1925-06-05

MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. B. McGIVERIN (Ottawa) presented the seventh report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MAROIL (Bonaventure) presented the fourth report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move that the
name of Mr. Black (Yukon) be substituted for that of Mr. Guthrie as a member of the standing committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 173, from the Senate, for the relief of Samuel James Connor.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 174, from the Senate, to change the name of the "The Dominion Waman's Christian Temperance Union" to "Canadian Woman's Christian Temperance Union."- Mr. Raymond.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment):: Yesterday on
reaching a question asked by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) I directed his attention to sessional paper .No. 158 for the information sought. I desire in this connection to correct myself and to say that the information will be found in the Official Report of the Debates of the 19th of March of the present session, in answer to a question asked by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Black).


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: May I ask whether the minister
would state that there were no payments made for other services in connection with returned men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would state that.
Civil Service Act



HOME BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I should like to ask t'he Prime Minister when we may expect the legislation providing for the reimbursement of the Home Bank depositors to be taken up? I may remind him that on May 14, he said in answer to the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken):
I think probably within another fortnight we shall be able to bring in the bill to which he has just referred.
That was over three weeks ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was tihe intention of the Acting Minister of Finance to have his resolution discussed yesterday or to-day, but he has been obliged to be absent. However, he intends, I think, to bring on the resolution on Monday, and to introduce the bill to be founded on it immediately after the resolution carries.



RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader
of the Opposition) We have now reached the end of another week, we are well on in the month of June, the temperature has gone up to close to 100-if I can judge without a thermometer-and we are still without the principal legislation of this session, at least what was heralded as the chief legislation, the railway rates legislation. I want to ask the government when it can definitely promise this legislation, and also to lodge my protest against parliament being asked at this time of the year and at this period of the session to take up a matter of such consequence.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): I am giving notice of the bill this afternoon.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Notice?


Mr. GRAHAM:: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The time for giving notice of a bill is past.
Mr. GRAHAM The bill will be on the order paper on Monday.



YUKON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS- INCOME TAX EXEMPTION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I do not wish to be too persistent, but as long ago as the 9th, March a very simple return was

ordered by the House, and on 20th May the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) and on 27th May the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Cardin) said the return would be brought down within a few days. The return has reference to exemption from income tax in the case of officials of Yukon territory. I am sure the return could be brought down promptly if the minister concerned chooses to give the necessary time to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I apologize on behalf of the minister for the return not being brought down, and will ask him to see that the matter is attended to.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT EMPLOYEES-REVENUE AND CITY POST OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 168, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, respecting certain post office employees.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On subsection (a)„ section 1-Post office employees brought under the act.
Arthur Meighen: I am sure we all welcome this legislation if for no other purpose than to introduce the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) to the House of Commons for this session. He differs very strikingly from his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in that he is not pestering the House with chicken-feed legislation every other day. Perhaps though he will signalize the occasion by one of his usual illuminating explanations of this bill.


Mr. MURPHY:: I thank my right hon. friend for his introduction, but if he had been in his seat the other day when this matter came up on resolution he would have heard the explanation. It is very simple. There was a section in the Post Office Act, which was in force up till 1918, providing the method for changing revenue post offices into city post offices. In that year the act was consolidated, and, for some reason I have not been able to ascertain but apparently through oversight, this particular section was omitted. The present bill is to re-enact that section, and the explanatory note says:
The abject of this bill is to enable the Civil Service Commission to appoint experienced employees of postmasters of offices paid by percentage on revenue, when the status of such offices is changed to the staff basis. It will, for all practical purposes, be a re-enactment of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
section twelve of chapter eight of the Statutes of 1910, but modified in such a way as to make the procedure regarding appointments to the civil service, conform to the procedure at present in effect, that is, on certificate of the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is an amalgamated body of civil servants which comprises a branch consisting of postal workers, and I know the minister will agree that generally speaking they seem to be very reasonable men. I have found them very reasonable at any rate, and I think they are interested in this legislation. Would the Postmaster General mind stating if any conference has been held in regard to this matter with representatives of this body?


Charles Murphy: I may say that conferences have been held with representatives of that body, and my information is that there is no objection whatever to the proposed legislation.
Subsection (a) agreed to.
On subsection (b)-Salary.


Mr. HANSON:: When this matter was before the House on the introduction of the resolution on which the present bill is founded, the minister was kind enough to give an explanation with respect to bringing in so-called revenue offices. At that time I, and a number of other members also, pointed out to him the desirability of having certain of the larger revenue offices included in the category known as staff offices. I should like to ask him now if the government intend to take any action on the line indicated, or do they propose to adhere to the limitation which he then stated?-that 'is in the case of towns of a population of 10,000 or over and a minimum revenue of $35,000 or over. I feel that the limitation is too high and that there should be a reduction; also that in certain of the large towns where the revenues are large the employees of those post offices should be brought in under the Civil Service Act.


Charles Murphy: I should have said when I was on my feet before, that the observations made by the hon. gentleman a few days ago were brought to the attention of the officials, and thej7 said the procedure was as my hon. friend suggested it ought to be; that attention was paid to revenue rather than to population, and that such would be the procedure in future under this amendment.
Bill reported.



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Fisheries-building fishways and clearing rivers, *30,000.
Mr. MANION:: How much was spent
last year?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Spent last year-$7,690.


Robert James Manion: In view of that fact, why
does the minister want $30,000 this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is quite impossible to
foretell what the expenses will be, because this item provides for the removing of obstructions to fish ascending rivers and streams to their spawning areas, and the building of fishways in dams across such rivers and streams. Particularly in British Columbia rivers, log jams are continually forming along those rivers and often become so complete that the ascending fish are unable to get beyond. Also natural obstructions are sometimes encountered in streams and rivers. In 1923-24 a sum of $20,316 was spent for this purpose.


Robert James Manion: Why does the minister
say "particularly in British Columbia"?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Conditions in that province, on account of the mountains, are more difficult than in other provinces.


Robert James Manion: Is there any money spent
in any other province, or is it all spent in British Columbia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department is spending money in all the other provinces; this item covers the whole country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is not the reason why so much expenditure is necessary in British Columbia the fact that the salmon runs up the various rivers, and it is necessary, in order to preserve that tremendous industry, that the salmon shall get to their spawning ground?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Exactly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With reference to the new fishway and dam at Maysville on the Nash-waak river: some two or three years ago a large dam was built by the Nashwaak Pulp and Paper Company at this point, and a fishway was installed, which for some wholly unaccountable reason was put in the wrong place, so that when the water went down the foot of the fishway was out of the water below, and the salmon, which formerly used

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that river in very large numbers, and which would again use it if there were an adequate fishway, were unable to get through. Has a new fishway been installed, at whose expense, and is it now functioning properly?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A new concrete fishway
was built to replace the former one. The department has paid one-half of the cost, the total being $513.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who paid the cost of the
original fishway?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why should not the company pay all the cost of the new fishway? I understand they were very insistent on the location of the old fishway, which proved to be an error, and I see no reason why the company should not pay all the cost of the new one, which is not so excessive.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
act provides that when the fishway has to be replaced the department is to pay half of the cost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a matter of the
statute.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the new fishway functioning properly? It is a very important matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department will be
able to ascertain that during the coming season.


Richard Burpee Hanson: When was the new
fishway installed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was completed last fall, but, I am told, too late to find out if it would operate properly.


Mr. FORKE:: It may seem rather a small matter, but I wish to mention the state of affairs that exists on the small streams in the prairie provinces. The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway have built dams across the streams. The fishways are put out and the fish cannot get through them whenever the water gets a little low. I brought the matter up during two sessions, and the reply was that the fishways were built according to instructions. It seems rather strange. These fishways may be built according to regulations, but the fish do not seem to understand it, because they cannot get up the fishways.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They should be instructed.


Robert Forke: It seems to be a small thing, *but you must take into consideration conditions on the prairies, where the game fish, more particularly down in the southern parts, are very rare in the stream. There are lots of pike. To the people who are in the habit of catching salmon and other game fish pike seem rather a poor affair, but then they are very much prized in the prairie provinces, and I know that hundreds of thousands of them are destroyed at the foot of the fishways. I hope the minister will look into the situation at Pipestone, and the White Mud River. We have two fishways on the Pipestone, one on the Canadian National and one on the Canadian Pacific, and every year when the fish begin to run they die by the thousands. It is a very serious matter for people living along the banks of the stream.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have a note that repairs were made to fishways in the dams at Gladstone and Westbourne. Both were inspected at the time when fish were ascending and the latter found to be effective.


Robert Forke: This is on the Pipestone. It is a very important stream.


Arthur Meighen: That is at White Mud
River.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In reference to the item
of clearing of rivers, how much was spent in the province of New Brunswick last year, what rivers were cleared, and what methods were adopted? How was the work done? Was it done by day's work under the department, or let out by contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have a note here which
reads:
New Brunswick, construction of fishways, Marysville fishway, York county, $513.13.
I am informed there was no difficulty in New Brunswick. The money was spent for the building of fishways, and there was no obstruction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister means the
officers of the department did not look for any obstruction. Under this heading of clearing of rivers it has been customary to take out the logs and snags in the river St. John below Fredericton, when there is navigation. For many years this work was performed by a company operating on the river. Last year I was informed, this work had been performed by the department with the crew and necessary boats. I think that was a very poor policy to adont, because it involved certain capital expenditure, and the boats of the department could not be used elsewhere. That

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
sort of equipment could not be used for anything else. It may have been two years ago that I mentioned the matter.
I should like to point out to the minister that in the portion of the river below Fredericton, called the Orom-oeto shoals, which is silted in every year in my memory, and which have not been dredged since the war, there are numerous snags and sunken logs, and this constitutes a menace to navigation, and in the months of July and August there is need for this work to go on. I think the minister should give instructions to have the work examined by engineers of the department. I believe the river is under an engineer of the Public Works dparbment. I am not at all sure if it is under the minister's department. Personally, I do not see why the question of clearing rivers should not 'be under the Public Works department instead of under the Marine and Fisheries; but that is immaterial so long as I have assurance that some attention will be given by the administration to the situation. Every year there are more or less sunken logs on the shoal parts of the St. John river. These logs become water-logged; they sink and, as a rule, they are a danger to navigation of small steamers that ply upon the river. It is necessary that something be done. Has the department a report made last year as to the condi: ion of the river, or was the matter looked into at all.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that this work would come under the Public Works department. My department is only looking after small rivers or non-navigable waters. The great work of clearing navigable waters is under the control of the Public Works department. .


Mr. MacLAREN:: I take this opportunity
of urging upon the department the importance o.f care and oversight of the fishways and of clearing the rivers. I have on several occasions drawn the attention of the department to a very considerable number of rivers which suffer materially from obstructions. I rather gather from what the minister said that in New Brunswick no considerable number of rivers had been drawn to his attention as regards obstructions. Acute observers, men familiar with localities, assure me that the propagation, more especially of salmon, is greatly hindered by obstructions in a large number of rivers. The files of his department will show, I would think, probably ten or twelve rivers, given specifically by name, in which those conditions obtain. From what information I have been able to gather, I think the department is in-249
dined to deal with this matter more especially this year, so that I believe the difficulties in some of the streams will be met. Necessarily there must be some relationship between hatcheries and mechanical obstructions in streams, and it is necessary to deal with both of those. But without the experience and knowledge of lan expert, I believe a proportionate expenditure and care should lean in the direction of removal of obstructions in rivers rather than towards hatcheries, because it is the natural propagation that we must more particularly look after. It is my firm conviction that in any case in New Brunswick if the fish have a fair opportunity of going up the streams and ordinary protective care is carried out, the need of hatcheries will be greatly lessened. I can assure the minister that at the present time it is the opinion of sportsmen and men who are familiar with the area, that the great loss of fish is due to obstructions in the streams. I feel confident the names of many of these rivers are now in the department and I think the department is disposed to attend to the matter. But, speaking as a general proposition, I believe the number of fish depends more especially on the opportunity to get up a river to spawn rather than on the artificial method of hatcheries.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What rivers in
Nova Scotia have been dealt with in regard to obstructions?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Removal of obstructions in Nova Scotia has taken place on the Salmon river-Porter stream, Halifax county; Meadows brook, Cape Breton county; Beaver-dam brook, Queen's county; Curry's brook, Cape Breton county; Grass Cove pond, Victoria county; Ferguson's brook, Cape Breton county; St. Joseph de Moine, Inverness county; Murphy's lake, King's county; Black brook, Cape Breton county. Fishways were constructed on the Mersey river, Queen's county, Potanoc river, Queen's county; Grand river, Richmond County; Mushamush river, Lunenburg county; River Phillip, Lunenburg county; East river, Lunenburg county; Pictaux river, Annapolis county.


William Anderson Black: I am glad, indeed, to hear such a comprehensive list of rivers that have been dealt with, and I trust that others will be attended to during the coming season. In my experience, I can name places where the spawning beds have been partically destroyed by the accumulation of logs, roots and rubbish. It is a well known fact that salmon in particular do not frequent the rivers in which those conditions exist.



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
As so much attention has been paid to the natural breeding of fish, it is important that all these pools and gravel beds should be kept free of rubbish so that the fish may spawn in those parts of the rivers. Whilst the department has apparently made efforts-I do not think I can say strenuous efforts-to carry out the protective system in order to guard the rivers sufficiently, I tlhink it has fallen very far short of its duty in that respect. I know that a great deal of poaching and other illegal work is going on in the rivers of Nova Scotia. Occasionally arrests have been made, but I am not able to recall that any convictions have been brought about. There are places where, under the eyes of the guardians, wrongdoing is constantly being carried out and, in my judgment and I think in the judgment of most of those who in former years used to frequent the rivers of Nova Scotia for sport, salmon fishing will soon be a thing of the past. The rivers are getting into such a condition that it is not worth the sportsman's while to visit them. Some of our best streams, such as the Gold and Tangier rivers and others 1 could name, are not to-day visited by those who are seeking sport in the hope of being in any degree successful. I would call the minister's attention particularly to this question of protection and ask him whether some more vigorous policy could not be pursued than that which has so far been in force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is still following the old, wornout practice of appointing political guardians; for that is what they are in New Brunswick. The guardians there are the local heelers who are appointed without regard to any consideration of fitness; so long as they can paddle a canoe they are evidently considered fit to be guardians. This government is only following what has been the practice for generations; but it is a wornout practice. The very fact that these men are political appointees robs them of any power they might have. A guardian to be successful must be fearless and courageous, and he cannot be either fearless or courageous if he has to think of the voters. So far as the St. John river is concerned, there are altogether too few guardians, notwithstanding that this is the largest river in New Brunswick, where the propagation of the bay of Fundy salmon takes place. On a stretch of seventy-five miles between York and Sunbury I doubt whether there are more than three or four guardians altogether. These men cannot possibly prevent poaching, and they are not the right type to do it when they are appointed.


Mr. CARROLL:: I do not know very much about the rivers on the mainland of Nova Scotia, but I do know something about the best salmon fishing river in all the Maritime provinces; I refer to the Margaree. My hon. friend (Mr. Doueet) knows the Margaree very well; he was born in that vicinity. In the last eight years or so there has been an annual increase in the number of sportsmen who go to the Margaree, and I have myself visited that stream quite often, it being in my native home, although I do not represent that county. I go up the river every Saturday and have a very enjoyable time fishing; I do not fish on Sunday. Last year six new bunga'ows were built along the river to take care of the increasing tourist traffic and they were inadequate to provide the needed accommodation. Some three weeks ago I happened to be down there on a visit and I discovered that this year the bungalow accommodation had been increased to ten new houses. The river is well taken care of. We have in that part of the country what is known as the Cape Breton Fishing and Sports Association and in nine cases out of ten the members of this body are non-partisan; the association comprises both Liberals and Conservatives with, I presume, a few Labour and Farmer representatives thrown in. And very often their requests for capable guardians are favourably considered by the department and those whom they recommend are appointed. In Mr. A. G. McLeod, the inspector of fisheries for Cape Breton, we have a very splendid official. I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) that this gentleman is an appointee of the old government, having been selected before the Civil Service Commission came in; but, notwithstanding that fact and the fact that all his affiliations are Conservative, I want to say in his behalf that he is perhaps the best inspector we have ever had in Cape Breton. Under him are four or five, probably six, overseers appointed by the Civil Service Commission, who of course are all non-partisan; they are mostly returned soldiers. So far as I am aware these men are all doing efficient work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these overseers the
actual guardians?


William F. Carroll: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the point.


William F. Carroll: But they also do the
work of guardians. The guardians however are under them and no man who is not favourably known to these overseers is appointed. I have practical experience in my

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
own county as well as in the county of Inverness through which the Margaree runs. I know something also of St. Mary river in Guysborough county, and for some reason which I am unable to understand that river has been going down as a resort for tourists *interested in salmon fishing. However, I want to give the officials of the department, not particularly the minister, but those under him, and especially the official gentleman who is at present on the floor of the House, credit for what has been done in this matter. 1 desire to pay them this compliment, that so far as the island of Cape Breton is concerned at any rate-and we think that the very best salmon and trout fishing is to be enjoyed there-we are getting the best protection possible. As a matter of fact, besides American tourists, we have very frequent visitors from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec who go there season after season and lend the guardians a helping hand in protecting the salmon streams from poachers and others who make an illicit use of them. As to the remarks of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Black), I do not know anything about the peninsula of Nova Scotia, but I have some knowledge of the St. Mary river where I go occasionally. I have something else to say on this subject but my remarks will be more pertinent to item Fish Culture.


Murray MacLaren: Will the minister kindly give us a detailed statement, similar to the one he made for the province of Nova Scotia, showing what work has been done in New Brunswick.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department did not remove any obstructions in the New Brunswick *rivers, but it has built a fishway at Marysville, in York county. Perhaps I had better read the memorandum I have on this matter:
Marysville fishway, York county, $5X3.13. A new concrete fishway was built replacing one previously built by the company which had proved ineffective. The department paid one-half the cost of the new fishway which amounted to the above figure.
Robertson lake, St. John county, $78.37. New partitions were placed in the fishway to replace the old ones which were ineffective and in need of extensive repairs.
Salmon river, Victoria county, $422.90. The department paid one-half the cost of a fishway in a dam owned by Mr. Joseph Cote. The latter had not been required to build the fishway when he built his dam, and claimed this exemption because of the fact that prices were now much higher than when he built and, as a consequence the fishway would cost much more.
Theriault fishway, Victoria county, $27.75. An extension was built at the foot of the fishway to improve conditions for the asCent of salmon.


Murray MacLaren: Is there any list of rivers cleared?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No clearing was done in New Brunswick last year.
249J


Murray MacLaren: I hope next year the
minister will give me more encouragement.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the department's intention to send an engineer to the Maritime provinces to carry on an investigation, and it purposes to undertake any work that may be recommended by him.


Mr. MARCEL (Bonaventure):: The most important salmon river we have in Canada is the Restigouche river, which is the boundary between New Brunswick and Quebec. Does the department still exercise its activities in connection with the sailmon rivers of Quebec, or has it transferred its control entirely to the provincial government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Our control in the fisheries
of Quebec has been handed over to the provincial authorities.


Charles Marcil: Including
the clearing of the rivers?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Everything.
Mr. MARjCIL (Bonaventure): What about the Restigouche, an intenprovineial river?


Mr.   GARDEN@: The Quebec side is under the control of the provincial government.
Mr. MARjCIL (Bonaventure):	Was any
work done on the rivers last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed they are
(Hear.


Mr. MARTELL:: Was there ever in existence a regulation to prevent sport fishing on rivers or streams on Sundays? If so, is such regulation still in effect in Nova Scotia?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is nothing to prevent Sunday fishing in Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the department been investigating the possibility of installing a fishway at the mouitfa of the Magaguadavie river? And what are the prospects of converting it into a salmon river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nothing has been done up to the present, but our engineer is going down there this summer to make another investigation. The result of his investigation last year was not satisfactory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the department has not abandoned the idea of putting a fishway at that point? This river is controlled by an American company which makes ground wood pulp at that point. While it is a somewhat important industry, yet I think it should not be allowed to prevent the in-4 pm. stallation of a fishway if iin the opinion of the officials of the department such a fishway would be effective. I

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
would not wanit to insist upon its installation unless the department had some reasonable assurance that it would function; but if the department arrives at that conclusion, I think it should act notwithstanding the opposition which will no doubt emanate from the St. George Pulp & Paper Company.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As I said, we are (making a full investigation and will act on the engineer's report.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Has the department ever taken into consideration the advisability of making Sunday a close time in order'that the fish might be able to get to their spawning grounds? I think such a regulation would aid the fisheries generally, apart from the moral standpoint altogether. I think more harm is done to our fisheries by Sunday fueling than by all other fishing throughout the week. People go off early in the morning in hundreds, and whip practically every stream. They are also the cause of setting fires. Moreover, there is a day set aside for rest-the seventh day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Saturday.
Mr. MARTELiL: You can take it scripturally or in any other way, but one day in seven is necessary for man physically as well as morally. If the department does not act from the high moral standpoint, I submit that it should from the standpoint of the protection of our fisheries. In British Columbia there is a dose time in order that the salmon may ascend to their spawning grounds. There is the same necessity for such a regulation in Nova Scotia, and I think Sunday should be declared a close day for our fish. I am confident that a regulation of this kind would meet with the approval of practically everybody save those who want to desecrate the Sabbath and who do not care what happens to tlhe fish.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In Nova Scotia there is
a regulation preventing fishing with nets on Sundays, but there is no restriction in regard to sport fishing.


Lewis Herbert Martell: There should be. Will
the minister take that into consideration?


