item.


William Garland McQuarrie: Oh yes, discuss it in
a businesslike way! When I wish to get advice from the hon. gentleman I will ask him for it. I consider his intervention in this matter as nothing short of impertinence.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
What does the hon. gentleman himself do in this House? He is simply a rubber stamp and nothing else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: It is better to be a rubber stamp than a nuisance.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not catch my
hon. friend's observation.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: I will repeat it if necessary.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil, Bonaven-ture) :: Both expressions, "rubber stamp," and "nuisance" are unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


William Garland McQuarrie: I withdraw the "rubber stamp" observation.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: I withdraw the word
"nuisance."


William Garland McQuarrie: I certainly am surprised that when I make a perfectly reasonable suggestion to the minister it should arouse all this commotion. I cannot conceive what objection there can be to my stating that there is another landing in this particular harbour which requires attention. I suggested to the minister that the other landing was the one where most of the business in this harbour was carried on. and I defy any one to contradict that statement because it is absolutely correct.


Thomas George McBride: I take exception to some
of my hon. friend's remarks. I have no reason whatever to retract anything I said. The statement I made was absolutely correct, and no person who goes up there and sees the conditions as they exist will say otherwise. As for the other wharf I have been there a number of times. I have been in that harbour I suppose a hundred and fifty times and I have very seldom seen anybody on that wharf but Chinamen or Indians.


John Warwick King: The information
contributed by hon. members who have local knowledge of the district has been of value to the committee. However, the item is not a large one. It is simply for the extension of the existing float and I think it ought to be carried now.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must say that I
think the eyesight of the hon. member for Cariboo must be as bad as the stomach of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sayward-wharf replacement, $11,600.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a large item; what is the explanation?


John Warwick King: My memorandum reads:
To construct a wharf 90 feet by 50 feet with an approach 146 feet by 16 feet (including King truss for passage of drift logs), a float 14 feet by 38 feet, gangway 38 feet by 4 feet and ^lip 9 feet by 38 feet. The proposed structure is required to replace the existing wharf which is in a dilapidated condition. Sayward is an important point on Vancouver island. The wharf has been maintained there for many years, and this is for replacement of the existing structure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sidney-repairs to wharves, $7,250.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this
item?
Mr. KING (Kootenay : My memorandum in regard to this wharf reads:
(1)	General repairs to wharf consisting of the renewal of the superstructure of the approach 374 feet long by 19 feet 3 inches wide, the renewal of 758 lineal feet of creosoted piling, also minor repairs to wharf head and concrete piers, estimated cost, $4,000.
(2)	General repairs to auto ferry slip and the construction of a sheet pile guide wall, 145 feet in length, estimated cost, $3,250.
Amount required for 1924-25, $7,250.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tofino-wharf repairs, $5,400.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this?


John Warwick King: This is situated
on Vancouver island on the west coast, and this item is for renewal of untreated bearing piles, in wharf head with creosoting piling, and so forth. We put in bearing piles, crossbraces and untreated fender piles, one creosoted1 horizontal fender and rough lumber, making in all an expenditure of 85,400.


Henry Lumley Drayton: By tender?


John Warwick King: By tender and contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver, Stanley park, foreshore protection,
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before that item passes, being the last on the list, will my hon. friend tell me how the appropriations not required, amounting to 8136,435, are made up? How much of that represents work that has been done and money spent, and how much work abandoned?


John Warwick King: This is a bookkeeping item, placed there by the Finance department, in making up their statement. It represents the unexpended portions of the

* Supply-Harbours and Rivers
vote of last year under these items, work done or work dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is entirely wrong. It is not a bookkeeping item to commence with. It is an item which is supposed to give the House information and supposed to be a reliable item.


John Warwick King: It is a reliable
item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is not an
item showing work dropped. It shows works which have been finished and all the money spent on them. That is what it represents. It is of importance to know what it is, because if we do not know we cannot properly judge the expenditure one year from another year. It is not a bookkeeping item.


John Warwick King: I have the information before me. My hon. friend is absolutely wrong when he says it is not a bookkeeping item, because it is. It is not an item inserted by the Department of Public Works, but one inserted by the Department of Finance. It is made up of unexpended votes last year. I will read them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
first item?


John Warwick King: Anglemont wharf, $4,300.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was done with that?


John Warwick King: That was spent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it was
not dropped. What is the next? .


John Warwick King: Arrow park, reconstruction of wharf. The next would be Balfour, repairs to wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that dropped or is the money spent?


John Warwick King: The money
spent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much?


John Warwick King: The amount is


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
next?


John Warwick King: Beaton wharf repairs and improvements, $1,760.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the money spent?


John Warwick King: I believe so.
Then the next is Bishop's landing float renewal, $1,400.


Henry Lumley Drayton: W7as the work
done and money spent?


John Warwick King: I believe so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want the
facts.


John Warwick King: I will give my
hon. friend the list, or if he likes I will give it to Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the list
show the works abandoned as against the works completed?


John Warwick King: The list is here
and if my hon. frieind wishes, we will have it placed on Hansard. Those items marked on this list in black indicate the expenditure having been made.


Mr. ANDERSON:: The hon. member for
Burrard (Mr. Clark) was not in the House this afternoon, and he might want to inquire about this item.


Thomas George McBride: May I ask the hon.
gentleman what he is doing?


Mr. CLARK:: I have no remark to make
in regard to this vote, except thia't to my own knowledge it is 'a very necessary one. It is work going on from year to year, and I understand it is the same amount as last year and less than the previous year. Is that not correct?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is familiar with the character of this work, and I quite agree with him it is a necessary expenditure. It is done in connection with the Stanley Park Board, and they are doing a very useful work. The amount is not las large probably as we would like, but it is a continuation of the work that was undertaken some time ago.


Thomas George McBride: I was just going to say that I am sorry the minister cannot see his way to make the amount a little larger. As he has 'already stated, the work is being carried out in connection with the Stanley Park Board, and it cannot be carried on as economically as it would be if the job were gone on with and completed. It will take more than this amount to complete the work, and if the minister could see his way to put in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to complete the work once it is started, I think the work could be done to much better advantage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have in my
hand the list which the minister sends me. This list shows total appropriations not re-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
quired amounting to $136,435. I have no objection, if it will save time, to handing to Hansard what he suggests, as long as I know *what it means. It may mean first that the work is being carried on and the money spent, and therefore you want the vote, or it may be that the department, on investigation, will drop the project. I want to know into which of these different classes each of the items on this list will go. The list, as handed over, does not show that. The deputy minister is present and he will know what work he is going on with and what he has dropped.


John Warwick King: I think it would
be almost impossible for the deputy minister to know that without having a report prepared. There are many items in the list, and if my hon. friend wishes the information we shall have it prepared and submitted to him to-morrow giving him the particulars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would be a very easy thing to do.


John Warwick King: It is impossible
for anyone to carry that information in his head.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not saying that, but it will be a very simple thing to do.
tv.Tt* xrratq (Kootsiiiiy) [DOT] Yes \vs gbsll bsyg the information prepared and it will be supplied to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
Maritime provinces	 $540,000
Ontario and Quebec	 562,500
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta..	00.000
British Columbia	 375,000
Mr. BAXTER:: Will any of this money be
spent for clearing out the dredged space on the west side of St. John harbour which has been seeping in ever since that work was performed some years ago and which is not yet completely occupied by wharves?


John Warwick King: That would come
not under this vote, but under the St. John harbour vote.	.


Mr BAXTER:: There is no St. John harbour vote.


John Warwick King: Yes, there will
be a vote for St. John harbour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent last year?


John Warwick King: There was spent
$489,000 on dredging done by government dredges.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
reason why we cannot reduce this vote to what was spent last year, $489,000, and save something?


John Warwick King: I hardly think
you can reduce the vote. In fact, I think we have made a very considerable reduction. The amount I have given is for departmental plant alone. Other work was done by contract last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to know the whole amount spent under the vote last year. Perhaps we might call it six o'clock and let this information be secured. The information I want on these items, so that the minister will know, is the total amount spent last year for dredging on each of the four items: Maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and British Columbia. Then in addition to that I want to get some idea as to the work done, having regard to the quantities; I want to see what this work which is being done by the department is costing per yard. Yliat do the government reports show? These statistics are usually available and if they are not they should be. We want to see what we are getting for the money that is bemg voted.


John Warwick King: There is some
information which I cannot lay my hand on at the moment. I hope the information my hon. friend requires will be available.
Progress reported. [DOT]


Henry Lumley Drayton: Call it six
olclock.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 130, respecting Alliance Nationale. -Mr. Archambault.
Bill No. 158, to incorporate Merchants Casualty Insurance Company.-Mr. Euler.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the third reading of Bill No. 159, to incorporate The Laurentian Insurance Company.-Mr. Jacobs.
Supply-Public Works
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have been looking
through my file of bills during the consideration of these private bills and I have not been able to find any of them. I suggest that the Senate bills, especially divorce bills, be placed in a file by themselves. At present it is almost impossible for a member to find a particular private bill, and one does not like to hold up the work of the committee until he has found it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Philip R. Marshall Palmer.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of George Felix Simpson.-Mr. Ladner.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public Works-dredging-Maritime provinces, $540,000.
John Warwick King: Before six o'clock the hon. member for West York asked certain questions regarding the dredging vote. That information is being prepared, and with his concurrence I would suggest that we allow this item to stand and take up the next one, for roads and bridges.
&ir HENRI DRAYTON: That is quite all right.
Item stands.
Dominion roads and bridges generally, $5,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the
annual vote?


John Warwick King: Yes. It is for
repairs, painting, and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International bridge over river St. John between Clair, N.B., and Port Kent, Me., the state of Maine to provide $15,000; county of Aroostook, $10,000 and town of Fort Kent, $5,000, $29,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is being done in connection with this?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required towards the construction of an international bridge across the St. John river between Clair, N.B., and Fort Kent, Maine. The proposed structure will consist of 3 steel spans, each 232 feet in length, on concrete piers and abutments. It will have a roadway 20 feet in width and a sidewalk 6 feet wide. The estimated cost of the work is placed at

$150,700, exclusive of approaches, but this is only tentative as there are three sites under consideration at the present time and until one is definitely decided upon the plans cannot be finally prepared. I may say that this expenditure is a joint international expenditure, the state of Maine contributing one half the cost of the bridge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
said the cost was to be $150,000. If we are paying half, why have we not an item for $75,000?


John Warwick King: We shall not
need more than the - amount suggested here for this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not a
great deal better to say what it is? The government will be called upon to enter into a contract for $75,000, and they will have no authority to enter into a contract for that amount if they obey the law.


John Warwick King: We are asking
parliament for $29,000 this year with a view to entering into an arrangement with the state of Maine for the construction of this bridge. It is an international undertaking, and it is not usual to vote the whole amount. It is estimated that $29,000 will be sufficient for our needs this year. The information given here is that the estimate of $150,000 is tentative, as the site has not yet been permanently located, and as my hon. friend knows, the location of the site will have muoh to do with the cost.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But is there
no certificate from the auditor or other officer showing the authorization for the liability which the government incurs in connection with works of this kind, showing that they are authorized, and whether there are available funds for the work?


John Warwick King: There has been
an application, and the information sis that the state of Maine is prepared to enter into an arrangement for building this 'bridge. Our engineers have reported on it, and they suggest a total expenditure of $150,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is $75,000 for us?


John Warwick King: Yes, it will be
fifty-fifty in the end. There has been a conference between the engineers of the Public Works department and those representing the state of Maine. I think we are taking the usu'al course in expenditures of this kind. This is not the first international bridge.

Supply-Public Works
There is one already at Edmundston, and this was the course followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems to me a remarkable thing that the government is contemplating an expenditure of this amount away up on the head waters of the river St. John, where settlement is very thin, and where the number of people to be served is very small indeed. The government cannot find 117,500 to pay for an international bridge across the St. Croix river at Vanceboro, which would be a through thoroughfare between the United States and Canada for tourist traffic. For two sessions I hav-e been urging the minister to enter into an agreement with the state of Maine to pay one half the cost of Such a bridge at Vanceboro, where they now have no bridge. The people used to use what was a private bridge across a lumber dam at that point, but that was carried away by the ice. Representations were made to the legislature of the state of Maine, and they voted one-half of the money, the understanding being, of course, that the Dominion of Canada would pay the other half of the cost of the bridge. /The Maine vote lapses this year, and nothing has been done by the government of this country to keep faith with these people. That is a very much smaller expenditure than this, but it has been refused by this government on account of economy. That is a perfectly valid excuse, but imagine the amazement of the people on both sides of the international boundary to learn that the government cannot find half of $35,000 to pay its share for that bridge, yet they can find half of $150,000 to pay for another international bridge across another stream that forms the international boundary-a bridge that will be a much larger and a much more expensive structure to serve a community that has not one-tenth the number of people who would be served by an. international bridge across the St. Croix river at Vanceboro. I think the people of that county have very just grounds of complaint against the government. The government are not consistent and their plea for economy is not sincere. I do not think the minister has treated the southern part of the province of New Brunswick fairly. I suppose the explanation lies in the fact that the county of Madawaska elects a supporter of the government while the county of York does not and never will.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They came pretty near it the last time.


Pius Michaud: My hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) has stated that the district where this
bridge is to be constructed is thinly settled.
I am afraid the hon. member is sadly lacking in a knowledge of the actual conditions. I should like him to be a little more generous when he is dealing with the question of patronage. In my own town we need a new post office, but I sat in the House for ten years and never made any such remarks as he has uttered to-night; I should not like to do it under any consideration. Now at Fort Kent and Clair nearly all the tourist traffic bound for Montreal and other parts of Quebec crosses the boundary, and there is a town of considerable size there. I may also inform my hon. friend that the northern part of the county of Madawaska is thickly and not thinly settled. He can satisfy himself on that point if he will travel through that part of my county next summer. This bridge will be built at the expense of the state of Maine and the Dominion of Canada. We already have an international bridge across the St. John river. It is practically the only benefit we derive from the Dominion treasury whereas that part of New Brunswick contributes thousands of dollars to the Dominion treasury every year. I am satisfied that the port of Clair yielded one million dollars in customs duties during the last ten years, and has done so for the past twenty years. I know what I am speaking about. If my hon. friend does not know any more about the revenue derived from that locality than he does about the population he is not very well informed.
About ten years ago, or a few years before the Great War began, parliament voted a subsidy to build this bridge. It was not constructed, however, owing to difficulties that were raised by some friends of the then government. They wanted the bridge to be built at the door of a certain gentleman, a Conservative too, who had so much influence with the government that he blocked the entire enterprise. Since that time the public have felt the need of the bridge very much. I do not care what government builds the structure; it is badly needed, especially in the interest of the country around the upper part of the St. John river which my hon. friend knows is one of the important districts of the province. My hon. friend should know that the district in question is growing very rapidly. He ought to know too that we need an international bridge, and I hope he will not place any more obstacles in the way of carrying out the project.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon. friend has missed the whole point of my criticism. I am not complaining particularly of the construction of this bridge, but I am accusing the govern-
Supply-Public Works

ment of inconsistency in undertaking a work of this magnitude when they cannot find a very much lesser sum for -a mudh smaller structure at a more important point in the community. I should like to point out further that the government of Canada have already built a bridge at a point in that upriver country not very far from the site of the proposed bridge-less than thirty miles away, if my memory serves ime aright. I am not so ignoranit of the conditions in that part of the country as the hon. gentleman alleges; I have been up here wilthin the last two years. This district is compathtiveily new country, and tlhe settlement is very largely along both sides of the river. I venture to say that the most important traffic on this bridge when it is constructed will be rum runners from the state of Maine into the province of Quebec.


