1928-05-25

[Stage Direction]
The clerk of the house laid upon the table the twenty-ninth report of the clerk of petitions stating that he had examined the following petition:
Of H. Bishop and 11,578 others, radio fans, «f South Vancouver and other places in British 'Columbia; praying the Prime Minister of Canada not to give any heed to the protest made to him regarding the character of the radio programs of the International Bible Students Association, but that the said association may lie encouraged to continue _ their programs of music, education, and religious instruction, in the interest of British fair play and freedom of speech and religion.-Mr. Ladner.
This petition is irregular inasmuch as it is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada and not to "the House of Commons in parliament assembled" and should not therefore be received.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of
presenting the Prime Minister with a petition signed by J. B. McCoy and 59,283 others, protesting against the cancellation of the radio broadcasting license of the International Bible Students Association.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must declare the petition to be out of order because it is not addressed according to the rule of the house, which requires that:
Every petition should commence with the supei-scription: "To the Honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled." Then should follow the formula: "The petition of the undersigned. . . humbly sheweth."
I may inform the hon. gentleman and other hon. members who have presented similar petitions this week that I shall be pleased to find space in this building for the storage of those documents.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of a number of people in British Columbia, relating to the same subject matter. May I ask as to the form of presentation. If a petition is addressed to "The Right Honourable Mackenzie King," as he is the Prime Minister, is it not in effect a petition to the head of the government, and therefore suitable for presentation in this house?


Hewitt Bostock: The time honoured
practice is that petitions should not be addressed "To the Prime Minister of Canada," but "To The Honourable House of Commons in parliament assembled." I refer the hon. gentleman to page 207 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms for fuller information.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I follow the same procedure as the hon. member-


Hewitt Bostock: Same ruling.



NEW EDINBURGH MILLS PROPERTY

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table information regarding the New Edinburgh mills property at Ottawa, asked for by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE king's birthday adjournment


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Saturday, the 2nd of June, 1928, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 5th of June, 1928.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the house sit on Saturday, the 2nd of June?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, unless
hon. members desire that it should not.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Transportation oj Coal

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in view of t,he tremendous growth of the crops in western Canada, may I ask if the government have any intention of suspending the eleven o'clock rule in order to let us get home before harvest?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. I should like to be able to assure my hon. friend that the house will be agreeable to his suggestion, but I am not in a position to do so at the present time. I would suggest that the whips confer with a view to reaching some agreement whereby the session can be brought to a close without unduly hastening any feature of it. The government is quite prepared to have the eleven o'clock rule suspended, or to sit in the mornings if that suits hon. members. But this mint be with the concurrence of the house as a whole.



SITTING OF SATURDAY MAY 26

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): Is it the intention to follow to-morrow the hours of last Saturday, that is, from two to six instead of from three to eleven?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: A motion will be necessary to change the hours if the house is to be in session from two to six only. If that is the wish of hon. members I shall with unanimous consent, be pleased to make such a motion. As the matter now stands, however, the house will meet at three and sit in the evening.



TRADE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: May I ask the Prime Minister (MY Mackenzie King) if he has received permission from his Imperial masters with regard to the production of those despatches exchanged between the English and Russian governments on the 3rd July, 1922, relating to the establishment of a Russian trade office in Montreal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know to whom my hon. friend refers by " Imperial masters."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If he is referring to communications exchanged with the government of Great Britain, I may say that they are in form similar to the request made to any government for permission to lay on the table of the house documents with which they are concerned. As to the exchange of notes
regarding the establishment of a Russian trade office in Montreal, a reply to our request for permission to bring down these documents has not yet been received.



TRANSPORTATION OF COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to ask the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) if any action has been taken by the government in connection with the movement of coal from Alberta to eastern Canada. In consequence of the interpretation placed upon the order of the Board of Railway Commissioners by counsel for the railway companies, it would appear that the movement is being retarded. I thought the hon. gentleman might make a public statement that could be heeded by all concerned. I hesitate to trouble him at this time, but I have been pressed by telegrams to ask him if it is possible to secure a statement of the position.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I did not know the question was to be asked by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned it to the hon. minister before I came in.


Charles A. Stewart: I have had
representations made that the order did not provide for transhipment. I took the matter up with the Board of Railway Commissioners by letter, and apparently they feel that they had sufficient authority to order the transhipment of coal, and they did so under an order issued less than ten days ago. All I know about the matter is that we are receiving wires that counsel for the railway companies are objecting that the railway board has no jurisdiction. Mr. Camsell is in communication with the Board of Railway Commissioners. and to morrow I may be able to answer my hon. friend more fully.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may the house take it for granted that if any confusion has resulted from the drafting of the order in council in this respect, an amendment thereto may be expected?


Charles A. Stewart: I should not like to give that promise, for it might involve the government in very considerable cost. Before we do that we want to be sure of the steps we are taking and what the cost will be. Speaking personally, and not for the government, I may say that. I think the interests would be well advised to continue the single line haul in order to establish a lower rate. However, I hope to be able to make a more complete answer to-morrow.
3350	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret)-but as he is not in his seat may I ask the Prime Minister to draw it to his attention- to expedite the placing on the table of a return that was moved and accepted by the house a few days ago in regard to the case between the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission relating to R. E. Hall. The subject matter was discussed the other day.



IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I am again compelled to ask
the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) the following question:	Has an order in
council been passed permitting the importation in bond of American cattle into Canada for one year for pasturage or grazing on crown lands, and has the minister received a protest from the Western Stockgrowers Association against such an order in council being passed?


Charles A. Stewart: I have never heard of it. However-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has such an order in
council been passed?


Charles A. Stewart: No, certainly not.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-Quebec-harbours and rivers -Ellis bay, harbour improvements, $300,000.
The CHAIRMAN:: On the last occasion
the committee had under consideration the item, "Ellis bay, harbour improvements, $300,000". Shall the item cany?