William Anderson Black: I thoroughly agree with the principle enunciated by the member for Hants. I know that many communities throughout Nova Scotia were very much annoyed when Sunday fishing became permissible, and it is the wish of those people not to be disturbed by those who thresh the river on Sundays and in other ways annoy the residents. I think in the interests of the

fisheries it is only right that on Sundays the fish should have an opportunity of moving up river from pool to pool without being disturbed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I agree
with what these two hon. gentlemen (Mr. Martell and Mr. Black) say about Sunday fishing from the point of view of the fish; but I do not see any more harm in Sunday fishing than in Sunday golf, Sunday motoring, Sunday card playing and a dozen other forms of recreation that our people indulge in. Fishing is a good, healthful recreation; and if golfing is not harmful neither is fishing.


William F. Carroll: Golfing is indulged in
in private places.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why do in secret what
you would not care to practise in public?
I do not believe in that sort of thing. I think we will have to leave the matter to the conscience of the individual.


William F. Carroll: I thoroughly agree that
a regulation prohibiting Sunday fishing would not only be good for the fish but .also would be good for the community. The analogy drawn by my hon. friend from York-Bunbury (Mr. Hanson) between Sunday fishing and Sunday golf is not a good one. If you play golf you do not disturb anyone, for you play the game on private grounds, but I do not think it is proper that hundreds of people should fish our rivers from early Sunday morning till late at night and incidentally disturb the local residents. I heartily agree with my hon. friends from Hants and Halifax that the department should take seriously into consideration the advisability of making a regulation under the act to stop Sunday fishing. This would give the fish an opportunity to get to their spawning grounds and would avoid a great deal of annoyance to those living along the rivers. Alewife fishing is prohibited from sundown on Saturday afternoon until nine o'clock Monday morning.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is commercial fishing?


William F. Carroll: Yes. There is no doubt
it was the intention to give the alewives an opportunity of getting into the lakes to spawn.
A similar restriction would give our salmon and trout an equal opportunity. I would ask the minister and the officials of his department to take seriously into consideration the remarks of my hon. friends from Hants and Halifax in this regard.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I hope if
the suggestion made by the hon. members who have just spoken is to take effect it will be restricted to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. They seem to have got away from the item under discussion which, I understand, is fish ladders, and I do not quite see what bearing this discussion has on those things. It seems to have developed into a funny mixture of morality and supposed fish preservation. Is the idea to prevent people sinning by fishing on Sunday, or is it to benefit the fish?-because we have had the two subjects so mixed up that it is difficult to decide what is really desired. If it is wrong to fish on Sunday, that has nothing to do with this subject, and this is not an appropriate item under which to bring that up.


William F. Carroll: Wihat are we discussing?


Alan Webster Neill: We are discussing the -c'earing out of rivers and fish ladders.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Jacob's ladder.


Alan Webster Neill: This is not Jacob's ladder we are discussing, but the clearing out of streams. I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) that this is not the place and this is not the way to legislate men into changing their dhurch-going or religious points of view. That is entirely a matter for everyone's own personal conscience.
A great deal has been said about the disturbance caused by these fishers. I never knew before that fishers were a noisy and boisterous people, I had always thought their occupation required them to be quiet, and raise no noise at all. Another suggestion was made from the other side of the House that they started fires. Do they start .more fires on Sunday than on Saturday? That is not logical. The suggestion is also made that they thresh the rivers and streams. But that does not make much noise. The suggestion is that it annoys the residents in the locality. It will not annoy them if they also are not on that stream themselves on Sunday, will it? Is not a great deal of the trouble just a little bit of selfishness? These people object to the worker who works six days a week, coming out on his one free day and getting his share of the fish, which, after all, are not the exclusive property of the local people. Cannot a great deal of this trouble be traced to a little hoggishness on the part of the country dwellers who know that if the worker can be forbidden fishing on Sunday, he will likely
not fish at all and leave more sport for them?
I am a country dweller myself, but we must let the man from the city or village get a chance of health and fresh air and innocent recreation on Sunday. However, I am prepared to allow these peculiar ideas of the previous speakers to be carried out in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as long as they are not applied to the Province of British Columbia and we in that province are allowed freedom of conscience and liberty of action.


Mr. DOUCET:: I am surprised that a member from Nova Scotia should tell the country that there is so much fishing going on in his province on Sunday. In our section, in New Brunswick, the Sabbath is observed much better than that. However, that is apart from the vote under discussion.
I rise to suggest this to the minister: If the department undertakes the clearing of rivers in New Brunswick, some attention should be paid to the Richibuoto and its tributaries, the Bass, the St. Nicholas, and the Moulie's; and other rivers such as the Cocagne, the Buc-touche, the Kouehibouguac, and others. These are all great rivers for the propagation of fish, but I understand that a number of mill dams have been constructed on them, with no proper fishways, and consequently the fish cannot get up the streams to spawn. This is very important, and I submit that the officials of the department should see that proper accommodation is provided so that the fish can get up these streams, and thus aid in the development of this great industry on these rivers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of deep-sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $95,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister explain what this is for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The proposed appropriation is to enable investigation to be made into the best method of preparing fish for market; also the dissemination of useful and important information among the fishermen and dealers; also to enable measures to be taken for the expansion of the demand for fish, and to carry out undertakings of importance for the benefit of the fisheries the necessity for which may arise from time to time and would not otherwise be provided for. Under this appropriation educational stations are being established at Halifax and Prince Rupert. Assistance is also being given to the Canadian Fisheries' Association in carrying on an advertising campaign looking to the expansion of the trade.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: In connection, with the
conservation of deep-sea fisheries I want to remind the minister that during the last session, of this parliament the Marine and Fisheries committee adopted unanimously a resolution moved by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. . MacLean) that, owing to the extremely rough weather in the month of October practically every year, the open season for lobsters, which to-day is from the 16th of August to the 15th of October, should be changed to read from the 6th of August to the 5th of October. That resolution, as I say, was passed unanimously on the 17th of June, and it was communicated by the clerk of the committee on the 16th of July to the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. That was in accord with and following a suggestion made at a meeting of that same committee held on the 30th day of April, 1924, at which meeting it was stated that an expert of the department was expected to visit the Maritime provinces and study the various phases of the fisheries in those provinces. Now the claim is made by some, possibly by some departmental official that the fish would not be in a condition to place on the market so early in August. The bulk of the fishermen contend otherwise. As a matter of fact, in the month of February last year a delegate from that section,, and representing practically all the fishermen of the section, came to Ottawa with -a petition asking that the open season should run from the 1st day of August instead of the 16th. We in the Marine and Fisheries committee thought that we would make a compromise, and we suggested advancing it by ten days for last year only, particularly in view of the fact that an official of the department would be on the ground and would be able to get first-hand knowledge as to whether the fish were really in a condition for market so early in the month of August. Unfortunately that was not done. There is no use harping on that, but what I do say is this: I understand that Dr. Knight of the Biological Board is to spend some time in the Maritime provinces this summer in connection with the deep-sea fisheries and with the canning establishments, and I humbly suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the fishermen of that section of the country from Choekfish to Bale Verte, be given the privilege of fishing for lobsters beginning on the 6th day of August and running to the 5th day of October, following the suggestion that was made by the Marine and Fisheries committee last year, and Dr. Knight would then have an opportunity to learn whether the 
lobsters at that time of the month were in a condition to be marketed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is well known to all those who reside on the straits of Northumberland that practically every year, during the firsit two weeks of October, severe storms occur which occasion great damage to the fishing gear of the men engaged in this industry. As a matter of fact the fishermen are anxious to bring their gear ashore during the first week of that month, rather than expose it to the risk of being completely destroyed by the storms which make their appearance almost every year. If the lobsters are fit for the market at the time referred to why not allow the fishermen to take them, and in that way enable them to obtain a better livelihood than they have been able to secure in the past? I make the suggestion in all earnestness, fortified by the fact that the same suggestion was advanced last year in the Marine and Fisheries Committee by the hon. member for Prince.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: In regard to
the suggestion that the lbbster fishing season should start on the 5th August and end on 5th October I may say that Mr. Cowie, of the Marine Department, visited ou:r province last year and met the fishermen of the different sections of the coast at a number of duly advertised meetings. I presume Mr. Cowie also visited the New Brunswick shore and held similar meetings there. At those meetings fishermen came and submitted their evidence to Mr. Cowie. There is no doubt there has been a strong demand to have the season changed; but apparently last year there was not as strong a demand as in farmer years on account of the business of shipping live lobsters to the United iStates which has developed largely within the last few years. People concerned in that business felt that possibly the shipment of live lobsters in the early part of August, when the weather was extremely warm, would not be as beneficial and might not turn out as well as was desired. After ascertaining the opinion of a great many fishermen from the different localities along the coast the consensus of opinion seemed to be that possibly for this year it would be better for the season to commence at the same date, namely, loth August. The question of whether or not the lobsters were in a fit condition for human consumption at that time was also taken up, but there did not appear to be sufficient evidence to justify any definite conclusion. I am strongly of the opinion that the change suggested would be of great benefit to the fishermen because

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
it will enable them to save their lobster gear before the late storms make their appearance. I think the movement to open the season on August 5 would possibly meet with the approval of those interested. As I say the only possible objection was as to whether lobsters could be shipped ini proper condition in the hot weather.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer for a few minutes to the oyster industry in Prince Edward Island. I think those who have any practical knowledge of oysters will acknowledge that the Malpeque oyster, from Malpeque bay, Prince Edward Island, was the finest oyster ever put on the market. Perhaps I am not in order in discussing this question in connection with the present vote.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Go on.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: A number of
years ago the local government, with the idea of developing ihe oyster industry, obtained control of the oyster areas from the Dominion government. The provincial authorities then leased those areas to people in the immediate vicinity of the beds, located in certain bays and rivers, and also accorded them !he privilege of importing American oysters for planting on those beds in the hope of stimulating production. As a result of the importation of these oysters some kind of disease or some species of insect was introduced and the consequence was that the areas which formerly produced oysters of such fine quality to such a wonderful extent were rendered completely non-productive, scarcely one live oyster being left in any of the bays or rivers. The report of a scientist who investigated the matter at the time showed that this destruction was the work of an insect which bored into the shell, or obtained entry into the body of the oyster in some way. However, the scientist in question was of opinion that after this devastation had run its course, which would probably occupy seven years, the insect would disappear, and restorative measures might be adopted. I have endeavoured to get some information on the subject from the Department of Marine and Fisheries but they do not seem to have any data which has any direct relation to it. I have also written to Dr. Knight on the subject but have received no reply as yet. The residents contiguous to the oyster areas, however, are of the opinion that the trouble has now disappeared and that the time is ripe for taking the steps necessary to re-stock the oyster beds. I think there has been some correspondence exchanged between the federal and provincial authorities with respect to the
latter transferring back the control of these oys'er areas to the Dominion government. It is impossible for the local government to undertake the work of developing and restocking the oyster beds because they do not possess the necessary funds. It is only through the instrumentality of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, therefore, that we can expect the necessary steps to be taken in the hope of restoring these devastated oyster beds to their former splendid condition. That such a work should be undertaken is most desirable. The oyster fisheries in the past constituted a great source of revenue to the fisherman of Prince Edward Island. When engaged in these fisheries he needed no expensive plant. For twenty-five or thirty dollars the fisherman could provide himself with a small boat and outfit, and his earnings from the oys'er fishery each fall would yield him from $200 to $300. Unfortunately the industry has been wiped out, and in consequence many people have been compelled to leave the province and seek employment elsewhere. As I have already said the Malpeque oyster was of unsurpassed quality. It was obtained from the unsullied waters of the Atlantic coast, uncontaminated by sewage from large cities as is the case of many of the oyster beds of the United States and elsewhere, and constituted a delicious food which in no way endangered public health. I do plead with the government to look into this matter and carry cut the necessary investigations with a view of seeing what can be done with a view of renewing these oyster beds and restoring them to their former healthy and productive state.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: We have several
oyster beds in my constituency. Some of them are not doing well, but others are thriving. I doubt if the industry can really be made a success, but I hope the Department of Marine and Fisheries will investigate the matter fully and see what can be done in that direction. I understand the question of oyster development has been left to the different Maritime provinces for several years past, but that negotiations have been in progress with a view to transferring the oyster beds to the Federal government. I understand that two of the provinces have fallen into line and have decided to hand over the oyster beds to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but Prince Edward Island has not yet followed the example set by those two provinces. I hope that province will do so soon, in order to allow the department to go into this matter with some degree of seriousness.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Oyster culture has been adopted by several countries of the world. China, for instance, has cultivated oysters for the last three hundred years. Japan and the United States have also gone into the business very extensively and have made a success of it, after spending large sums of money and having met with a great many failures. However, I believe the question is of sufficient importance to justify^ this government going into it in order to ascertain whether or not oyster culture can be made a success.
We have in my constituency the Caraquet oyster beds which are the most important in the Maritime provinces, perhaps with the exception of the Malpeque in quality and the Buctouche in quantity. The old world famed St. Simon oyster has met the same fate as the Malpeque oyster, being almost extinct, but, however, not completely so. Some years ago the fishermen in Caraquet gave up oyster fishing, because they could not get any oysters. But three years ago the fishermen found there were oysters on these beds and they went fishing, with the result that 500 barrels of oysters were marketed. Two years ago 800 barrels were fished and last year they increased their output to some 1,300 barrels, which goes to show that the Caraquet oyster bed would be very profitable. I should like to know if the Department of Marine and Fisheries has made any endeavours to induce Prince Edward Island to go into the industry, and if so what is the intention of the department with regard to the matter.
So far as the lobster season is concerned I doubt very much if our people are unanimous in regard to the open season. There is a great deal of inconvenience when one section of the coast has a spring season and the other section a fall season. If it were possible to give a fall season to the northern section of New Brunswick as well as the section south of Chockfish, and in the whole of Prince Edward Island, I believe it would simplify matters to a great extent, and would benefit the fishing industry. In my constituency fishermen have a season starting on the 26th April, and very often in the latter part of April and the early part of May the coast is still icebound in that section, and therefore the fishermen lose part of their season. Last year a great part of the season was lost on account of weather conditions. This year so far fishermen in Gloucester are doing well, but I doubt if they will favour changing the spring season for a fall season. All these matters should be the subject of very serious investigation and inquiry, and should not be dealt with without proper consideration. I think they should be very care-
fully gone into by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: My hon. friend (Mr. Robichaud) must not take too much to heart my remarks about changing the lobster season. I never mentioned his part of the province. I mentioned that section south of Chockfish as far as Bale Verte.
I would like to have an answer to my question, and I will state the reason. The delegate who called on the minister in the month of February, 1924, although authorized by the great bulk of the fishermen of that section to present the case to the minister, went back to his constituency; whether he was chloroformed or not I do not know', but he never made a report to any one, publicly or otherwise. Again a resolution was adopted by the Marine and Fisheries committee unanimously, and whilst the fishermen in that section wanted to have the fishing season begin on the 6th day of August, and were laying their plans accordingly, yet the department could not accede to their request, and made no answer *Whatsoever. My hon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean) told us that Mr. Cowie of the Department of Marine and Fisheries visited his section. I am delighted to know that it was Mr. Cowie who went there, because while I was there I have yet to hear of any notification of Mr. Cowie's visit in the Maritime provinces-. He was expected, I believe, to interview the representatives and the people, so that they in turn could get in touch with those most directly interested and obtain information on the subj ect.	Whom he interviewed I know not,
but I have to assume that he held meetings in view of the fact that he held several meetings in -Prince Edv'ard Island; but if he came to the conclusion that the consensus of opinion of the fishermen in that section was unfavourable to the 6th August as the opening date of the season, he must have come in contact with the very few who were opposed to the change. I submit that if a vote were taken of the whole fishing population of -that section, you would find that very few dissented from the idea that if the fish were in proper condition to market-and I verily believe they are-they would vote to change the regulation,, so that their fishing would not be placed in jeopardy every year as it has been in years past..
While the remarks of my hon. friend from Prince and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) rather diverted discussion to the oyster question, I w'ould again ask the minister, has he seriously considered this

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
proposition, and can he to-day give a more definite answer to the demand made by the lobster fishing people of that section?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The position in which the
department was placed was rather a difficult one. The year before last a report was made by Dr. Knight, of the Biological Board, against any change in the present season; last year, after the committee on fisheries had adopted this resolution, an officer of the department was sent to carry on an investigation, and the report of this officer was against any change in the regulation in the fishing industry. I do not know exactly the source of information of the officers of the department, but I am sure they made the best investigation that it was possible to carry on under the circumstances. At all events, the report actually before the department is a report against any change in the season. I may say to my hon. friend that I have no set choice in regard to these things. I am quite open to conviction and, if he has any new case to state before the department and any new representations to make, I shall be very glad indeed to take them into consideration; but, up to the present time, the two gentlemen -who reported to the department. Dr. Knight and Mr. Cowie, are both against any change in this fishing season.
The department fully realizes the importance of oyster culture, but unfortunately, on account of difficulties in regard to jurisdiction over the oyster areas, it has been unable prior to the present time, to reach any conclusion and to establish any good system of culture. We have been communicating with the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, asking those governments to hand over to the federal government the oyster areas, in order to enab'e the Department of Marine and Fisheries to rtart a programme of some kind for the development and betterment of this interesting industry. So far we have been unable to secure the property or the right of going over all those areas. We have already reached certain conclusions with the provincial governments, but nothing as yet has been definitely settled. I hope, in the course of a very few weeks, I shall be in a position to state that an understanding has been reached between the federal and provincial governments. As soon as this understanding is arrived at, the department will be ready to endeavour to develop this very important industry of oyster culture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to delay the minister in the passing of these estimates;
indeed, I should like to facilitate their passage; but under this item of the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries, and the demand for fish, can he give the committee some information regarding the northern section of British Columbia? I think he mentioned that part of the vote was applicable to Prince Rupert. That city is largely dependent for its commercial life upon the northern fisheries, and this is a very important matter to it. Recently we entered into a treaty regarding halibut, most of which is handled out of the port of Prince Rupert. It is vitally important to the northern section of British Columbia, particularly Prince Rupert, and it also supplies a very substantial quantity of traffic over the National railways, the old Grand Trunk Pacific line. Can the minister give the committee some information about the condition of the halibut of northern British Columbia, particularly that passing through the port of Prince Rupert. I understand some months ago complaint was made that there was some grievance regarding American vessels getting certain advantages which militated against Canadian vessels fishing out of Prince Rupert. The minister will probably recall the subject matter of the complaint.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that correspondence is being exchanged with the United States authorities in regard to the Halibut treaty, but that no definite understanding has yet been reached. I expect that a conference will shortly be held between the officials of the two departments, in order to have the necessary steps taken to derive the greatest benefit possible from the treaty which has been signed with the United States. The conference is also being held in order to take up all the difficulties that exist at present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will this representation
of the city of Prince Rupert be laid before the conference?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I notice this item is
to assist in creating a demand for fish. Has the minister's department ever considered trying to bring about some better method of distribution of fresh fish, that is, from portions of the country where fishing is carried on to those inland portions where it is almost impossible to get fresh fish at reasonable prices? In northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan we have all kinds of good fish, but it is very hard to get it distributed at anything like a reasonable price, owing to the express rates being so high. I thought this

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
matter might well come under this item, and that the department might be working out some plan to improve the distribution of fresh fish to such portions of the country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For a number of years the department's assistance has been given to solving the problem which has been indicated by my hon. friend, by paying part of the transportation charges; but when the traffic had been built up to a certain extent, this procedure was stopped and the department is now trying to develop the demand for fish.


Leland Payson Bancroft: That applies only to
deep-sea fisheries. It does not apply to fisheries, say in the western provinces.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department did not
assist intenprovincial traffic.