Pius Michaud: Going to Fredericton, I
suppose ?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I am justified in
that statement from the facts Which have come to my knowledge. But that is not the point ait a 111. What I complain of is that the government have refused to meet the authorities of the State of Maine in regard to the construction of a much smaller, less expensive, a.nd much more important structure. For reasons that are quite apparent here, and quite apparent to the minister, they refused to build the structure that has been asked for by the people of York county and the .people of Vauceboro in a .much more thickly settled district, and in the direct line of tourist traffic-in fact it is the most direct line-from the New England states to the city of St. John. I Should like to point out this further fact, that the county represented by my horn, friend is about to receive a. splendid post office from this government. It looks as though the government can find money for certain public works in certain constituencies but they are unable to find funds for works in other constituencies.


Pius Michaud: Does my hon. friend
aot know that in the county of Madawaska there has not been one public building constructed by any government. It is about time now that we should have one.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
from York-Sunbury is hardly fair in his remarks. This matter is not a new one because I find a vote of $30,000 was provided in the estimates for 1914-15 for a bridge at this point. In 1915-16 there was a re-vote and again in 1916-17.


Pius Michaud: That is for the same
bridge.


John Warwick King: The committee will readily understand, therefore, that this project has been before parliament year after year. My hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) has suggested that we are discriminating against him in the 'request he made last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Two years ago.


John Warwick King: No, last year I
think the request was made that the government should enter into arrangements with the state of Maine to construct a bridge across the St. Croix river. But under conditions as they are to-day I feel that we should complete projects that are already in hand before entering upon new undertakings. I have no doubt the structure to which he refers is an important one, but I can assure him that the representation of the county has not entered into the matter. He knows very well that many public works throughout Canada are being requested by members in all parts of the chamber, but the government are not in a position to-day to carry them out. I can say to my hon. friend that the government are not neglecting this matter. On the contrary we have been making very thorough and very careful inquiries. The sum originally suggested was considered too large, and the engineering staff investigated the situation in order to see whether a bridge that would meet the demands of traffic could not be constructed for a smaller amount than had been suggested.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister consider the expenditure of the money upon this structure an absolute necessity, having regard to the financial condition of the country today?


John Warwick King: There have been
negotiations with the state of Maine since 1914 and 1915 with regard to this matter, they have appropriated sums of money in conjunction with this parliament and I think that we should continue to vote that sum at least this year in order to carry out the understandings that were entered into by the friends of my hon. friend when they were on this side of the House. I am sorry the hon. gentleman has seen fit to view the structure in the way he has. That is not the way I view it. I respect my hon. friend as a member of this House, and I like to consider his representations and1 do the best I can for him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am bound to say that
the minister is sympathetically inclined towards

Supply-Public Works
the request I have made. I think he has always found me ready to do him justice, and I want him to do me justice. It is quite apparent that the reason this bridge was not built, if it was in the estimates so long ago as 1914 and 1915, was because of the war.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: There were no rumrunners then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No. I hapen to know
this community, and I do not think the minister would be justified, having regard to the financial conditions, to build a structure of that size at this point, when he is aware that there is a fine bridge, 30 miles away, crossing the international boundary at Edmundston. Half of it was paid for by this government, and half of it was paid for by the state of Maine. I think the last payment was made only two years ago. Here is the situation: On the frontier, several hundred miles long, there is at present one international bridge in the northern part of the county connecting Edmundston with the state of Maine. The density of settlement is all south of that, along the international boundary, as my hon. friend well knows, and the further north you go along the frontier the nearer you come to the wilderness. This part of Clair that has been spoken of is near the head waters of the river, in the very western angle of the province, and I submit that for the purposes of local traffic it is not justified. There may be some justification on account of the through traffic which has lately originated between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. I leave it to the minister's imagination to say what that traffic is. It is pretty well known out in that part of the country, but the other bridge, for which I asked him to place a vote in the estimates, is not for any such purpose at all. It is to accommodate a very large and increasing volume of tourist traffic by automobile between the New England states and the province of New Brunswick, on a line which will be the most direct route between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. It has been asked for by the people down there. Half of the amount has been voted1 by the state of Maine and that vote is now current, but it will lapse this year unless this government does its share. It is immaterial to me whether it is built or not, but the people of the community want it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to join
with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) in support of the bridge at Vanee-boro. I think it is a necessity and should 202
have been built long ago. In fact, it should have been built by his friends when they were in office. I cannot agree with him when he says that, considering the density of the population, it is a more important point than Fort Kent on the American side or Clair on the Canadian side. I do not know whether he is as well acquainted with that section as I
am.	I do know that development has taken place in that northern section of New Brunswick more rapidly in the last ten years than in any other part of the province. There is no doubt about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What district is the hon.
gentleman speaking of?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: North of Edmundston. I happen to be very well acquainted with that country. I have done business all over that country for the last fifteen years and I know it very well indeed. I went up there last year and was surprised-not having been there for three or four years previous-to find the development that had taken place. I think $150,000 is a pretty costly bridge to construct over the river at that point. The minister would be well advised to have his engineers look into the project very closely because the river St. John is not such a large river at that point as it is further down, where the other tributaries come into it. At the same time a bridge is needed. The density of the population is great on both sides and there is a great deal of traffic there. I regret to hear the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) say the only traffic across that river would be rum-runners. I could not credit that. There may be some rum-running done there I think possibly that there would be as great traffic in rum-mnning at Vanceboro if this bridge were built. However, as a result of the late conventions entered into by the United States and Canadian governments, I think they will be able to handle this traffic very well indeed. In speaking of the international bridges, it is a fact that there is only a very limited portion of the boundary between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine that is international water, the St. Croix river for a snort distance in the southern part and the St. John river in the northern part. There is an international bridge at St. Stephen New Brunswick, on the St. Croix river. I do not know how far from Vanceboro that would be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Forty-five miles.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend from
York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) says there is a

Supply-Public Works

good bridge thirty miles from Fort Kent. That is a good distance to travel, when yon have to come back thirty miles on the other side of the river. It would mean you would have to travel sixty miles, and I do not think that is reasonable. I would urge the minister to consider both bridges. Both are very badly needed. Let the minister consider whether the bridges at Fort Kent and Clair could not be constructed for less than 1150,000. It seems to me it should be done for less.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
private bridge at Vanceboro destroyed?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information, but if my memory serves me aright, my attention was called to it when we were making up our estimates for 1923-24. My hon. friend says two years ago. He may be right. This bridge was part of the dam; they utilized the structure of the dam for roadway purposes. I think this timber has to be taken out.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How has the traffic
been accommodated?


John Warwick King: They were using
the dam, which has to be removed. I have not definite knowledge of it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What will be the
method of getting across when the dam is removed? Will there be a ferry or a temporary structure?


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is quite a difference in the conditions affecting the two propositions. In the one instance the country is making a new avenue and in the other it is replacing one that is gone. How are the public going to get along down there? They have been accustomed to using this bridge.


John Warwick King: I suppose they
will go down and cross the river below on a ferry.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What distance
are they from the next bridge?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information. We have not that item before us. I am only speaking from memory, but I would say from 25 to 30 or 40 miles.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Milltown.


John Warwick King: Milltown.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is true the people that had a road and an international bridge which is now taken away, in-IMr. Caldwell.l
stead of having to go 30 miles, have to go 40 miles out of their way. The government is starting a new venture, to cut out an unnecessary detour of 30 miles, while providing no remedy for this disability of 40 miles. My hon. friend says, " Let us get rid of the things we are committed to." Why he has not even bought a site. When does the vote in connection with the Clair bridge run out?


John Warwick King: In 1925.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The same year
as the Vanceboro vote runs out.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What difference is there in favour of Vanceboro as against Clair? There is a fifty-fifty offer. Is there any difference, except that one bridge really costs more than the other?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is dealing with the viewpoint of it being a provincial bridge and provincial traffic. These interstate and interprovincial bridges only come into consideration occasionally. The traffic in New Brunswick and in the state of Maine is not every day traffic. It is interstate and interprovincial traffic. It is true that there has been an indifferent roadway through that section of the country used by people who had to use it back and forth. I am advised the railway is not of a first class character. The trading points of the people there are not in the state of Maine but in adjoining towns within the province of New Brunswick. My hon. friend will say that this is a smaller expenditure and his friend from West York says that the population is more dense end, therefore, should receive consideration. We have had a variance of opinion on that. The information I have been able to gather is that in the northern portion there has been greater activity and a moTe rapid development in population than there has been at this point where my hon. friend says that we should put in an interprovincial bridge where heretofore the residents utilized the top of an old dam which is now being removed I should like very much to meet the desire of the hon. member for West York and to give the people of that section accommodation which would be nice for them, but it has not been thought wise in the judgment of the government to put in the estimates an item for that structure. The item under discussion deals with a bridgeway at Clair, a matter that has been under consideration between the Dominion and the state of Maine for some years, dating back to 191415.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: What difference is there between the character of traffic at one point and the other?


John Warwick King: I do not think
there is any difference. There will be a little more north than south.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon.
friend figures on that?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has he any
figures in connection with the traffic that went over the old structure at Vanceboro?


John Warwick King: Not at hand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the whole character of the traffic is the same, the offer of the state of Maine is the same, the vote of the state of Maine and its offer both adopted in the same year. There is nothing in those one way or the other. Is there anything in this at all except that one is to cost the country $75,000 and the other $17,000?


Mr. MARTELL:: We spend a great deal
of time discussing small votes for the Maritime provinces. I quite agree with the hon. member for West York that if there is a valid claim there it should be implemented. Supposing we spent $10,000,000 in the Maritime provinces in order to give the people proper facilities for trade, that would not involve one-tenth the indebtedness that is being incurred for outlays in other portions of the country. We vote millions upon millions with very little discussion in this House when the expenditure is for the benefit of the people of other provinces; but the very instant a small item for the Maritime provinces comes up for consideration, we are treated to disquisitions from practically every member in the House from Cape North to Vancouver. I do not care who represents in this House a constituency in the Maritime provinces, whether he be Liberal, Conservative or Progressive, I am quite confident that when he is advocating something in the interest of his particular constituency, he is not advocating anything that is not our just right in the provinces which constitute the Maritimes of the country. I am deeply grateful for the fact that we have as Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. King, an old Maritimer who, when he left the Maritimes went to the maritime coast of the Pacific. Therefore, we hope that he will constantly bear in mind the interest which we have in the Maritime provinces. These breakwaters, wharves, bridges, are just as 202i
essential to us in the Maritime provinces as railways are to the people of the West, and we should view these things in a broader spirit. No man wants to waste public money at the present time.
It is a wonder the people of the Maritimes remain in confederation. It often comes to my mind that it is a wonder why the law-abiding people of the Maritime provinces do not break out into rebellion, because they are constantly being made hewers of wood and drawers of water for the rest of the people of this Dominion. It has been said that confederation was cradled in the Maritime provinces. None of us is asking to get out of confederation; but if we are going to have things that are absolutely essential to the people of the Maritime provinces taking up the time of this House and carping criticism directed at them, while millions are voted for other portions of the country which were built up by the Maritimes, then you are only hastening the day of rebellion in the Maritimes.
I am surprised that above all others the hon. member for West York, the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), a man who is usually fair and one for whom I have great regard, should spend so much time in carping criticism of anything intended to promote the interests of the Maritime provinces. The Minister of Public Works would not be very far amiss to grant both the bridges, the one asked by the hon. member for West York, though he may be a Tory and I cannot claim to be very much in sympathy with the Tories, and the one asked by the hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). If the Maritime provinces got both, they would not be getting one-half of what is squandered in other portions of the country and which is voted with very little discussion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend has got the wrong corner of this. I have been talking in favour of a bridge at Vanceboro and wondering why on earth it is dropped in order to go to a place further away.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They are both necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not opposing the bridge.at Vanceboro. .On the other hand, I am trying to see why we cannot get it. There is an item inserted in the estimates and I want to see the reason for the distinction. If by any means we can get a bridge in that part of the country, in a proper place, we should get it. I do not see
Supply-Public Works

why my hon. friend is cross with me. I am sure he is not, it is merely simulated wrath. There is a bridge to 'be built where there is no traffic, there is a bridge not to be built where there is traffic and where they had a bridge which has disappeared. There is no difference in the character of the use; they are both exactly the same. There is no difference in the offer from the state of Maine; it is exactly the same. The only difference is that one bridge will cost $75,000 and the other $35,000. A suggestion was made why the more expensive bridge is being built, and that suggestion was that it did not happen to be in a Conservative constituency represented by my hon. friend who raised the question. I have been endeavouring to find out if there is any other reason and so far I have not been able to get it. That is all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I might be able to
help the hon. member for West York a little as to the difference in traffic at those two points. At Vanceboro there is practically no population except the town of Vanceboro on the United States side and the town of Mc-Adam on the Canadian side about six miles from the international boundary. They are connected by a railway bridge across the St. Croix river at Vanceboro. I do not know how-many horses there are in Vanceboro or in McAdam, but in any case there must be very few because these two places are railway towns and whatever traffic there is all goes over the railway bridge. At Fort Kent and at Clair the situation is absolutely different. I may observe by the way that the country around Vanceboro and McAdam is not and probably will never be settled by farmers. It is not farming land; and although it was good for lumber at one time it is a rocky section of country, of granite formation. This is one part of the province of New Brunswick which has altvays struck me as an unfortunate location for a railway to pass through, because people coming from the West and from the middle provinces get a very poor impression of New Brunswick as they go by rail past this district. It is a section of country not fit for anything except bears and game; it reminds me of what an hon. member said last year in regard to some section of northern Ontario which he described as being all rocks and Christmas trees. These two towns are pretty much in the same condition. At Fort Kent and Clair, however, there is a very fertile country thickly settled by farmers and there is a lot of local traffic across the team bridge in that locality which would not exist at Vanceboro. The traffic at

Vanceboro is largely tourist traffic; there would be very little local traffic there. At this other place, however, it is important that a bridge should be built with the least possible delay. But there is no comparison at all between the country around Vanceboro and the district at Kent and Clair from the standpoint of local traffic. As I say, the bridge at Vanceboro is a railway bridge and it. serves very largely the tourist traffic to and from the Maritime provinces. It is one of the gateways into the Maritime provinces and Americans coming to that part of the Dominion very largely go by that route. But, I repeat, there is no comparison between the two districts from the point of view of local traffic.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon. member
does not know about local conditions and the extent of traffic that passes through Vanceboro would fill a book. I venture to say that :u his whole lifetime he has not spent any appreciable time there, apart from an occasional quarter of an hour which he might put in at McAdam while changing from one train to another or getting his lunch. That would be the extent of his acquaintance with local conditions. Let me tell him that there are from twelve to fifteen hundred people living in McAdam and that there are some one hundred and twenty motor cars owned in the community. The most direct route these people have out of the place is the Vanceboro road; they have to cross at Vanceboro and go down on the Maine side to get to the nearest town of St. Stephen. It is only in recent years that they have enjoyed the benefit of a highway from the east towards Fredericton. That road was completed only a year or two ago and until then the only highway out of the community was via Vanceboro and on the American side either up or down. The hon. member says that Vanceboro is a small community.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: No; I said it was a railway town.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Th'ey are both railway
towns, and there is traffic through them; there is vehicular traffic that absolutely requires a bridge. As a matter of fact there used to be a bridge, not by the grace of any government but by the good will of the paper company who operated in the neighbourhood and who owned the bridge. These people notified the inhabitants well in advance that they were going to tear down the dam and that therefore a new bridge would have to be provided. We would not be here asking for a bridge if it

Supply-Public Works
were not that the provincial government of New Brunswick, whose duty in my opinion it was in the first instance to provide one, absolutely refused to contribute a dollar, passing the buck on to the Dominion as they usually do if they have the opportunity. But there is ample precedent for this government contributing half of the cost of the bridge; the Dominion government did so in the case of the other international boundary, on the St. John river in the very community or within a short distance of the community where the minister now proposes to build an expensive structure. No matter what the traffic may be between Clair and Fort Kent the river is of such a nature there that it is feasible to ferry it, while on the St. Croix river, where the bridge was situated, ferrying is impossible as anyone can see who looks out the railway car window. It is not possible to work a ferry there because there is not a sufficient depth of water in ordinary times; it is a shallow stony stream which can be crossed only by a bridge.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We should have this item properly stated. My hon. friend informed the committee that Maine was to put up half the cost of $150,000. Why does he not let us have the proper estimate so that the work can really go on? I should think it would be done by a lump contract and the amount of the contract ought to be voted before the contract is let. That is the usual thing. But there is a more serious objection to the vote as it stands:	It does not agree
with the statement given by the minister. The vote reads:
-the state of Maine to provide $15,000; county of Aroostook, $10,000 and town of Fort Kent, $5,000.
That totals only $30,000, but if my hon. friend is right there should be a contribution of $75,000.