Mr. LUCAS:: Has the minister any information to give in regard to this item?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I shall give some information on this item if my hon. friend requests it. The report of the engineer shows that Ellis bay, formerly called Gamache bay, is situated near the southwest end of Anticosti island at a distance of 345 miles below Quebec. The island has an area of 31,000 square miles. All timber land is the property of a syndicate, the Anticosti Corporation, which is now de-

veloping the island for the purpose of settling it and for the production of pulpwood, which will be manufactured into pulp and paper at the following mills: the St. Maurice Valley Corporation, Three Rivers, Quebec; Port Alfred Pulp and Paper Corporation, Port Alfred; Wayagamack Pulp and Paper Company, Limited, Three Rivers. Port Menier on Ellis bay has been selected as the community and store centre where the town is being built, it being also the most protected place for the establishment of a harbour. The Anticosti Corporation has under way at the present time a scheme for the development of this harbour, which involves the expenditure of approximately $2,500,000 exclusive of railroads, dwellings and buildings which it will be necessary to construct on the island. Construction work was commenced by the company on December 1, 1926 and two ships berths were ready on June 1, 1927, a new commercial wharf on July 31 last, and harbour works completely finished by December 1, 1927. The report of the engineer is that this development scheme will be of great aid to shipping in the gulf of St. Lawrence, as it is proposed to make Ellis bay the provisioning centre for ships in the gulf where coal and fresh water will be obtainable at the new aommercial wharf. There will also be adequate protection for shipping in time of bad weather and a sea-going tug will be kept on hand to render assistance to ships in distress in the gulf. District Engineer Sabourin reporting on March 23, 1927-that was before the vote came before the house-estimated that outgoing there were 1,000,000 tons of pulpwood, valued at $5,000,000, and 3,000 persons; and incoming 3,000 persons, 400 horses and 55,500 tons of fuel and machinery estimated at $2,000,000. The population at the present time is 3,000 which it is expected will greatly increase in the near future. I find that a few years ago the island of Anticosti, which is a Canadian island, formerly owned by Mr. Menier, who is not a Canadian, was used largely for pleasure purposes, although there were about 1,200 acres farmed. The report of the farming operations is that there were raised oats, 'wheat, barley and various garden vegetables. The island is reported to be suitable for farming purposes after the timber is taken off. The company propose to ship pulpwood to their own mills, the Wayagamack, the St. Maurice and the Port Alfred, situated at different places in Canada, where the pulp will be manufactured into paper in our own Canadian mills. A few years ago the population was from 250 to 400; already that has increased to over 3,000, and it is expected that before midsummer it will be over 5,000.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
The estimate of the company is that there are 15,000,000 cords of pulpwood on the island; they were to ship 300,000 cords last year, the same amount this year and 420,000 cords in subsequent years, to these three paper companies. It is estimated that the re-growth each year will amount to 450,000 cords, so there will be a margin of 30,000 cords after taking off the 420,000 cords each year, which should provide for the continuation of this business for many years to come. That is the best information I am able to obtain on the subject. I understand the people working there are being well paid, and this is a reliable corporation. I had not looked up the matter for almost a year, and the other day I was under the impression that this was an American concern, but that is not so. It is practically an all-Canadian company, and it is expected that the 420,000 cords of pulpwood taken off annually, valued at about $5,000,000, will be manufactured into $25,000,000 worth of paper in Canada each year for many years to come. Then there is the additional consideration that this is very close to the main channel of the St. Lawrence and is recommended by the engineer as the best port of shelter in that district.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would like to ask the minister if this company holds the island in freehold or whether it merely has timber rights?


John Campbell Elliott: They bought it out absolutely.


Robert Gardiner: Then this town which
is being built will be what is termed a company town?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it will be largely a
company town; the company will own the land and I believe they are giving their employees the houses. I understand a large number of houses have been constructed and more are in process of construction.


Mr. SHORT:: The minister has said that
he expects the population to reach 3,000 instead of the 250 to 400 people now there. Are these additional people to be immigrants or are they to be Canadians?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that is the
number there now, and they are nearly all Canadians.


Harry Bernard Short: Are they immigrants?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I am told they are
nearly all Canadians.


Harry Bernard Short: Then this is merely shifting the population from one section of Canada to another.


Mr. ADSIIEAD:: After the explanation of this matter made by the hon. member for Quebec South, it is quite apparent to me that this vote is for a commercial company which is on the island with the express purpose of taking off all the pulpwood they can and then leaving the island. This is not an immigration scheme in any sense, and I do not know why this very rich company should not be able to dredge their own channel. Neither do I know why the idea of a shelter should be brought in now for the first time.
I think this vote should be cut down considerably ; in fact, I have a motion here that the vote of $300,000 be reduced by $290,000. I do not think this sort of thing should go on; we should not assist a private company of this kind when there are so many other things in Canada urgently needed.


Mr. EVANS:: Here I believe we are face
to face with one of the most deplorable features of Canadian development. After all the minister has said, apparently this is a foreign company which possesses this island as freehold property, and which has no further interest in it than to denude it of all its trees. When that is done it will be of no use either as a fishing centre or as a shelter, develop it as we may. I think before this vote is carried some assurance should be given that timber of a certain size will be preserved, and that sufficient timber will be kept growing to preserve the settlement which is already there and to leave the island in a habitable condition. In too many places in Canada the pulpwood companies are simply taking off all the trees and leaving the land fit for no other use. I think some assurance should be given that, timber will be preserved on this island for all time to come.


Mr. POWER:: I have in my hand the [DOT]prospectus of the Anticosti Corporation, issued at the time the bonds were issued. It would appear that this corporation paid the Menier family $6,000,000 for the island, thereby obtaining all the rights to the hunting, fishing, farming and forestry previously held by the Menier family. As the minister has said, this corporation is composed of the Wayaga-maek Rilip and Paper Company, the St. Maurice Valley Corporation, and- the Port Alfred Pulp and Paper Corporation, the last two being Sir Herbert Holt companies and the first ian independent concern. As soon as they acquired ownership of this island