Leland Payson Bancroft: This condition would
obtain even within the provinces in the west. There are plenty of fish in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, whereas in the southern portions of those provinces it is very difficult for the people on the farms to get fresh fish at a reasonable price. Of course, that is accounted for by the perishable nature of the product and the high transportation rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $370,000.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: This is quite a
large amount and, perhaps, it is the most important item in this vote. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to certain facts in connection with fish culture. Fish hatching and fish culture have been going on mow for some fifty years, and during that period we should know something as to the results. Unfortunately, it has been only very lately that any attempt has been made to find out where we stand and what we are obtaining by the expenditure of this large amount. There is what is known as the Biological Board which is assisting the department in this connection, and it has been studying the question. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to what I have personally observed. As a boy, I remember cans and cans of fingerlings being put into the lake where I fished when I was a boy and where I have lived for some years, and I have not seen one of those fish fully grown caught in that lake. That is an observation that should compel the attention of the committee. There are no doubt some abuses in connection with fish culture especially as regards the deposits 	' j
of the fry and fingerlings. We have been playing the political game too much, members being anxious to report to their constituents that they had been successful in having ten, twenty or thirty thousand fry or fingerlings deposited in this or that lake, without ever considering what the cost and results have been. Certain results have been obtained by the Biological Board who have had specially qualified officials studying the question, and while no doubt the minister is familiar with the facts they should I think be brought to the attention of the committee. In June, 1923, there were deposited in what is known as Gunstone brook near Aylmer, Ontario, some 5,000 fry, and in September, the official who was looking into the subject was able to take out alive from that part of the brook only 175. The question naturally arises as what happened to the others. The official came to the conclusion that he would take out of the stream all the enemy fish and after he had removed some 36 rock bass he obtained 41 fry in their stomachs. This would indicate the reason for the disappearance of the fry. Near the same stream, in what was know as Buck brook, there were also deposited
5,000	fry, and from that brook there were obtained some 1,500. What accounted for the difference between this stream and the other? The difference between the number of fry secured was due to the fact that before the fry and fingerling had been deposited in Buck brook a large number of enemy fish had been taken out. In 1921 there were deposited in Kelly's brook, Prince Edward Island, in the month of May, 10,000 trout, and in September by seining 3,000 were obtained. At the same time there were deposited in that stream 11,662 fingerling, and in September not one could be obtained. The result in this case was due to a different cause from that which prevailed in the other eases; in this instance there was not sufficient food in the brook to feed the fry and fingerling deposited there. A more remarkable demonstration was carried out in Kettle brook in Elgin county. In June, 1921, 10,000 fry were deposited, and in June, 1923, 101,000 were deposited. In that case trout a year and two years old should have been obtained, and yet after seining not one trout was got. Instead there were a number of suckers, minnows, rock bass, black bass, shiners, and other fish of that sort to the total of 159. This will indicate what happened to the fry at that point.
I think I have given some facts that should cause us to insist upon the department taking some action in this matter. We have gone on for fifty years spending this amount of , money on this work, and we have results

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
such as I have indicated. I am not going to say that the culture is absolutely useless in all cases; I have been shown where it has been Successful. Nevertheless I think that our fish culture in these brooks has been a waste of money, and this 'because we have failed to put into practice the recommendations of the Biological Board. Two things should be taken into consideration before we go on depositing fingerlings and fry throughout the country. There should be a study of the lakes in Which they are deposited to ascertain whether there is sufficient food to take care of them; and in the second place we should remove all enemy fish which are likely to destroy the fry and fingerlings.
This subject is closely connected with a matter that has been referred to many times in this House; I mean our tourist traffic. We have throughout Canada some of tihe most beautiful lakes that are to be seen anywhere, and altogether the conditions are ideal for the promotion of an extensive tourist traffic. Good fishing is an unfailing attraction, and we have now been for fifty years endeavouring to increase the number of fish in our lakes and streams both for sport and commercial purposes, with varying fortune. The time has come when we should take the question more seriously into consideration and deal with it in a businesslike way. It is unfortunate, I think, that this matter should be dealt with between the provinces and the Dominion without any real co-oiperation; there seems to be no responsibility, and we are going on in a slip-shod, blind, haphazard way in the work we are doing. It would be well for the department, acting in conjunction with the provincial authorities, to select some lakes such as Muskoka lakes and bodies of water to be found in Frontenac county, for instance, and on the advice of the Biological Board as well as that of practical fishermen in these districts, empty these lakes of all destructive fish before depositing any fry and fingerling. In that way only can any satisfactory results be secured from fish culture. The reports of the Biological Board are extremely interesting and instructive, but unfortunately . their recommendations have not so far been taken seriously by either the provincial or the federal departments. In the interests of our own people, and with a view to increasing the fish in our lakes and streams, looking to the development of a tourist traffic, I would suggest that this matter be seriously taken up by the department and that the Biological Board be set to work to devise some means of coping with the matter. And in my opinion only the
advice of that board should be followed as to where fry and fingerlings should be deposited.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend has expressed the views of one of the members of the board. The resolutions' which have been adopted by the Biological Board have been agreed to and acted upon by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and we have been advised by the board that in the meantime the existing hatcheries be maintained so far as, in the opinion of the department, this may be justified. We are following the recommendations which have been made by the Biological Board. We have asked them to appoint certain officers to carry on the investigation along the lines of their suggestion. The work will be undertaken this year. In these scientific matters we have to rely upon our experts, in other words, the Biological Board. We have never up to the present time refused to follow their advice.


Arthur Edward Ross: I quite realize that it is a scientific matter, but I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that the officials of departments are still continuing in the old way. I know of cases inhere men have asked that certain lakes be cleaned out before the fry is put in them, but nothing has been done. In a word, the practical results that we might expect from this work are not being obtained.


Lewis Herbert Martell: No doubt the members
of the Biological Board are familiar with the characteristics of lobsters, but when they undertook to see if our Atlantic lobsters would flourish in the Pacific, they sent the lobsters westward and failed to take the plugs off their claws before dropping the lobsters into the sea, thus leaving them helpless. If that is the sort of thing they do we are better without the Biological Board. I understand that in Ontario the hatcheries for sporting fish are under the control of the provincial government, but that the hatcheries for the propagation of commercial fish are stiill under the control of the federal authorities. I know that in Nova Scotia the hatcheries have been a success. There is a hatchery three miles from Windsor where they propagate salmon and
5 p.m. trout, and its work has resulted in many of our streams being replenished with fish. For instance, the Avon river in days gone by was a good salmon stream, but for many years it was necessary to put absolutely restrictive regulations into effect in an effort to restock the river, and it was not until the hatchery was established that any improvement was effected. To-day

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that is a very good salmon stream again. I do not know very much about the results obtained in connection with the Margaree and Bedford hatcheries, but I know that any interference with the hatchery system would not meet with the universal approval of our people in Nova Scotia. Probably we have advanced too quickly, but I submit to the minister that in so far as the artificial propagation of salmon and trout for the replenishment of barren streams is concerned, the hatchery sys'.em should be retained.
Far be it from me to criticize scientific men, but my experience of these scientists while I was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries was that they were, to say the least, not at all practical. For example, they would make recommendations to the department for the expenditure of vast sums of money before 'heir experiments had been really successful. Our fisheries are entitled to the greatest consideration, and I do not believe that the department is doing one-tenth for the industry that it should. However, this is a day of economy. I believe, though, that much of the money now spent for other things might more properly be devoted to encouraging the fishing industry of Canada. In Nova Scotia they that go down to the sea in ships follow a very hazardous calling. As my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Doucet) said, when discussing the lohster fisheries, in the early spring the men put out many hundred dollars worth of fishing gear, and probably before they get one night's catch it is all destroyed by a gale suddenly springing up. So when these men ask for assistance that they may be able to make a decent living, I think the department should always lend them an attentive ear. Do not be inclined too much to take the advice of so-called biologists. If the Biological Board had their way they would always have some scientific reason why the fish should still1 be permitted to swim in the water . and the fishermen prohibited from catching them. The fewest restrictions possible should be placed upon our men who are engaged in fishing, for it is a hard calling. Every experiment which will have for its object the betterment of the fishing industry should be carried on, but biological experiments should not be indulged in to such an extreme as to spend a great deal of money on something that is not shown to be feasible. My experience of the department is that it contains many excellent officials who give their time wi'hout stint in an endeavour to evolve means for the betterment of the fishing industry. In all the departments I know you 
will find conscientious men, but in no de-par, ment can more conscientious men be found than in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They are not all experts; no man can be an expert in all lines, but the men in that department with very few exceptions are endeavouring to do their best for this great national industry of Canada. I have no more to say than this: Keep up your hatcheries, at least for the purpose of replenishing barren streams, and do not pay too much atten'ion to your Biological Board until they can show that their scientific ideas are capable of being made feasible.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have just one
*word to say. I hope the hon. member who has just spoken will not think, and I know the minister does not take it from what has been said, that the Biological Board are opposed to hatcheries. On the contrary what they want to do is to connect the hatcheries with practical results. The hon. gentleman lias already spoken of the increased fish in these streams in his province. It may be that there are no enemy fish in these streams. I was only referring to the deposit of fry in these streams where they are immediately devoured by enemy fish and where there is not sufficient food. What I want is to connect the hatcheries with practical results.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Has the department
decided whether it is going to rebuild the Dauphin river hatchery in Manitoba which was burned down a year or so ago?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The policy of the department has been not to undertake any new construction before it has taken note of the information contained in the investigation that will be carried on.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I would like to remind
the minister that there are great fishery interests around lake Winnipeg, and we should not take any chances of depleting the fish of that lake by delaying reconstruction. This was a going concern. It was one of two or three hatcheries on that lake, and was burned down by accident a year ago. I think it should not be left in that state. While I am on my feet, I might mention again to the minister a fact which I have presented to him before, and that is that before that hatchery is rebuilt a conference should take place of all those interested in the fisheries, the fishing companies, representatives of the department, and the fishermen themselves, in an endeavour to. decide on the best site for the hatchery. I would also like to compliment the department on the efficient work

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
tlhat has been dome on that lake in hatching for the first time on the North American oontinent the spawn of the sturgeon. The sturgeon, as everyone knows, is one of our most valuable fish, perhaps the most valuable fish that inhabits Canadian waters, and they are now making their last stand against civilization in these northern waters of the prairie provinces, having become almost extinct in other parts of the American continent; last year, I believe, was the first time on this continent that sturgeon have ever been successfully hatched artificially. This was due very largely to the persistent efforts of the department and the careful study that was made of the habits of the sturgeon by Mr. C. P. Paulson, Superintendent of the Gull Harbour hatchery. As a result of the careful study he had made of the habits of the sturgeon, he was finally able, after many failures, to hatch them artificially. I think therefore that the department would be well advised to allow Mr. Paulson considerable latitude in experiments along this line, and I would like a word from the minister as to whether he does not think that would be a good plan to carry out.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it is quite proper,
and the department is carrying out that idea already.


Mr. McTAGGART:: How many hatcheries are there in the prairie provinces and where are they located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In Manitoba there are two, one at Gull Harbour and one at Winnipegosis; one at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan; one at Banff, Alberta; and a substation at Spray Hake.


Mr. GOOD:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the condition in the county of Brant. There is a fish hatchery there, which I presume is under Dominion jurisdiction, and I am told by residents along the Grand river that the results of the fish hatchery in that river seem to be practically nothing so far. I think the hatchery has been in existence for quite a number of years, but for one reason or another the river seems to be practically destitute of any fish at the *present time. That is the information which comes to me, and I just wanted to direct the attention of the department to the situation so far as I know it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The hatchery to which my hon. friend refers is a provincial hatchery; it -is not under the control of this department.


William Charles Good: I am glad to know that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much of this vote is to be spent at Belle river, may I ask?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That application has still to be filed.


Mr. BIRD:: Would the minister tell us
what is the future policy of the department with respect to the destruction of suckers in the lakes of Manitoba?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The matter has been submitted to the Biological Board, I am informed, and the department is awaiting their recommendations.


Thomas William Bird: I understand that the destruction of suckers has been going on for two or three years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: And the board are doubtful as to the results?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department has received no report from them yet.


Thomas William Bird: The policy of the department is not to continue the destruction of them for the time being, I understand?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not at present.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I would like to remind the minister of the advisability of an official in the Maritime provinces to study the question of the quahaug, otherwise known as the hard-shelled clam. The quahaug fishery was a valuable industry in that part of the country many years ago, so much so that the department feared for its depletion and shortened the fishing season. As a matter of fact, I think the season now is about a month or five weeks each year, and that is at a time when the local people are otherwise busily engaged and do not give very much time to that industry. Unless those beds are raked regularly the fish will not thrive, and as a result the quahaug to-day is a very large size and is regarded by some as hardly suitable for marketing. I fear, and the majority of the people there fear, that unless some stimulus is given to that industry by lengthening the open season, possibly to the same length as the open season for oyster fishing, the quality of the fish will greatly deteriorate. I believe, and I simply reiterate here the opinion of a fisherman of my section, that the season should be lengthened so that the beds could be raked regularly, which would improve the quality of the fish, and create a demand for it. The department acted wisely in shortening the season, owing to the possibility of a depletion of the industry; but
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

to-day, after the expiration of a number of years, the government would be well advised if they caused their officer in that section to investigate the advisability of extending the season for a longer portion of a year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may say that we have
already instituted an investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for investigations into practical and economic problems conected with fisheries, $10,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This appropriation is to
cover Canada's share of the cost of the International Fisheries Commission appointed under the Pacific Halibut treaty.
Sir*HENRY DRAYTON:	What amount
was spent last year in connection with this work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Up to January 1, 1925, we had spent $5,923.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What work is
covered by it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The commission is charged with the making of a thorough investigation into the life history of the Pacific halibut with a view to determining what measures need to be taken by Canada or the United States to build up and maintain this fishery.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
personnel of the commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Canadian commissioners are, Mr. W. A. Found, Commissioner of Fisheries, and Mr. Babcock, of British Columbia. I think the latter is Deputy Minister of the Provincial Department which deals with the fisheries. The commissioners for the United States are, Mr. Henry O'Malley, United States Commissioner of Fisheries; and Mr. Miller Freeman, of Seattle.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is the
office of the commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no office at present. Mr. Babcock is the chairman of the commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose he
would occupy his own office and affairs would be conducted from there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Probably.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Fassett-wharf repairs, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give
us the particulars of this vote?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It is for renewing stringers and flooring on both upper and lower landing, and flooring of slip to lower landing, taking in all 28,000 feet board measure. We expended last year approximately $3,500. The work done in 1924-25 was as follows:	-
Repairing the damage done by the ice shove by rebuilding old pile approach by 4 cribs 12 feet by 16 feet with 20 feet openings. Cribs loaded with stone. Laying new stringers 12 inches by 12 inches by 22 feet and new 3 inch flooring. New hand railing and replacing old wheel-guards. The four cribs are sheeted on the upper side and comers. Driving 12 piles at the landing head and placing same under pile caps and bracing. Patching flooring upper landing and down slip. Lower landing: replacing all pile caps and stringers and relaying old flooring. Repairing roadway approach and adding a few loads of stone and gravel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Father Point-wharf repairs and improvements, $23,000.	.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large item.
There was an item last year of $8,000, but I do not see a vote for that here. How was it secured?


John Warwick King: In the supplementary estimates, I think. This vote is to complete the work commenced in 1924-25 by repairing the damage done in the spring of 1924, and protecting the wharf from further damage by the construction of a crib along the north east side for a length of 100 feet and 15 feet wide at the bottom, blocking up the large hole torn in the side of the wharf; to enlarge and strengthen the wharf by the addition along a length of 255 feet of revetment cribwork 4 feet wide on top, and by driving piles along 1,050 feet on both sides and outer end. The total amount required will be $23,000.


Mr. LEWIS:: Does this complete the work?


John Warwick King: That will complete the work at that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gatineau River-bank protection, $2,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is going
on up the Gatineau?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the protection work commenced in 1924-25.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was not gone on with at all was it?


John Warwick King: Yes, there was
an appropriation in 1924-25 of $2,700; it was expended. The district engineer reported as follows in his annual estimates:

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
The intermittent washing away of the east bank of the Gatineau river below the Canadian Pacific railway bridge, opposite crown property, acquired in 1904 from Dr. Graham, now leased to the Gatineau Boom Company, and opposite private property immediately downstream of crown property, had taken such proportions in 1923 as to encroach upon the public highway, and endanger traffic and private dwellings.
A preliminary examination was made by Mr. Blais, May 29, immediately this office was advised of the landslip, and it was noted that considerable erosion had taken place, endangering the public road and private property downstream of crown property now leased to the Gatineau Boom Company.
The department has an interest there. There are certain booms and slides under the control of the Public Works Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gaspe (Sandy Beach)-wharf repairs, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is ithe work in connection with this item endless or is there any possibility of it being finished?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the repairs commenced in 1924-25. I may say that this is a very large wharf, and repairs are needed annually.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is there
necessity fur doing this work annually1'


John Warwick King: There is no wharf of these dimensions but needs some repairs from year to year. The main wharf is 725 feet long by 75 feet wide.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grondines-wharf, $37,000.
Arthur John Lewis: The minister had better
explain this item.
Mr. KING (KootenajO :	This amount of
$37,000, is required to complete the contract entered into with Messrs. O. and J. Poliquin for the construction of a section 460 feet long by 24 feet 6 inches wide of the new wharf (to be a total of 1,125 feet when completed). The original intention of the department was to construct a deepwater wharf there. However, after carefully canvassing the situation we have decided to build only one section at the present time and this contract will cover that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total amount of the contract?


John Warwick King: It was $38,460.


Arthur John Lewis: Most of this is a re vote?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In 1923-24, there was a
vote of $50,000, and in 1924-25, $35,000. In 1923-24, $15,000 was spent.


John Warwick King: Yes, there was an original contract amounting to $15,000. That section was built and the whole project was reconsidered, and we decided we would only build the further section costing $37,000. This work serves a useful purpose.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: What is
the total cost?


John Warwick King: It is $52,000.


Arthur John Lewis: This completes the work for good?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is there any income from this wharf at all?


John Warwick King: I think not. The note I have is:
The exports consist of farm and dairy products, meat, vegetables and general merchandise, etc., which may average when a deep water wharf is built, 3,500 to 4,000 tens per season. We are not building a deep water wharf at the present time, but the work when completed will serve a useful purpose.


Mr. BOYS:: What is the population of this place?


John Warwick King: The population
tributary to it is 8,500.


William Alves Boys: I mean, of the village itself.


John Warwick King: The population of the village is 626 people.


William Alves Boys: How is it they need such a
tremendously expensive wharf? We have many wharves in my part of the province. Ten or twelve years ago we thought we were lucky to get five or six thousand dollars. Here is $50,000 to be spent in a village of 600 people. It may be perfectly proper, but I think we should have more information. Is it very shallow there? Is it cement construction? It is a large sum for a wharf.


John Warwick King: This is the only
wharf of importance between Quebec and Batisoan. It is an important farming community. There are some five or six parishes which would use this wharf. The total population is 8,500. The exports are largely farm produce. It is a very old section of the province.


William Alves Boys: Is not the place served by the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway?


John Warwick King: No, I do not think there is any railway communication.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000.
Arthur John Lewis: How much was spent on the harbours and rivers generally last year?


John Warwick King: We spent $67,-
816 last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give us the distribution
of this present vote.


John Warwick King: This vote is for
unforeseen expenditure, matters that may occur during the year requiring special attention or repairs, and reported upon from time to time by the engineers, being principally for maintenance or to take care of unforeseen conditions that may arise. There are a great many items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we put it on Hansard, without wasting time, by unanimous consent.


John Warwick King: Yes.
(The table referred to is as follows:) Estimates of Canada for the Fiscal Year ending 31st March, 1926
Public Works-Quebec-Chargeable to income Harbours and Rivers Harbours and Rivers Generally Itemized Statement of Expenditure 1924-25-
Anse a L'Ours-Road Repairs	 $	414 75
Anse a Valeau-Wharf	 4,643 50
Aylmer-Wharf	 Ill 70
Batiscan-Wharf	
273	10Beauport-Wharf	
932	61Beloeil-Piers	
25	09Beloeil-Booms	
166	82Berthierville-Wharf	
9	90Bic Har-Wharf	
369	81Bromptonville-Protection Works	
1,004	18Buckingham-Floating Wharf	
349	36Cape Cove-Wharf Repairs	
93	41Carleton-Protection Works	
300.49Cedards-Wharf	
34	48Champlain-Wharf	
49	25Chicoutimi-Wharf	
2,116	16Chicoutimi-Lighting Wharf	
336	20Contrecoeur-Shed	
473	52Contrecoeur-Wharf	
464	00Cota Robichaud-Breakwater	
399	97Cote St. Catherine-Wharf	
1,385	05Cote St. Catherine-Shed	
73	14Descente des Femmes-Wharf	
499	97East Templeton-Wharf	
23	15Father Point-Wharf	
611	49Father Point-Repairs to sidewalks	
224	79Fort Coulonge-Wharf	
299	73Fox River-Shed	
42	70Generally	
5,090	54
Glenburnie River-Breakwater (Bonventure,
Co.)	
649	01Grand Entry (M.I.)	
10	00Grande Riviere-Wharf	
6	11Grondines-Old Wharf	
149	75Harrington-Wharf	
260	05Hull-Wharf	
697	43Hopetown-Constrn. of Approach	
303	04Iberville-Wharf	
1,531	04Iberville-Booms	
34	40Isle Aux Grues-Wharf	440 65

Lac des Isles-Wharf	 270 15
Lac Megantic-Wharf	 231 35
La Malbaie-Wharf	 144 82
Lanoraie-Wharf	 65 44
Lavaltrie-Wharf	 38 27
Levis-Store and Yard	 4,899 63
Levis-Wharf	 592 49
Mekamik-Wharf	 203 50
Mistook-Wharf	 50 00
Montebello-Wharf	 449 92
Montreal-Dist. Engr's Office Maintenance	840 33
Neuville-Wharf	 209 63
Nicolet-Upper Wharf	 399 31
Norway Bay-Wharf	 957 99
Notre Dame de La Sallette-Wharf	 828 04
Montreal-(Salary of Chas. Groleau).. ..	1,565 00
Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs-Wharf..	445 00
Notre Dame du Portage	 1,097 60
Noyan-Wharf	 128 15
Papineauville-Wharf	 84 24
Peribonca-Wharf	 576 59
Phillipsburg-Wharf	 139 55
Piche Point-Wharf	 739 64
Pierreville-Wharf	 67 25
Pile Drive-Maintenance	 1,461 72
Pointe Bourque-Crib Work (Bonaventure
Co.)	 300 00
Itemized Statement of Expenditure 1924-25-
Pointe a Eli (M.I.)	 253 79
Pointe au Tremble	 58 67
Pointe a la Fregate-Breakwater	 1,224 63
Cap de la Madeleine-Stores (Three Rivers) 900 00
Pointe Shea-Wharf	 145 18
Poltimore-Wharf	 399 75
Port Daniel	 220 00
Quebec-Harbour Riv. St. Charles	 150 00
Quebec-Dist. Engr's. Office Maintenance..	647 89
Repentigny-Wharf	 34 83
Rimouski-Wharf	 356 68
Rimouski-Wharf Water-supply	 235 60
Rimouski-Wharf Lighting	 1,453 80
Riviere du Lievre-Floating Wharfs.. ..	458 08
Riviere Girard-Wharf	 800 91
Riviere Saguenay-Installation of Guages.. 1,554 94
Ruisseau a la Loutre	 244 26
Seal Rock-Beach Protection (Gaspe Co.).	124 25
Shiga wake-Wharf	 300 28
St. Adelaide de Pabos	
10	00St. Andre de Kamouraska-Wharf	
375	66St. Anne de Beaupre-Wharf	
75	12St. Anne de la Perade-Protection Works..	996 80St. Antoine-Vercheres-Wharf	
218	38St. Antoine-Vercheres-Removing	shed.. ..	57	GOSt. Charles Borromee-Wharf	
198	25St. Francois du lac-Wharf	
666	08St. Fulgence-Wharf Repairs	
405	14St. Ignace de Loyola-Wharf	
74	75St. Irenee-Wharf	
1,574	91St. Jean Deschaillons-Wharf	
585	95St. Jean Deschaillons-Shed	
440	07St. Jean-I.O.-Wharf	
1,517	73St. John-Booms (Riv. Richelieu)	
61	40St. Mathias-Wharf	
395	99St. Nicholas-Wharf	
1,176	05St. Omer-Wharf	
400	00St. Paul Isle Aux Noix	
1,032	50St. Roch de Richelieu-Removing shed ..	61	14St. Roch de Richelieu-Wharf	
61	38St. Simeon-Protection works	
725	18St. Sulphice-Wharf	
61	20Stratford Centre-Wharf	
650	00Ste. Victoire-Wharf	
468	63Three Lakes-Road to Wharf	
254	60Thurso-Wharf repairs	
71	40Three Rivers-Dist. Engr's. Office Maintenance	
[DOT][DOT]	296	70Three Rivers-Repairs to Coal	Dock.. ..	12	90
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Estimates of Canada for the Fiscal Year ending 31st March, 1926
Public Works-Quebec-Chargeable to income
Harbours and Rivers Harbours and Rivers Generally
Vaudreuil-Wharf	
181	26Varennes-Wharf	
1,295	01Vercheres-Wharf	
72	09Verdun-Wharf	
531	47Verdun-Shed	
90	03Woodman's Beach-Breakwater (Bonaventure Co.)	
701	83Yamachiche Govt.	Property	
50	00Yamaska-Lock and	Dam	
720	00Total	
$67,816 08


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
He Perrot Sud-wharf repairs, etc., $1,200.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where abouts is that?