John Warwick King: I think the item
is being voted in the usual form. There is no great advantage in our having more money than we can expend this year; it would only swell the estimates and my hon. friend would be the first to complain that if we could not spend the money we should not vote it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not for contract work.


John Warwick King: There is no contract let.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The liability has to be undertaken for the whole $75,000.


John Warwick King: This was the practice in 1914, 1915 and 1916 and in 1920.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why should
we have an untrue statement in the wording of the vote?


John Warwick King: I understand the wording is absolutely the same as it was in 1920.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: To clarify matters, the minister might tell us what agreement our government has with the state of Maine to ensure that they will pay up the balance of their share of $75,000.


John Warwick King: There is no agreement. They set aside certain moneys on the understanding that there would be an agreement after the site had been settled upon and a final estimate made. This 9 p.m. vote has been carried along; it is a preliminary vote. The same practice was followed in the Edmundston construction; I cannot see the advantage of voting $75,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not tell
the truth in the item?


John Warwick King: What does the
hon. gentleman mean?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am surprised at the
attitude of the hon. member (Sir Henry Drayton); I cannot understand why he should want us to vote the whole sum for the bridge although it may not be completed for two or three years, when he absolutely objected to allowing the whole amount to go through in the case of railway construction where there was also a contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is entirely wrong. We never did anything of the sort.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member's
leader did.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He never did.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I may be obtuse, but
I leave it to the judgment of the committee whether the hon. gentleman did not object last year to the bringing down of the whole amount for branch railwas^s; he insisted that the necessary amount should be brought down in the estimates each year. Now the hon. member's attitude is different; he wants the committee to vote the whole sum to build this bridge, notwithstanding that we may use only $20,000 this year. I wart to be sure that we are not going to undertake the building of a bridge costing $150,000 and then find it left on our hands without some guarantee that the state of Maine will pay its share.
(

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: We will not go
on with the construction without such a guarantee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is wrong in his reference to the railway matter. The issue was as to the necessity for having the expenditures voted. We took the position then, and we take it now, that the honest and the proper thing to do was to bring down in the annual vote the amount of money needed and not to put it through by statute so that it would not appear in the estimates. The hon. gentleman says he must be obtuse. Well, he must be if he did not understand our position. The whole thing was that there should be a vote in the estimates. If hon. gentlemen did not understand that I do not know why not. The minister has told us that the state is going to pay half this sum. The vote as it reads says that American interests are to pay only $30,000. I suppose it is open to the House to be as inconsistent and to do as many foolish things as it pleases

to say one thing and to write another. If we want to make ourselves ludicrous, let us know we are doing it. The minister says he is keeping this up because it was in an old vote. I do not know what the cost was in the old vote; things have multiplied in connection with cost. It well may be that $30,000 represented half the cost before, but to-day half the cost is $75,000. Can any reason be suggested why the truth ought not to be shown in the estimate? Of course I do not know where the truth is; whether it is here-passed by the government and sent on-or whether it is given by my hon. friend.


John Warwick King: The hon. gentleman must understand the matter; he has had it before him and under consideration at various times. So far as the government is concerned we are dealing with the state of Maine and the state of Maine are dealing with two municipalities. The three of them are carrying on and undertaking to pay half the cost of the construction, or to share half the cost with the Dominion government. This item represents their proportion as amounting to $30,000. In 1914-15, $29,000 was voted for this purpose, and the explanation given then would apply to-day, I assume. We are dealing with the state of Maine and they are dealing with the municipalities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there any
objection to the truth being stated? Why not say, "one-half of the cost of the said bridge to be paid by the state of Maine," and strike out the reference to the municipalities

with which the minister says he has nothing to do?


John Warwick King: I think I would not disturb the vote. There is no objection to it as it has been. It is not deceiving anyone.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes it is.


John Warwick King: I think not.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, the vote is simply stating something which is not true.


Charles Marcil: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On division?


Charles Marcil: Carried on division.
Interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Ontario and Quebec governments to each contribute one-third of the cost, $40,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These estimates are misleading; they do not show what the cost of the proposed bridge is to be. No wonder the public have no confidence in this sort of thing. A bridge across the Ottawa river at Hawkesbury will cost millions, judging from the appearance of the railway bridge at that point; $40,000 would not buy the site. How much is this bridge going to cost?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required towards the Dominion government's share of the cost of construction of an interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa river between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec. There was a vote each year from 1910 to 1916-17 for this structure. We have suggested to the provincial governments that they should share the cost equally with the Dominion government. Up to date I do not think the provinces have accepted this suggestion, and this vote will probably be carried over another year. I think, however, we should leave it in the estimates, because the provincial legislatures will be meeting and I have no doubt that representations will be made to them. As to the necessity of this bridge I have no doubt. There is no bridge across the river between Montreal and Ottawa and those who are familiar with the country adjoining the river on both sides will realize the necessity of such a bridge and the great convenience it would be to the people in the two provinces. The total cost of a high level bridge is estimated at $446,000. A further examination was made to see if the cost could be reduced by constructing a low level bridge, and for such a bridge we have an estimate of $362,000. On July 31st, 1914, tenders were

Supply-Public Works
asked for the substructure of this bridge and *were received. The work was not gone on with, although I think a survey was made in connection with the bridge site.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do I understand the minister to say that neither of the provincial governments has made any preparation by way of vote for the construction of this bridge?


John Warwick King: We have not been advised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And there is no agreement with them of any kind?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the Dominion government promoting this legislation on its own account, or have they been asked by the provinces to do it?


John Warwick King: Asked by the
people of the locality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no guarantee or
undertaking that the provinces will contribute any portion of the expense?


John Warwick King: Not yet, no.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not the case that
under the British North America Act interprovincial matters shall be dealt with by the federal authorities?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not see any reason why the Dominion government should pay anything toward interprovincial bridges, and I can cite cases where they have not paid. I can cite you a case of an international bridge where the Dominion government has not been called upon to pay, and that is the bridge across the St. Croix river, which was paid for jointly by the town of Calais and the province of New Brunswick.
. Mr. MARTELL: They were very generous then. It really should have been done by federal authority.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. It is a matter for the immediate locality to take care of. The reason why I rose was to complain of the way the estimate is made out. It conveys no information as to the ultimate liability of the country. A good many estimates are presented in that way, and to the casual observer or to the uninitiated there is no idea what the country is being committed to when the House passes a partial vote of this character. Unless there is a very full and frank statement on the part of the minister in charge of the estimate parliament is
entirely in ignorance of what the ultimate commitment may be, and in so far as that is the case it is a deception-I will not say a deception, because that is not a very nice word to use, but there is a lack of the information that the House is entitled to, and these votes slip through before they are fully understood. I am not very much of an engineer, but I have been across the highway bridge at Hawkesbury. It is a magnificent structure and must have cost a great deal of money, and if you Can build a high level bridge there for 1440,000 with things costing what they do to-day, you are a wonder. .


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is not my hon. friend
mistaken in saying a high level bridge?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, it is a highway bridge.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has
brought up a question which, if he had listened closely, he would have heard discussed some weeks ago. The United States practice in this regard is to place in the first estimate the full amount the work will cost, and the item is then voted, and congress is not asked to vote any more until that vote has been exhausted. But the practice in this House has always been to vote the amount required from year to year, and there is no departure from that practice here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to
parliament voting the amount required from year to year, but I do say that the item in the estimates should convey the total commitment of the country, and that is absent in this case.


George Perry Graham: It has always been absent, and that is one of the weaknesses I have pointed out time and again.
Mr. HANSON-:	Then where is the agreement?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has reached an agreement on only one or two points. I would be in favour of sitting down quietly some day with representatives of all parties, and discussing this question with a view to adopting a new method of submitting estimates. One way would be to give the total estimated cost when the item was first placed in the estimates. The next question is, should that amount be given as a matter of information only, and the amount required each year be voted annually, or should we follow what I am told is the practice in the United States-and I had the bill sent to me here which I think bears out my information- where the vote is passed for the entire

Supply

Public Works
amount, and no further vote is asked until that is exhausted? Of course, it would be pointed out at once that that would be taking in one vote the balance that we vote from year to year, and it might make it a little difficult for the first year or two if we voted the full amount in all estimates of this kind. It would make our estimates a little disjointed at first, but that would adjust itself in a year or two.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do I understand the
minister to say that in the United States they put the total cost of construction in the first estimate and vote it, notwithstanding the fact that it may take two or three years to complete construction?


George Perry Graham: I am so advised by my
law officers, who have studied the United States law and presented it to me.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is right.


George Perry Graham: If there was a building to be erected in the city of Ottawa, for instance, costing $100,000, that amount would be placed in the estimates and voted, and no more money would be voted until that $100,000 was exhausted,, and the House would hear no more of it except progress reports as the work was being done. There would be no further vote asked for that work unless $100,000 proved to be insufficient to complete the structure. There are just two methods, and we have adopted the other one in this House, but I am not sure that it would not be well some time to work out some scheme by which all the information would be given in the estimate.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is one
feature about the American system that is very, very much in its favour, I think, and that is that if ifche original estimate is ever exceeded, all the cards have to be laid on the table and somebody is going to get the blame. Something has gone wrong somewhere, and the attention of everybody is drawn to it. On the other hand, we could not apply it here. Frankly, I wanted to do it personally, but I found difficulty; there are always difficulties when you try to make any changes. The vote under the American law does not Lapse, no matter when the work is done. Under our law it lapses at once, and what we would have to do would be to change our whole system. Where my mind was running was along this line, and this was something I intended to take up with my hon. friend in connection with the rearrangement of audits and all these things,
fMr. Graham.]
out of which has come his committee: That we should always give the total estimate in the finst vote, and in the meantime vote just what we require from year to year, and then provide for a change in the wording of the estimate, so that it would show the original estimate as so much, the amount expended to date as so much, and then the House would know just exactly how it stood when they were voting money from year to year. That could be done without any change of law.


George Perry Graham: You would have greater
care in passing the estimates then.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, we would
know what we were doing. .


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The minister has not replied to the very pertinent criticism of the hon. member for Yo.rk-Sunbury in respect of the fact that this bridge 'is an interprovincial bridge, and we have had no evidence of any desire on the part of the provincial governments to enter into any such contract. It seems to me that if the people on each side of that river want the bridge built they should apply first to their provincial governments and get them in favour of it, and then they could come to us with an agreement. But this is simply putting the cart before the horse. I think this estimate ought to be cut out entirely. It is a bridge from the province of Ontario;-I want to call the attention of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) to that- and I think the vote should be cut out until the provinces are in agreement.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend has referred to me. Does he not think that where the matter is an interprovincial matter and has to do with trade between different provinces of the confederation it is truly a matter of federal jurisdiction?


James Dew Chaplin: I agree with the hon.
member for York-Sumbury that it should be taken care of by the provinces.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Then the sooner the
provinces get out of a confederation the better.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like to suggest to
the hon. member for Hants, who says that it is a matter of federal jurisdiction, that that is true so far as legislative jurisdiction is concerned, but as to expenditure, that does not necessarily follow. I can understand different aspects of this. It may be that the bridge may serve some general Dominion interest. I do

Supply-Public Works
not know whether it does or not. It may be that it serves a purely provincial or municipal interest. As to that I am equally in the dark. Is it not evident, and must it not be evident to the minister himself, that a proposition involving this amount of money should be accompanied by some reasons why there should be such a bridge, why it should be placed in a particular location, and why the people of Canada should make this contribution towards it? Then we get the reasons for the vote. But up to the present moment and I think the minister will agree with me, there has been a singular lack of information to justify a vote of this character. All the information we really have is that the government-perhaps one would be more correct ir saying the officials of the minister's own department-had put this item in the estimates. With all respect we ought to have more information on the subject.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: I think I can throw some light on this very vexed question. First let me say that from Ottawa eastward for almost one hundred and twenty-five miles there is no bridge over the Ottawa river. At the capital there are the interprovincial bridges. Towards their construction the provinces and the Dominion contributed one-third each. That would be a precedent apparently, but that precedent was not carried out at first in connection with the Hawkes-bury bridge. An agreement was entered into for its construction just prior to the war, but owing to the outbreak of hostilities operations on the bridge were discontinued. At. that time the government of Quebec were under an agreement to make a grant of $15,000 towards the construction. In the particular locality there is a stretch of the river which for almost fourteen miles is very turbulent owing to the rapid fall of the stream. For that reason no ferries can operate and it is almost impossible for the people in the locality to cross the river. A very serious mistake was made in not making provision for pedestrian and vehicular traffic when the Canadian National Railway bridge was built across the river at that point. However, that was not done, and it seems to me when such difficulties exist along both sides of the Ottawa river for such a long distance, that at this point provision should be made for traffic across the river. The people of the locality have been agitating the matter with both the provincial governments and the federal authorities, and the minister has intimated to the other governments concerned that he is
willing to make a contribution on the same basis as in the case of the interprovincia! bridges at Ottawa, namely, that there should be a split three ways. I know from observation that the structure is very badly needed. As it will be of an interprovincial character, as the precedent to which I have referred exists, and as the federal government prior to the war assumed the responsibility of starting the construction with a very small grant from the provinces, it seems to me that our present action is only an evidence of good faith. That is the situation, and that is the reason this item appears in the estimates. It is for the purpose of commencing construction if an agreement can be reached with the provincial governments.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to be in the position either of opposing or supporting this particular project. I really want to get at the principle which underlies it. Am I to understand that this is put forward by a member of the government as a general principle that will be applicable to similar conditions elsewhere? Further I should like to know if this bridge will connect two lines of highway which run for a considerable distance from the river, and not merely link up two communities on the river that are practically opposite one another. I will wait for a moment.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes that is quite correct.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am waiting a moment for some conversation to cease so that I can continue. It is an extremely difficult task to think, speak and listen at the same time. I wonder whether the situation would be something like this: Take a highway running say from Ottawa to Kingston. Suppose that on that route a bridge were constructed connecting with a highway running for a hundred or a couple of hundred miles from the river. Would that be the condition here. Or are you simply connecting two settlements where the traffic is purely local? I just Want to get the exact condition. I am going to ask the minister also, because I do not want to speak again, to define the conditions because I contemplate some day making an appeal to the House-if I have the permission of the hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) who does not. care particularly to have other members of the House advocate things in connection with his constituency-to assist in building an interprovincial bridge in the vicinity of Campbell-ton connecting New Brunswick with the Quebec shore. I want to know whether, under
Supply-Public Works

those circumstances, we may assume that the Dominion will provide one-third of the cost, if the two provinces in question will each provide one-third?