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
they issued bonds to the exitenit of $6,000,000; that is to say, they asked the public to subscribe $6,000,000, to enable .them to pay for this island. All the common! shares of tihe corporation are owned by these three companies, so with the public's money they purchased the property and now they want the public, that is to say parliament as representing itihe public of Canada, to make them a gift of some $500,000 more to help pay the interest on the bonds; already issued. That is practically the situation from the financial standpoint.
With regard to the expenditure by this company at Ellis bay or dsewhere, I find .in the prospectus that twenty^eight miles of railway have been built already, aparently out of the $2,500,000 mentioned by the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is not true.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister mean, to tell me that over and above this $6,000,000 the Anticosti Corporation paid for a railway? If that were the case I would 'be very much surprised.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that they are spending $2,500,000 exclusive of railways, and dwellings-this is the report from the engineer-and other buildings, which will be necessary to construct on the island.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether they spent money on the harbour. There was already in existence one harbour with sheltered deep water at the time the property was purchased. If they are finding it necessary to build two more I do not see why the government should be called upon to help pay for them.
We have too many of these large corporations in Quebec-I am not opposing corporations because they are large, nor wealthy men because they are wealthy-who are constantly coming to the federal, provincial and municipal governments, asking for assistance; when people of lesser means are unable to obtain assistance. This Anticosti Corporation is possibly one of the wealthiest in Canada. It is not undertaking development or colonization -work, and in saying that I am Sorry to have to contradict the minister. Those who know anything about the lumber and pulpwood business in the part of the country from which I come know that it is the intention of this company simply to go on the island, cut off the pulpwood and then move away. I do not think anyone Who has any knowledge of the pulp and paper situation, or the pulp and paper people in Quebec, will deny that statement. It is said that there are 15,000,000 cords of pulpwood on the island,
fMr. Power.]
but I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, when this purchase was' made, the people who knew simply smiled and said, "Ain't it costly?", and they called it the ain't-it-costly corporation. It was not costly to the companies themselves, because the public subscribed to the bonds and if there is any profit it will go to the common stock, which helps the companies.
I do not believe there is any intention of remaining there in perpetuity. No pulp mills are being erected there, but only wharves and railways to take the pulpwood from the forest, put it on the vessels, and transport it to Port Alfred and Three Rivers. The prospectus says that the total cut will be 420,000 cords. If they cut that much they are cutting far more than the annual growth. As I said before, there is not 15,000,000 cords, and in the second place, the annual growth would not be more than two per cent under very favourable circumstances. Under the conditions that obtain here the trees do not grow fast, and the annual growth would hardly be one-half of one per cent, so there is no possibility of this being a permanent settlement, or of people remaining there after the island has been cut over.
I would suggest to the minister that instead of pressing for this item he leave it over for another year and see whether or not the statements which I have made are true. If it can 'be shown to me that there is any question of colonization here, or a permanent settlement, I have no objection to any development being carried on. I am told that the amount for dredging this summer will be $200,000, and that all of last yeans' vote has not been expended. We could Pot spend possibly more than $200,000 or $250,000 this year, and I u'ould ask the minister to reduce his estimate and if it is found at the next session of the house that there is really something worthwhile encouraging here, then we could vote more money.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would you agree to the reduction I suggested?


Charles Gavan Power: What was that?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I proposed to reduce that by $290,000, making the amount $10,000.


Charles Gavan Power: If there is any real dredging to go on with, and if the dredges are there. I would suggest t'halt possibly there be $100,000 or $150,000 expended this year. By next year we would know whether there was any real reason for it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not want to prolong the debate or the session, because I know

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
everybody is anxious to get away, but I cannot let this matter pass without saying a few words, particularly in view of the fact that this item has reference to a place which is situated in the county which I have the honour to represent in this house.
At the outset of my remarks I may state to my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) that I am very much surprised at the stand he is taking to-day. When there was a vote before the house that had to do with some appropriation for the province, when we were called upon to vote an item of $8,500,000 for the harbour of Quebec, at the head of which his brother presides, he did not object. I think it ill behooves the hon. gentleman to quarrel with other sections of the province and other parts of the community where necessary improvements must be made just as much as in the district of Quebec, and which in the future may be much more beneficial to the country than even those which are being carried on in the district he represents.
The question has been raised by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) and the hon. member for Quebec South as to whether Anticosti island would ever be colonized, and if there would be any farming earned on in that thriving community. I have a book here entitled Le Canada et 1'Emigration Francaise, by Mr. Frederic Geirbie.
In 1881, long previous to the acquisition of the island by Mr. Menier, the French senator, colonization was going on. There were settlements and farms at that time. The reason these people ceased their operations was that when Mr. Menier took possession of the island he made it a sort of national park or summer resort. He filled the rivers and lakes with fish and used the island only for his own purposes for a few weeks in the spring, summer and fall. In 1881 there were 102 occupants, and 106 proprietors; there were 89S acres of occupied land, and 427 acres of improved land and pasture, including gardens and orchards. The crops at that time, in 1881, were 51 bushels of oats, 133 bushels of barley, 11,610 bushels of potatoes, 1,178 bushels of turnips and 58 tons of hay. Progress was being made steadily at the time Mr. Menier took possession of the island. When he did take possession he had certain lands improved, and conducted some farming operations himself, as is shown by the census of 1921. If hon. gentlemen would look at page 399 of the Census of Canada. 1921, they would see that Anticosti island had 1,246 acres of pasture, 196 acres of cereals and flax. There were further farm operations conducted at that time, as follows: 21 acres
of forage crops, 24 acres of potatoes and roots, 100 acres cultivated, for barley, producing 1,400 bushels, and 80 acres sown to oats producing 350 bushels. This was the development in the little village Mr. Menier had there, wherein was situated the church, the convent, the butcher shop, the grocery shop, the police station, the fire department, and the farm which he owned.
These things had been accomplished by Mr. Menier himself, and everything was turned over to the Anticosti Corporation for the sum of $6,000,000. This amount was paid in ready cash by the three companies mentioned by the Minister of Public Works, namely, the Wayagamack-Pulp and Paper Company, the St. Maurice Valley Corporation, and the Port Alfred Paper Company, which are three of the largest pulp and paper companies in Quebec and perhaps in Canada. These companies have bought the island for $6,000,000. According to the figures which I have under my hand the corporation have spent $1,500.000 in starting the construction of two wharves in addition to the wharf that was built in the early days by Mr. Menier. These two new large wharves have been constructed in order to enable big vessels to come in and load cargoes of pulpwood for the three companies whose names I have mentioned. In addition to that the corporation have built houses for their men and an hotel for the people coining there. The expenditure on this work up to the present time is nearly $2,000,000. That has been done during the eighteen months that the new corporation has been in possession of the island.
If I remember well, when I was there in 192b and 1926, at the time of the two last general elections, only Mr. Menier and those associated with his business were on the island, but in August, 1926, this corporation came into being and since then the island has been a beehive of industry, many people having found their way there and have been enabled to earn their bread and butter in that part of the province of Quebec. Had it not been for this undertaking many of them would have been turned away from Quebec and Canada and w'ould have had to go to the United States. As the Minister of Public Works has said, there are on the island at present three thousand Canadian-born or naturalized Canadian subjects who are earning their living and receiving salaries running from at least $75 a month to as much as $15,000 a year, that being the salary which the general manager, Mr. J. H. Valiquette, is paid for the work of running the whole business of the Anticosti Corporation and developing the island.
3354	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
As regards the question of colonization I have under my hand a letter from Mr. Francois Faure, General Manager of the company who is in charge of the operations of the whole island. He writes:
The first work done by the Anticosti Corporation was to make the necessary organization to exploit the forestry resources of the island, and the next step is the classification of the soil with a view to colonizing the island with good Canadians and immigrants.
A certain amount of this work had been done before Mr. Menier became the owner of the island and according to the company's letter, the original of which has been placed in the hands of the Minister of Public Works, it is their intention to do colonizing work later on when their activities in the pulpwood and lumber business have provided a sufficient area of cleared land to establish new settlements at different points. There was a miniature railway on the island when Mr. Menier was owner. Since that time larger railways have been built and in the very near future they will circle the island in order that the company may carry on their activities and accomplish the purpose for which they bought the island.