John Warwick King: It is in Vaudreuil.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are we
doing there?


John Warwick King: The work consists of renewing the cap piece, the fenders and the whole flooring, and filling and levelling the right of way with a new layer of gravel


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kamouraska-repairs to wharfs, $4,000.
John Warwick King: This amount is
required for general repairs to both wharfs as follows:
Upstream wharf: To renew 19,000 feet, board measure face timbers, cross ties, stringers, coping and flooring, and construct a shed, 15 feet by 20 feet, 2,160.
Downstream wharf: To renew 19,000 feet, board measure, of coping and sheathing, and extend the slip 20 feet by 17 feet, $1,840.
Making a total of 14,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lachine-reconstruction of Grand Trunk Railway wharf, $18,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Have we to look after this
Wharf?


John Warwick King: As I explained
the other day, in dealing with the item of the Gaughnawaga wharf opposite Lachine, this is a service where there has been a good deal of traffic across the river, a ferry service and wharves on each side. We took over from the Grand Trunk an old wharf that was getting into disrepair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What year was
that?


John Warwick King: In 1923-24. We
obtained a lease from them and we are putting this wharf in repair. We constructed 250	.
a portion- of it last year, and this is to complete the work this year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the revenue?


John Warwick King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Do they pay no wharfage?


John Warwick King: They may pay
wharfage in the Miarine department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not give definite
information, but I am under the impression we call for dues at this wharf, and I remember now that the Marine department had a difficulty with the proprietor of the boats in regard to fixing an amount to be charged them for the use of the wharf. I am sure they are paying something.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could the minister tell us what accommodation the public have when they get there? Do the street railway lines now pick up people at the ferry at that point? My recollection is that there was also a- Grand Trunk passenger sendee from this point. I have a fairly good recollection of objecting-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-to this being taken over. I thought the Grand Trunk should look after the service. They are collecting the passengers at this point and getting the revenue.


John Warwick King: They abandoned
the service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister say they abandoned the passenger service?



Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
why they should be allowed to do it. The long and the short of it is that, as a result of a rearrangement, we are just taking care of a burden which to-day seems to be $43,000 at this point, looking after something which the Grand Trunk should have looked after.


Arthur John Lewis: We shall have to pay it in
any case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But we should
have our accounts right and know where we stand. Is this the end of the matter, or will there be a further expenditure?


John Warwick King: We are hoping
that this will be the end of it. A project was mooted there in 1918 or 1919, and property was bought with a view of making a terminal there. The property cost a considerable sum of money, and then it was found that to carry out the project, dredging would have to be done there at a cost of 8156,000. We rather backed away from that project and we developed this cheaper plan. I think it will work out satisfactorily.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lotbiniere-wharf reconstruction, $12,000.
John Warwick King: This revote is
required to provide for the contract with Messrs. Lemieux and Roberge for the reconstruction of the balance of this wharf, 397 feet long by 34 feet wide, the new construction to consist of concrete walls on each side, stone filling between and a macadam flooring. The amount of the contract is $10,899.60; inspection and contingencies, $1,100.40; or a total of $12,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miguasha-wharf extension and slip, $10,400.
John Warwick King: This amount,
$9,000 of which is a revote, is required to provide for the contract with Messrs. Lavoie and LeBlanc to construct a slip 50 feet long by 20. feet wide at the outer end of the existing wharf, with a cribwork extension on the western side 200 feet long by 20 feet wide. The amount of the contract is $8,881.01; extras authorized, $681.40; inspection and contingencies, $838; or a total amount required, say, of $10,400.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
contract let?
ISir Henry Drayton.]


John Warwick King: October 18, 1924.
There were a number of bids ranging from $8,881 to $17,1S2. The lowest tender was accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montmagny-repairs to wharves, $4,200.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a larger vote this year.


John Warwick King: This amount is required for the following urgent repairs:
1. Outer wharf-to renew 10,000 feet B.M. of timber, 12,000 feet B.M. of flooring; 1,000 feet B.M. of sheathing; 500 feet B.M. of waling, paint and shingle the shed and replace 900
cubic yards of stone filling	 $3,360
2. Inner or Belanger wharf-repairs due to undermining of wharf and construction of a berth along east side of outer end, 100 feet long by 20 feet wide	 840
Total	 $4,200


Henry Lumley Drayton: This sounds
more 'like an extension than repairs to some parts.


John Warwick King: No. It is repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nicolet-repairs to jetty, $13,300.
John Warwick King: This is to repair the stone jetty on a total length of 1,200 feet starting from the outer end of lake St. Peter. The repairs will consist of construction of a brace work placed outside the existing stone jetty, iied at the rear with bracing and tie rods; the whole filled up with stone to the top level of the brace work. The work is to be done by contract and it is estimated to cost $13,260. The engineer reports:
The object of this work is to prevent the depositing of sand carried by the current of lake St. Peter into the channel at the outlet of the river Nicolet. The jetty is at present all dismantled and does not answer any more the purposes for which it was constructed. The sand is deposited into the channel at this place and necessitates dredging to the river every year.
The population is about 17,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the engineer mean by saying that the jetty is all dismantled?


John Warwick King: It is broken
down, practically out of use and in disrepair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That seems to be a wrong term for the engineer. I am afraid he is not a very accurate engineer.


John Warwick King: He is a French engineer and I am afraid he is not familiar with the English language.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: No French engineer would make a mistake like that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pentecoste river-dredging, $22,000.
John Warwick King: This revote is required to complete the contract with the Canadian Dredging Company, Limited, to dredge a channel to the St. Maurice Lumber Company's wharf at the Pentecote river. This was requested last year and the contract was let in August. This is to complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the rate per cubic yard?


John Warwick King: Fifty-two cents
for class " B ", and $6.50 for class "A". There is no class "A" there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe aux Esquimaux-wharf repairs, $19,300.
John Warwick King: This is to protect the head block by sheet piling along the jfrontage of 100 feet, 35 feet along one end and 31 feet along the other end; to renew and level the top of the head block and place a stone mattress along the front of head block. The estimated cost is as follows:
Sheet piling	$12,000
Stone	 500
Crib work	 2,000
Labour and contingencies	 4,800
Total	$19,300


Arthur John Lewis: Is this by contract?


John Warwick King: This work is to be done by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe au Pic (Murray Bay)-wharf repairs, $15,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How do we
manage to get rid of $15,000 there?


John Warwick King: This is to repair the damage done in the fall of 1924 to the concrete wall of the west side of the wharf, to renew stringers, flooring and waling on the head block, to paint part of the shed, and to place two new ladders and new hoisting blocks for the movable slip.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total cost of that?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur John Lewis: We spent over $7,000 at the end of last year.


John Warwick King: But this was
damaged last fall. The engineer reports that
250i
the outer face of the wharf gave way in June, 1924.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know that
particular wharf pretty well. It is an important point and it should be looked after. How the department can manage to get rid of so much money on such a comparatively small front is really a matter of some interest to me. The wharf is a good long wharf, but the business end of it is not very great. It is a permanent wharf. It was put in properly with cement and all that sort of thing. My recollection is that it has what looks like steel stringers at the proper places and that it has a concrete floor.


John Warwick King: It has.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are also modern appliances for looking after the front of the wharf. Unless the work has been terribly done, how is it that we can get rid of so much money year by year in connection with a wharf which was looked upon, unless the department has absolutely fallen down in its construction, as a permanent concrete structure? If these concrete wharves are so fragile we might as well put down a new wooden wharf every year.


John Warwick King: There was a
fracture to the wall in 1909 due to a collision and this weakened it in 1924. The concrete wall has been considerably damaged, much of the outer portion having been washed out to sea. The damage is serious and as this is an important structure, as the report indicates, it is essential that the repairs be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That simply
confirms what I said before. It would seem that it would be better to put up wooden structures periodically if' these so-called permanent works are so easily destroyed.


John Warwick King: Concrete is not
permanent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should have
thought it would be relatively permanent.


John Warwick King: Not in this
climate with the frost acting upon it; concrete will break and rot especially if there is an abrasion in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
lifetime of a concrete wharf?


John Warwick King: It depends on
how it is mixed and the conditions to which it is subject.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the
minister is right; it does depend on the mixture you put in.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it more permanent than
wood?


John Warwick King: Yes, I should
think so.


William Alves Boys: If these wharves are to crumble every year it would seem that the mixture ought to be stronger.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski-wharf repairs, etc., $6,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Last year the vote for
this work was $27,000 and the year before it was over $11,000. This seems to be a large undertaking.


John Warwick King: This is a very
considerable structure. This expenditure is to complete certain work undertaken in connection with a wing of the wharf during the fiscal year 1924-25, amounting approximately to $1,000, as well as to provide certain protection piles 700 feet in length on the western face, at a cost of $3,500. Besides this there will have to be a renewal of flooring and other repairs of this nature. The work will be done by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere aux Vases-wharf repairs and shed, $1,420.
Sir HENRY'DRAYTON:	What business
goes over this wharf?
John Warwick King: The traffic at this point consists of cattle and freight and there are four steaonens that call at regular intervals with a capacity of sixty passengers. A population of about 1,600 is served.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere du Loup (en bas)-wharf repairs, $4,900
Arthur Meighen: The minister would not
allow this work to go without repairs, but why so much?


John Warwick King: This vote is to
renew 13,000 feet, board measure, of sheathing;
8,000	feet board measure of fenders; 16,000 feet of railing; 5,000 feet of flooring and three ladders, and to paint the shed. The wharf is served by the Canadian Steamship Lines and it is also used in the schooner traffic.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere Ouelle-wharf repairs, $5,450.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a new item.


John Warwick King: This vote is to
renew 40,000 feet board measure of flooring along the approach, 8,000 feet of sheathing on the headfolock, and to repair the concrete sheathing of the headblock.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this to be done by contract?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Why not?


John Warwick King: The engineers
report that it would be more economical to have the work done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many cubic feet of concrete will be used?


John Warwick King: I have not the
estimate with me.


Arthur Meighen: What riding is it in?


John Warwick King: Kamouraska.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We do not know how much work is to be done.


John Warwick King: The greater expenditure will be devoted to renewing the flooring and sheathing the headlock.


Arthur John Lewis: Work of this description
could easily be tendered for.


Arthur Meighen: Has the engineer given
reasons why there should be no tender when the amount is over $5,000? If tenders are not to be called for you may as well
change the law.


John Warwick King: All the material
going into the work is tendered for; but repair work of this kind, it has been shown, can be done better by day labour.


Arthur Meighen: Had you not better
change the law instead of going on breaking it?


John Warwick King: There is discretion under the law.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roberval-wharf repairs and improvements, $13,850.
John Warwick King: This vote is to
complete the contract with Messrs. Methot and Fournier for wharf improvements, amounting to $12,000, and to repair the shed flooring and sheating of the headlock at a cost of $1,650.


Arthur Meighen: What member landed
this plum?


John Warwick King: This is in the
county of Chicoutimi-Saguenay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Ste. Adelaide de Pabos-wharf repairs, $1,200.
Arthur Meighen: This is new. What
happened to the wharf?


John Warwick King: This vote is to
repair the flooring and renew the stringers for a length of three hundred feet. The engineer reports that the repairs are essential for the maintenance of the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: What riding is it in?


John Warwick King: Gaspe. It is on the north shore of the St. Lawrence near Chandler.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that east or
west of Tadoussac and Murray Bay?


John Warwick King: East.


Arthur Meighen: How many people are
within a range of twenty miles, say, of this wharf?


John Warwick King: I am told that
it is a very prosperous parish located four miles east of Chandler, in the county of Gaspe, with a population of about 2,350, engaged mostly in farming and fishing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood
the minister to say that this was on the north shore.


John Warwick King: It is on the south shore I find.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was going to say we are now carrying on at great expense to the country a railway which skirts the whole of the north shore down to Murray Bay, and a great deal of the traffic is now looked after by the railway; therefore the same necessity for wharves there no longer exists.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister keeping
up all the wharves on the north shore too. I would not think there would be much business for them.


John Warwick King: I do not think
many have been abandoned. Where you have a fishing population dependent on these wharves you will always have more or less water-borne traffic.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We made a
mistake in building the railway; it was to do the business.


John Warwick King: It was not built
to serve those localities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere-wharf repairs, $1,200.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this place?


John Warwick King: In Kamouraska
county.


Arthur Meighen: Kamouraska county has
been very lucky. What is the reason?


John Warwick King: This vote is to
renew the flooring and coping.


Arthur Meighen: That is St. Alexis?


John Warwick King: No, Ste. Anne
de la Pocatiere. St. Alexis was passed.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how it
passed. I did not hear it go.


John Warwick King: We will go back
to St. Alexis if my right hon. friend wishes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. X. BOYS (South Simcoe) (for Mr. Hocken) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 10, respecting the London Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Canada, and to change its name to "London Fire Insurance Company of Canada."
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) (for Mr. Jacobs) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 14, respecting a patent of Edgeworth Greene.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Walter Thomas Pratchett.-Mr. Church.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec-St. Antoine de Tilly- wharf reconstruction. $20,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Arthur John Lewis: Would the minister explain
this item?


John Warwick King: This is required
for the demolishing of the existing head 'block, which is 49 feet by 39 feet, and the construction of a new head block 100 feet long by 40 feet wide. The engineer reports:
The present head block is all rotten and decayed, and in order to give necessary accommodation to navigation the construction of a new head block is imperative. There is no railroad in the locality, and the only means of communication and transportation are by navigation.
There are a number of parishes dependent upon this structure for accommodation, with a population of about 4,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Antoine de Tilly-dredging, $15,000.
John Warwick King: This is to provide for a contract with the National Dock and Dredging Company for the execution of dredging at St. Antoine de Tilly, to dredge a channel 900 feet by 50 feet, to a depth of 6 feet.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this the same as last year?


John Warwick King: Yes, an order in council was passed on the 17th of September of last year authorizing this contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Laurent d'Orleans-wharf repairs, $12,800.
Arthur John Lewis: What is this for?


John Warwick King: This is to paint
the shed and hoisting apparatus, and repair the damage done to the approach which was washed out on a length of 160 feet. The new construction will consist of concrete walls on each side of the approach 179 feet long, with filling between, and concrete pavement. This wharf is a very old one, having been built in 1865. The engineer reports:
These repairs are required for the maintenance of the structure in good condition. The traffic is relatively heavy some 40 to 60 passengers being carried daily, both ways, by the S.S. Champion plying between Quebec, the island, St. Michel etc., and calling at St. Laurent twice daily during the summer season. On Sundays the traffic is increased to 200 or 300 passengers each way. This steamer carries also a few tons of freight daily. Some schooners call occasionally, and one of them regularly each week. The wharf is also a good shelter for the small navigation and the proposed expenditure will be of a public nature.


William Alves Boys: I understood the minister to
say the repairs weTe due to the washing away of the -wharf. What was it constructed of? If it was constructed of cement I do not see how it would wash away.
IMr. CahilU


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
apparently does not understand. The new construction will consist of concrete walls. The old wharf apparently was constructed on the bank of the river, and the timber of which it was built has been washed away. That happens very often.


William Alves Boys: That is what I wanted to
know. The former wharf was of wooden construction?


John Warwick King: Yes, and it is
to be reconstructed of cement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Petronille (island of Oril earns)-wharf repairs and improvements, $5,000.
William Alves Boys: This is another very substantial item.


John Warwick King: This is to repair the damage done in the fall of 1924 to the wharf expropriated in 1923-24, by replacing the stone filling washed away, and to repair the flooring of the slip, construct a new floating pontoon, and to enlarge the approach by means of a triangular-shaped addition 175 feet along its outer face composed of a concrete wall with stone filling.


Mr. GARDINER:: How much was spent
on this work last year?


John Warwick King: We spent $14,463 last year.


Robert Gardiner: Will this further vote
complete the work?


John Warwick King: This will complete the work.


Arthur John Lewis: Why is there no revote in
regard to this work if only $14,000 were spent last year?	[DOT]


John Warwick King: Apparently there
was damage done to the wharf last year, the stone filling being washed away.


Arthur John Lewis: But why was there not a
revote this year when $37,100 was voted last' year?


John Warwick King: We expected to
clean it up last year.


Arthur John Lewis: I thought you said that only $14,000 was spent?


John Warwick King: The remaining
vote lapsed.


Arthur Meighen: If $37,100 was voted
last year and only $14,000 was spent then the minister would be before us for a revote for the balance.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: We are mot asking for it.


Arthur Meighen: That is the explanation
the minister has always given of what revotes are.


John Warwick King: At the time our
estimates were made up we expected to complete the work.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right, but
the minister did not complete it; he only spent $14,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How is it the balance
does not appear as a revote?


John Warwick King: It might appear
as a revote but we did not know at the time our estimates were made up that there would be any balance. We expected to complete the structure.


Arthur Meighen: At the time the estimates were made up?


John Warwick King: Yes. I have already explained the nature of the work proposed to be done. Probably I should also explain that the department took over this wharf last year, and an award wias made by the Exchequer court to the amount of $29,604.45.


Arthur Meighen: To whom was that award made?


John Warwick King: The owner of
the- wharf.


Arthur Meighen: It is a private wharf
then?


John Warwick King: It was, but not
now; it was taken over last year.


William Alves Boys: I notice that when this item
first appeared-apparently in 1923-24-the sum of $37,100 was voted. The same amount appeared in 1924-25. This year the vote asked for is $15,000. Was the contract price originally $37,100?


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: Then where do these figures
come in?


John Warwick King: That was the
original estimate for the purchase of the wharf. Judgment was rendered by the Exchequer court awarding $29,604.45, and this is to complete the repairs that were undertaken last year.


William Alves Boys: When was the award made
by the Exchequer court?


John Warwick King: Judgment was
rendered by Mr. Justice Audette on May 23, 1924, fixing the amount of the compensation at $29,604.45 with interest at 5 per cent to November 20, 1923. An appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada from this judgment.


William Alves Boys: I could understand the estimate appearing for that year for the amount of the wharf, but apparently before the award was made-I judge before the matter was positively determined; it is pretty hard to say from the information given-an item of $37,100 appeared in the estimates. That is what I cannot understand. I should not have thought the minister would know what he had to pay until the award was made. Then he would ask the House for an estimate for that amount and that amount exactly, whereas he is asking here for $37,100.


John Warwick King: We had not only to expropriate and pay for the wharf, but we had repairs to make. We spent $14,463 last year in repairs.


Arthur Meighen: When did the government decide to take this wharf over?


John Warwick King: There	was an
estimate in 1923, for this wharf. We decided to acquire the structure, and the expropriation proceedings were carried on in May, 1924, and the award given.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say there was an amount to acquire the wharf and an amount to improve it in the estimates for 1923-24?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And at that time the
wharf belonged to somebody else?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What damages would we be liable for if the wharf was a private wharf? What did the government do to the wharf to cause damages?


John Warwick King: The government
required the wharf. This was a private wharf and a very important one.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, it is the expropriation price?


John Warwick King: The government
decided in 1923, they would purchase the wharf. They were not able to agree with the present owners and they went to the Exchequer court in 1924, and received the award of the court. There is nothing unusual in this procedure.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: But the award was $29,-
000.


John Warwick King: It was $29,604.


William Alves Boys: What were the reasons which
prompted' the department to acquire this wharf?