John Warwick King: Some years ago
the Dominion government took the initiative in providing money for these interprovincial bridges, but in later years there has been a disposition on the part of the federal authorities to have an equal division of the expenditure among all the governments concerned. When the new interprovincial bridge at Ottawa was built some years ago the Dominion bore one-third of the cost. We are adopting the same principle in the case of the Hawkesbury bridge. If the Dominion is to contribute surely the provinces interested ought to do the same, and one-third of the expenditure each has been considered a fair proportion. In the case of the proposed bridge between New Brunswick and Quebec to which my hon friend has alluded the disposition of the department would be to meet one-third of the cost, provided the two provinces each contributed an equal amount. In the case of the HawkeSbury bridge I am advised that there are highways running east and west along the river the traffic from which would pass across this bridge at this particular point. The proposed bridge would not only serve the local residents but would meet the needs of a very large area.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it help to relieve the drought in Ontario?


John Warwick King: I do not know I am sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Des Joachims bridge-repairs, $6,400.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the resolution carries I want to get some information from my hon. friend. I find at the foot of the list of items "Appropriations not required for 1924-25, $46,150." Has my hon. friend the information now to show how much of that is lapsed votes and how much represents completed work?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is ,n luck and I am out of luck in regard to this question. A statement has been handed to me of appropriations not required with expenditures from those appropriations, except expenditures for roads and bridges which was not available. I am very sorry I have not that information, but I will supply it to my hon. friend. I have the British Columbia harbours and rivers now. Out of the item $136,435 not required for 1924-25 I find $100,481.21 has' been expended, leaving $36,000 unexpended.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
names of the dropped? Perhaps my hon. friend would hand the memorandum to Hansard.


John Warwick King: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Cape Breton telegraph and telephone lines, general repairs and improvements, $7,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the department given any consideration to the question of government telephone and telegraph lines being taken over by the Canadian National telegraph lines?


John Warwick King: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is repairs?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entry-Amherst island-cable, $7,500.
North shore, river St. Lawrence, east of Bersimis- improvement to telegraph circuit on Manicouagan peninsula, $1,200.
John Warwick King: That is renewal. Item agreed to.
Athabasca-Fort McMuTray telegraph line-general repairs, etc., $2,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some time ago the whole question was looked into as to getting rid of all these lines out in the West. Some of them were handed over to local governments, who were very glad to get the mileages in connection with their telephone systems. A further suggestion that was made was that, in some of the territories where it was difficult to police and look after the lines and keep the services going, instead of trying to maintain these lines, which were not maintained in many instances, the system should be changed to wireless. It was thought a great deal of money could have been saved. I wonder how that movement is progressing.


John Warwick King: In sections of
Saskatchewan and Alberta we have abandoned a very considerable mileage where the railway came in and gave the service. In the far North there has been an installation of wireless under the Interior department. That work will probably be extended, but in the country sections which are sparsely settled a wireless will not give the service that probably is required. The wireless stations are placed at very considerable distances apart, and it would mean that people would have to travel probably a great way to get in to communication with the outside. Last year we abandoned a very considerable mileage. On April 1st, 1923 we abandoned some 423 miles of the Qu'Appelle and Onion lake section. This necessitated the closing of some 10 offices, and dispensing with the services of 11 employees, effecting a saving of $16,500. In British Columbia we have abandoned certain lines on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian National took over the line from New Hazelton to Skeena. If you take it all in all, I think there has been a general improvement in the service. That is, we have been able to eliminate some of what we considered unnecessary expenditures. We have
Supply-Public Works

abandoned some lines and some we have been able to turn over to an organization which is operating within the district, so that the government are being saved very considerable expenditure in that way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
government is still willing to give the municipalities in those districts any part of the system they want?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the department advertising at all?


John Warwick King: If we have a
request, we make arrangements for them to take over the operation.


Mr. EVANS:: The Qu'Appelle and Onion
lake line which the minister has just mentioned was eliminated, I think, last year all the way from Qu'Appelle to Baljennie. Why is the 22-mile portion east of Battleford still left intact with an operator at Baljennie who has absolutely nothing to do? The line is absolutely useless and is nothing but an expense since the other line has been abandoned. From Battleford north to Onion lake, I suppose the line is needed, but in the middle of the settlement there where every farmer has his telephone, the line must be absolutely useless.


John Warwick King: In our abandonment of that line in northern Saskatchewan, we tried to avoid leaving people absolutely in the wilderness. Some form of service was necessary to the people. I am not sure of the locality of which my hon. friend speaks, but I shall have an investigation made in connection with that area.


John Evans: This is no wilderness at all.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: With regard to the same line that was abandoned last year, what disposition has been made of the poles and the wire? The line was built before the country was surveyed into sections. Consequently, it ran right across farm lands, and for a number of years prior to the abandonment it had become a regular nuisance to the farmers. The poles were so old they had rotted off more than once and were reset, and there were farms where it was impossible for an agricultural implement to drive under the wire. Requests were continually coming in regarding the matter. I have on my file a letter from the minister last summer stating that the work would be car-

ried on as quickly as possible, but that at that time the roads were not passable for the men to get to work. Has the farm land been cleared off along the route?


John Warwick King: The wire has been taken down wherever that could be economically done, rewound and brought in. The poles have, in some cases, been taken down, and if they are of no further use, they have been left for the farmers to use for fire wood or any other purpose.


Charles Wallace Stewart: Under what vote was the abandonment of that line paid for? Is it in this year's or last year's estimates?


John Warwick King: It will come out
of maintenance vote, item 367 in these estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-branch of Canal flats-Wasa telephone line to Sheep creek, $450.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this an extension or a new line?


John Warwick King: This is a, small
extension off the Canal flats-Wasa line. It was a new line voted last year which will be completed in the vote this year. This will reach out into a saw mill section. Last year there was a vote of $200, but no money was expended. We are asking for $450 this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will that pay
for itself?


John Warwick King: Yes. Usually
saw milling territory is good territory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telephone line from Williams lake to Alkali, $2,525.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required for the construction of a telephone line southward to Alkali lake, a distance of forty-five miles. This is in the Cariboo section. It is a very good section, being settled largely with farmers, and the line has been requested for some time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
estimated .revenue?


John Warwick King: $1,000 per annum.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
estimated expense?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: It will vary. In
the first year or two it will not be very *great. As the line gets older, it will be more.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Salaries will
have to be paid. What is the estimated cost of operating the new line?


John Warwick King: The cost of
maintenance and operation will be practically nil as the operator-lineman at Williams Lake can attend to any repairs and the line will be operated by agents on commission, subscribers paying the established monthly rental of $2.50. We estimate the probable revenue at $1,000 per annum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of a telegraph line from Horse Fly to Bullion via Beaver creek, $2,780.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is another
new line?


John Warwick King: It replaces an
old line which is very much dilapidated and it will give a better service to the community.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
experience in the old line-loss or profit?


John Warwick King: It leads into a
gold mining section in the Bullion creek country near Quesnel lake. There was a good deal of activity in there a year ago and there have been some rich placer gold strikes. The estimated revenue is about $2,000 per annum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mainland telegraph and telephone line-general repairs and improvements, $18,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: What lines are covered by this item?


John Warwick King: This is required
for general repairs and improvements to the mainland telegraph and telephone lines as follows:	Barriere section, Chase-Revelstoke
section, Kamloops section, Vernon section, Keremeos section, Penticton section, Merritt section, Proctor-Yank section, Golden-Winder-mere section and Arrow lake section.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are the lines in the
Okanagan and Arrow lake country being operated by the government at present or have they been taken over by the Canadian National?


John Warwick King: We are continuing to operate the telephone lines. The Canadian National utilize our wires for sending and
receiving. I think they have an office at Kamloops in conjunction with our telephone office, also one at Kelowna, and one at Vernon.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the government
propose to continue operating these lines or to turn them over to the Canadian National?


John Warwick King: We have not had an offer to take them over; I do not suppose that the Canadian National Railways would be very anxious to take them over.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is the minister aware that these lines are competing with lines which are privately owned in these districts? I remember at one time a proposal was under consideration for turning over to the Okanagan Telephone Company the government lines in that district. Has the minister had that suggestion under consideration?


John Warwick King: There is no doubt a duplication of service in the district. The government service is the original one; the Okanagan company came in later and duplicated. It has been the desire of the department to give the necessary service to the district tributary to the government railways and we have a working arrangement with the Okanagan Telephone Company which I think is giving more satisfaction than heretofore. The capital investment of the government in this locality is one of the largest we have in the telephone service in the valley; in fact it is so large that the government would not be warranted in pulling out and losing the whole of that investment.


Thomas George McBride: I know a little about this district and I can inform the committee that the people there would very much resent even a suggestion from the government of giving the service over to a private corporation. The government has provided a good service to the people and the people appreciate it and want the government to continue as owners of these lines.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are these lines paying or are they being operated at a loss?


John Warwick King: They are not
showing a surplus but they are earning a very good revenue. We shall come to that question in connection with other items.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would not think of suggesting that the lines should be given over to any private company, but as I understand it the government lines were built on the principle that they would be operated by the government only where there were no other companies who were prepared to carry on
Supply-Public Works

business. The government service was intended to give communication to people who otherwise would have been unprovided for; but where there are other companies who are willing and able to provide a good service and to take care of the business the policy, according to my understanding, was that the government would withdraw from the territory. The question is whether in this particular district there is a company doing business to-day which would be able to meet the requirements of the people in a satisfactory manner? If there is, and if that company were willing to take over the government lines, then it would seem to me that a saving would be effected to the country. I wonder whether that matter has been under consideration and whether there is any prospect of an arrangement being made.


Thomas George McBride: Does the hon. member for New Westminster suggest that as soon as the government gets its lines on a paying basis it should hand them over to a private company? That is what the hon. gentleman's suggestion amounts to in practice.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand that they are not on a paying basis at all and I do not suppose they ever will be. I think I have enunciated the policy which was in effect at the time the lines were constructed and if I have not stated it correctly the minister will possibly set me right.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not familiar with the
lines on the main line immediately under discussion but I am familiar with those portions mentioned on Vancouver island district which extend beyond Vancouver island on to the mainland. I certainly endorse the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. McBride), and I hope, as the people do, that the government will not turn any portion of these lines over to private concerns. As the hon. member has truly said, it would be a case of turning over the profitable portions of the lines, because no private company would take them if they were not profitable. The result would be that the government would be saddled with the unprofitable lines. The same remark applies to the suggestion that any of these lines should be handed over to the Canadian National Railways, for the railways would also take nothing but those lines that were making a profit. If this were done there would be a bigger deficit every year and there would consequently be a disposition on the part of parliament to curtail the services given by the government lines. The government's function is different from that of a private company or of the railways; the gov-CMr. McQuarrie.]	[DOT] [DOT]	'	;
ernment renders service to isolated1 places where doctors are required and where there exists no other means of communication. Logging camps are growing up in these places and it is becoming more and more 10 p.m. necessary that the government should be a sort of pioneer in this respect. But we cannot expect the government to pile up expenses in connection with the non-paying lines if those that are profitable are to be taken away from them and handed over to private interests. This would induce a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the officials whose business it is to manage the government lines, and altogether a policy of this kind would be very disheartening to them.
While I am on my feet I want to refer to the item in regard to Vancouver island district; I notice that the amount is increased by $3,000. I do not know whether this is intended to provide a new boat at Alert bay which is very much needed, but in any case it is a wise measure to increase the vote. Telegraph services cannot be starved profitably; my hon. friends from the prairies will appreciate the unwisdom of trying to starve a dairy cow, for it is absolutely unprofitable to feed her at all unless she is fed right. On the same principle, a telegraph service conducted on the cheap is a failure either from the point of view of efficient service or as a source of profit.
There are just two other things I want to mention. One is to put in a protest against the government's not including an item in the estimates to furnish a telegraph connection with Lasqueti island. This is no political proposition, I assure my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. .McQuarrie), because his own party when in power many years ago put in a vote for a large sum to provide this service. Owing to the war, however, it was delayed and the high cost of labour and everything else at that time made it impossible for the government to proceed with the work. It could now be done for a very much smaller sum. I understand that a petition was presented to the government from the people in connection with this matter, and their own officers have recommended that the work be done. This is the only communication with an island of 300 people, and the population has increased since the time the Conservative government included a vote in the estimates to meet the situation. Logging camps are increasing at this point and in many ways it is urgent that communication be provided. It is the only island of any size in the gulf of

Supply-Public Works
Georgia between Vancouver island and the mainland that has not telegraph or telephone communication. The work can be done cheaper now than it will be in a few years hence, and I hope the government will see their way to bring down a necessary sum to take care of it in the supplementary estimates.
There is one thing else I want to mention in connection with the British Columbia service. There appears to be a provincial system -the Dominion government British Columbia telegraph system-in operation; and if you go into our Dominion government telegraph office in Vancouver or Victoria or any of the cities in the province you can have a telegram sent to Victoria or Vancouver, but if you wish to have it sent to Ottawa or Montreal they will tell you to take it to the Western Union, which is a private concern. It offends at least my national pride to be told to take my telegrams over to a private company when we have in the province a complete telegraph system, and beyond the province we have the Canadian National, which could be utilized. It does not look well, and it is a loss of business. I presume that any private corporations engaged in this work are not in it for nothing; they have to get some portion of the rates on those telegrams. I think we should arrange that in respect to messages for destinations outside the province, connections should be made with the Canadian National.


John Warwick King: I a<m surprised
to hear my hon. friend's last statement. My understanding is that we take the business wherever possible and transfer it to the nearest point from which it may be transmitted to its destination. There may be some exceptions; if so I shall be very glad to have my hon. friend report them so that we may make inquiries. With regard to the Dominion abandoning a territory when it has beten developed and becomes profitable enough for a private company to go in, that is a pretty large question. I do not believe it is economical or really in the interests of the public that there should be a dual service, but where the government have gone into a community and the business has increased to a point where it becomes of some substance, to say that we must retire from that field 'and continue to operate the barren fields is, I think, unfair. It is true that in the section adjoining the Okanagan country there is a very fine telephone area and a company operating there would do very well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member (Mr. Nieill) deprecates the suggestion that the government should give over the paying systems and retain the lean ones; of course that would be a doubtful policy to follow. But have we any paying systems, and if so, where are they and wh'at are the returns?