Robert Gardiner: Can the hon. member
assure the committee that any person can go on the island without the permission of the company, and without being an employee of the company?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Persons who want to go on the island must be connected with the company, or have special business with the company, or have permission of the company to go there. There is nothing unusual about the island. There are, I am told, in Ontario and other provinces, certain territories where larger corporations conduct activities similar to those conducted by this company, where they are owners and proprietors of the land and where they have the right to order out people whom they do not want to be on their property. They are proprietors and owners of the whole area of the land, the Iroquois Falls, for instance, where the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company is established.


Robert Gardiner: Does the hon. member know of any case of that description in Ontario where public funds are being spent for the benefit of a company alone?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not know what
the practice is in Ontario or what is being done in the other provinces, but I know that last year when the Minister of Public Works was faced with a request similar to this one he inquired and found out what the proper procedure was and in what way these companies should be assisted if they were bona

fide corporations that really wanted to do something to develop the country. They started on a plan similar to the one carried on, I am told, in the United States. The government helps companies that have certain financial backing and when it is sure that they really intend to do something to develop the natural resources of the country. The same thing has been done in other provinces and I think we in Quebec are asking no more than has been asked and done in other provinces.
As regards the number of cords of pulp-wood that might be taken out of the island, before these people purchased the property an estimate was made of what they could get out of it in the way of timber. Mr. Piche, who I am told is one of the best authorities on the lumber industry not only in Quebec but in Canada and who it at the head of the forestry resources of the Quebec government, surveyed the whole island, and he gave his opinion that a minimum of 15,000,000 cords of pulpw'ood could be taken out of the island. Any person can estimate from the re-growth that will come later, there will still be on the island timber to be cut for pulpwood when nearly all the members of the present parliament have passed away.
As the Minister of Public Works has said, the wood is manufactured into paper in Canada, not a stick is being exported to the United States. This means that Canada reaps the full economic benefit of the whole territory. The management of the island of Anticosti is in the hands of a staff who are all Canadian citizens. Salaries and wages paid to labourers and others for the manufacture of pulpwood and other work in which the company was engaged during the operating season of 1927-28 amounted to about 82,000,000, and the raw material which is shipped to the different cities is manufactured there into paper which, as a finished product, is exported to the United States, or used in Canada when it is required by other paper mills in this country. This brings to Canada a revenue of approximately $12,000,000 per annum and this is the case when operations are not being carried1 on to full capacity because certain works have just been started.
What is the government asked to do? The government is asked only to dredge out a certain part of the channel so that it will be possible for .the boats of the company to come with safety to the two new wharves that have been constructed by the company. The government is not asked to dredge a harbour for the sole benefit of the company. It is asked only to dredge 'a channel from the main

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
channel where the vessels come near the island to their wharves so that these vessels may come in to them with safety to load pnlpwood and -other products of the island. When I went there in 1925 and 1926 on the boat of the Clarke Steamship Company we had to remain about a mile and' a half or two miles upstream and we had to be taken by gasoline launches to the wharf of the Menier family, because there was no channel by which we could reach the wharf in safety. The government and the country owe it to the company, which has invested $6,000,000 of its own money in the island, which has spent more than $2,000,000 this year, and which will spend more than $2,000,000 in salaries and wages every year if it wants to develop the natural resources of the island, to give it an opportunity to have a proper channel from the main channel in the river St. Lawrence in order that boats may reach the wharves with safety.
During the 1928 season of navigation ten boats per week carrying mechandise, coal, cattle, horses, pulpwood and passengers will pass through this port. The number of passengers it is estimated will approximate from five (o ten thusand people going to and from the island. There are in addition the boats of the Clarke Steamship Company, which, under the terms of the subsidy given by this government, have to ply every week to these wharves. When there were hardly three or four hundred people on the island when it was owned by Mr. Menier, the vessel could anchor upstream, and that was sufficient for the small population of the island at that time, but now that the population has reached three thousand, and is likely to increase later on, it is necessary to provide facilities for the vessels of the Clarke Steamship Company and also for such vessels as will carry pulp and other products from the island, and as the Postmaster General reminds me, it will also enable the boats to carry the mails in safety.
This company has four vessels, one of which was recently built at a cost of many thousands of dollars: the George McKee, the Fleurus and the Savoy. The last two vessels were owned formerly by the Menier family. There is also the Sable "I", which is owned and operated by the Bras d'Or Navigation Company, but in which this company at Anticosti is interested, and which plies regularly from the spring right up until the fall, and even in the winter months, to that port and to the ports of Quebec and Montreal, with supplies of goods and passengers. The Postmaster General again reminds me that I have omitted to mention the revenue; he never forgets anything. In 1925-26 the revenue from the
port Menier post office was $319.23; in 1926-27, 86S5.06; in 1927-28, $2,285.31; so the revenue is increasing year by year and has greatly increased over what it was in 1925.
Formerly, when Mr. Menier used to occupy the island, apparently it was his own private property and practically no customs and excise duties were collected; they amounted to $57.97 in 1925-26; $37.63 in 1926-27, and in 1927-28, $585.19 was collected and accrued to the national revenue, so there is business being done in a regular way at that place, and I think that this is a proposition that is worthy of consideration and encouragement by all the members of the house.
I have no particular interest in this proposition myself. I do not own a cent of stock or of bonds of the company. I have never had any dealings with the company. I have never been on the island since this company was operating. I was there in 1925 and 1926 when the Menier family were owners of the island. When a company such as this is ready to undertake a large work of this kind in developing the natural resources of this country, I think we ought to give it the fullest possible assistance, and make it easier for the company to go on with its business.


Mr. POULIOT:: Do I understand from
what the minister said that within a few years the revenue derived from the sales tax that will be paid on the sales of pulpwood or paper manufactured in Anticosti island will be sufficient to repay in full the amount that it is now proposed to expend on this work?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say just what
the exact revenue will be, but I am told by the Finance department that the business of all such companies helps the general business of the country. There will be a sales tax on the paper when it is manufactured, and there will also be income tax. Work of this kind all contributes to the general business of the country, and the more business there is, the more revenue the Finance department gets. The revenue from $25,000,000 worth of paper manufactured in Canada will be a very important revenue. The collection of the tax on the profits of the corporation will also bring in a considerable revenue to the treasury of Canada. The business that this company will carry on will materially aid the financial situation in this country.
I want to say to my hon. friend who asked the question with regard to whether anybody else is getting similar assistance, that this is a principle that has been followed for over twenty years; that is, where a company or an individual was coming in and starting a concern which would employ labour and pro-
3356	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
duee materials, tending to the general development of the country, the policy of the government has always been to help them by way of dredging, wharves, breakwaters and all that sort of thing. We are doing it for the Thunder Bay Pulp and Paper Company at Port Arthur. We are doing it for the United Grain Growers; we dredged a slip to their elevator at Port Arthur. We are doing it for the Saskatchewan Co-operative Grain Growers; we dredged a slip to their company elevator at Port Arthur. We did dredging for the elevator that was built in Sarnia. We are doing it for the Powell River Lumber Company in British Columbia. We are doing it similarly for coal companies. There is no difference in principle.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: Are not all
these public ports, not private ports?