John Warwick King: It is a very important wharf but the public were not getting the access to it that they should. The owners were not giving the public the opportunity they should get of using the wharf even by the payment of tolls; the wharf was blocked at times, and the gates were opened to suit the convenience of the owners. They *ere running a ferry service, and did not permit the easy access of other people who required the use of the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: How many people live on the island?


John Warwick King: I will give my
right hon. friend a statement of the traffic on the wharf, and it will give him an idea of the population. I have not the population at present. My note reads:
The traffic on this wharf is very important; La Cie Maritime de Levis operates the steamers Frontenac (304 gross tons), built in 1899, and Champion (482 gross tons, built in 1897). The former makes the service between Quebec, Lauzon and Ste. Petronille and the latter makes the service between Quebec, Ste. Petronille, St. Laurent, St. Jean, St. Michel and Berthier. During the summer season the Frontenac makes eight round trips daily and the Champion one daily trip during the week and two on Sundays. During spring and fall the number of trips is much less and during winter the S.S. Queen, belonging to another company but having the same managers, makes a few trips occasionally to Ste. Petronille. At Ste. Petronille during the summer season, the traffic consists of 200 to 300 people daily and 10 to 15 automobiles and other vehicles. On Sundays this number is increased to 1,500 to 2,000 passengers and 40 vehicles; general freight to about 15 tons weekly. All these quantities on the traffic are for the traffic from Quebec to Ste. Petronille, the same quantities are transported on the way back to Quebec.
The imports consist of general merchandise and provisions for a value of $70,000 and the exports consist of:
Fruits	 $ 75,000
Vegetables	 8,000
Fish	 io!ooo
Meat	and	poultry	 40,000
Hay	 1000
Total exports	 $134,000


Mr. McCREA:: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to know the hon. member for Sherbrooke has arrived. How many people live on the island of Orleans?


Mr. DECHENE:: It is only an island.
There are six big parishes, and the upper part, called Ste. Petronille, just facing Quebec, is

a big summer resort. During the winter all the traffic is done over the bridge towards the (Sault Montmorency. During the summer from Ste. Petronille the traffic goes to St. Joseph de Levis, Lauzon and Quebec. There is heavy traffic going there. Most of the traffic passes through Ste. Petronille every morning. I think there are over 40,000 people on the island.


Arthur Meighen: Permanent residents?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Yes, six big parishes on the island, 21 miles long, four miles from Quebec, and the upper part is a summer resort of great importance.


Arthur Meighen: How many wharves on
the island?	-


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I think there are four.


Arthur Meighen: If there is so much
business done there, would it not have paid the private owners to have made a charge for the wharf? What I do not understand is the enxiety of the people there not to make any money if possible out of their industries.


John Warwick King: The private
owners did make a charge, but I understand they had difficulty with the public who were not being accommodated, and there was great complaint.


Arthur Meighen: Who were the private
owners?


John Warwick King: La Cie Maritime
de Levis.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps if the hon. member for the riding would tell us it would be simpler.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I am not the member for the riding. It is in the constituency of the hon. member for Quebec County, (Mr. Lavigueur) but it is pretty near my riding. There is a ferry boat plying between Quebec, Lauzon and Ste. Petronille every two hours during the summer season, and) along in the fall all the traffic of the island is done through Ste. Petronille. The company is La 'Cie Maritime de Levis. They have two boats plying there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
company that owns the boats?


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Yss.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The company
that does the business own this wharf. They have two boats and look after the whole accommodation. They did that, supplying their own wharf. Then we buy them out paying them $29,000, and we are now going to spend

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
a whole lot more in fixing up this wharf. How do they stand with us? What are we charging them?


John Warwick King: They are not
operating.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The boats are
still running and it is still the same company.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Boats are running there
but I do not know to whom they belong.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Or did we buy
the boats at the same time? I think the $29,000 would be enough to include the boats as well.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Oh no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps that
part of the bargain was overlooked. Is it not a fact that this wharf was owned by this company which looked after the traffic? While in the first instance, before we expropriated, the company had to look after this wharf, at least to the extent of being able to carry on business, we pay them $29,000 for the privilege of relieving them of that obligation, and we are not charging them anything now; or if we are charging them anything, how much?


John Warwick King: This wharf is
probably the most important wharf on the island. It is in the proximity of Quebec city, and the representatives of the department thought that the public were not being served, and that this wharf should foe under the control of the government of Canada. The wharf was bought and is an important wharf, not only to the community of the island, but to those districts adjoining the city of Quebec, especially the city of Quebec, where many people who are residents of Quebec go back and forth to the island of Orleans.


William Alves Boys: Is it suggested that the owners of the wharf do not want to part with it? It is hard to understand why they should object. Previously they constructed the wharf and had to pay for the maintenance of it.


John Warwick King: They do not
want to dispose of their wharf.


William Alves Boys: I cannot for the life of me
see why they would not, because the situation is that they are relieved of the repairs to the wharf in the future, they get $29,000 and the free use of the wharf in an improved condition, and the only answer given by the minister is that the public are being better served.
I cannot see why in the world the company desiring to do business would not be glad indeed to have both freight and passengers using the wharf. It seems to me the reason given by the minister is not a substantial one. It looks like a mighty good bargain for the company. Not only has the government paid them $29,000, but it seems to me they have paid the difference between $29,000 and the amount of this vote, the difference being repairs. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be argued for a moment that that is not a deal which ought to satisfy the owners.


John Warwick King: The owners were not anxious to sell. Service was not being given to the public; we took over the wharf and as soon as the wharf is in a state of repair so that it can be handed over to the Marine department, a charge will be made by that department.


Arthur Meighen: The charges made by
the Marine department are purely nominal.


John Warwick King: They have not
been changed recently.


Arthur Meighen: No, but the wharf was
not bought before. Nobody will dispute the fact that from the size the hon. member (Mr. Dedhene) gives for the island and the traffic that there is there, even if it is only holiday traffic, tourists, there Should be a good substantial wharf. But apparently there was one.


John Warwick King: It was in a very
bad state of repair.


Arthur Meighen: The minister made war
against the owner and declared that the government was going right in to take his wharf away from him. I know there must have been a few sad houre in the directorate of that company when it was made known that the minister was going unmercifully to take their wharf away from them. There would be weeping and gnashing of teeth in that directorate. This was a wharf which they had had for many years and which they had had to maintain in a state of repair, and the minister was wanting to take it away from them at a cost of $29,000. Therefore, they would not have a dollar of repairs; they would get the use of the wharf at a nominal price, or, perhaps, nothing-nothing up-to-date-and they would have the $29,000 in their pockets.


John Warwick King: They wanted
sixty.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. Who would
not? If they knew the minister, they cer-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
tainly would work hard for sixty. Why are we in an aggressive campaign reaching out to get all the wharves we can and to take them from private owners? Are there any wharves left in the country that the minister can still get his hands on? Surely we have enough responsibility putting wharves where they are needed without tearing after the ownership of men who are ready to keep them. No man in the world having a wharf would deny the public the use of it for a fee. How many more expropriations has the minister made in order to get more to do and more money to pay out?


John Warwick King: There is not very much in my right hon. friend's criticism. This wharf is an important one to the people, not only of the island of Orleans, but to the city of. Quebec and the adjoining country. That is shown by the traffic and the people who go over it. The wharf is in a very bad state of repair. It was not serving the public. Representations had been made that we should take it over. You cannot say that one section of the people should have a public wharf and another section should not. My right hon. friend says that we are taking over wharves. I am glad to say that we are taking wharves on water. Heretofore, there have been wharves taken on dry land.


Arthur Meighen: Is the hon. member
referring to the sawdust wharf?


John Warwick King: No. One of
more recent date. If he washes to push that, I will tell it,


Arthur Meighen: Tell us now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this
horrible thing?


John Warwick King: I do not like
that manner of criticism. My right hon. friend is familiar with the city of Quebec and the island of Orleans. He knows it is an island of great richness, great agricultural wealth.


Arthur Meighen: I have said that.


John Warwick King: It should be
properly served, and the taking over of this Wharf will serve a public interest there. The arrangements which the department has made are proper and fair and there should be no great criticism.


Arthur Meighen: Does the department
intend that these wharves shall be self-sustaining?


John Warwick King: The government
of Canada has never contended that, and when I say that, I say it of all governments.


Arthur Meighen: To about what percentage wall it be self-sustaining?


John Warwick King: Once the wharf
is in shape to be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I have no doubt a fee will be charged to the steamers that go there.


Arthur Meighen: That would not pay for
doing the morning sweeping.


John Warwick King: I quite agree with my right hon. friend. I do not know why there should be so great a desire just now for a change of policy on the part of my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I am complaining, not of a change of policy, but of the taking away into the government's possession of a wharf that was there already. The explanation given was that the man was not letting the public use it. That is no explanation because no man would act in that way unless he was anxious to lose all the money he could. If the wharf is there, it is in his interest to keep it in shape for service and to give the service. What I do not understand is the policy of expropriation.


John Warwick King: The matter was
canvassed very carefully and it was considered to be in the public interest that the wharf should be taken over.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the
directors of this company?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One might learn more from that than from the name of the company.


John Warwick King: This matter was
dealt with originally last year and the year before, I think. My notes are deficient tonight in regard to the ownership and the directorate.


William Alves Boys: What was the offer made by the department before expropriation proceedings became necessary?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information in the notes of this year. I expect it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the award1. I know our estimate of value was very much below the valuation placed upon the wharf by the owner, and the matter was referred to the Exchequer court and a price arrived at.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


William Alves Boys: What did the department consider to be the value, even if the minister had not the information as to t'he actual offer made?


John Warwick King: I think we had
the full information last year when the matter was before parliament. I do not know whether it was discussed or not. The history has not been carried forward in our notes.


Arthur Meighen: Was there no other place where a wharf could have been built? If the department had shown a marked desire to build another wharf at some other point, the owners would have been willing, perhaps, to give them the wharf for nothing.


John Warwick King: I understand that the engineer's report was to the effect that this was the best place for a wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The people who carry on this steamship service, before expropriation, would require a place at which to land their boats, to take their passengers on and put them off. They had this wharf and were maintaining it. They have been paid $29,000. The government have spent, or intend to spend, $23,100 in connection with repairs over and above the $29,000. At the present date the owners have the $29,000 in their pockets and they have the wharf service as before.


John Warwick King: That is practically true except that there is an appeal to the Supreme court from the decision of the Exchequer court. As regards the expropriation of this wharf, it was not gone into lightly at all. The whole situation was thoroughly canvassed. They were not allowing the general public to use the wharf, and representations were made by the people there that they should have a public wharf at that point. I cannot see why these people should not have the same facilities as others.


William Alves Boys: I cannot reconcile the minister's statement that these people had a wharf and passenger boats with his assertion that they would not allow the public to use this wharf. That seems so repugnant to business principles that it requires some explanation.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I think I can give
the explanation. The macadamized roads on the island were completed by the provincial government only about two years ago and there are about forty miles of extremely good highways throughout the island, so that the motor traffic that has developed there during the last three years or so is simply tremendous. This wharf was owned by a private
company who of course were able to land passengers from their own boats, but no boats owned by anybody else could approach the wharf. There is an enormous traffic by schooners, motor launches and yachts that ply between this point and Quebec and the company were unwilling to have the passengers landed at this wharf. Furthermore, there were no facilities to accommodate the motor traffic, which is considerable. In view of all these facts therefore numerous petitions were forwarded to the government requesting that the wharf be purchased in the interests of the general public.


William Alves Boys: Does the hon. member suggest
that the people engaged in this varied traffic are really anxious to do 'business at this wharf?


Eugène Fiset: Only the company's boats have been allowed to land passengers there.


William Alves Boys: The suggestion is that people
want to do business at the wharf and that the company will not allow them to do so. Would it not b'e a good idea for the government to build some other wharf? I understood the minister to say that they considered the amount awarded too high and did not offer anything like so much.


John Warwick King: I did not say
that.


William Alves Boys: Did the Exchequer court
award something for the wharf and another sum for loss of trade sustained? Perhaps the minister has the judgment and can give us some idea of the findings of the court.


John Warwick King: I said I had not
before me the amount offered but that apparently there was a great difference between the department and the owners and that the matter had gone to the Exchequor court. The court awarded a certain sum which the owners were not prepared to accept and I understood from my notes that they were appealing to the Supreme court. I think the main consideration is to convince the committee that this wharf is a public necessity and if I can do that then I do not think there should be any reason for not voting the item.


Arthur Meighen: We were convinced of
that long ago.


John Warwick King: Then there ought to be no further discussion of the matter. The people of the district were not properly served under the old conditions, and as a matter of fact the owners were allowing the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
wharf to go into disrepair, as will be seen by the amount the government has spent. They were not giving to the general public the service that was needed and complaints were received from the island to this effect.


William Alves Boys: We should have the judgment of the court in this matter. I want to find out whether there was an award for loss of business as well as for the value of the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
(Sir Eugene Fiset) know of any merchants in the district who refuse to sell their goods for cash? The explanation given by the hon. member for Rimouski-


Eugène Fiset: Is true.


Arthur Meighen: I was not referring to
its veracity at the moment; I was merely commenting on the marvel of the thing. I cannot understand why people would be there to do business and would refuse to do it.


Eugène Fiset: The people could
not afford to buy other boats.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps they could not
run any more boats. But here they have a wharf, a money-making enterprise, and the minister tells us that the company allowed their own boats to use it but not the motor boats of other people, nor automobiles. Why would they not allow this traffic to use the wharf? It seems so foolish. Can the hon. member give an explanation as to why they would not?


Eugène Fiset: These people were
using launches instead of the company's boats. That is a very simple explanation.


Arthur Meighen: But could the company
not charge a fee for the use of the wharf? I can understand that they would not want to provide facilities for nothing.


Eugène Fiset: A nominal fee of
five or ten cents would not pay them.


Arthur Meighen: But they could fix a higher fee. I think the most obvious thing is that a lot of money has gone into the pockets of the company; and that is the chief difference between the condition now and that of three years ago. There is a big hole in our treasury and a fine wad in their bank account. Will the minister undertake to bring down, the next time his estimates are under consideration, a statement of the amount offered by the government together with a copy of the judgment of the court?


John Warwick King: I will bring it down; I regret it is not here to-night. I had a statement in my notes on the negotiations leading up to the purchase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Roch des Aulnaies-wharf repairs, $1,250.
Arthur Meighen: This is a new item.


John Warwick King: This is for the repair of a wharf in the L'Islet district.


Arthur Meighen: Is this just ordinary decay?


John Warwick King: This vote is to renew 5,000 feet of stringers and 7,000 feet of flooring and to provide 80 cubic yards of stone filling.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Ulric (riviere Blanche)-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: This is in Ma-tane county.


Arthur Meighen: This is not the celebrated Matane wharf?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister decided that he has wasted enough money on the Matane wharf, or is there a vote for it somewhere?


John Warwick King: It will come later.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is waiting for the supplementary estimates. It is rather unfortunate that he cannot get hotter weather than this for the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Victoire-wharf repairs, $2,950.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: This is in Richelieu.


Arthur Meighen: What is the trouble
here?


John Warwick King: The work will
consist of rebuilding from the low water level the stone-filled crib high level section of the wharf and renewing part of the stringers and the flooring of the lower section. All the timber and lumber of the high level wharf is gone and a complete reconstruction is urgently needed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Sabrevois-wharf repairs, $1,100.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: This is in St.
John and Iberville.


Arthur Meighen: What is the matter with this structure?


John Warwick King: The vote is required to repair the approach to the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $75,000.
John Warwick King: This amount is
required towards improvements proposed to be completed at Sorel in the next five years. These improvements will consist of the reconstruction of the remaining 587 feet of high level wharf at a cost of $33,000, besides redredging to 8 feet of the Lanctot basin at the rear of the high level wharf. This is an important wharf not only to the district but also to the Department of Marine, being its headquarters.


Arthur John Lewis: What is the total to be spent
on it?


John Warwick King: For the reconstruction of the 587 feet there will be spent the $33,000 I have mentioned, while the dredging will cost $56,000. That is the estimate for this year.


Arthur Meighen: That is $90,000.


John Warwick King: $89,000.


Arthur John Lewis: That is for the last two
years?


John Warwick King: No, for this year,
and it is what we expect to expend at that point to reconstruct a portion of the high level wharf and to dredge the basin.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year on the same thing?


John Warwick King: Last year we
spent $30,800.


Arthur John Lewis: Why is there a $10,000 revote this year?


John Warwick King: When the estimates were made up we did not anticipate the whole vote would be expended. It was expended and there is no revote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then this estimate must be wrong if what my hon. friend says is right. Is the situation this, that last
year $30,800 was spent? The estimate, as tabled, shows that only $20,000 was spent.


John Warwick King: As tabled, yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is all I
have before me.


John Warwick King: I explained to my hon. friend that after the estimate was made up there was a further expenditure made, more than the department anticipated.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then the result is that we are asked for $75,000 new money this year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When the $30,000 was asked for last year what were we told we would have to spend this year?


John Warwick King: In 1924, 475 feet
of the wharf was built fronting the river St. Lawrence, and a nineteen foot length of the down stream end was rebuilt in concrete. The work started in October and progressed very rapidly, and that is the reason for carrying the revote. A total of $30,800 was expended last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not what I asked my hon. friend. The statement last year was not to the effect that the money voted last year would be implemented by a further vole cf $75,000 this year. If my hon. friend says it was, I should like to have particulars.


John Warwick King: I have not before me the discussion which took place on this item last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
proposition last year? My hon. friend has that in his notes.


John Warwick King: To do what we
have done here. The work was carried out as proposed last year, but it advanced more rapidly than we anticipated when the estimates were made up. That is why there was no revote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman,
it seems this is unfortunately what sometimes happens: After we get along with the wcTk for the $30,800, we are in for another $75,000 for the next crack.


John Warwick King: Oh no.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this the last expenditure, or what is going to happen next

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
year there if the election has not taken place in the meantime; will the vote be $150,000 next year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I think I
can offer a word of explanation. The money expended first was for the cement wharf, the main portion on the St. Lawrence, and the other expenditure, I understand, covered the timber work which was undertaken later on behind the wharf alongside the basin which was referred to a few moments ago. This basin has been dredged to take care of cur boats which are operated in connection with the lighthouse service by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They are placed there during the winter to protect them against ice.


Robert Forke: Was any explanation given
last year that a vote of $90,000 wrould 'be required this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not remember the
discussion, but I do not think it was mentioned that this year we wculd have a vote of $75,000.


Robert Forke: Is there any chance that
next year a further vote will be asked for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend quite sure that he cannot think of anything else to be done there?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course, he
cannc-t. His resourcefulness is without end, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure but what he really thinks at the bottom of his heart that he has been a little too kind to his friend the Minister of Marine and Fish-
9 p.m. eries (Mr. Cardin). With respect to the local situation described by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, it may be pointed out that there is just the same necessity to protect those boats engaged in the lighthouse service this year as there was last year. It simply amounts to this, $30,800 was spent last year, and here we are asked to vote another $75,000.


Arthur Meighen: It is $89,000.


John Warwick King: We are asking for $75,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And it is going to amount to $89,000?


John Warwick King: It probably will.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where does the balance go?


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, I
think my hon. friend knows very well that Sorel is one of the oldest points on the river, and is used largely by the Marine department. During the war years the works there were allowed to go into disrepair. We have not suggested any new work; what has been done is nothing more or less than reconstruction and repairs, and I do not believe that anyone who is familiar with the government use of Sorel would for a moment suggest that the works should be allowed to decay and be abandoned.


Arthur John Lewis: The larger part of this amount is required for dredging, is it not? Has there been any dredging done there in previous years?


John Warwick King: Yes. We are
proposing to reconstruct the remaining 587 feet of high level wharf, at a cost of $33,000; to re-dredge to 8 feet the Lanctot basin at the rear of the high level wharf, which gives shelter for the fleet of the Marine department and other boats in that vicinity. There has been no work done except reconstruction at this point.


Arthur Meighen: In previous years there
was a great deal of shipbuilding done at Sorel, and things were certainly not allowed to go to rack and ruin by any means. The shipyards were kept in excellent shape and produced excellent vessels. I do not think there is any place in Canada where better work was done than at Sorel, But what is being done there now? From what I hear, it is as dead as the rest of the place since this government came in. I suppose the government is spending some money repairing its own ice-breakers and the like, but is nothing else being done there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work at Sorel is being
carried on on a larger scale than it was a few years ago. We have to repair the dredges, for instance.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute that
we are spending money faster now, but what I wanted to know is what business is being done at Sorel in the shipyards. I know we are spending the money all right.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are repairing the- dredges and the tugs which are used in the St. -

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Lawrence ship channel. Extensive and expensive repairs are required to these dredges and tugs in the winter after they have been in service during the summer, and all these repairs are made in the Sorel shipyards.


Arthur Meighen: Is that all that is being done there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing being built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Arthur Meighen: Any chance of building
any of the Petersen ships there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think we could build them there, because we have all the necessary facilities. The government fleet which is used on the St. Lawrence ship channel is worth several million dollars, and all these vessels are taken care of and repaired at the Sorel shipyards, so far as the main work is concerned.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is only stating the fact. It is certainly an excellent shipyard, capable of building the very best of ships, or at all events the most practical and useful of merchant ships, but if the minister made any attempt to steer the Petersen contracts there, I am afraid he made a very weak one indeed, because we were assured long ago that the contracts were already let and the boats going to be built overseas.


John Warwick King: I do not think
there has ever been any private shipbuilding done there.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, and a lot built
by the government. The place is competent to do it. All this government is doing is pouring money into places where there is no business to perform. Of course, there is repair work to be done at Sorel, but is that all that is being done there?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This shipyard is the property of the government, and never in the past have they built ships for any private company. All the ships which have been built in the Sorel shipyards have been built for government service.
Company, but it has closed down. It had nothing to do with the government shipyard.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was a commercial institution, and it has gone with other business.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tadoussac (Anse Tadoussac)-wharf repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What was spent last year on that?