John Warwick King: In connection
with the Kamloops, Okanagan and Kootenay districts, embracing a mileage of 1,886 miles, the revenue for 1922-23 was 869,306 and the expenditure 891,342. That is one of the better areas.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have you got
anything as good as that?


John Warwick King: I think that is
one of the best.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that cover overheads at all?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that in respect to ia system which the minister states is as good as any of them, in order to do a business amounting to $69,306 we are out of pocket $22,036. Why are we out of pocket so much as that if a private company can go in and operate in the same districts? They do not operate for the pleasure of losing money.


John Warwick King: The area in -which the private telephone company in question operates is not operated by us as a division. We operate in the Kamloops, Okanagan and Kootenay district involving the mileage which I have stated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, there are some things here 'about extensions, and if we are losing money too [DOT] quickly on these lines perhaps we would not go ahead with these extensions. In view of these figures my hon. friend can hardly say he expects a good revenue on these other lines.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is it not -a fact that
most of these lines are built through sparsely settled districts, in many cases through areas that are a long way from towns and cities where private enterprise would not go in, and that they are built more as a public convenience than as a paying proposition? For instance, no one would say that the telegraph lines maintained by the Dominion government along the north shore of Victoria county, down near Ingonish and Neil harbour would ever pay. These people 'are practically isolated in the winter and this is the

Supply-Public Works
only way in which they can get any outside intelligence or communicate with tihe outside world. I quite agree-and I think was my hon. friend's inference-that where private companies 'are prepared <Uo go in and build lines the government should not interfere.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I was
trying to get ait was if we bad any paying lines. Somebody suggested that we had, but I bad never heard of them.


John Warwick King: I do not think
there are any paying lines. There may be some sections where the revenue would take care of overhead expenses, buit the idea for the most part has been to give service to people living in districts which private companies will not enter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is why we say let the western governments have these territories for telephones and the like. We would be only too glad to have them take hold of them and let any private corporation that is foolish enough to do it provide the service. We would also be glad to get out of the loss.


John Arthur Clark: So far as I can gather, all these lines are operated at a loss. At least one private company has been mentioned, and I ask the minister whether there are any other companies operating in the district in question, and if so, for their names and the districts in which they operate.


John Warwick King: We come in contact with the British Columbia Telephone Company, the Okanagan Telephone Company, the Kootenay Telephone Company, and the Prince George Telephone Company in the. north. I have no doubt there are other local telephone companies in the province, but I think I have covered the more important of them.


John Arthur Clark: Then if all government lines are operated at a loss, I would ask the minister if there have ever been any negotiations with private companies with a view to having the government lines purchased and operated by the private companies where the two services are contiguous?


John Warwick King: There have been suggestions that they would like to have the territory and take over the lines.


John Arthur Clark: Any results?


John Warwick King: Not as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Extension of telephone line from Invermire to McCarthy's ranch, $1,800.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this just for McCarthy.


John Warwick King: No. This is an extension of the Invermere branch into a farming community.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Telegraph System-Stewart-Maple Bay section-to replace launch, $1,300.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What has happened to the launch?


John Warwick King: This amount of SI,300 is required for the purchase of a launch for repair work on the Stewart-Maple Bay section of the Terrace-Stewart telegraph line. The old launch, which has been in use on the Maple Bay-Stewart section, in making line repairs, was recently wrecked and sunk while endeavouring to make a landing along a very rough shoreline during a heavy storm.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that the boat I was alluding to at Alert Bay?


John Warwick King: At Maple Bay, in Stewart lake, in northern British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there no provision for the boat stationed at Alert Bay?


John Warwick King: I have nothing for a new boat at that point.


Alan Webster Neill: I think it was recommended to be put in the estimates; I know it was.


John Warwick King: It may be coming up later. It is not in the Main Estimates.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I want to warn the
Government that the responsibility will be theirs if those men lose their lives, because that boat there is utterly unsafe for men to risk their lives in. They can run for a day if the weather is all right and the water is smooth, but the water there sometimes gets rough very rapidly, and many a time after having gone for only a few hours, they have had to beach the boat and caulk it. The hull is so rotten that the friction of the water and the waves grinds the caulking out, and in some cases after only two hours running they have been compelled to beach her. Suppose they were where they could not beach her at the end of the two hours? Some time that boat will literally and absolutely fall apart. This has already been fully represented to the government, and for my part I am not prepared to take any responsibility beyond that. I have given the exact facts of the case. If those men are compelled to

Supply-Public Works
go out in this boat in its rotten condition- you may say they are not compelled, but they are compelled to if they want to get a living-one of these days there will be a catastrophe.


John Warwick King: I am glad the
hon. member has mentioned it. I will have the matter inquired into.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Perhaps it is not strictly in order on this vote, Mr. Chairman, but as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has spoken about a boat I would like to call the attention of the minister to the Tyrian, a cable boat operating in the Maritime provinces. I am not particularly concerned with the boat itself, although it is a very old boat, and a very great deal of money has been spent on her, but I would like to ask the minister if there is any provision for superannuation and retiring allowances for the men who are operating on the Tyrian and other cable boats. It seems to me most peculiar that the Marine and Fisheries should retire masters from the lighthouse tenders and from their other boats, under the Calder Act and other retiring acts, while the crew of the Tyrian receive no consideration in that respect. That is what I understand from Captain Peters, who happens to be a personal friend of mine, although not a political friend, I think; at all events, he has not a vote in my constituency. He is a first-class seaman and a friend of mine, though a much older man than I am. He was a personal friend of my. father's, and I have known him since I was a boy. Speaking with him last summer he drew to my attention the fact that while the Marine and Fisheries department retire their men on other ooats under the Calder Act and other regulations providing for an allowance, the officers and crew of the Tyrian, which is a very much larger boat than many of the boats owned by the Marine and Fisheries department, are thrown to the four winds of heaven, so to speak, when they are too old to go to sea. These men who are repairing the government cables or any other cables have a very important duty to perform. They have to go around the roughest portion of the shores of the country where these cables are laid by the federal government, around the northern shores of Cape Breton, for instance, the island of Grand Manan, the northern portions of New Brunswick, and around the shores of Prince Edward Island, and any person who has ever gone to sea knows that these men have to brave great dangers in order to carry on their work. It has often seemed to me that the officials of the department at Ottawa 203
particularly in regard to marine matters and the hardships that are endured by the sailors working for the department, are absolute landlubbers and absolutely incompetent to rightly apprehend the dangers these men have to undergo. I am absolutely in accord with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni when he calls to the attention of the minister the condition of the boat he mentioned in British Columbia. I do not know anything in particular about that boat, but I know this, that the officials at Ottawa are too prone to ask these sailors, who are some of the best people in the Dominion of Canada, to endure great risks simply because landlubbers are not prepared to give them the proper equipment they need to carry on their work. I happened to be an official of the Marine and Fisheries department in days gone by, and I found in that department an absolute ignorance, with the exception of two or three of the officials, as to the conditions under which our sailors and fishermen have to work. I believe that the time has come when everything pertaining to the sea should be dealt	with by men who are
thoroughly qualified and who know and can appreciate what these men have to undergo.


John Millar: Hear, hear.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". I wonder if he means that sarcastically. I want to tell him that the men who navigate ships and whose forefathers navigated ships on the seven seas, and who could navigate any ship, from the ordinary schooner to a full-rigged ship, in every quarter of the globe, and carried the flag of Canada to the ends of the earth, and built up a maritime trade for this country, are men of superior intelligence and courage to the man who grows a few grains of wheat on the western prairie, and I say in all seriousness that the time has come in this country when we should get down to practical facts and not be so much concerned whether we grow wheat and provide proper transportation facilities and have the Crowsnest pass agreement. We want something done for the men of the Maritimes, and when I use that term I mean the three provinces on the Atlantic coast. We also want something done for the sailors on the Pacific coast, because all these men are made of as good stock as the individuals who are engaged in any other walk of life.


Charles Marcil: Shall the item pass?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Before the item passes
I should like to get an answer from the

Supply-Public Works

minister as to whether the officers and men of the Tyrian are to get superannuation allowances?


John Warwick King: I see no reason
why these men cannot be retired if they ask for retirement under the Calder Act when they are permanently employed. In the case of men employed on the dredging fleet their occupation is seasonal, and I am not sure that they would come under the same act.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I ask the minister-for
whom I have the greatest respect, he is one of the fairest members of the government-* does he see any reason why the officers and men on the boats of the Marine and Fisheries department should be treated any differently from the men in his own department?


John Warwick King: They should be
treated as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Accounts branch-salaries of agents and clerks travelling and contingent expenses of outside service, $21,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does this mean?


John Warwick King: This vote is required to pay for the salaries of the agents, paymasters and clerks of the accounts branch, outside service, and for travelling and contingent expenses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many employees are there altogether?


John Warwick King: There are six at New Westminster, three at Edmonton and one at St. John.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
saiaries?


John Warwick King: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
luties?


John Warwick King: Here are the
positions:	Accountant grade 3; principal
clerk bookkeeper; senior clerk bookkeeper; clerk bookkeeper; clerk stenographer; junior faerk bookkeeper; agent; accountant, grade 1: clerk typist; and travelling paymaster.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
whole of this is outside of Ottawa?


John Warwick King: Yes. There is
a small expenditure for stationery and contingencies.
[Mr. Mart^ll 1


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister happen to have the total of the whole thing?


John Warwick King: You mean the
total salaries?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I mean the cost cf the salaries in connection with the service.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is asking for the total for the Dominion Public Works service?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


John Warwick King: Here is a list of
the services:	Civil government; Dominion
observatory, Ottawa; Ottawa elevator attendants; Ottawa heating staff; Ottawa char service; Ottawa repairs, improvements, etc.; Rideau Hall; Dominion buildings-caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc.; Yukon public buildings; Architectural branch, employees; Engineering branch; Accountants branch; Art gallery, Ottawa; Telegraph service; Locks, dams, drydocks and bridges. The total expenditure for salaries is $3,752,311. The appropriation amounts to $4,810,890.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The cost this
year cannot be exactly the same as last year; that cannot be right.


John Warwick King: It is practically
the same. If my hon. friend would have patience the next item shows where there have been some reductions and some additions. In the matter of salaries there are the statutory increases, but there have been some reductions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we pass this item and go on to the next.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside, service, $77,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: At what point
do you maintain outside architects?


John Warwick King: We have a
resident architect at St. John; at Quebec a clerk of works; at Montreal a clerk of works; Toronto a resident architect; Winnipeg a district resident architect; Regina, Calgary, Victoria, district resident architects and at Vancouver a clerk of works.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are a
number of outside architects?


John Warwick King: Yes.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: What building
has the architect at St. John erected this year?


John Warwick King: I think he has
had charge of the building at Halifax, and the repairs to the various public buildings throughout the Maritime provinces.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just
wondering if he had put up any new buildings?


John Warwick King: There was one
put up I think at Sackville.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And there was an
addition to the potato warehouse at St. John.


John Warwick King: Yes, I think that was carried on largely under the engineering department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is his
salary?


John Warwick King: It is $2,640.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we have
an architect at Regina? What work did he do?


John Warwick King: He has the
maintenance of the buildings in the province
of Saskatchewan.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose really these architects are looking after maintenance?


John Warwick King: Maintenance
largely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there an architect under this item located here in Ottawa?


John Warwick King: That would be
under civil government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That does not come under this?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While we are
on this matter, how many architects have we altogether?


John Warwick King: I am not sure
that I can give that information. The list that I have given includes those outside of Ottawa. The inside service would be under civil government. I suppose if we took civil government we might get the details there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will see the importance of the whole matter. How much did my hon. friend spend in his department last year on capital account?


John Warwick King: Total expenditure?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Construction ac-acount.


John Warwick King: Capital expenditure about $3,000,000, and total expenditure $16,000,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is all work I assume, and does not include salaries.


John Warwick King: That includes
salaries.	,


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is worse even than that. You would have to deduct $3,700,000 odd from that total in order to get to the working expense. What would that amount to?


John Warwick King: I do not know
what the hon. gentleman is trying to get. If he will make his statement perhaps we will be able to give the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: [DOT] The minister
gave us the amount of capital expenditure as $3,000,000 and the total expenditure $16,000,000, and I asked if that included salaries amounting to $3,752,211. I was told that it did. Then I asked, "Without that what would it amount to?"


James Horace King: (Kootenay): It is a question of subtraction. You have the figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have asked
the minister, Mr. Chairman, to give me accurately his first item of $3,000,000 odd. I thought with the deputy in front of him that he would know, but he does not. Apparently the minister cannot give me the figures.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is covering a large field in his question. The
amounts are:
Public works, capital, buildings	 $	440,000
Public works, capital, harbours, etc.. ..	2,563,000
Public works, income	 11,480,000
Public works, collection of revenue	 1,045,000
Sundry votes not public works	 372,000
To the above my hon. friend will add, an account of 1923-24, the following payments made in April and May, 1923, -under authority of order in council 29th March, 1923, which established certain credits not to exceed the balances remaining unexpended March 31, of the votes of the preceding year. These payments were as follows:
Public	works,	capital,	buildings	
$145,755Public	works,	capital,	harbours	
2,227Public	works	income	
61,160Collection of revenue	
5,647
I think my hon. friend has a number of items now that will total up properly.
Supply-Public Works


Lewis Herbert Martell: Would the minister
kindly tell us if he has increased the staff in any way during the last three or four years?


John Warwick King: No.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The same old staff?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I heard the figures, I make the total expenditure of the department according to these figures $13,549,562, and the minister has already given me the cost of carrying on the service as $4,800,000, salaries alone amounting to $3,752,311. That is a pretty big percentage in connection with $13,000,000 /odd worth of work, when we are not employing labourers. In the vast majority of cases we have only the officials. What is the minister's own idea of economy? Where does he think he can do something useful in cutting down that expenditure? All he has to do is to figure the percentages and he will see what a heavy charge it is.


John Warwick King: What is my hon. friend figuring in the operating charge?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Only what the
minister has given me.


John Warwick King: I have covered
only a small portion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, I have
put the figures down as best I could hear them.


John Warwick King: The hon. member has not all the votes. If we are considering the larger vote of $465,000, those are operating charges including the salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks, messengers and various services. I imagine my hon. friend is trying to arrive at the percentages of the different costs. That can be worked out. There are the engineering costs, the architectural costs which can be worked out, but there is a large force of charmen, charwomen, elevator men, and so
an.	Those are fair charges for the service that is being given and they should not be in this charge as my hon. friend is trying to work it out now. I would be glad to have the percentages worked out and to advise my hon. friend as to the result. Of course, the staff such as we have is more or less fixed, and when you reduce your main vote, your percentage of operation will run up. The expenditure last year was well within the range of the smaller votes that were made
fMr J. H. King.]
and expended during the war. It is true that we have not been carrying on very actively any construction programme, but still the staff continues pretty much as it has been. We have made some reductions. The staff now in the department is about 15 per cent below pre-war figures, but that we can discuss when we come to the civil government vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Supposing we
postpone the whole discussion until that vote and my hon. friend can have the percentages worked out.