John Campbell Elliott: They are public ports,
but my hon. friend does not get the point. The dredging we did was dredging to enable them to get from the main stream to their elevators. That is just what is being done here, only in this case there is an additional advantage. I want to say to my hon. friend, because I know he wants to be fair, when he refers to the fact that there was no reference the other day to the fact that this was a harbour of shelter, what I read to him to-day were the details prepared over a year ago when this matter was submitted to the house, and when the house committed itself to the project, and the contract was let.
Somebody asked how much dredging was done. There was $187,000 of dredging done last year. I want to explain to the house that if they do not approve of this sort of thing, it is going to affect all similar projects. It includes, for instance, the coking plant at Hamilton; it includes the Manicouagan Company, Trinity bay and various other works.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But in these other cases
the companies do not own the whole town; they are not company towns.


John Campbell Elliott: They own the property
to which the slip is being dredged, but in this case, it is very near the main channel of the St. Lawrence. The engineers report that it is the most suitable place for a harbour of refuge in that part of the river. I do think that the dredging should proceed this year, and that it should proceed to the full amount of the item mentioned here. If I thought it were possible for us to do with less money, there is nobody more anxious than I am that we should get along with the least possible
[Mr. Elliott.)
amount, but this house committed itself, without any objection, to this work a year ago. I want the house to have all the information possible. I appreciate the discussion, because if this is the feeling of the house, then I want to know it.
Mr. ADSHEAD; The hon. gentleman made a statement a short while ago that nobody could go on the island without the consent of the company; that it was a company town and that the company owned all the stores.


John Campbell Elliott: Practically all the large
concerns keep control of their own property. Where a company is carrying on business operations, it is absolutely necessary that the public should not wander about at will over Ihe company's property. I think everybody will agree with that proposition. Take the steel companies, or the plant at Hamilton; take the Thunder Bay Pulp and Paper Company; take any of these works we are assisting, and the same rule applies.
Mr. BOYS; Are there not public highways through all the properties you are referring to?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say so. I think the principle followed is exactly similar.


Mr. BOYS:: It seems to me the only justification is that possibly they would have no right to do dredging themselves. As I understand, the whole island is privately owned, and always has been. Am I right?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


William Alves Boys: Then I take it for granted there has never been a survey resulting in highways which would be vested in the crown. The whole island is privately owned. That would not give the company the right to go out in navigable water and do work which is essential to the undertaking. It seems to me the vote must be justified on that ground. I do not think the minister would go so far as to suggest, that where an enterprise is privately owned, and the public have no right of access to any portion of the territory, it is the duty of the country to provide money for dredging. Another feature occurs to me in regard to the financing. I heard the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) intimate that tends to the extent of $6,000,000 had been offered to the public. I gathered that, the public had subscribed for them, and that the promoters would get the common stock for practically nothing. The minister has pointed out that this was undertaken last year, and it is important to know whether those who subscribed for the bonds did sc

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
in tihe expectation that the dredging would be proceeded with. That is certainly a very important feature, because, if so, it might be considered a breach of faith if the work were not carried out. Personally I should like to be enlightened on those points.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not in a position to say whether any bonds of the company were sold on the statement that the government had made any promise to do dredging. Certainly no bonds could have been so sold except after the item was passed by this house a year ago. I may tell my hon. friend that the government did not decide upon this policy without considering it very carefully and ascertaining the merits. I was led to believe, after a very careful investigation, that this was one of the best investments by way of dredging as a public work that the department could do. I believed it was a bona fide concern and would give employment to 5.000 people at good wages for many years to come. That is only the smaller part of the business, because I felt the company would supply the raw material to be manufactured 'to the highest possible extent within Canada, thus employing a great deal of labour.


William Alves Boys: Is not the labour absolutely in the 'hands of the company? In an ordinary community if a man loses his job he can get some other work in the locality; here he would have to get off the island.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend misunderstands me. The pulpwood will be consumed in the paper mills at Port Alfred, St. Maurice and Three Rivers. It furnishes employment to the men on the boats engaged in moving the material and the men in the mills. Here is the situation: Instead of having the island of Anticosti absolutely unproductive, we now have a thriving population there, well provided for and receiving good wages'.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it not a fact that the men must spend their wages in the company's stores at the company's own prices?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is. Last year 55,000 'tons of food products were brought in.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And sold by the company?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt. However, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can obtain sufficient information to satisfy everybody, and I am quite willing to suggest that the matter stand for further consideration.


Robert Gardiner: One other question.
The minister has attempted to bolster up
his argument for the expenditure of the money by stating that it would make a good harbour of refuge for vessels. Remembering that this is private property, is there any agreement with the company to permit vessels to use the harbour in case of distress?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
they have always had that right.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is in the gulf.


John Campbell Elliott: There are two St. Lawrence routes, one north of Anticosti and the other south. If my hon. friend will look at Port Ellis on the map he will find that this harbour is only a little off the direct route. Some 3,000 feet of dredging has to be done to get to the dock, but that is partially along the main channel. This is what the engineer reported a year ago when the matter was under consideration:
This development scheme will be a great aid to shipping in the gulf of St. Lawrence as it is proposed to make Ellis bay a provisioning centre for ships in the gulf where coal and fresh water will be obtainable at the new commercial wharf. There will also be adequate protection for shipping in time of bad weather and a seagoing tug will be kept on hand to render assistance to ships in distress in the gulf.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister's remarks
are very interesting. I listened also to the eloquent speech of my learned friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), but I was very much surprised to hear him complain that the item for $8,500,000 for the harbour of Quebec had been voted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not say that. I
said I was surprised to find there was not very much discussion of it at the time from the hon. member for Quebec South who is fighting this item now. Let us be fair with everybody.