John Warwick King: The amount spent last year was $4,588. This is a revote of $10,000, and it is required to complete the contract with Messrs, Collin and Beaumont, to construct a cribwork pier 40 feet square, 87 feet from the end of the "ell" of the present wharf, to provide a mooring front of 200 feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will that finish all our obligations and put the property in good shape, or is this one of those crumbly properties for which another repair vote will be required next year?


John Warwick King: It is very hard to say.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister will tell me whether the right mix was put in here so that the wharf will stand, or whether it was one of those mixes that will necessitate more repairs next year.


John Warwick King: This wharf is made of timber, not concrete.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we cannot support a vote on account of a bad mix next year.	.


Arthur Meighen: What is the matter with this wharf? I did not see it last year but I did the year before, and I do not remember seeing anything the matter with it. A lot of money was spent there last year, and a lot more is to be spent this year. Is this for enlargement? The Canada Steamship boats go there; I do not know whether others do or not, but the wharf seemed all right as far as one could tell who was not an expert.


Arthur Meighen: There were ships built Mr- KING (Kootenay): In order that the
there under the Munitions Board. Were not steamer may lie safely alongside we are the Davies building ships there?	building a block some distance from the
wharf where the steamer will be able to tie Mr. CARDIN: No. We had another ship- up. At the present time the mooring place yard during the war at Sorel, the Leclaire is not considered safe.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: Not safe to tie up to the wharf?


John Warwick King: No. The wharf is too short a structure; there is no room. We are building a block out some distance where the ships will be able to lie, rather than extending the whole wharf. It is in line with the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trois Lacs-wharf repairs, $2,400.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this place?


John Warwick King: In Beauce county. This is for repairs, to renew face timbers and timber flooring on the wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trois Rivieres-shed on wharf, $45,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Why it is necessary to spend this much on a shed? It is not usual for us to build a shed for the people and a wharf too, is it?


Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: This is at Three Rivers. This appropriation is required to construct a freight shed on the Bureau wharf. The proposed shed, to meet the requirements, should be 400 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 15 feet high, with concrete foundation, and superstructure of steel, provided with a sufficient number of sliding doors so that a complete train can be unloaded at one time without being obliged to move it forward or backward. There is no question as to the commercial necessity of this shed, and anyone who is familiar with the business activities of Three Rivers will understand the necessity of a building of this kind,


Arthur John Lewis: Will there be any charge made for the use of this shed?


John Warwick King: Yes, the harbour commission of Three Rivers will make their charges.


Arthur Meighen: The ministers may be very laudably anxious to re-elect themselves, but it comes pretty high. Casting my eye over these votes, I see an item of $75,000 for Sorel. I honestly trust the Minister of Marine will see that is not wasted. Also $45,000 for Three Rivers. At Three Rivers the Minister of Customs and Excise is not neglected as far as cabinet influence is concerned. Looking a little further on I find: Valleyfield-wharf reconstruction and dredging, $44,250 altogether.

If my geography is right that is a plum that fell into the lap of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb).


George Perry Graham: Valleyfield is not in his constituency.


Arthur Meighen: It is not?


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is pretty close to it if it is not actually in.


George Perry Graham: He lives there.


Arthur Meighen: I was not far out. It
would be like the Minister of Railways and Canals looking after Brockville. But the government should not neglect their followers and look after themselves quite so brazenly as this. I will make another search and perhaps I will find some more instances where the ministers, with true political thrift, have looked after number one.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is the
wharf on which this shed stands owned by the government?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is a public wharf owned by the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there
any revenue from the wharf.


John Warwick King: Yes, the wharf was built by the Department of Public Works and is administered by the harbour commission of Three Rivers. This died is a structure which is essential to the business of the port. Three Rivers, as my hon. friends well know, is a very important industrial centre in the province of Quebec, having a population of 25,000 people. There are very large manufacturing interests located there, and a very large incoming and outgoing tonnage. This wharf is to provide shelter and ' care for this tonnage.


William Alves Boys: Is it under the juridiction of the harbour commission of Three Rivers?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Why don't we advance money to them by way of loan?


John Warwick King: That has not been done.	.


Arthur Meighen: Why has it not been done?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: I do not know. My hon. friend never considered that. At any rate it has not been done.


Arthur Meighen: What "hon. friend"?


John Warwick King: The administration has been under the harbour commission of Three Rivers for many years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that arrangement was only put through last year or the year before.


John Warwick King: No, it has been in force many years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend will tell me when it was put through?


John Warwick King: I am satisfied it was some years ago.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
like to ask the minister again what revenue, if any, was received by the commission?


John Warwick King: I am sorry, but I have not that information. That would be obtainable from the Marine department.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can you give any estimate of the amount?


Henry Lumley Drayton: One dollar and eighteen cents.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just about that. Has the minister no estimate?


John Warwick King: No, I have not.


Edward Joseph Garland: We are going to put up a shed, at a cost of some $45,000, for commercial use, as the minister himself said. Is it to be controlled by any special interest or by the commission itself?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By the commission.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this to be controlled by the commission itself?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister nods his head by way of affirmation. Will any revenue be forthcoming from the use of this shed?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much?


John Warwick King: I have not that information as I have already stated to my 251
hon. friend. The commissioners, who are under the Department of Marine and Fisheries will administer the affairs of the port and collect the revenue. In some of these smaller harbours there are commissioners who act without salary under the direction of the department. I think that is true of the harbour commissioners of Three Rivers. They are an administrative board, who act without remuneration and report to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There are other instances in which the same course is followed, as at Belleville, Ontario, and I have also in mind Westminster, British Columbia. There may be others.


Edward Joseph Garland: The commissioners are not paid any direct salary as the minister states?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the
minister tell the committee what their total expenses were last year?


John Warwick King: No, I have not
that information.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
no doubt charging some expenses up to the administration.


John Warwick King: I do not quite
understand my hon. friend?


Edward Joseph Garland: Are these
men doing this work without any charge whatever-not charging for their expenses or anything else-or does the minister know?


John Warwick King: So far as salaries are concerned they are not receiving any.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand that, but eliminating the salary feature, do they receive any expense money,-any allowance for expenses?


John Warwick King: None that I know of.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
another of the votes where we find wharves and sheds, and all sorts of special privileges, granted to certain districts for commercial use. I am opposed to the government continuing that policy! Let the commercial interests put up their own wharves, unless it be a national wharf at a national port.


John Warwick King: This is a national wharf at a national port. I do not think that private interests should be allowed to erect



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
wharves or sheds of this character. They should be for the general use of the public; that is the intention.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, but
the minister is getting no revenue out of it. He calls this wharf, located at a point where there is a population of 25,000 people, a national wharf. It may be so in the strictly technical meaning of the term; but I object to the government building wharves for private enterprise. I am opposed to it, and I think we ought to stop it sooner or later.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
misunderstands the whole situation. This is not a private enterprise; it is for the public use; not only for the use of the people of Three Rivers but the people who ship coal, sulphur, and various products into this important centre. It is a general public wharf. As far as the harbour is concerned it is under the administration of the commission, a subsidiary body, who act under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They collect the dues and report to that department.


Edward Joseph Garland: The government might be justified in pursuing this policy in the case of a national wharf of any importance; but in such a case as this it should make a charge for the use of the wharf or the use of the shed. A revenue should be derived, and it should pay a little better than the Quebec harbour, for example, has paid. I do not like this sort of pap-feeding; it has been going on for too long.


Robert Gardiner: Could the minister give any idea as to the amount of revenue collected at this port last year?


John Warwick King: No, I have not
that information.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any way of
getting that information?


John Warwick King: Yes we will have the information brought down.


Robert Gardiner: It surprises me that a
minister of the crown should come before this committee and ask for such a large sum of money as $75,000 and not have under his hand the most ordinary information that the committee requires. I am sure it would expedite the business of the House if ministers would see to it that such information is produced hereafter.


John Warwick King: My hon. friends
seem to have got a misconception of this
	i ; j
whole harbour and wharf situation. There are only two harbours in Canada which are paying their way to-day, the harbour of Montreal and the harbour of Vancouver. The harbours of Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Three Rivers, Toronto, Fort William, Westminster are all public changes and have been for some time. The idea has been growing up within the last week or ten days this government should go out and assess the public for the use of these conveniences. I do not see why there should have been-


Robert Forke: It would not be safe to d'o it now.


John Warwick King: It would not be
safe to do it and no government will do it, and my hon. friend knows it. It would not be fair to the people of Canada to do it either. When confederation was entered into there was a certain burden placed upon the provinces and a certain burden placed upon the Dominion. This is one of the services, the maintenance of harbours and harbour works, that has been placed upon the Dominion.


Robert Forke: That might be right enough, but the minister might have some idea of what the revenues really amount to.
(Mr. KING (Kootenay): I (am not so sure about that. The Department of Public Works has not Ithe administration of the harbour. It is true we have charge of the construction of the sheds. I will be very glad to bring down the estimated revenue that would come from a shed of this kind under the administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but the Public Works department, so far as this is concerned is a department of construction. No one who has any knowledge of the volume of trade in and out of Three Rivers, and the importance of water transportation to that city and to Canada, will question the necessity of a shed of this character at that point. There is probably no larger or better industrial centre in Canada than Three Rivers. One has to look at the revenue received to appreciate the volume of trade. We find the following figures Showing the traffic on this wharf:
Inland
Inward
3,230 cords pulpwood. 263 tons hay.
50 posts.
235,000 shingles. 8,762,300 lbs. gen. logs. 1,746,102 ft. B.M. lumber. 3.645 bush, apples. 118,600 bricks.
1,750 cords firewood.

Outward 26 tons hay.
425 tons concrete beams.
2,511,172 general cargo. 1,468,433 lumber.
95 coal anthracite. 180,000 coarse sand.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
United States
9,500 lbs. cores (paper.) 1,752,853 ft. B.M. lumber. 3,612 tons anthracite.	253 tons pulp.
1,210 tons sand.	4,170 tons paper.
1,357 tons sulphur.
Ocean Traffic
105,120 tons bituminous 1,766,629 ft. B.M. lum-coal.	ber.
7,052 tons pig iron.	0,536 tons paper.
27,718 tons sulphur.
4,830,000 gals. oil.
7,230 tons salt cake.
The revenue at that port ia as follows:-
Import duties	$383,504	43Excise taxes	
410,035	12Excise duties	
3,034	04Sunday collections	
315	00Total revenue	$796,888 59


Robert Forke: I would not deny the importance of the port, and it may be absolutely necessary to spend this amount of money, but it is quite reasonable that we should know the policy of the government in reference to ports, whether it is expected the public should pay for the use of 'the port, or whether the government should provide accommodation for the use of the general public. If we had the revenue, we would have some idea of what the policy of the government was.
Mr. KINiG (Kootenay): There will be a moderate charge for the tonnage going through the sheds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
made a general statement in connection with harbours, and I am going to say he is fifty per cent right, and that is a good average for him; but he is not more than fifty per cent right. We have very few harbours which are, in the strict sense of the word, national harbours. Ry that I mean harbours which are run by commissioners under the special act, where the commissioners are really the agents and servants of the government and where the harbour is financed entirely by the government. We have Montreal and we now have Vancouver. We have Quebec and we have Three Rivers. There may be some more but they are not present to my mind just now. The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) has another name to give. Will he kindly favour the committee with that name?


Eugène Fiset: Rimouski.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid my hon. friend is wrong. The minister mentions St. John, That is not one of those harbours at all. That is a harbour which in part is looked after by the municipality and in part 251i
by government construction. The government have not sole control of it at all. Some day it may be- put in the same position. While the government has spent a great deal of money there, the municipality has also spent money, and that harbour is in an entirely different position and my hon. friend must know that. If he does not realize that, let me take him to Toronto, where more money has been spent on the harbour by the municipality than has been spent by the government; and therefore it is not in the same category. But we have harbours which are supposed to be run by the commissioners simply as agents for the government which are in that categoay. The minister was quite wrong when he said that this harbour was brought in this year. I said I thought it was last year or the year before. I sent for the statute, and I find the Three River Harbour Commissioners Act was assented to on 30th June, 1923.


John Warwick King: That was an
amendment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see nothing
to show it to be an amendment. There is no other act referred to, and, as the Law Clerk is usually right, I assume there is no other act. I am pretty sure I am right.


John Warwick King: I am not quite
sure my hon. friend is right. I am satisfied there was some form of harbour commission there. They may not have been incorporated. I remember very well when that legislation was passed, and I am satisfied there was a commission in some form before that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is going back to that position, and relatively I admit he is fifty per cent right. Of course there was a so-called municipal harbour commission before that, but there was no commission of the character of that which they have in Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver until last year, and my hon. friend the- Minister of Customs, with very laudable amhition, put Three Rivers on the map. I want to say at once in connection with this vote that there are some good things about it. One of the good things is that this is to be put on the map and called the Bureau wharf The name is a good one and it has that point. I am going to say another thing at once, and that is that there is a good deal of activity in Three Rivers. It is a first rate little industrial section, and it is fortunately one of the sections where the blight-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
ing hand of the government has been stayed by the Minister of Customs and nothing has been carried on there by which Three Rivera has been hurt by the government. Of course that is to be expected, because my hon. friend is the Minister of Customs and looked after Three Rivers with a fatherly care and it is not in the same position that certain other places are; but we really ought to have some way of handling these things, so that we will know what we are doing and how much money has been spent for one particular purpose. This part now is in the hands of a fully empowered Dominion harbour commission backed up by the statutes and by-laws, and by the authority of the hon. Minister of Customs, and under the aegis of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I notice that we have all the general powers given, and in addition we have a special clause inserted enabling the Minister of Customs and Excise to exercise a fatherly control over these commissionere as he does with great success over everything at Three Rivers. I notice, for example, that the collector of customs at Three Rivers may look after the collection of the tolls. I also notice that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has the usual jurisdiction over this commission. Therefore, the question as to how much money is being got out of this should be directed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries rather than to the Minister of Public Works. I think our genial friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows all about this. This corfrmission is his commission. It is under his fatherly care. He knows what the rates and the tolls are, and he will know how much money is coming in. Perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us that. He might also at the same time tell us why not very much confidence is being reposed in the harbour commissioners his government has appointed. Why is it that those harbour commissioners are not to be trusted to look after their own business? Why is it that it is perfectly safe to let $5,000,000-odd loose at Quebec in the hands of three commissioners there, but it is a bad thing to let the three commissioners at Three Rivers look after $45 000? Why is it that in dealing with one commission we have an act and special provisions in that act, and that in this case we merely have a vote? There may be some perfectly good reasons, but the committee is entitled to them.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the government
has all the reason in the world to have con-

fidence in the present harbour commissioners at Three Rivers. They are men of outstanding reputation, respectable men, men who have made their mark and shown their business ability in their particular line. I understand that we are proceeding differently in this case because we are following a practice. Everything which- has been done prior to the present time in regard to the harbour of Three Rivers has been done through the Puiblic Works department, and I understand that we are following the same practice which has been followed for many years. Personally, I would be quite ready to treat the harbour commissioners of Three Rivers in the same way as we are dealing with the harbour commissioners of other ports in Canada. But I think the difference in practice is due to precedents and to the fact, as I have said, that all advances made prior to the present time have been made by the Department of Public Works.
As regards the administration of the harbour, it has come under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries by the act to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. Those harbour commissioners are supposed to make a report to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I cannot give by memory any figures which may be included in the report by those commissioners, but I shall be glad to bring to the House all the information we have in the Department of Marine and Fisheries in regard to the activities of the port of Three Rivers under the jurisdiction of the harbour commission. If the information is complete in the department, I shall be quite ready to bring it down at the next sitting of the House.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure my hon. friend wants to be fair about this. He will see that he cannot talk about precedents here. Everything was changed two years ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I admit that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If we had been going on as we did prior to two years ago, we would have been going on all wrong. Just as soon as that act was passed, we erected the commissioners into a legal entity. We placed in the hands of that legal entity all the property within the confines of that harbour as defined in the act. It became their property for the purpose of the trust which they have to administer. When that takes place, they have to be debited with, I would not suggest a severe or high valuation, but a fair valuation of the property handed over to

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
them. That is something which is always done in connection with corporations of this kind. I think the minister administering the act will absolutely agree with me. It also follows that this shed when built becomes their property under the act. It is not the property of the government at all. In the same way, following the law, a balancing charge ought to be made to the commission for the amount of money which that shed represents. I think my hon. friend will agree with me as to that. Under the circumstances we have none of these things at all. We have at the present time a harbour commission that apparently have nothing charged against them. We have a harbour commission that, although having the legal fee to this harbour, although supposedly acting as a separate legal entity exactly the same as the harbour commissioners of Montreal are acting, still get their business done for them by the country without any expense to them. My hon. friend will see at once that that is the position. Either one thing is right or the other is. Under the act which is in force, which appears to me to follow-and my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong; I have not had an opportunity to go over it carefully because I sent for it just after the statement of the Minister of Public Works-the general law as to the other commissioners, it is absolutely impossible to say that both these courses of action are correct. One must be wrong, and surely we ought to have similarity of treatment under acts similar in character. We ought to have similarity in charges and the like. We do not have that. Here is something that was done in connection with this act and which I pointed out when the act went through. The former volunteer commission were working, as I recollect, without salary, and a special provision was inserted in the act when it was being put through to enable these commissioners, to be paid. Section 5, subsection (4) provides:
For their services, the president and the other commissioners may be paid out of the revenues of the harbour,-
That is their revenues, not the country's revenues, the revenues that they will be collecting.
-such remuneration as the Governor in Council may determine.
It is reasonable to have, on the one hand, provisions of this kind and character and, on the other, to be having investments made through estimates by the Department of Public Works without the slightest charge being made to those commissioners? I think the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have to look into this very quickly because it seems to me there is an absolute disregard of the statutory provision.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The estimates would indicate that this is a new vote this year. In looking over the Auditor General's report for the past year, I find there was an expenditure of $71,415 on this wharf for the year ended March 31. Therefore, I think the request made by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is a very reasonable one that we should have some information as to the revenue received at this point. That was a very large expenditure at that time, and now we have an expenditure of $45,000 for a shed at this point. I would like again to protest against the difficulty in Obtaining reasonable information from members of the government when they are asking to have their estimates passed. I think it emphasizes the need of a committee of this House to revise estimates before they are presented to parliament so that information will be available to facilitate the business of the country.


John Warwick King: I have no objection to bringing down the information. My hon. friend is wrong in the statement that $71,000 was spent last year; as a matter of fact that sum was spent in 1923-24. In 1924-25 we spent $8,885 and the exact amount the year before was $71,892. Last year there was a reconstruction of what is known as the Bureau wharf. As regards the shed, the other night I undertook to give certain information with reference to the revenues collected' at Chicoutimi. When the Chicoutimi basin item was under discussion on May 29, I gave two sets of revenue figures as follows: First, $145 for 1922 and $240 for 1923; second. $4,928 for 1921. $5,638 for 1922 and $7,818 for 1923. As these figures did not appear to agree, I promised to have them verified at a later date.
I may now say that the smaller figures represent harbour dues collected by the harbour master, in those years, from ships entering the harbour, while the larger amounts show the -revenue received by the wharfinger for goods -passing over the wharf. Both sets of figures are correct, one representing harbour dues and the other wharfage revenue. I think the question raised is worth investigating and we will have a return made showing the revenues collected from these various works.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
might supplement that by showing the expenses, so that we may know what the net revenue is.


John Warwick King: The net revenue
in some of these cases will not be so large.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But it is the
facts that we want.


John Warwick King: At Chicoutimi
there has been a steady increase during the last two or three years and the net revenue would not be seriously affected.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the net
revenue there be anything like what the minister indicates?


John Warwick King: It would not be
materially affected. My hon. friend is not serious when he asks for all the expenses.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It costs money
to collect these revenues; there must be a staff with necessary upkeep involved. Of course I am perfectly serious; I want to know what the net revenue is.


John Warwick King: The net revenue over operating costs? The wharfinger of course would be paid a commission on the collections, which would be a comparatively small amount. I will see that the committee gets that information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister
of Marine (Mr. Cardin) has not told us how he is going to straighten out the tangle under his own act. I do not know whether it should be a question for the courts or for the Auditor General or for a bill of complaint, or what. But surely the matter should not be allowed to go on in this way.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The practice that is now being followed is not a new one. In the port of Montreal as well as at Vancouver and other ports under commissions, money has been spent by the Public Works department, and not later than last year parliament *approved of an item of $500,000 to be expended in the port of Quebec by the Department of Public Works, the amount having been voted in the estimates of that department. And this practice has been followed in many cases. I quite agree with my hon. friend that perhaps it might be more proper to have the money advanced to the harbour commission in the form of a loan as we are doing this year in the case of Quebec and as

we have done in the past for Vancouver. Possibly, I say, it might be better to proceed in that way; but the, practice of voting money through the Public Works department to be spent on harbours under the control of commissions is not a new one. It has been followed on other occasions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: First I will refer to an interjection which the Minister of Public W'orks (Mr. King. Kootenay) made in an undertone while his colleague was speaking; he did his best to get the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say that the same practice had been followed in Toronto as well. But the Minister of Marine being wiser ignored the suggestion. The reason is perfectly obvious. As I pointed out a little time ago to my hon. friend, who does not pay much attention to these things, the conditions in Toronto are absolutely different^ inasmuch as the harbour works there are directly the property of the city.