John Warwick King: Certainly. The hon. member is setting a pretty difficult task when he asks one to work these out at his desk.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON The question was provoked by the question of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) who, naturally, knowing that there were three outside architects, wanted information as to the architects at Ottawa. After all, we should know the total number of technical officers in the branch, it does not matter where they are. Sooner or later we shall have to get it into our heads that we must cut these estimates down and the best way to do that is to get the facts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How is the Architectural branch distinguished from the Engineering branch? What relation does the one bear to the other?


John Warwick King: In the Architectural branch there is the chief architect who has his branch centred at Ottawa. There is very little outside service except at some three or four points which I have mentioned, and at the outside points there are only maintenance architects. At Ottawa, all the drafts and plans are prepared for new buildings, extensions and repairs. In the Engineering branch the service is more scattered. In the districts there are the district engineer, the assistant district engineer. There are sixteen engineering districts throughout the Dominion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it possible to
have a reorganization so that there would not be overlapping and so that certain officials could be cut out?


John Warwick King: I have given some thought to that. The ordinary public works engineer is not considered to be an architectural man. I admit some men who have had good all-round experience could undertake maintenance of buildings; but generally

Supply-Public Works
speaking, the two branches are separate, and it has been the policy, which you will find generally in the service, to keep the engineering branch and the architectural branch as two separate branches. They claim that has been satisfactory. I do not think there is very much overlapping in the service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been making some inquiries and one can look at the public accounts. When one examines the question from the outside, it would seem as if there was a good deal of going backward and forward between the different departments, reporting from one to another, and a reorganization would seem to be possible.


John Warwick King: It is not very
long ago since there was a reorganization in the department. The engineering districts were reduced from 31 to sixteen, and the officers in the department say that they have a pretty efficient organization to-day and probably not overloaded. There have been suggestions such as my hon. friend h'as named, that some of the work being done by the architects might be handed over to the Engineering branch. I have given a good deal of thought to that, but I have not been able to get the technical men to agree with me so far.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $465,000,
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a pretty big item for outside service.


John Warwick King: There are 198
employees in the service. The appropriation in 1923-24 was $465,000 and the expenditure was $461,245. This appropriation is the same as last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
engineers 'are there? How many of all these different classes?


John Warwick King: In Nova Scotia
in the engineering staff there are sixteen positions:	District engineer, senior and assistant draughtsman, engineer clerks, and clerk stenographers. In Prince Edward Island there are four. In New Brunswick there 'are ten. In the dredging department staff resident at St. John there are seven and we have a staff of eight at St. John harbour who have been carrying on the harbour work outside of the usual engineering staff. ' At Rimouski there are nine.
Mr, THURSTON:	Are these regular employees?


John Warwick King: Yes. At Quebec there are four. In the district engineer's staff at Quebec for the surrounding district there are eleven. There are four at Three Rivers and fourteen at Montreal. In the dredging division, Montreal supervision, for Ontario and Quebec, there are two. Then there is the staff at Ottawa for the surrounding district, what is known as the Ottawa district, the district engineer being resident in this city. There are thirteen on that staff. In Toronto there are two supervising engineers and staff, and in connection with Toronto harbour improvements there are two; and in the district engineer's office in Toronto there are eleven. In the district engineer's office in London there are twelve; at Sault Ste. Marie four; at Fort William seven.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are they all
engineers?


John Warwick King: No, engineers and staff; the list comprises engineers, assistant engineers, senior assistant engineers, junior engineers, draftsmen, clerk stenographers and stenographers. These make up the complement of the offices of the various districts.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many offices are there?


John Warwick King: I gave the total number not long ago.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You mentioned St. John, Quebec, Montreal and some other places.


John Warwick King: There are 16 engineering districts and 198 employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where are these districts?


John Warwick King: I was giving the list of them and we had arrived as far west as Fort AVilliam. For Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the district office is in Winnipeg: the others are New Westminster, Nelson, Victoria and Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is all the dredging now done by the Department of Public Works?


John Warwick King: No, the Marine department do the dredging of the ship channel in the St. Lawrence and the Railway department do the canals that come under their jurisdiction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do you know whether a man is a dredger of the Public Works department, or whether he is a Marine dredger or a Railway dredger?
Sup-ply-Public Works


John Warwick King: There is not much difficulty in distinguishing them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You do not distinguish them by colour?


John Warwick King: I think not.
Sir'HENRY DRAYTON: Nor by numbers? How do you determine who is who and which is what?


John Warwick King: I do not think there is much difficulty about the matter; the men know under what departments they are employed. They are known to their chiefs and they get on the pay roll.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They get on one pay roll all right, but I was wondering whether they might not possibly get on two. Will the minister define just where the jurisdiction in navigable waters of the Public Works department comes in and that of the Marine and Fisheries department ends?


John Warwick King: The distinction is fairly well defined. The Marine department do the dredging of the ship channel in the St. Lawrence from Montreal to Quebec and the Railway department do the canals that come under their control, as well as around the railway wharves.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which canals?


John Warwick King: The canals under their control.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Which are they?


John Warwick King: Practically all of them. I may tell my hon. friend that there has been no change of policy in this regard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That may be so, but should there not be a change? Why should not all the dredging services be confined under one head? Here we have dredging done in the ship channel frem Montreal to Quebec. I believe there are four engineers engaged upon this work, if what the minister has stated is correct. There are four engineers doing that work, located at Three Rivers under the Department of Public Works. I suppose there comes a time when the men under the Public Works department run up the same line as those of the Marine department; certainly Three Rivers is along the line of the ship channel between Quebec and Montreal. Yet we have four engineers who apparently are in charge of dredging operations in that vicinity.


John Warwick King: They are not
doing dredging work alone; they are engaged in construction work in the surrounding vicinity. There is an engineering district with headquarters at Three Rivers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many engineers are there?


John Warwick King: There is a staff of four comprising the engineer, the assistant engineer, the clerk and the stenographer. They are not all engineers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What dredging plant is there at Three Rivers under the Public Works department?


John Warwick King: There if none.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
dredging done on the St. Lawrence by the department?


John Warwick King: The dredge is moved from one part of the river to another as required.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that
most of it will be found to be within the points between Montreal and Quebec.


John Warwick King: They go as far
as Saguenay7.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not say
they did not. But will the minister say that they do not work between Quebec and Montreal?


John Warwick King: Yes, certainly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course; the
great volume of it is done there. And is not that one place where we could have a little bit of co-opera tion-that word which we hear so often in this House? Could there not be one department in charge of dredging operations instead of having the v?ork scattered under three? I have no doubt each minister would think it was laying hands on his department to take any of his work away from him; and what he would say would be nothing to what the deputy would have to say. But that is no reason why operations should not be concentrated under one department.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is not offering a new suggestion. Some years ago all this work was done under
11 p.m. the Public Works department.
But owing to the importance of the St. Lawrence ship channel it was thought advisable by the government of a former day that the dredging in this case should' come under the Marine department, which has been charged with the development of the channel. The development of the ship channel does not involve the removing of debris from wharves and terminals along the river and that work has

Supply-Public Works
remained under the control of the Public Works department. For many years the Railway department has had the responsibility of looking after the canals which at one time were under the Department of Public Works. My hon. friend's government was in office many years and this question was as alive then as it is now. The whole question has been considered, but there ore difficulties in the way; indeed, it is being considered now whether there would not be some advantage to the service in transferring certain activities from one department to the other. The question is not a new one and it has been receiving the attention of the government; but so far no change has been made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We shall never
make any progress in the matter if someone does not take the initiative. Now, I have already asked for information regarding the amount of dredging done so that we may get some idea , as to what it costs, and I shall try to get the same information in connection with the other departments with a view to seeing which is the most economical or the most extravagant of the three.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will have to make allowance for the character and the class of work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, I know
that there are a lot of circumstances that have to be considered. But seriously, we shall never get anywhere in effecting real economies unless we do something definite. How far has the minister got in his consideration of the question? Has he worked out even a tentative plan as to how we might secure a reorganization and consolidation for the purpose of unifying the services and effecting an economy? Are there any reports available?


John Warwick King: The matter has
been receiving consideration but has not come to a conclusion. There has been no report to parliament as yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We know that.
If we had the information we would not trouble the minister for it now. Governments generally act upon reports. Has the interest of this government in economy gone far enough to cause them to have any report made to them, and if so by whom was it made?


John Warwick King: No, there are no
departmental reports. The matter is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith and settlement of land damages, $40,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I would draw
the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that this is Friday night and that he has just yawned very badly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh no, he has not yawned.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Knowing his
tender regard for his constitution I suppose he would suggest that the House adjourn now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there
is a general desire on the part of the House to hasten toward the conclusion of the session, and this is a pretty good moment to get through with the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My right hon.
friend knows that there is a way to hasten toward the conclusion of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: To bring down
the supplementaries so that we may know where we stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They will be
down before long.
. Sir HENRY DRAYTON: It is idle to talk of hastening toward1 the close of the session when the government has not yet had diligence enough to table the supiplementaries. But I am not going to quarrel about his wanting *to go on now. In reference to this item, how does the matter stand?
, Mr. KING (Kootenay):	This amount is
required for the maintenance and operation of dams and sluiceways in the Ottawa river and tributaries. The object of these dams is to store spring floods and augment the low water flow. The amount covers the maintenance and operation of the Timiskaming dam; maintenance and operation of Quinze dam; for stone fill, repairs to apron, and so forth, to offset erosion at Timiskaming dam; to pay land damage and other claims in connection with Ottawa river improvements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was this
work started?


John Warwick King: The Timiskaming dam was built in 1909-12 and the Quinze dam in 1911-14.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is entirely maintenance and operation?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then how can it be a revote? If these be merely the ordinary annual charges against the work it cannot be a revote.


John Warwick King: The maintenance varies, as my hon. friend knows, from year to year. There is nothing unusual, I think, in the method of presenting the vote. The vote last year was $55,000 and1 we are asking a revote of a portion of that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A maintenance charge is an annual charge. It is not a capital charge at all.


John Warwick King: It varies.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it
varies, just like salaries do, hut I have never noticed a revote of salaries, and in the same way there ought to be no revote of maintenance. If this were described as a betterment my hon. friend1 would be right, but the bookkeeping of this government is getting worse and worse.


John Warwick King: There has been
no change in the method of bookkeeping, and my hon. friend knows that very well.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I am inclined to think there is a great change.


John Warwick King: It is unfair to
throw out that impression.


Sir HENRY DRAT  TON@: I have thrown [DOT]t out and I am sticking to it. There have 6een very great changes in the matter of bookkeeping, the creating of surpluses and the like, and if my hon. friend wants to debate that I am quite prepared to debate it. As a matter of bookkeeping my hon. friend will get^ into difficulty if he keeps on mixing up maintenance with betterments. Perhaps the matter had better be taken up with the new Auditor General.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Gallery of Canada, $75,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is being done with that this year?


John Warwick King: The amount will be used for the purchase of pictures and paintings and carrying on the work of the gallery.
Mr. \\ OODSW ORTH:	Are any new picturse being purchased?


John Warwick King: From time to
time, yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest that they do not purchase very many more in the near 
future but should rather spend the whole amount on one or two. There are some frightful daubs there now. I am not an art critic, but it seems to me that when we have an art gallery we ought to have some care as to the character of the pictures that are put there. There is one whole section devoted to war pictures which are rather appalling. I happened to be taking a European friend around with me not long ago, and one that struck me was entitled " The Bolshevik." I do not know whether it was so much a reflection on the Russian people as on our own intelligence to have a caricature of that kind there. I am not quite sure who is responsible for the selection of the pictures, but it seems to me a little greater care might be exercised.


John Warwick King: These war pictures were a gift to the National Gallery.'


Mr. THURSTON:: Who are the judges
that select the pictures?


John Warwick King: The late Sir
Edmund Walker wias the chairman of the board of- trusteels. The trustetes are Dr. Shepherd of Montreal, Dr. Richard, of Montreal, the late Mr. Soper of Ottawa, and Mr. McTavish of Toronto.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who gave the war pictures that have been mentioned?


John Warwick King: Lord Beaver-brook.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will this vote or any part of it be used to pay for expenditures already incurred?


John Warwick King: I think not.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: After all, while I am in
favour in a general wiay of the maintenance of the National Gallery, still it is obvious that very few Canadian citizens can get any benefit from it. Would it not be well, for this year, and perhaps for a year or two longer, when we are trying to tell the people that we are practising economy, whether we are or not, to set an example by cutting out expenditures the cutting out of which cannot hurt anybody in Canada, and would apparently set an example of some economy at all events? In other words, if a man's circumstances are pretty straitened, he does not buy pictures for the decoration of his house that year. Why should we not cut out this expenditure this year? We shall be just as far ahead in five or ten years from now so far as art is concerned. It cannot hurt anybody, and it is setting not a bad example.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: There has been
a reduction in the estimate, but we did not think it wise to cut it out altogether. There is a staff to be maintained.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: You must provide for
them, -of course. How much, does that take?


John Warwick King: Then there is
$40,000 for additions to the National Gallery. That may be expended or not, but there are opportunities to-day, I am informed, by the Art Commissioners, to pick up some very valuable paintings, and it was thought we should have a sum of money available so that if it came to the notice of the commissioners that certain works could be secured at a very reasonable price, they would be able to secure them for the National Gallery. I am not anxious that a large sum of money should be spent from this vote, but I do not think we ' should drop it entirely.


John Jabez Thurston: Part of this vote is for salaries?


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Make a liberal estimate
to cover the expenses of running the building, but cut out practically everything for new purchases this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That would
reduce it to $35,000.


Harry Leader: How many pictures were
purchased last year, and what was the cost?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should just
like to mention to my horn, friend from St. John (Mr. Baxter) a feature that possibly he has not considered. While it is true the National Gallery is located in this city, it is also true that the practice has been followed of distributing the pictures through the country, and many paintings here in our gallery are exhibited at different times of the year right out as far as British Columbia. They have been very much appreciated, particularly in many towns on the prairies, not at large exhibitions, but more usually at loan exhibitions. I think my hon. friend will feel that the cultivating of some appreciation of art in this country is deserving of government support. There is very little the government or the country can do to encourage art in Canada, and so many of our artists are drifting one by one to other countries. We are losing them as soon as they reiach distinction, and in view of the small amount that is allowed by parliament for the purchase of paintings, considered from that aspect also, I think this vote is one that we ought to look u,pon favourably.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I quite appreciate what
the right hon. the Prime Minister says, and I had overlooked the fact of pictures being sent abroad throughout the country. I do not really know if they ever reached my constituency; they may have been down there. I perhaps do not take very much interest in art. I can quite appreciate also the assistance to comparatively local artists, but I rather got the idea that the minister was under the impression that some bargains by foreign artists would be thrown on the market this year, and I would still like the Prime Minister to consider whether it is not worth while this year to cut down this thing pretty nearly to the bone.


John Warwick King: I think the commissioners understand it is the wish of the government they should economize as much as possible, and I think I can undertake to say they will exercise care in any purchases that are made, but I believe it would be a mistake to cut the estimate.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: You would rather leave
the estimate there and not spend it?