Jean-François Pouliot: Those two things are entirely different. The item for Quebec harbour is altogether different from the item for Ellis bay dredging. Now we are on the latter item. Because my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) represents an important section of Quebec city-which is also represented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Quebec West (Air. Parent) and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Air. Lavigueur)- and because money has been voted for the city of Quebec-and the fact of the matter is, it is not for the city of Quebec alone, but for the country at large-is no reason why any hon. gentleman should get up and suggest that the hon. member for Quebec South must necessarily remain silent in respect of any
3358	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
vote for any other constituency. To say that because this house has voted $8,500,000 for Quebec, therefore the hon. member for Quebec South must necessarily keep his mouth shut when other items are under discussion, is no argument at all. When the item for Quebec was under consideration the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay supported it; he voted for it. The hon. gentleman reminds me of that old maxim: Nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audiendus est-no one is allowed to allege his own turpitude.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay should be glad to admit that light comes from discussion. The very interesting speech from the hon. member for Quebec South brought forth some illuminating explanations from the Minister of Public Works. Every hbn. member is free to speak in this house as he sees fit, and because a certain item has been voted for his constituency that is no reason why anyone should say he has not the right to express his own views regarding the advisability or otherwise of some other item. I crave the indulgence of this house to defend the rights of any member; any member has the right to say what he thinks about any item before the house. Because I get an item of $5,000 or $10,000 or more in my constituency, why should I shut my eyes to everything else that goes on here? Because a member gets so much for his constituency is he to be blind to what is going on somewhere else? One should be more independent than that, and I am sure that if my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay will think it over he will agree with me, and that when he speaks afterwards he will congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South on his freedom of speech.
I am not acting as lawyer in behalf of the hon. member for Quebec South; he can defend himself. But I would point out that the hon. member for Quebec South has nothing to do with the spending of the money voted for Quebec harbour; he has no more to do with it than has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent). It is true his brother is chairman of the Quebec harbour commission, but he does well; and the best evidence that he does well is the fact that he remains in office. But these two gentlemen are separate individuals, and I admire the hon. member for Quebec South for being so independent. I do not believe the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has any ground for complaint against the chairman of the Quebec harbour commission. If so he should state

the fact. But whether he has any complaint or none in that regard why should he reproach the hon. member for Quebec South? This is something altogether different. The question he raised in the opening of his speech was more like the first course of a meal-hors d'oeuvres; it was really beside the question.
I am not particularly opposed to the vote, Mr. Chairman, but before we leave it I have two remarks to offer. The first is this. The population, we are told, has increased from 451 in 1921 to 3,000 at the present time-and 5.000 in midsummer. Well, I see the time when Anticosti island will be so thickly, so densely populated that it will be represented in the house by 'a distinct member. I do not know whether at that time the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay will choose to represent Anticosti island or will devote his attention to Charlevoix-Saguenay. But there are a good many constituencies with a population of from 50,000 to 60,000; in my own constituency there are more than 50,000 people; and I wonder whether I should get ten times as much for my constituency- $3,000,000-because there is ten times the population there that Anticosti has during the summer. There is another thing, too. If any hon. member wishes to go to Anticosti island to get some idea of the improvements that will be carried on there next summer he will be barred. This is private property; you are not allowed to go there: "Keep off the grass; no trespassing 'allowed." But it is very strange. There is a sort of wall-


An hon. MEMBER :: A wall of Jericho.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not a wall of Jericho,
because that wall fell down. But there is a wall around the island and no one can get in. I say, it is entirely private property, and there is room only for public expenditure. It is very strange, I repeat. But in Quebec city anyone can walk about on the streets; it is public. It is interesting to note the difference between the two places. No one can step on to Anticosti island because it is absolutely private, whereas Quebec city is public and you can walk through the streets and view the fine improvements that are going on there for the benefit of the whole country.
I have little more to say. But before concluding I would point this out: in Quebec the American people are very well treated by the provincial government. Take Noranda and Arvida for instance: when these new towns were built the Quebec legislature appointed as mayors and councillors, Americans who were not naturalized as British subjects. And at the last session of that legislature a statute

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
was passed, in connection with the town of Racine in the Lake St. John district, enabling two Americans to be appointed as mayor and councillor, respectively-there is another member, a municipal councillor, also. These two gentlemen, one a Mr. J. Reidy Smith and the other a Mr. K. B. Bolton, are not naturalized as British subjects. I got this information from the Department of the Secretary of State. Now, according to the British North America Act aliens come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I wonder whether the federal government will veto such a law giving public rights to aliens, Americans, who are not naturalized as British subjects. I should like to have some information from the government on this point.
To sum up. The only reason why, in my opinion, there is an excuse for this vote is that it is expended in a semi-public way; in a few years the money will come back to the government through another channel. It will help some people to have work there for some time to come. That is the only reason and the only justification for this vote, but I ask the Minister of Public Works and the members of the cabinet not to be impressed by big corporations; they are entitled to justice, but they are not entitled to anything more than the man in the street is entitled to. I do not say that as a criticism; I say it from the bottom of my heart. I think there should be equal justice to all. I have no reason to complain in that respect about the present federal government, but the members of the cabinet should be careful and I hope they will be in the future to see there are no grounds for complaint of this kind, because in Quebec to-day there is criticism of the excessive powers given to private and foreign corporations by the local legislature.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand the item is to stand, so I wish to make just a slight suggestion to the minister. I am informed that trading vessels are not allowed to enter the harbour to which this vote has reference. Will the minister kindly ascertain for me whether or not that statement is correct and whether, if this vote is passed, it will not be necessary to have some arrangement with the company which will permit the free entry of trading and fishing vessels to this harbour where we are to do the dredging?


John Campbell Elliott: I will be glad to obtain
the information; I understand that these vessels have access to the harbour, but I will make certain.


Charles Gavan Power: Since my name has been
brought into this discussion I might add just
a few words. First I wish to thank my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for his able and eloquent defence of my conduct in this house. After what he said little remains for me to add except to say that I am very sorry I did not listen to the argument of my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr, Casgrain). I am sure that if his argument were as relevant and as pointed as the observations he made with reference to myself, the house must have been convinced that this vote should not go (lirough. As I understand it, he said that because a certain vote was passed for the city which I represent, I should remain in my seat and allow all kinds of raids to be made on the public treasury.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did not say that; I
said that when the vote for the Quebec harbour commission was under discussion, my hon. friend from Quebec West was not so much concerned with the future, because that vote was passed very much on the assurance that later on there would be revenues coming from the harbour of Quebec. In this case my hon. friend from Quebec West was discussing the same point; he said we should be concerned about what will happen to this is'nnd in the future, when it will be depopulated, and I simply made a comparison in that way. I said then that I was surprised to find the hon- gentleman so concerned today with considerations of that kind when he was not so much concerned when the other vote was passed.