John Warwick King: Supported by the Dominion government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The city puts up a great deal more money in connection with the harbour than does the Dominion government; and the harbour works there are not under such an act as this any more than the harbour of St. John comes under any similar act. The question has come up time and again whether St. John should not be under a regular act such as applies to Montreal and Quebec, but so far this has not been deemed advisable. Now, the Minister of Marine says he is following precedent in this matter. I should' like him to point out any instance in which this has been done in relation to harbours of this class. Has it been done in connection with the harbour of Vancouver, the harbour of Montreal or the harbour of Quebec prior to this government's coming into office? This would be one way in which the obligations of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners could be improperly kept down. And I am not saying that it was not done last year, although that does not make it any better; indeed, it makes the Quebec harbour situation so much worse than the statements brought down would show. With a friendly government they have the Department of Public Works spending for them half a million dollars, and if that is precedent it is precedent that we should forget as quickly as possible. If my hon. friend knows of any other instance of the kind we had better hear about them and have the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
matter straightened1 out. If our accounts in connection with our harbours are wrong-a3 they will be if we are going to allow work to be done by the Public Works department without charging it to the harbour commissioners in their books-then there is no good having accounts at all; we might as well put an end to the whole thing. In other words, an account to be of any use must be accurate, and it is not accurate if the country, through other votes, makes additions to the property of the harbour commission without charging it to them. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there should be regularity in connection with this question. Under the act of two years ago, Three Rivers got a full government endorsa-tion and became exactly the same as Montreal, and therefore should be governed by the statute. The minister may have forgotten about the change. I hope he will have this put upon a proper business basis. I think he might also let us know to what extent the power of paying salaries and the like is being exercised under that act. In the meantime, as far as I am concerned, the town can be happy with the addition of the Bureau wharf.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has explained that there is no uniformity in the matter. We all know there has not been uniformity. He says the city of Toronto is treated differently from the district of Three Rivers. It may be. But the harbour affairs of Toronto are administered by a harbour commission, and the city have an interest in the harbour development. In St. John there is no harbour commission, but the city has a very large interest in the harbour works, and the Public Works department* has been responsible for their construction. That is also true with respect to the harbour of Quebec where many of the works were constructed by the Public Works department and turned over to the harbour board free of interest. That is true of Montreal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite sure of that?


John Warwick King: Yes; and it is true of Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is correct, the statements made by his friends in connection with the Quebec vote are entirely wrong, because they distinctly said that the work had been done by the Public Works department and the interest was charged up to the commissioners, they being forced to take over the works. Can my hon. friend give us the truth?


John Warwick King: What statements
is my hon. friend referring to?


Henry Lumley Drayton: To statements
made in this House.


John Warwick King: I know it is true of works in Montreal, in Quebec and in Vancouver, where certain works built by the Department of Public Works were taken over. It may be that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) brought down a bill two years ago which incorporated a commission for administering the harbour of Three Rivers, but he did not ask parliament to vote any money for administration purposes, and no money has been voted, it being the intention that the Public Works department should carry on the construction. I think that is the proper procedure for the development in that port, for the activities of the harbour are not such as require administration by a commission handling a large expenditure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I should like
to find out who is right, the minister or his supporters. I will give just one instance. A wharf was built by the Department of Public Works in Quebec. Now, according to the minister's statement to-night, the commissioners have the right of running that work without being charged interest on it. Is that right?


John Warwick King: That is my understanding.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that be right, I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, how easy it is for this House to be entirely misled, because absolutely different statements were made. It was said that the pier had been charged up to the commission, although they did not want it, and they were being charged interest on the outlay.


John Warwick King: Not that pier.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder how
many more piers the minister built there. I am still speaking of the one place, Quebec. Was another pier built in Quebec? If so, let us have it.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it is the
same thing.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the minister furnish
the names of the harbour commissioners for Three Rivers, their term of appointment, and their salaries?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: That is entirely
out of my province, but I will see that my hon. friend is supplied with the information.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Here is a remarkable
situation when we cannot get information from the department handling the estimates. This information must come from the department of Marine and Fisheries, I unders'.and, but there is no heading under which we can secure it. This does not seem to me to be the proper procedure. Those of us from sections of the country far removed from these harbours are not in a position to intelligently discuss (he items at all. I am not questioning the propriety of voting money for such public works, even if they are not paying, for I think parliament must be behind them; but it does seem to me some means should be devised by which a certain amount should be allotted to the provincial governments, which could undoubtedly handle these harbour votes much better than we can. These particular items should be handled by the legislature of Quebec. By going over a period of years a lump sum could be arrived at sufficient to support these harbours annually, and this amount could then be voted each year to the provincial authorities. By this means we would be saved a great deal of time and trouble, and I think the business could be handled much more easily and economically.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Valleyfield-wharf reconstruction, $12,250.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the report on this, Mr. Chairman?


John Warwick King: This work will
consist in sinking a new stone-filled crib two hundred feet long and fourteen feet wide in front of the existing old one, and levelling with gravel and broken stone the surface of the old wharf and approach at a cost of $12,250. The engineer says that the existing wharf is in such a bad condition that the foundations cannct be used for new construction. When the wharf was built, instead of dredging a site for the proposed crib, or going a little further in the river to secure a bottom nearly level, the crib was built on the steep slope of the bank, the whole structure resting for a height of a few feet on the face timbers of the crib only. This structure has consequently much settled, and is to-day in such a bad condition that it cannot be recommended as a safe foundation for new construction from low water level in concrete or cribwork.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
date of that report?
EMr. Spencer.l


John Warwick King: November 1924.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When was the
wharf built?


John Warwick King: The existing
wharf was built in 1912-1913-1914.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the cost?


John Warwick King: 


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister state that the total cost of the wharf from the time of construction to this date has been only $5,671?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Including the
original construction?


John Warwick King: No. I said toe construction cost of toe original wharf was $5,671.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much has been expended to this date?


John Warwick King: The repairs to
that wharf have been very light to date, but the wharf is out of condition. It was built on the edge of a ledge, and it slipped. The foundations are in such Shape that they cannot be used for a new construction.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it that toe department are proposing to build a much larger wharf, if the original wharf cost $5,671, and we are now voting $12,250.


John Warwick King: We are building toe wharf in front of toe present structure. It is proposed to" sink a new crib in front of the former crib, soundings having been taken recently showing itbat toe river bed is nearly level in front of toe present wharf, assuring a good foundation to the proposed crib. I read a moment ago the engineer's report as to the condition of toe present structure, which is located on a steep slope, the whole structure resting for a height of a few fedt on the face timbers of toe crib only. This structure has consequently much settled, and is in such a bad condition that it cannot be recommended as a safe foundation for a new construction from low water level in concrete or cribwork. If my hon. friend will take into account toe purchasing power of the dollar in 1912 as compared with to-day, he will find that there is not such a 'great difference between toe cost of the original wharf and that of the proposed wharf.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why is all this dredging being done there at toe same time?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
'Mr. KING (Kootenay): There will be some dredging there, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to,
Valleyfield-dredging, 132,000.
John Warwick King: This is to complete the contract, and continue the channel in order that shipping may be carried on.


Arthur John Lewis: When was dredging done
here last?


John Warwick King: We started a contract there last year. There was 158,000 spent in connection with the old wharf, and $27,000 of that would be previous to last year. This appropriation is to complete the payment of $9,800 on the contract, and to provide $22,200 for the continuation of the channel, making a total of $32,000 this year.


Arthur John Lewis: Can we look forward to any more dredging here next year? Wiil'l this complete the channel?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the rate per yard?


John Warwick King: Forty-nine cents.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this class "B"?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the contractor there?


John Warwick King: Leg Chantiers
Manseau.


Arthur John Lewis: That is 3 cents per yard
cheaper than the other.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is the cheapest we have had yet.


John Warwick King: It varies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vercheres-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


John Warwick King: In Chambly-Ver-cheres. This is to lay a six-inch concrete flooring on the whole surface of approach and on the part of the wharf built in 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ville Marie-wharf repairs, $3,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


John Warwick King: Pontiac county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
wharves have we got up there?


John Warwick King: There are several small structures on Lake Timiskaming where
rather important shipping is done. This is to renew stringers, flooring and wheelguard, and to provide planking. The engineer reports:
These repairs are required to keep the wharf in a good state of repair to accommodate a big traffic, approximately 6,000 tons of freight being handled during 1923.
There is a daily service to Haileybury for passengers, mail and freight.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: It will be done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the work done last year by day labour?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like my hon. friend to just give me the costs of doing that work by day labour, the number of feet of lumber put in place, the number of days it took to do the work, and the material costs.


John Warwick King: I have not that information here. My hon. friend is well aware that it would certainly load our estimates up considerably if we carried the pay roll in connection with these items. During the past season, work consisted in replacing some 22,000 feet of planking, 400 feet of wheelguard, and 10 stringers. The work was carried out in July, F. J. Fitzgerald being the foreman, and the rate of .pay $5 per day. I shall be very glad to send my hon. friend the information he desires.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we should get that information because the department are continually breaking the rule. It is all very well for the minister to soberly shake his head, but there is a rule that the work is to be done by contract where the amount is $5,000 or over. I do not think this is under $5,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will not say anything along that line here then, but I would like to have that information just the same, because I am inclined to think this day work is becoming very expensive.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Lumley Drayton: With regard to the item "Appropriations not required for 1925-1926," perhaps my hon. friend would just hand that list to Hansard. That will save him the task of reading it.


John Warwick King: I will do that.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

The list is as follows:
List of Appropriations not required for 1925-1926
Amos-wharf	
Anse a Beaufils-repairs to jetties	
Anse a la barbe-breakwaters	
Anse au Griffon-wharf extension	
Baie des Rochers-wharf improvements	
Baie St. Paul-wharf	
Boisch atel-wh a rf	
Cannes des Roches-breakwater extension	
Cap a l'Aigle-wharf improvements	
Cap Sante-wharf repairs	
Cap St. Ignace-wharf repairs	
Carleton-wharf repars	
Desjardins-wharf repairs	
Fabre-wharf repairs	
Fort William-wharf repairs	
Fox river-wharf repairs	
Grand Entree (M.I.)-breakwater extension	
Grandes Piles-freight shed	
Grande Riviere-wharf repairs and improvements	
Grosse Roche-wharf repairs	
Isle Verte-wharf reconstruction	
Kowlton Landing-wharf repairs	
La Mothe-wharf	
La Sarre-wharf	
La Reine-wharf	
Lavaltrie-reconstruction of wharf and approach	
Les Escoumains-wharf repairs	
L'Islet-wharf repairs	
Levesque-wharf	
Maria-wharf repairs	
Marsouins-pier	
Matane-harbour improvements	
Riviere Blanche-wharf repairs	
New Carlisle-wharf repairs	
North Hatley-wharf reconstruction	
Paspebiac East (Portage)-wharf repairs	
Petite Riviere Romaine-wharf	
Pierreville-repairs to wharf and roadway	
Piopolis-wharf repairs	
Pointe a Elie (M.I.)-waiting room and wharf improvements	
Port au Persil-wharf	
Quyon-wharf repairs	
Rigaud-wharf reconstruction, roadway and jetty	
Rimouski River-breakwater-wharf reconstruction	
Repentigny-wharf improvements	
Riviere des Vases-wharf repairs and improvements	
Riviere du Lievre-lock and dam-reconstruction, repairs and renewals.
Riviere Noire-brea water	
Ste. Anne de Beaupre-wharf reconstruction	
Ste. Anne des Monts-wharf repairs	
St. Charles de Caplan-wharf reconstruction	
St. Emelie-dredging	
St. Emelie-wharf repairs	
St. Georges de Malbaie-breakwater pier	
St. Gregoire de Montmorency-repairs to revetment wall	
St. Jean Port Joli-wharf repairs	
St. Marc-wharf and right of way	
St. Omer-wharf repairs	
St. Pierre les Becquets-wharf reconstruction	
St. Roch de Richelieu-wharf	
St. Simeon-wharf repairs	
St. Sulpice-wharf improvements	
St. Zotique-wharf repairs and new shed	
Squattack-wharf repairs	
Tadoussac (Anse a l'Eau)-wharf repairs	
Terrebonne-protection wall	
Trois Rivieres-wharf repairs and reconstruction	
Victoria Bay (lake Megantic)-wharf repairs and shed	
Trois Pistoles-repairs to piers and dredge	
Chargeable to Income
Expenditure Appropriation to March 31,

$	312 66
2,255 48 1.565 41 2,236 80 2,293 83 11,041 85 10,738 47 4,421 11
2.039	93 2,132 17 2,299 39
993 16 1,473 69 1,328 69 991 27 364 50
1.382	06 2,287 73 1,753 77 1,250 00
10.199	98 1,210 45 3,354 70 2,014 09 3,613 72 5,339 14 3,654 72 12,591 62
3.039	19 4,098 17 2,507 80
59,779 83 1,599 98 910 11 2,487 60 3,194 28 18,000 00 3,254 19 865 60 3,185 19 8,532 65 941 16 6,468 43 8,486 10 6,997 33 1,189 49 9,390 16 4,025 36 11,721 71 3,344 98 4,952 30 13,761 78 4,427 33 1,008 12 9,995 96 11,847 11 6,494 22 2,212 33 13,636 55 7.999 51 5,547 27 7,316 85 1,374 90 1,418 92
1.382	67 2,865 19 8,885 05
1.199	90 3,527 65

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


The CHAIRMAN:: The next item is No. 150.
Dauphin Beach-wharf, $6,600.


William Alves Boys: I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that item No. 150 has been called, but I regret that I may have to be away a day or so next week and I wondered if the minister would have any objection to giving me information now relating to item No. 155. I asked a question or two the other night of the minister, but he had not his notes with him, and he would oblige me very much if he would give me the information now. If he is going on with item No. 155 in the first three days of next week I regret to say I cannot be here.


John Warwick King: I have not the dredging items here, but if I remember rightly my hon. friend asked regarding the appropriation or expenditure at Collingwood. I have gone into the matter, and it is the intention of the department to do, out of the general dredging vote for Ontario and Quebec, certain work in the harbour of Collingwood this year to the amount of about $20,000 odd, I think.


William Alves Boys: What about Belle River?


John Warwick King: I have not the information on that but I shall be very glad to give it to my hon. friend at a later date.


William Alves Boys: Of course I realize that I
am out of order and that I am entirely in the hands of the minister. I appreciate What he has told me already and if he will consent to give me the further information-I presume he knows it now

whether anything is included in this item for Belle River. I should like to know what the amount is.


John Warwick King: I understand that my hon. friend has already been advised through the Public Accounts committee that there will be a further expenditure this year As to the amount I have not that information at hand, but there will be some further dredging at Belle River this year.


William Alves Boys: As a matter of fact I do know that about $10,000 will be required to complete certain dredging that was undertaken, but that does not for a moment indicate that there will not be more spent. In fact, something I saw yesterday would indicate that there will be further expenditure for a turning basin, and so on. I do not want the information unless I can get it accurately. If I can get it accurately I should certainly like to have it.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend is getting information day by day and getting it accurately.


William Alves Boys: That may be true as far as
expenditure is concerned but not as regards estimates for future expenditure, and that is what I am asking for.


John Warwick King: I will get the estimate.


William Alves Boys: Then I understand the minister is not in a position to give me definite information to-night.


John Warwick King: There will be
further expenditure as I have already informed my hon. friend. As a matter of fact I understand the work is to be contracted for, and it would be only an estimate that I could give my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: That is all I want.


Arthur Meighen: What is the expenditure on Dauphin beach for?


John Warwick King: This is a revote
of $6,600. It is required to provide for the construction of a wharf 464 feet 6 inches long over all, measured on the outside. The wharf will consist of a stone fill approach, 200 feet long, and 12 feet wide on top, with slopes of one and a half horizontal to one vertical, a pilework extension to this approach 152 feet long and 12 feet wide, and' an "ell," 112 feet 6 inches long and 12 feet wide, with triangular extension 20 feet from inner comer. The pilework section throughout will be close piled on the outside.


Arthur Meighen: When was this wharf
started?	.


John Warwick King: The work is under contract, an order in council having been passed on December 22,	1924, granting
authority for the acceptance of the tender of Isaac Silverwood, of Dauphin beach, Manitoba.


Arthur Meighen: What is the total cost
of the work?


John Warwick King: This vote will
complete the work. The .contract price is $5,990; and inspection, contingencies, and so on amount to $610.


Arthur Meighen: Why was $8,800 voted
last year?


John Warwick King: It was voted but we did not get our contract let until December. We only spent $659 last year. The amount voted last year was an estimate of the cost. When tenders were called for we found that they varied from $5,990 to $8,962.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: The work is going on
now is it?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: This is surely a summer resort is it not?


John Warwick King: No. The district is a dairy farming country, settled by Canadian, English and Ruthenian settlers, and there are a great many returned soldiers settled there. There are two creameries in the town of Dauphin, and they are handling a very large volume of cream. In addition to dairying there is some truck farming and cattle raising.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister will
excuse me smiling. The Dauphin country is a splendid farming country, one of t.he best in the province, but Dauphin Beach is a summer resort.


John Warwick King: My right hon.
friend has local knowledge and so can enlighten the committee. I regret that I have not any such knowledge.


Arthur Meighen: I presume this vote is
the result of government policy, and I am not at the moment criticizing it; what I should like to do is to get the facts. The minister has said that there is some dairying and cattle raising, and that there are Canadian, English and Ruthenian settlers; but the nature of the farming country at Dauphin has no more relation to the requirements of the wharf at Dauphin Beach than the depth of snow at the pole has to do with it, not a particle. Dauphin Beach is a summer resort, on lake Dauphin about a dozen miles or so to the east of *Dauphin. If it is used for any other purpose I should like to know what it is. I would not think that very many Cunard or White Star liners get into lake Dauphin.


John Warwick King: I would not expect it. Still there are a number of people there who do use the lake.


Arthur Meighen: But only for fun.


John Warwick King: They have no
railway connection. They must depend upon the lake to transport their products to market, and Dauphin is their only market. My information is there is considerable farming population that use this lake during the summer.


Arthur Meighen: I know there is.


John Warwick King: In addition to
that it is used by the people who go there to enjoy the beach and the boating.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I wanted
to know.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member for
Dauphin (Mr. Ward) is not here. But I have been in constant communication with him, and I understand there is a very considerable traffic across the lake, by those who bring their produce to market. I am not very familiar with the district myself but that is what I understand from the hon. member in whose constituency it is.


Arthur Meighen: I was not aware of that. Of course if there is a commerical traffic some kind of wharf would have to be provided. I hope this wharf is good enough. *


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Leland Payson Bancroft: Would the minister tell us what the expenditure was last year?


John Warwick King: Last year we expended $4,088.60. The expenditure varies. For the year 1912-13 it was $6,896; in 1920-21 it was $12,914; in 1923-24 it was $2,338; and last year, $4,088.60.


Arthur Meighen: Where was that money
spent?


John Warwick King: In the province
of Manitoba, I will give the items:
Generally	4 387 66
Winnipeg district engineer's office maintenance 1,346 97
Delta protection works	
1,214	71Netley cut dam	
791	10Winnipegosis wharf	
54	47Heckla wharf	
39	30


Arthur Meighen: Is there anything in this vote to go this year to Delta Beach?


John Warwick King: Yes I understand so.


Arthur Meighen: What will you do there?


John Warwick King: I understand there will be some filling in this year of the cut made some years ago, with a view of closing
the 'Cut.


Mr. LEADER:: Some of this work is in
my constituency, and I should like to say a few words. I understand the minister is going to complete the work the department has undertaken at Delta-the filling of that cut?


John Warwick King: It will be put in
this year.


Harry Leader: Does the Minister intend
that any of this appropriation shall be used to repair the dykes on the Assiniboine river? Some of them were washed out during the flood this spring. The minister gave figures

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
a moment ago stating that $4,000 odd were spent in the year 1922, to repair dykes the government have had to build1 and maintain from year to year during the last forty years. I think in the neighbourhood of $50,000 has been spent by the federal government in building and keeping in repair dykes on the Assiniboine river between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg. In 1922 they undertook to repair .the dykes which were damaged by the flood of that year. We had a flood again this spring and I am informed that some damage has been done, the extent of which I do not know. I have received a communication from the municipality of Cartier asking me to use my influence with the government to have them give a grant to that municipality of $5,000; and stating that if they get this grant the municipality will undertake to repair the dykes themselves. Failing that, they would ask the government to undertake to repair the dykes that were damaged in the flood of this spring. There are also dykes further west between Portage la Prairie and the municipality of Cartier. I do not know the extent of the damage, but some damage has been occasioned. Does the minister intend to use some of this money to repair these dykes? If these dykes are not repaired this year it may spell disaster to a good many farmers situated along the banks of the river next summer.


John Warwick King: Minor repairs
might be made to works previously constructed by the Dominion government, but I can assure my hon. friend that . the government has no intention of undertaking any large dyking scheme along the Assiniboine river.


Harry Leader: I understood the minister
to say the government would be willing to repair dykes previously constructed by the government.


John Warwick King: Yes, minor repairs, but nowhere in Canada does the government undertake to maintain dykes for municipalities or for any other large interests. It is true there was some small dyking done years ago, and from time to time the department have performed certain works. We will be advised by our engineers as to what work we will do this year, but it is not the intention of the department to make the government liable for large undertakings on the Assiniboine river.