William Garland McQuarrie: Following the remarks of the Prime Minister as to sending pictures from the National Gallery to exhibitions in distant parts of the country, I might say that the pictures which were sent out to British Columbia last year and in previous years were very much appreciated. They were shown at New Westminster, Vancouver, Victoria, and other places, usually at exhibitions, and they attracted a good deal of attention. I am thoroughly in accord with the remarks of the Prime Minister as to the necessity for doing something to encourage art'in Canada. As far as I personally am concerned I would regret to see this particular item reduced at all. I believe there is a good deal in what has been said by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Public Works, that opportunities may present themselves now vhich may not be repeated later on. It seems to me the National Gallery here in Ottawa is something we should all be proud of. No doubt at the -present time there is room for improvement, but at the same time we have some very good pictures there. I have been brought in contact with some of those responsible for the selection of the pictures, and for the conduct of the gallery, and I must say that they are doing splendid work. Personally, I believe that in a new country like Canada we cannot do too much to encourage art. We must not always think of
Supply-Public Works

material things. Surely there is something better in life than mere dollars and cents, and so far as I am concerned I would like to see this item increased.


Alfred Speakman: May I say that if that remarkable picture referred to by the. hon. member for Centre Winnipeg as "The Bolshevik" is one of those presented to the National Gallery by Lord Beaverbrook, I am not very much surprised that he presented it. Speaking of the appreciation of art, I studied that picture with some care and a good deal of interest, and I am frank to say that neither my knowledge of art nor my appreciation of art were very much increased by its examination.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What paintings were bought last year?


John Warwick King: I cannot say at
the moment. There was a report tabled during the early part of the session, giving details as to all the paintings secured last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If my hon.
friend has the details of that he must also have the details of what was spent under the vote last year?


Mr. GARDINER:: Is the Lord Beaverbrook who presented these pictures to the art gallery the Beaverbrook of Canada Cement fame?


John Jabez Thurston: What is done with the pictures that are removed from the gallery in oder to make room for new paintings?


John Warwick King: The committee
loan pictures for exhibition purposes. These pictures- move from one section of Canada to the other, and the work is going on practically all the time.


John Jabez Thurston: They are never sold?


John Warwick King: No, I think not.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister
be good enough to reply to the question of the hon. member for Medicine Hat?


John Warwick King: I am afraid I did not catch the question.


Robert Gardiner: I asked whether the
Lord Beaverbrook who presented these pictures to the art gallery is the Beaverbrook of Canada Cement fame?


John Warwick King: I believe he was interested in Canadian cement at one time.
fMr. McQuarrie.]


Robert Gardiner: I presume the officials
of the art gallery realize that he can afford to give these pictures to Canada.


Harry Leader: Do I understand the minister has given up answering my question?


James Horace King: (Kootenay):	I think the information is contained in the report of the art committee. I think it contains a description of the paintings that were bought last year. I sent for a copy of the report.


Harry Leader: What was the average
price paid?


John Warwick King: I have not got
that information yet; I will try and get it for my hon. friend.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When an exhibition
organization wants to secure some of these paintings to put on exhibition what is the procedure followed?


John Warwick King: I think they would make application to the National Art com-mitttee or to the department. If to the latter they would pass it on to the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the new
chairman been elected yet?


John Warwick King: Not yet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we are interested in seeing what was paid for the paintings, and how many of them have Been bought. I am not sure that it is not the duty of the committee to reduce this vote by $40,000 which would still leave a large sum of money available for new paintings when great need exists for the practice of economy. While the deputy is looking up the information we are asking for I wonder if we could not get the minister interested in something that is a matter of vital concern to us all. How many of us have noticed that this building which ought to be the coolest place in Ottawa is generally the hottest?


Robert Forke: There is a reason.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hot air.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is right; it is because there is hot air. The members are responsible for a good deal of it sometimes but not for all. It does seem to me perfectly ridiculous that conditions should be as thej' are. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the department before. In the old chamber there was a duct which brought in cooled air from just about high water mark in the river; the atmosphere in the chamber was always cool, we always had fresh air. Now we have got a very expensive

Supply-Public Works
plant for cooling the chamber and the results are disappointing. If the former system were in operation the Prime Minister would not be yawning at eleven o'clock; not a bit of it, he would be feeling perfectly fresh. Seriously if the minister will not think of anybody else I beseech him to think of the Prime Minister. What is the Department of Public Works doing to-day? Outside the chamber there is a little walled-in courtyard where the hot sun beats down all day, and we draw the air in from there to cool this chamber; the process of cooling it is not very successful.


George Perry Graham: Competition.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the kind of competition the House would like to get Tid of.


John Warwick King: I do not know of any change having been made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I want a change.


John Warwick King: I thought you -were complaining bitterly because there had been a change.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON': No, I want a change. I do not believe in the kind of conservatism that does not change when a change becomes necessary. We have a temperature outside in the warm weather which is extremely high, and we go through the farce of drawing that hot air into the chamber. We are better without it as conditions are. Why not revert to the former system of bringing cool air in by a duct. That duct is still available, it is only a matter of attaching it. Why not attach it? If my hon. friend would only save a few cents for this purpose out of the tremendous number *of votes he is forcing through, it would be extremely beneficial. Let us do that and drop the present pretence of cooling the chamber. Now, I have no doubt the minister has got the necessary information as to how many paintings were bought last year and what they cost.


John Warwick King: I have a copy
of the report and on pages 12 and 13 is to be found a list of the paintings purchased, and also a list of the gifts received. I think about twenty-three were purchased. The value of the works secured amounted to $72,-<596 last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What were the other costs last year?


John Warwick King: General maintenance $12,000 salaries and wages $6,000, restoration of National Gallery and Canadian War Memorial pictures, $9,000.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to delay
but I was credulous about the matter, and I desired to see this report. I thought it would contain all the information and would save discussion. The first page is numbered seven and seems very strange after what the minister has just remarked. The report says:
It was obvious that out of an appropriation of only $50,000, a considerable portion of which was required for maintenance and administration at home and the furtherance of its work throughout the country, not many purchases could be made.


John Warwick King: That was the year before. This was brought down for 1922-23.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: You are speaking of 192324?	.


John Warwick King: Yes.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That explains it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely the minister does not want to have an increase of 50 per cent of the vote over the vote of 1922-23. We voted for frills and extravagances last year; we voted for ornamental lighting and all the rest of it, and threw away $50,000. Does the minister honestly think that in view of the country's finances, not considering bookkeeping, that it is a good thing to have 50 per cent increase in this vote over the vote of 1921-22?


John Warwick King: We have reduced
the vote of last year $25,000. Of course it could be further reduced, if we allowed the work to cease. Still there is a certain obligation for the maintenance, restoration and care of the pictures, salaries and wages amounting to a considerable sum. I do not think I will disturb the vote. I quite concur in the remarks of the Prime Minister and will suggest to the committee that unless there is a really good reason they should refrain from spending all the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is carried on division.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Looking at the picture
opposite page 16, does the minister not think it is a little blasphemous?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Monunment on Connaught place, $10,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is that? Mr. KING (Kootenay): It is a revote.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) could tell me about that. Is it the idea that it is to be dropped?


John Warwick King: I do not think it should be dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is it that nothing is being done?


John Warwick King: We had an item last year and the matter is under discussion. There has been a report as to the foundaton on Connaught place, and this should be thoroughly examined before the work is proceeded with. It may mean a change in the location.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has been put up so far?


John Warwick King: Nothing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is to be put up?


John Warwick King: It has not been decided.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the matter is in abeyance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New hull for snagboat, Samson, $27,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: When was this boat bought?


John Warwick King: This boat operates on the Fraser river and was built some ten years ago, and is used in removing the very large trees that come down the river in the freshet time and catch on bars and tend to collect driftwood in the river. It performs a very important work in clearing the roots and snags out of the river. It was necessary to renew the hull of this boat, and I think contracts have been let.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How long has the work been going on?


John Warwick King: The contract was let in February.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is ten years the ordinary life of the hull of a boat on the river?


John Warwick King: This boat is moving around up against the shore, but on the coast ten years is about the life of a wooden hull.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What kind of wood is the hull made of?


John Warwick King: Fir.
FMr. J. H. King.]


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: British Columbia fir? Mr. KING (Kootenay): Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a vote last year of $30,000. [DOT]


John Warwick King: That was the
same thing. We did not go on with the contract. We are asking for a revote of $27,500. This is the same item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a vote of $30,000 for 1923-24, and there is a vote of $41,000 for 1924-25. There is just the difference between $41,000 and $30,000.


John Warwick King: Yes. We have
asked for tenders, and the total amount will be $41,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How was the money spent last year? The work must have been started.


John Warwick King: The contract was let in February, and there have been small payments made, probably for material which they had laid down before the expiration of the year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has that been done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: By tender?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
name of the company?


John Warwick King: The Star Shipyard Company, New Westminster.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa Parliament Building-tablet to the memory of the late Bowman B. Law who lost his life in the fire which destroyed the old Barliament Building, $5,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I move that this item be struck out.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How is it going to be paid for?


John Warwick King: It was paid out of last year's vote.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Who was the contractor
for that work?


John Warwick King: Mr. Chalmers of Montreal was the successful competitor in the competition.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Did it require the full $5,000 for the tablet?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Public Worhs
River gauging and metering, $30,000.
John Warwick King: This is an important vote. It provides for the investigation and collection of data as to fluctuations on various rivers, and provides for salaries of gauge readers at various points, the purchasing of recording apparatus and travelling expenses. These investigations are very necessary in studying the streams and getting data that assist in locating works that it is proposed to construct. The expenditure varies from year to year. In 1922-23 there was an appropriation of $63,000 and the expenditure amounted to $45,251.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this work being
carried on in conjunction with the provinces with a view to developing water power?


John Warwick King: This is a separate
item.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is this item
for?
i Mr. KING (Kootenay):	Our engineers in
the construction of a wharf or dam would take soundings, meterings, gauge the current, watch the flow. This is a class of work that is done in advance during the whole season. In the Fraser river that we discussed this afternoon, we are continually making surveys.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is more in aid of
navigation?


John Warwick King: Navigation and
general information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At what points
is this work going on?


John Warwick King: The St. Lawrence river.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At what point in the St. Lawrence?


John Warwick King: At various points
where we have construction going on, all along the St. Lawrence. The Ottawa river and tributaries, Sturgeon river, Rainy river, Fraser river, St. Maurice river.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought the idea was to make absolutely certain of river levels and changes in river currents, work which can be done, as I understand the matter, only by systematic measurements at a given point. Levels are subject to many causes of variation. Is it true that this is a wandering business, or have we not a regular stand where the different measurements are taken regularly?


John Warwick King: We are doing work in these localities, gauging and metering. That becomes a record that is available for the department and others requiring the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this done at
a fixed point?


John Warwick King: Various fixed
points. They must be fixed points.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked for the
fixed points and the minister said that this work was done wherever there happened to be construction.


John Warwick King: I have not the
fixed points under my hand.


Thomas George McBride: This is one of the most
important works the government is carrying on in connection with navigation. There are certain places where the tide changes along the coast, and after these records are taken and established, they are put in the tide tables. In this way master mariners can tell exactly the turn of the tide the ebb or the flow. It is very important when they are going through straits and shoals, narrow channels, to know which way the tide is running. This is an important work in aid of navigation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this apply to
tidal waters or rivers?


John Warwick King: This is in connection with rivers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This would be
particularly important as regards the Chicago water diversion. That is why I wanted to know why he did not have this work done at fixed points.


John Warwick King: Yes, we have.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
will see that he steered me wrong in the first instance, because in the second he is steering me right.


John Warwick King: I have not the
different locations before me. My statement reads:	St. Lawrence river; Ottawa river and
tributaries, and so on. The work is being done at different points on the rivers. The fixed points would be a matter of record in the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
expenditure?


John Warwick King: In 1922-23 the
expenditure was $45,251. In 1923-24, there was an appropriation of $31,000 but the expenditure is not shown.
Supply-Public Works


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It seems to be a misapprehension to think that this appropriation is in connection with tide tables. While it is all very well to praise the government, there is no need for a member to rush in and say that this is a worthy work when he has the wrong work in mind altogether. Item 233 is tidal and current survey under ocean and river service at a cost of $30,000. That is in regard to tide tables. Why is one under one department and the other under another?


John Warwick King: We are doing this work in certain localities that I named. We are not doing it in tidal waters. The Marine Department are taking care of that.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is this not to get information as to the possibility of power development?
_ Mr. KING (Kootenay):	It is very useful
in connection with power development.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I know that streams in
New Brunswick have been investigated by some departments. Was it not the Department of Public Works that sent out officers and had those streams, I might say, calibrated?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information that this department has been doing work in New Brunswick. We have confined our operations to the larger streams which I have mentioned.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that
metering and measuring of the flow of water in rivers for power development are carried on by the Interior department? I got a report from them a short time ago giving information concerning the flow of water in New Brunswick rivers.


John Warwick King: They do that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In order to get that information the Interior department would have to meter the rivers also.


John Warwick King: They are not
covering the same field. We are doing certain work on these rivers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot for the life of me see why we should not try to save something, no matter who did this work in the past. The hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) has made the case clear. The department that does this metering and gauging in order to find out the flow of water of rivers available for waterworks is the Interior department, and in order to do that they 
would have to do the same thing which this department is doing in the rivers the minister has mentioned. It is certainly clear that this is an opportunity of saving money.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will notice that the rivers on which the Department of Public Works are doing this work are the larger rivers, rivers where we are called upon to spend pretty large sums of money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sturgeon river?


John Warwick King: WTe are spending
some money there, I think; we have a lot of power development there. Then there are the activities on the St. Lawrence and Rainy
rivers-*


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sturgeon river is not one of the great rivers, that is where private companies operate.


John Warwick King: It has been convenient for the department to do work there. Most of the metering and measuring has been done for power development by the Interior department.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the Interior department Carrying on gauging work on the St. Lawrence, the Sturgeon river, the Rainy river and other rivers on which the Public Works department carries on activities? If so, there would seem to, be some overlapping.


John Warwick King: I am advised that there is no overlapping.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister is sure
that the Department of the Interior is not carrying on work on the St. Lawrence, the Sturgeon, or Rainy river?


John Warwick King: I am not absolutely sure, but I understand not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections, $110,000.
John Warwick King: This vote is required to provide for surveys and inspections necessary in the fiscal year 1924-25 in connection with harbours, rivers, slides, booms, bridge works and other services under the control of the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent last year?


John Warwick King: The appropriation last year was $110,000 and there was an expenditure of $126,000.


John Jabez Thurston: In what provinces were there any expenditures last year?

Supply-Public Works


James Horace King: The vote is a general vote
for the whole Dominion. The summary comprises travelling expenses to be accounted for for district engineers and assistants, amounting to $20,856; travelling expenses for district engineers, paid from time to time, $95,000; sundry local surveys $5,000; geodetic levelling, $4,000. The expenditure varies .from year to year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this summary include salaries?


John Warwick King: No.


John Jabez Thurston: Apparently most of this vote was used last year in travelling expenses.


John Warwick King: It is largely for
travelling expenses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What sort of
surveys are made?


John Warwick King: We have countless petitions for new works, such as wharves and piers, and the engineers go out from the various offices to the particular points and make their surveys.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This item really should be considered in connection with the engineering branch, outside service.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is really a
part of that vote. Has the minister never considered for his own convenience the advisability of including in the details of civil government all this clerical, engineering and similar work? I know that the departments do not like doing this, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) himself agreed with me that it would be a very good thing if the people were enabled to understand just what it was costing to run the country, and if, with this end in view, there could be available a list showing all the salaries. Why can this not be done?