Charles Gavan Power: I accept the explanation
made by my hon. friend in reference to his remarks concerning myself and other members of my family, although I do not know what they have to do with the future of Anticosti; as yet my brother has not been appointed chairman of the harbour board of Anticosti. However, if the minister who appointed him to the harbour board of Quebec thinks he can carry on the work at Anticosti, he may yet receive that appointment. In any case, as I understand the argument of my hon. friend it is that when we were discussing matters relating to the harbour of Quebec I did not oppose that vote, nor did I say that the harbour of Quebec was a paying proposition at present. That is quite true; I did not say anything like that but I did 6ay, and I repeat, that Quebec is a national port, and even if it never paid interest on its debentures or on the money expended there it is the duty of the parliament of Canada to see that the harbour commission of Quebec has money with which to carry on the development of that port.
3360	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
On the other hand this place for which it is now sought to vote money is a private enterprise, owned by a private corporation which keeps the inhabitants there almost in a state of peonage, and which will not allow an ordinary citizen of this country to land on the island without first receiving permission. I doubt very much whether those people living on the island can get married without permission; I know they must not have firearms or powder; I know that the animals which roam the forests cannot be shot by anyone landing on the island; I know that the fish with which the rivers teem cannot be touched and that no man going there may put a line in any stream under pain of deportation. It is even worse than somewhat similar laws we have in this country. If. forsooth any of the workmen dare to insult his majesty the governor of the island, they are deported by the next boat. That is the situation as it exists there, and I do not know a similar condition anywhere else in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are they deported without trial by jury?


Charles Gavan Power: They have no such thing,
and if they had the magistrates would be in the pay of the corporation. Now we are told that we should vote $500,000 for this work because the post office there pays $2,000 a year, but the hon. gentleman should know that we are paying subsidies for the air mail service to that island and also for the vessels which stop there to get the mail. If the post office even paid enough to cover these subsidies we might be satisfied, but it does not.
I want to conclude in this way: I am absolutely opposed to this vote, unless I can obtain from the minister a greater assurance than he has been able to give me so far that there is something solid in the way of settlement and development of our country to come out of this expenditure. Unless the minister can tell us that this island is not to be absolutely owned and controlled and that the inhabitants are not to be owned and operated, body and soul, by a corporation such as this, against wffiich we cannot rise to say something in this house without- receiving the expostulations of persons even within my own constituency, this vote should not pass. I will admit that as a result of what I said the other day and what I have said to-day I may have extreme difficulty in being re-elected, but in my opinion the time has come when members of this parliament and possibly members of other legislative bodies should say to the

large corporations which are endeavouring to throttle the economic, moral and social life of the people of the province of Quebec, that the time has come to stop. We will support them so long as they wish to develop the province, but when strangers and foreigners come and dictate to us what shall be our course of conduct, I think we should call a halt.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the item should stand?
Item stands.
Hudson-wharf reconstruction, $6,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you explain that
please?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineers' report
shows that this wharf is in very bad condition and will have to be reconstructed. It is so badly decayed that repairs cannot be made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is at the summer
resort down the river.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: WThat are we building it
for?


John Campbell Elliott: It was built years ago and has since rotted away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why are we putting up
a new one with the public money, when the letter carriers only get $1,000 per year?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a luxury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


John Campbell Elliott: My note shows that
Hudson is a port of call for the steamer Victoria, and also for other steamers plying on the Ottawa river. The traffic at that place is quite heavy and consists of general merchandise for the stores, agricultural implements for the farmers, and flour, eggs, potatoes, cattle, and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lake St. Louis-dredging, $56,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Has this item anything
to do with the proposals of the paper company on lake St. Louis?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it is for a
boat channel out in the lake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand they are
diverting the channel, is that right?


John Campbell Elliott: No.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the new scheme is
carried through are they not going to divert the channel?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not my information.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be too bad to
spend another $30,000 if they were; would the minister have that checked up?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It might possibly be a
serious matter.


John Campbell Elliott: This is in the lake and
has nothing to do with the river at all. The object of this dredging is to facilitate the passage of boats drawing 14 feet of water. At present traffic is very often held up by boats grounding, and they are exposed to great danger.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lower Miguasha-wharf, $2,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it cost $2,000 to
repair these wharves every year; $2,000 last year and $2,000 this year?


John Campbell Elliott: They are usually built
in sections. There was part done last year, and a part is to be done this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know one wharf which was repaired last year down in the lower provinces, and the condition of the repairing was that any person who worked on it would have to promise to vote for the Liberal candidate. Has that anything to do with this being continued over from year to year?


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that these
people insist on voting that way anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mai Bay-wharf repairs, $7,900.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: There are two Mai
Bays, and I would like to ask the minister if this is the real Mai Bay in Gaspe county?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the real Mai Bay,
because it is in Gaspe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manicouagan river-wharf and dredging- one-third of cost to be contributed jointly by the Ontario Paper Co. Ltd., and the Anglo Canadian Paper Company, $100,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has been
spent on this so far?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing. It was voted
last year, and this is a revote as the companies did not get sufficiently far with their construction work and the government did not proceed with the work. This revote is
required towards the government's share of the cost of the construction of a wharf 1,085 feet long consisting of a stone approach 280 feet long by 40 feet on top and close faced cribwork for the balance, 37 feet wide. It will be 49 feet high at the outer end with a depth of 25 feet at low water and 39 feet at high water. This wharf is to be built in connection with the construction of pulp and paper mills and power development near the mouth of Manicouagan river by the Ontario Paper Company and the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., these two companies having agreed to contribute one-third of the total -cost of the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the companies put
in $100,000 each?


John Campbell Elliott: $100,000 in all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we should not have to pay more than $50,000.


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is not right;
the total cost will be $360,000, and they are to pay a third.


William Alves Boys: Is there any limitation as to
the contract? I do not know whether I make myself plain or not, but I happen to know of a somewhat similar case where there was an estimate put in on a one-third basis, and it was claimed, when it cost a little more, that the government could not exceed the estimate. Is there any limitation in connection with this?


John Campbell Elliott: They will pay a third,
whatever it costs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richelieu river-improvements, $100,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: Could we have some
particulars about this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This work has been
requested in numerous petitions since 1909, and is required as -a part of a large scheme of improvements on the Richelieu river. The amount is required for the improvement of navigation, which is at present under study and investigation by the engineering branch of the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why go ahead with it when it is only under study? Why not wait until we get -a report? This is an old, longstanding matter. Surely there is no necessity of rushing through an appropriation a year before a full report is received.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I understand the minister aright, if he has this appropriation passed, he has committed himself to a very large expenditure.

3362	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Mr. CARDIN:: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski-dredging-to complete payments,
Henry Herbert Stevens: What payment is being completed?


John Campbell Elliott: This was dredging done last year by the National Dock and Dredging Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there must have been a contract and money paid for it. Perhaps this is like a case which arose not long ago where, because a contractor lost money, we passed an order in council to pay the money he lost, although he had tendered for the work. That was in correction with an elevator ait Edmonton. If this is to complete payment

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
under a contract, wall and good. If it is for extras, well and good. The question is not the size of the amount but the principle involved.


John Campbell Elliott: There were no extras. This is just to complete payment of the contract.


Mr. HEN  NETT@: Was the contract let without an appropriation?