Harry Leader: I know that perfectly well, but I should like to get an assurance from the minister that the department will undertake to repair the dykes which they previously constructed. It will be a very small item. Surely he can give me such an assurance, because otherwise those people will be knocking at the door of the government this summer or next fall asking them to puit those dykes in shape before the freshet occurs next spring. I think it is reasonable to ask for an assurance now that the work will be undertaken. It may only cost a few hundred dollars, but of course I am not in a position to say definitely. Two years ago it cost $4,000 odd. Will the government spend that much money on those dykes if necessary?


John Warwick King: If the hon. member will tell me the district he has in mind I will have the matter investigated and ascertain what is involved and the liability of the Dominion government. I will then answer his question.


Harry Leader: Yes, that is sufficient. I
will be .glad to furnish the information to the minister. I understand that following up a delegation that was introduced to the minister in the year 1922, the department agreed to make a survey of that portion of the Assiniboine river lying between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg, to see if something could not be done to keep the waters of the Assiniboine river within their boundaries and thus prevent the flooding of the agricultural lands adjacent to the river. I understand the department undertook that survey and that it has been completed.


John Warwick King: Yes, we made
the survey.


Harry Leader: What is the estimate?


John Warwick King: A large estimate,
amounting to some hundreds of thousands of dollars, made by our engineers, has been forwarded to the provincial departments of public works, who have been making certain investigations, and correspondence has taken place between ithe provincial departments of public works and the department at Ottawa.


Harry Leader: What is the provincial estimate?


John Warwick King: I could not say. It has only recently been referred to them. It is very much less than our estimate.


Harry Leader: I understand they have made a survey and estimated the cost at $200,000, and the Dominion government estimated that the probable cost would be nearer a million dollars.


John Warwick King: Yes, that is right.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Harry Leader: There is considerable discrepancy there. I am well acquainted with the situation out there, and I would hesitate to advise the government to undertake any expenditure involving a million dollars in that district. I believe that with a proper supervision over the river when it is in flood a good deal of the damage could be taken care of, and there would not be the damage that has frequently occurred. The trouble has been that the provincial engineers have passed the buck to the federal engineers and the federal engineers have said, "The responsibility is not ours; it rests with the municipalities and the provincial government". An ice jam occurs on the river and nobody has any authority to immediately break up that ice jam, and t'he result is that the water overflows and floods the surrounding land. I believe that if there were proper supervision of the floods in the spring, and if the ice jams were broken up before they had seriously formed it would immediately relieve the situation and the water would flow away. I know that when the engineers got busy at Portage la Prairie this spring they undertook to break up the ice jams as soon as they formed and prevented serious floods. It seems to me with the equipment we 'have now, with the modern airships, supervision could be undertaken from the air. Bombs could be dropped from the air and these ice jams could be broken up and the situation relieved before they become dangerous.


Robert Forke: It would be something like a war.


Harry Leader: It would be good practice for us in case of future war. One feature of this is that the place where the ice jams form is where the river takes a turn, where there is a bend, in the river; that is where the jam forms and that is the dangerous point that should be watched. That is another phase of it that would not cost very much money. You could dig channels across the necks of land where the river takes a turn, and if that were done, in a few years these channels would become the course of the river. In that way you would hasten the flow of the water down to the Red river at Winnipeg. The water would run away more quickly at the mouth and I do not think it would be a serious menace to the city of Winnipeg. If you cut off the narrow necks of land and put engineers in there who would break up the ice jams when they occurred, with the expenditure of not very many thousand dollars you could take care of the

situation and relieve the pressure at Portage la Prairie, always bearing in mind that the dykes constructed now are along the little runways and creeks and must be maintained in proper shape.


Robert Forke: I am a little disappointed, after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. I thought he would put in a word for some places west of Portage la Prairie on the Assiniboine river. We have lots of floods through the Brandon constituency. If a dyke is to built I hope the minister will not forget that district.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You want a bombing machine there.


Robert Forke: I am sorry I was not in the House when the appropriation for wharves was going through, because I notice from the Canada Year Book we export more fish from Manitoba than they do from New Brunswick, and the idea that we can get off with a $6,000 vote for wharves astounds me altogether when so much business is being done. The item however, is passed and we cannot get anything out of it now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Netley cut-closing channel, $3,500.
Leland Payson Bancroft: Does the minister think this is sufficient to complete the work of closing up the Netley cut?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is hoped that this will complete the work of closing this channel. It is to construct a sheet pile wall, 130 feet long, backed by a hydraulic fill.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Has the minister the figures showing the original cost of the construction of the channel?


Arthur Meighen: Where is the Netley cut?


John Warwick King: The Netley cut is an artificial waterway dredged by the department in 1014, between the Red river and Netley lake. This waterway is no longer of value, and owing to the strong current through the channel, it has proved impossible to maintain a bridge there. It is suggested that the cut Should be filled. Last year we expended a certain sum and it is expected to complete the refilling this year.


Arthur Meighen: What was the idea of the cut?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: It was suggested to permit of Netley lake being entered by small boats and flat-bottomed scows. It was represented that there was a considerable quantity of cordwood and hay on the shores of and adjacent to Netley lake, and that settlers and others interested experienced difficulty in having it taken out.


Arthur Meighen: What did the minister say had happened since then?


John Warwick King: It was found that it was not serving the purpose for which it was constructed, and that it was impossible to maintain a bridgeway or roadway over the cut. It is considered cheaper to close the cut than to try to maintain a bridge at that point. I have not the original cost of construction.


Leland Payson Bancroft: The construction in the first place is one example of the unnecessary expenditure of public money. It connects the Red river with Netley lake which lies to the west of the Red river. The excuse given to the department for the construction of this channel was that a quantity of hay and cord-wood could be shipped through it on scows. Netley lake is very shallow and there are no wharves around it. My information was that no scow ever went in there and that nothing was ever shipped through the channel. I am informed that that was not the real purpose of its construction at all. There were one or two individuals in Selkirk who owned motor launches and who had a hunting lodge on Netley lake. They wanted a short cut to get in there in order to shoot ducks. That is the reason why this channel was constructed. After it had stood there for a few years, it began to fill up the channel of the Red river, because the water commenced to eat away the approaches on both sides. The soil is very marshy and the silt carried through the channel became a menace to navigation on the Red river. Therefore, the department began to fill it up. The filling up has been going on for some years, and the action of the river is so strong that they found it almost impossible to fill it up. I am afraid this vote will not complete the work. I thought it proper to bring this matter to the attention of the committee, because in the estimates that are brought before us each year there might be some other items similar to this.


John Warwick King: No.


Leland Payson Bancroft: It was unnecessary in the first place, and I hope this item will finish the work of closing it up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Portage la Prairie-sewer extension, $7,200.
Edward Joseph Garland: I understood that last year the committee was informed that the whole work was completed and that the necessary amount had been paid over. It was with some amazement that I saw this item of $7,200 this year. Probably there is an explanation..


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend will look 'back to the discussion of last year, I advised the committee, when the main estimates were going through that we were passing the amount which would pay the contractor his contract price. I intimated to the committee then that probably an extra amount would be required and that it would probably come down in the supplementary estimates. After that I was not satisfied with the claim and I carried it over. I have had it thoroughly gone into by the engineering department and the claim is recommended entirely by that department. When the contract was let the specification in the contract required a trench three feet in width to an average depth of 12 feet 6 inches to be excavated for the laying of the sewer pipe. When the work on the pipe laying was commenced after the trench was excavated the required width of three feet, the results were so unsatisfactory on account of water, caving ground and lack of space to work in, that the trench had to be widened from top to bottom to the full width of four feet, no less width being possible at the bottom to permit of satisfactory laying and jointing of the pipe. The widening of the trench was done after the sides had frozen and at a much higher cost than that of the original excavation. The contractors have asked to be compensated for the additional width of trench excavation and back fill rendered necessary. The district engineer has recommended this, and, as I say, I intimated to the committee last year that probably an item would be brought down in the supplementary estimates. At that time I was not satisfied and I delayed the matter. The item apparently is one that has been carefully checked by the engineering department, and it is for extra work that was found necessary beyond the specification as originally designed by the engineering department.


Arthur John Lewis: What was the size of the
pipe?


John Warwick King: Twelve inches.


Edward Joseph Garland: In my
humble opinion this is an amazing way of doing business. I remember on one occasion working with a railroad gang to cut out the
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

Swift Current-Bassano cut-off. I worked for a fine fellow who entered into a contract at so much a yard. He ran into hard pan and no part of his losses were made up. An extra gang was put on; he was forced to pay for the lot, and he was made bankrupt. He had entered into a firm contract and he had to carry it out. Apparently, with this government all you have to do is to enter into a contract, do anything you like afterwards and come back with a bill.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is quite wrong. The specification was definitely for a trench three feet in width. After the trench had been, excavated it was found that on account of the nature of the soil and the. water this pipe could not be laid in a trench of that width. If there was any fault at all, it was not that of the contractor. There may have been fault or error in judgment on the part of the engineers. They could not foresee the condition of the soil. The conditions they found after the trench had been dug according to the specification, required the extension of the width of the trench to four feet instead of three. The quantities were taken out and I think they should be paid for.


Arthur John Lewis: It is really a pity that at
the time this extension to the sewer was made, provision was not made for the future. This has cost a great deial of money, and, as I mentioned last year, the diameter of the pipe should have been considerably enlarged from the place where they connected it, because in twenty years time, if necessary, we shall have to do the whole work over again. It seems to me that it might have been well in making this extension to have done it properly, because it involves a great expenditure.


Harry Leader: As this work is in my constituency I should know something about it. The hon. member (Mr. Lewis) is under a misapprehension in regard to the work. This question has been rehashed in the House on several occasions and I do not intend to discuss it at any length now; but it has nothing to do with the size of the pipe. It was due to an act of the government that the river bed dried up and it was the duty of the government therefore to carry the sewer further down the river. I support the minister in what he has said in regard to the nature of the soil there; I can readily understand that the engineer might not be quite familiar with the situation. The water is close to the surface of the ground and there is a sandy subsoil. I know that this work was done by con-

tract, but had the minister no offers from contractors in Portage la Prairie or from men who must have known something about the nature of the soil in that vicinity?


John Warwick King: There were three
tenders submitted for this work as follows:
1.	Fowler, Young and Holden Co., Ltd.. $77,475 00
2.	Thomas Jackson and Sons	
79,878 203.	Western Drainage Co., Ltd	
99,219 50


Arthur Meighen: Where are these firms
located?


John Warwick King: They are Winnipeg firms, but I am not sure; they might be situated elsewhere.


Harry Leader: The minister had only one tender from a contractor in Portage la Prairie.


John Warwick King: We had none, unless' one of the firms I have mentioned is located there.


Harry Leader: Are the addresses not given?


John Warwick King: No. What firm
does my hon. friend refer to?


Harry Leader: I am not referring to any
one in particular, but I was wondering whether any firm in Portage la Prairie had tendered.


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur John Lewis: I want to tell my hon. friend (Mr. Leader) that I was under no misapprehension at all; I have supervised more sewer construction work than he has ever seen. I do say however that when the extension was made at such tremendous cost it would have been wise to visualize Portage la Prairie twenty years hence, for I do not think that Portage da Prairie will remain a village forever; it must be a large town or even a city for that matter some time. The twelve-inch pipe which we use in the Old Land to serve a population of
1,000	is considered adequate for that number, and when you are spending $100,000 on a necessary extension of a mile and a half you should provide a pipe large enough to meet the needs of the place when it is considerably larger than it is at present.


Harry Leader: I am thankful to the hon.
member for his reference to my experience of work of this kind. As to what he has said regarding Portage la Prairie, I agree with him that the town will one day blossom out into a great city. The construction of this work has been done to the satisfaction of the people and I have conveyed the thanks of the citizens of Portage la Prairie to this government on previous occasions, as I do to_-night again. But I am surprised that the supple-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
mentary estimate was included last year. The contract at first called for $54,000 and then [DOT] we had a supplementary estimate last year of $34,000. I was rather surprised at that myself, and when the minister intimated that there would be a further supplementary estimate I immediately wrote to the mayor of Portage la Prairie and inquired whether he had had any information in regard to this work and why there was an- increase over the estimated cost. The letter I received in reply could not give me the information in regard to the cost, but the statement was made that the work had been thoroughly done and that they were perfectly satisfied with the situation.


Mr. CAHILL:: I do not wish to appose this vote, but it seems unusual to build sewers even in the town of Portage la Prairie. I was wondering whether this vote was to be accounted for by the fact that both the representative of the majority in Portage la Prairie and the representative of the minority in the last election are present in the House.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is partly due
to that fact. It took a sledge hammer to hammer this out and I am very glad it was hammered out and that the damage done by the government was repaired. But I have never wept tears of gratitude because any wrongdoer repaired the damage he himself had done; I have enough causes for gratitude in the world without suffering much on that account. Will the minister tell me how much this has cost altogether? This year's vote is $7,200 and I have last year's estimate here. I should like to get the whole account.


John Warwick King: The total expenditure has been $87,000 odd including this amount.


Arthur Meighen: The government of
course may have learned better in the last seventeen years, but I would advise them never again in the heat of an election to run into a blind, foolish escapade merely in the hope of catching votes. The country has to pay for it in the end. This is a pretty heavy bill to pay in this instance. There are only one or two' members of this government who were members of the old administration, but I trust they will never cease to bring home to their colleagues the folly of such hasty action.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan and Alberta-Blairmore-dredging and cribbing, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: Blairmore brings back
to my mind memories of some townsite scandal. What is going on there now?


John Warwick King: I have not much faith in my hon. friend's memory. Blairmore is situated in the county of Macleod. The Oldman river runs through the town and in 1924-25 very serious floods took place there. In conjunction with the city the government undertook certain works, spending $19,041, the town of Blairmore $12,550, and the Canadian Collieries, which is a large coal company operating at that place, $15,000. We are asking now for a further $5,000 in order to secure the work already accomplished. The expenditure is a proper one and it is important.


Arthur Meighen: How much has it all
cost?


John Warwick King: It has cost $46,-
000, of which the federal government has spent $19,000.	[DOT]


Neil Haman McTaggart: How much will be
spent in Saskatchewan out of this vote?


John Warwick King: The whole of this vote is for harbours and rivers.


Arthur John Lewis: Mr. Chairman, we have been passing a lot of items for little wharves, costing in the neighbourhood of $30,000, for the convenience, in several cases, of communities of about twenty-five inhabitants. Now, the Saskatchewan river is very difficult of approach at certain places, where it is crossed by ferries which do a great public service for the inhabitants for miles around, For instance, at Riverhurst in my constituency the municipality and the provincial government had to build a half-mile ferry approach to the river at a cost of thousands of dollars. I understand that no federal help was granted. It seems to me that a work of this kind, which is almost a wharf, is a public work for the whole community, and should receive federal assistance for its maintenance.


John Warwick King: Of course, these
rivers are crossed by ferries which are largely under the control of the provincial government. I think the same condition probably exists in western Canada as in many parts of the east; where there is no general navigation the provincial government or the municipalities provide the facilities, whereas where there is general navigation the ferry service takes advantage of the Dominion wharf.


Arthur John Lewis: If there had been a little
dredging done in that particular part of the river it would not have been necessary to build nearly so long an approach for the ferries to make a landing.

Supply'-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Am I to understand,
Mr. Chairman, that the distinction in jurisdiction is that where boats run up and down the river it is federal, but where they run across it is provincial or municipal? Roughly speaking, that seems to be the distinction.


John Warwick King: The river might
be navigable across at a particular point, but not up and down.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
hesitate to recommend the minister to take the advice given by the member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis). I happen to know some of our western rivers, and I think if his suggestion were adopted he would have to go on dredging constantly to keep the channel clear. I think it is a perfectly absurd proposal to start dredging prairie rivers for the use of ferries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cowan lake and river route-improvements, $2,300.
Arthur Meighen: Is this something we
are taking over?


John Warwick King: The dam was
formerly owned by a timber company that is not operating to-day. The dam is a distinct aid to navigation, and we propose to put it in repair.


Mr. DAVIES:: Mr. Chairman, this vote represents a very important work. Late last fail the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and myself visited Cowan lake, which is the opening of navigation to the north country. Practically all the transportation of northern Saskatchewan is by the rivers and lakes. We found that since the Big River Lumber Company gave up their plant at Big river this dam has been neglected, and unless some improvements and repairs are made to it the navigability of Cowan lake and the rivers running north will be very largely diminished. We found scows were going to the north country taking supplies to the Hudson's Bay Company and to trapping posts, but they were only half loaded because the dilapidated condition of this dam seriously affected the navigability of Cowan lake and the rivers running north. If the department intend to spent this $2,300 on repairs to the dam I am sure the vote is fully justified.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this enough
to do the work properly?


John Warwick King: The engineer reports that for that amount he can put the dam in repair and remove snags from the river.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he say
what draft that will give?


John Warwick King: It will maintain
the present level.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The member for North Battleford (Mr. Davies) wants something better than that.


Claudius Charles Davies: Mr. Chairman, I am in doubt whether $2,300 will be sufficient to put that dam in a state of repair to allow fish and furs coming out from the north country to be brought down in full scow loads. If the engineers of the department find that this vote is not sufficient, I hope the minister will give me his word that be will carry on this work next year and so bring the navigation system to a state of fairly good efficiency. It means a lot to the men in the north country, for they live at least 150 miles away from railway facilities and they have to transport their produce by scows, which is far preferable to getting it out by dog teams. Therefore this means a great deal to them. This seems to be the only amount devoted to public works in Saskatchewan in the way of harbours, dredging, docks, wharves, jetties and so on. I hope the minister will keep this before him and that if next year it is found the appropriation is not sufficient a further vote will be included in the estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think, Mr. Chairman, the work certainly :can be done, if not by this vote then Iby a further appropriation from the general vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does not
the hon. member think it should be done?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, I am stating it should be done.
Mr. MlEIGHEiN: I see the three prairie provinces get an aggregate vote of about $51000, but the government has 'committed the treasury to an expenditure of
11 pm $225,000, plus dredging, which I expect will run to another $100,- 000, to redeem the pledges of the present hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) just for one riding. So there ought to be a pretty generous interpretation given to this vote.


John Warwick King: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fort Resolution-wharf, $7,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that?


John Warwick King: In Alberta, north of Edmonton.


Arthur Meighen: Surely the government
did not name it. When did the government resolve to do this? What is it for? This is very far north.


John Warwick King: It is very far
north, in the Slave lake country. It is proposed to construct a stone filled cribwork breakwater-wharf consisting of an approach 210 feet long, and 20 feet wide. During 19241925 the expenditure was $3,029. The expenditure is warranted by the trade which exists on the Great Slave lake. The engineer reports:
At Fort Resolution it is estimated that a million pounds of fish is consumed by the inhabitants, and approximately 600 cords of wood are brought in by water for firewood. All supplies arrive by water.
It is a great fishing centre, and it is also the port that gives entrance to the north. The Hudson's Bay Company, the Northern Trading Company, the Roman Catholic mission, the Royal Northwest Mounted Police and the Department of Indian Affairs all have vessels which would use this breakwater.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is not Fort Resolution in the Northwest Territories, not in Alberta?


John Warwick King: That is correct.
It is north of the Alberta boundary.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the minister any
recollection of being requested to fix the road at Fort Smith where that portage is, and what does the department intend to do about it?


John Warwick King: I do not remember that request.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I am quite sure it has been placed before the department, because I did it myself. I would like to know if the department have any intention of doing that -work this year or not.
252i


John Warwick King: I think we have a report upon it, and I will be glad to give .my hon. friend the report. I am doubtful if the department will undertake any such expenditure this year.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I hope the minister' is
not saying that because the expenditure is so large. I called attention the other night to these prairie provinces, and the right hon. leader of the opposition has done it again to-night, so I suppose it is not necessary to enlarge on that any more, but it might not do any harm to suggest to the government that there is good material in these estimates for a bad advertisement for " Canada Coming Through ". Just go over the pages of estimates for the provinces that we have been passing the last few days, and for a grand finale just put on the prairie provinces when you are advertising "Canada Coming Through ". I am quite sure it would be very popular with the people of Canada. This is a ridiculously small expenditure I am asking in comparison with the amounts you are spending elsewhere. I think this is as important a water route as there is anywhere in Canada, and that portage at the present time is practically impassable. Why would the government hold up for another year the expenditure of a few hundred dollars to put that road in?


Arthur Meighen: Cannot the minister answer?


John Warwick King: It is not necessary, particularly. Does my hon. friend care-to answer? We have brought down an estimate for the district, and I know my hon. friends from the prairie provinces neither wish nor expect a page of estimates for wharves in the prairie provinces. I am hoping that we are serving as far as we can the requirements of the district. As regards the -portage my hon. friend has spoken of, we shall be very glad to have an investigation made. The Department of the Interior is probably more familiar than any other department of the government with the necessities and activities in that northern country, and personally, as the Minister of Public Works, before I undertook an expenditure in that far north country, I would like to have a recommendation from the Department of the Interior that such an expenditure would assist in the development of that northern country.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the Department of the Interior any engineers up there?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: They have agents in and out right along, year after year.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would remind the minister that it would take an engineer a considerable time just to get in and out up there without the formality of making a report. It is only a small expenditure anyway. It is in the Northwest Territories, and if this government does not do it, it cannot be done.


John Warwick King: I shall be very
glad to give the matter every attention. We will make further inquiries.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That promise does not
get doiwn very deep, because I have had it made to me on several occasions before, and the road has not been built.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: We usually close at
eleven o'clock on Friday. We were here till after midnight last night-till about 12.30.


John Warwick King: Of course, this
has been a rather short week, with the holiday. If we could run through the British Columbia vote that would practically clear up harbours and rivers, but if my right hon. friend is of the opinion that he would like to rest at the present time, I have no objection, and I will move that the committee rise.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
Monday, June 8, 1925