John Warwick King: It could be done.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, why is it
not done? We have raised this same point now for some years, and the estimates are being brought down just in the same old'way.


John Warwick King: When my hon.
friend was in the government why did he not do as he now suggests?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is one of the most childish arguments that could be advanced by anyone who is at all serious; it is an argument which is an absolute admission of futility on the part of the minister.
To say that because someone else whom he condemned on the public platform and whom he has been able to turn out of office did not do a certain thing, therefore he himself should not do it, is really the height of inanity. My hon. friend knows it. I know that this is an argument frequently used, and I am not blaming the minister any more than anyone else. But this sort of thing is the most miserable and wretched kind of negation that one can think of. If my hon. friend and his government have any real idea of instituting economies, can they not for a while forget this absurd retort, "Why did you yourself not do it?" That does not help the taxpayer one bit. Again, I ask, why is this not done? To say that it was not done several years ago is no answer to the question why it is not done now. The matter has been called very objectively to the attention of the department for some years now.


John Warwick King: As my hon. friend realizes, there are some difficulties in the way. Heretofore the service was considered "outside"; it has not been treated as an inside service. It is true that in the re-classification of the civil service there has been a difference, and I am looking forward to the
12 p.m. day when a larger number of these services will come within the scope of the Civil Service and the necessary estimates be brought under "civil government". But my hon. friend knows very well that there are difficulties in the way, and not one department but all the departments are involved. However, the matter is receiving careful consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is quite right when he says that there are difficulties in the way; but there are always "difficulties in the way", and there will be difficulties in the way so long as no attempt is made to remove them. It is true also that there are more departments than one involved. But any one department can take the first move; because other departments have taken no steps in the matter is no reason why my hon. friend should remain inactive. Nothing will ever be done, we shall never make any progress whatever, so long as this policy continues. If we are to wait until reform is begun everywhere simultaneously we shall wait a long time. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances in this department, can my hon. friend mention one real difficulty which stands in the way of the reform I have suggested?


John Warwick King: There are many.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mention one.


John Warwick King: In the first place you would bring into the service and give an appearance of permanency to positions which I am not sure it would be wise to regard in that way. I am not sure that this should be done in connection with inspectorships and many of the temporary employees. I think it is a mistake. I think they should probably remain in a list that is not treated as the inside service list.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My bon. friend is confusing the issue. Why (talk such nonsense 'as to say that, having temporaries and permanents 'both in the inside and in the outside services, if you put them together you are going to change the basis in either case? That is not any reason. Will the minister not try again?


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then if we
cannot get any answer from the minister, let us try the Acting Minister of Finance. I miay say to 'him that a belief -which I held, and which was shared by my right hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), was that we should not have salaries hidden in these estimates, here, there and everywhere, so that we could not find out what the cost of the administration of a department was. We have it in practically all services, and -a large proportion in this department. I do not see why the details should be given for Ottawa and not for Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. You can see exactly what your Civil Service in Ottawa is costing. A great deal is - said about the Civil Service in Ottawa; many attacks are made upon it, but I am inclined to think that if we had in respect to the outside service anything like the information we have with respect to Ottawa, the Ottawa Civil Service would be able to make a pretty good case in comparison with the outside. I will ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether he is not in favour of a reform which will enable hon. members and the people generally to know just what the Civil Service is. We think it is what we see here, but 'it is not; that is merely the Ottawa service.


Mr. ROBB:: Does my hon. friend mean
that we should publish a list showing how mudh is paid to each employee of the government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: On page 8 of the estimates we see "Civil government, amount to be voted, $10,869,978." The de-

tails are given as appearing on certain pages. Now, i.n some departments what is shown here, and what looks as if it were the whole cost of civil government of that department, is but a mere fraction of the actual eost. For instance, in Public Works-and I take this because it is one of the most misleading of 'all tlje departments-the salaries are given under civil government on page 8 as $631,520, whereas it will be seen that they really amount to $3,753,000. The whole reason is that the salaries appear here, there and everywhere.


John Warwick King: That is hardly
fair, because I gave the committee the information as to .the number in each department, and it will be found on Hansard tomorrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend is indeed very sleepy. I was not saying anything about the information he gave or tried to give; I think :he has done the very best he could. I am talking about these estimates, not about the waste of time involved in looking for information .that we ought to be able to get quite readily.


Thomas Andrew Low: Is this not the system that has been in vogue for the last ten years?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, we still
have that cry; we still have that negation of all action and progress and thought, and it comes from a very fitting source, the benches opposite.


Thomas Andrew Low: The fact that the system has
been good enough for the last ten or fifteen years should Satisfy the hon. member.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Surely that is
one of .the most reactionary ideas that could come from a bunch of reactionaries. The fact that it has been going on in the past does not make it right.


Thomas Andrew Low: Would the hon. member suggest some improvement which might be put into effect next year?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend should attend more regularly. Had he been here he would have known that I did make a suggestion and tried to impress it upon the minister. Apparently one has to talk a lot and talk often in order to get the slightest attention. I hope I have not to start 'all over again for the benefit of my bon. friend.


Thomas Andrew Low: I will read Hansard to-morrow.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I have
pointed out, the apparent salary list for this department is $631,520 whereas the real amount is $3,752,311.


James Alexander Robb: Would not part of that relate to work done by day labour?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Some of it but not very much. There is however, a tremendous amount of it that ought to be given in this civil government list. Now I ask the hon. member what reason there was for not doing it. He gave me the same reason as was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have expressed my views upon that kind of an argument, and I asked him if there was not some real reason, and he said yes there was-I am giving what he said just as well as I can recall it-and the real reason was that if all these were put on the civil government list we would be making a whole lot permanent who ought to remain temporary. I pointed out to the Acting Minister of Finance that that is no reason at all, as he well knows. It may be the Minister of Public Works thought it was a reason, but the Acting Minister of Finance knows perfectly well, in his position, that when you are treating everything as Ottawa you have permanent employees as well as temporary employees. Just because they are in Ottawa does not make them permanent, and conversely in connection with outside employees you have permanent and temporary; they are not made temporary because they are outside. It is ludicrous, simply ludicrous. There is no reason advanced by the minister why this reform should not be instituted, and I am going to ask my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance if he knows of any, and if he will not admit that it is infinitely better, when you are looking for salaries, to know where you will find them, whether it is salaries in Ottawa or anywhere else.


James Alexander Robb: I am impressed with the observations of my hon. friend, and to-morrow I shall direct the attention of the department to them, and see if we cannot work out a system next year that will be a little more illuminating.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-Maritime provinces, $540,000.
James Horace King: (Kootenay):	Before six
o'clock my hon. friend from West York asked for certain figures as to dredging. I have the figures here. For the Maritime provinces the 204
appropriation was $625,000 and the expenditure $529,264. The departmental dredges removed
I,	225,613 cubic yards at an expenditure of $459,200.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that work out at a yard? I asked the yard price.


John Warwick King: That would require a lot of figuring. It varies in different localities.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do these prices for
dredging include the disposal of the material dredged out?


John Warwick King: Yes. The 1,225,613 yards at an expenditure of $459,200 would work out roughly at 38 cents per yard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that include overhead, or just wages and fuel?


John Warwick King: Just wages, fuel, oil, and operating charges generally. By contract, 51,748 cubic yards were removed at a cost of $53,627; the expenditure on hand dredging, which as done with horses and scrapers, amounted to $16,436.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is an
awfully high price to pay for dredging.


John Warwick King: I do not think
so.
Sir HENRk DRAYTON: You have given in one instance fifty-one to fifty-three, as against twelve to four.


John Warwick King: It depends on
the character of the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who was the
contractor who got that price?


John Warwick King: There are various contracts and various works.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What class of dredging is done by handl, with teams and scrapers?


John Warwick King: Some of the
smaller channels.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When the tide is out?


John Warwick King: Yes. I have the name of the contractor my hon. friend asked for. At Curry's Cove the contractor, Mr. J.	A. Gregory, received the following prices:
5,669 cubic yards sand, gravel and packed clay, at $1 .10 per cubic yard barge measurement;
40 cubic yards rock at $8 per cubic yard barge measurement.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
long and short of it all is that the figures given for the department covered ordinary dredging, sand, mud and the like, while the

Supply-Public Works

contract figures were for rock. If they were for rock, of course they would be higher.


John Warwick King: Some of it is rock.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I might perhaps help the
minister in connection with the Gregory contract to which he referred. I speak subject to correction, but I think there are special dredges either at the long wharf or the west side wharves to dear up the channel each year. It is done at a depth of sixty feet in high water, but of course you cannot work in high water, and at a depth of 28 feet in extreme low water, and the only dredge that can get in close enough is one of these teaspoon dredges, and it makes the price comparatively high. So far as that one item is concerned, I think I can say the charge is quite correct. If we could be given the localities and a statement of the conditions such as I am giving, I think it would clear the air and let us know if anything was being done that ought not to be done.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
:s right. We did not succeed in getting any bids when we asked for tenders, but finally we did get in touch with two contracting firms. We got the Gregory contract at the price mentioned. The rock or class "A" material was done under difficulties, and the price was considered fair by the department. The Atlantic Dredging Company did the work for us at Louisburg. There the prices vary; it was sixty-five cents for mud and 68 cents for hard sand and mud.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would it not
really be better if the minister would prepare a memorandum and put it on Hansard? The present method of getting information seems to occupy a long time. I thought the minister said the information was ready.


John Warwick King: I have the information asked for. There are a lot of details but if it is desired the information can go on Hansard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to get
the cost per yard of the dredging done by this government.


John Warwick King: The average cost was 38 cents per yard by the departmental plant. By contract 51,749 yards were removed at a cost of $53,627.38. That would amount to something over $1 a yard. By hand dredging the expenditure was $16,436. I do not imagine the yardage is kept. The same information will be applicable to the dredging in Ontario and Quebec.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood
the yardage I have here was for the Maritime provinces.


John Warwick King: I have given the
particulars with respect to the Maritime provinces. I am now going on to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, following the same line of questions that my hon. friend asked.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood
the minister to say the figures were the same.


John Warwick King: No. I am answering the same question with respect to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The departmental expenditure for 1923-24 is $547,320. In the case of the departmental dredges there were 805,675 yards at an expenditure of $331,376.81. By contract the yardage was 327,899 at an expenditure of $178,036.39. The hand dredging amounted to $37,907.04 making a total of 1,133,574 yards at an expenditure of $547,320.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The departmental
dredging would be cheaper?


John Warwick King: It is in some cases.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is no overhead
charge?


John Warwick King: No you do not
have your overhead.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: That is usually the trouble with governmental or municipal bookkeeping; they never make the charges in a way that private firms would do.


John Warwick King: The dredging in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is dealt with in the same way. The departmental dredge handled 168,076 yards at an expenditure of $81,274. The expenditure for hand dredging was $2,115. The amount for maintenance of plant is $14,562.90.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I understand there is no charge for plant in the departmental dredging?


John Warwick King: No, it is not
charged up agaginst the vote. Repairs of course are charged.


John Jabez Thurston: There is no charge for
plant the same as in the case of a private contract?


John Warwick King: No. In British
Columbia the departmental dredge handled 2,018,060 yards at a cost of $360,746.85. By contract the quantity was 18,397 yards at an expenditure of $7,908.95. The expenditure for hand dredging was $14,380. The total yard-

Supply-Public Works
age amounts to 2,036,457 cubic yards and the total expenditure to $383,035.80. I will hand the statement over so that it may be put on Hansard.
The statement is as follows:
Dredging Maritime Provinces
Appropriation 1923-24	 $625,000 00
Expenditure 1923-24	 529,264 49
subdivided as follows:- Departmental Dredges.. Contract	
, Hand dredging	Cu. Yardage .. 1,225,613 .. 51,749	Expenditure $459,200 13 53,627 38 16,436 98Total	
,	$529,264 49Dredging Ontario and Quebec	Appropriation 1923-24.. .. Expenditure 1923-24	.. $675,000 00 .. 547,320 24subdivided as follows:- Departmental Dredges.. Contract	
, Hand dredging	Cu. Yardage .. 805,675 .. 327,899	Expenditure $331,376 81 178,036 39 37,907 04Total	.. 1,133,574	$547,320 24Dredging	Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta	Appropriation 1923-24.. .. Expenditure 1923-24	.. $100,000 00 .. 97,953 23Subdivided as follows:- Departmental Dredges.. , Hand dredging	
Maintenance of plant	Cu. Yardage .. 168,076	Expenditure $ 81,274 94 2,115 39 14,562 90Totals	.. 168,076	$ 97,953 23Dredging British Columbia	Appropriation 1923-24.. .. Expenditure 1923-24	.. $416,000 00 .. 383,035 80Subdivided as follows:- Departmental Dredges.. , Contract	
Hand dredging	Cu. Yardage .. 2,018,060 . 18,397	Expenditure $360,746 85 7,908 95 14,380 00Totals	,. 2,036,457	$383,035 80Item agreed to.


John Warwick King: I move the committee rise and report progress.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend thinks he has not rushed enough through yet. I just want to point out that this is Friday night, that members who are usually interested in the estimates go away on Friday night, and that the House rises at eleven. That has been the usual rule. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that it is now 11.30.


John Warwick King: No, 12.30.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Notwithstanding the rule referred to the estimates have got through very nicely and conveniently to-night. I am merely pointing out the fact.
204|


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I also point
out the fact that when I made the suggestion I did at an earlier period of the sitting it was conditional on its acceptance by my hon. friend and his colleagues. He had only to say that it was not acceptable and the committee would have risen.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before you leave the
chair, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the exMinister of Finance because I can remember sitting here when his government brought down new estimates at this time of night and went on until two or three o'clock in the morning.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not on a Friday night.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know as to
that. But just there I do not see any reason why those of us who have to be here for five months and do not get home at all should be compelled to cease doing business because someone else wants to go home. The members who live near Ottawa have just as much right to be present on Friday night and Monday afternoon as we have. I object to the attitude assumed by the ex-Finance Minister and I do not think he is very serious in his view.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that I am very serious one way or the other but I like consistency some time. I know what the Prime Minister and the Hon. Mr. Fielding have said about sitting until eleven o'dock. I know all that, but I suppose I should not look for consistency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has tried to carry on the business so as to conclude our sitting at eleven o'clock, but now that we are getting near the end of the session I think there is a general wish on the part of the House that we should sit somewhat later. Of course, if there is going to be strong objection to sitting late, as far as the government is concerned we will not do so but will continue the session on into July and August if that is preferable. However we want to meet the wishes of members, and I think the general desire is to get through as early as possible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the government want to expedite the session let them expedite their measures and bring them down. If they are sincere in wanting to get away they will at least bring down their supplementary estimates. Usually before there is any talk about rushing business and closing the session all the business is brought down.
Dominion Lands Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to take up very much time but my hon. friend knows better than to speak as he does with respect to the business of the House. If he refers to the records when he was Minister of Finance he will find that the supplementary estimates were not tabled until the last day or the last two days of the session.
' Sir HENRY DRAYTON: The main supplementary estimates?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say the main supplementary estimates, I said the supplementary estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Main supplementaries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, supplementary estimates. We gave the House plenty of time to discuss the supplementary estimates. There will be no effort to crowd anything through. With respect to the business of the House there has not been a day when the House has not had all the business before it that it could possibly get through with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know about that. We have adjourned very early sometimes.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.35 a.m.
Monday, June 16, 1924