John Campbell Elliott: There was an appropriation test year. The total contract was let.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For how much?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we have paid $30,000? With $12,000. that makes $42,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The final estimate was $55,110. The amount paid to the contractor was $29,054.86 and there are provided in the main estimates $12,000, making a total of $41,054 and leaving a balance of $14,055, which we are asking-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the work been done?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the $12,000 been
paid?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What the minister did was to let a contract for $55,000 on the strength of a $30,000 appropriation?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is now finding $12,000 of the money and hoping to get $14,000 in the supplementaries.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That prinicple is all
wrong. It is one of the things that make for trouble in this country, as perhaps the minister will learn by looking through the departmental records.


John Campbell Elliott: There are always difficulties about adhering to any principle-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is right.


John Campbell Elliott: This has been the custom
ever since confederation. Frequently when the estimates are passed you may be unable to tell just exactly what the tenders will be; they may be much higher. Even where you have reasonable tenders, they are frequently much higher than the estimate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is with respect to
public buildings; but this is dredging.
56103-213J


John Campbell Elliott: That applies to dredging,
too. This is a very proper subject for discussion by the committee. For example, we are voting $500,000 for the start of the Confederation block. That work will be let by tender perhaps in the course of a very short time, and on that vote of $500,000 we will sign a contract for perhaps $3,000,000. The same thing applies to dredging. Nobody would think of putting $3 000,000 in the estimates now for that work, or at all events, it has never been the custom, whether it should be done or not. That is done on the other side of the line, and it is perhaps worth considering whether it is the proper thing to do or not. Perhaps we should consider whether it is proper ever to let a contract for more than the amount of money parliament has provided, but that practice has been followed in this country since confederation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will realize the difference between public buildings and dredging. With respect to a public building, once we commit ourselves to it we vote each year a sufficient sum to meet the expenditure under the contract; that is, we know when we are voting $500,000 that the architect's certificate will not involve the payment of a larger sum than that during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929. But with respect to dredging, that is done by the yard. You have $30,000 to spend, and you make a contract for $55,000. You have spent $29,000 and paid it. Tou have $12,000 in your estimates; that makes $41,000, which leaves $14,000 to be taken care of in the supplementary estimates, I presume. The work was done when the estimates were prepared. I take it. There is something about this that makes it very strange when you cannot place the whole sum of money in the estimates at once. With respect to dredging, you should not let contracts for a larger sum than parliament has appropriated the money for. Otherwise my friend from Huron, with an appropriation of $5,000. will spend $250,000 on Goderich harbour-money well spent, too. But this theory is all wrong.


John Campbell Elliott: When the main estimates
were being prepared, we did not know what the expenditure under the contract would be up to the 31st of March. Let me make that clear. We could not tell at the time of the preparation of the main estimates how much would be spent under the contract to the 31st of March, and when the main estimates were being prepared, it was thought that $12,000, in addition to the amount that would be expended three months later-
3364	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no dredging
going on in the winter months, was there?
Mr. ElLLIOTT: I do not suppose so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the work was done in the fall when the water froze up. When the main estimates were prepared', there was ice over that water. We are now asked to vote $12,000. My objection is to letting a contract for dredging for $55,000 on a $30,000 appropriation. With respect to a public building, I agree that the principle is sound. We vote the money year by year, and if we did not the contractor could not continue, and the contract would be outstanding. But with respect to dredging, you should not spend more than parliament appropriates.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Why is this work being done by contract? Why is it not being done by the departmental dredges?


John Campbell Elliott: We have not enough
dredges to do all the dredging that is done in this country. A great deal of our dredging, I would say more than half, is done by contract. Our departmental dredges are performing a valuable sendee. They enable us to know just what it costs us to do dredging of a certain type with our own dredges, doing it under the best circumstances that we can get. We can usually do as well by contract.


William Garland McQuarrie: Perhaps better?


John Campbell Elliott: Sometimes better, and
sometimes not so well.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does that apply to
the west as well as to the east, or is the minister referring only to the east?


John Campbell Elliott: A larger proportion of our western work is done by our departmental dredges than is done in the east.


William Garland McQuarrie: As I understand it,
you find it more satisfactory to do the work by contract.


John Campbell Elliott: No, but we-


William Garland McQuarrie: It must be that, or
you would get more dredges. When you let contracts, I presume you do so because you find it more satisfactory to carry out the work in that manner. I am not objecting to that policy at all; in fact, I have advocated the same thing out in the west, but never successfully, and I just wanted to get an explanation as to why a different policy was followed in the east from that followed in the west. We have had a good deal of experience in connection with dredging out in British Columbia, and more particularly so far as my experience goes, on
IMr. Elliott.I
the Fraser river, and I have advocated from time to time the letting of contracts, but I have never been successful in convincing the minister that that should be done. It seems to me that the contracts system is much more satisfactory, provided of course that contracts are let after open competition and in a fair and honourable manner. I must say in regard to the Fraser river that I believe it would be highly advisable to do some of the work by contract.	I know there is necessity
for keeping dredges there, but as to some of the work I should think it would be more satisfactory to let contracts and have the work finished up. But that does not seem to be the policy of the department in the west at all, so far as my experience goes.


John Campbell Elliott: We did let some contracts in the west, but as I said, we have a larger proportion of dredging done by our own dredges in the west than in the east. There is some advantage in letting a contract if your tender is low enough, but I think my hon. friend will understand that it is a great advantage to have your own dredges because that enables you to get better prices from the tenderers. That is the great secret. You know what the work costs your own dredges, done in the best way the government can do it. That is of assistance in arriving at the actual cost of the work, and in addition, if the tenders that you receive are in the opinon of your engineers too high, and if it is impossible to get them down to a proper level you can do the work with your own dredges if you have sufficient to do it.	.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is quite right.
I was not advocating doing away with the departmental dredges, but it seems to me the contract system is highly desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski-wharf repairs and improvements, $14,200.	.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This work is required for maintenance of the wharf in proper condition to handle the increased traffic due to the pulp and paper industry in this region. During the season of 1927 approximately 150,000 tons of freight were handled over this wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere Laguere-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $25,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister
explain this?
MAY 25, 192S	3365
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required towards the cost of the excavation of a canal approximately ten miles in length by twenty feet in width at the bottom, with slopes of one in one on both sides, from the river Laguere through the marshy lands southeast of St. Anicet south of Port Lewis and west of Ste. Barbe and St. Stanislas, to the river St Louis north of St. Stanislas. This appropriation is asked for on the understanding that the provincial government is to provide an equal amount.


Jean-François Pouliot: In what county is that?


John Campbell Elliott: Chateauguay-Huntingdon.


William Russell Fansher: What industry does this serve?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not an industry.


William Garland McQuarrie: What business does the canal accommodate?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a drainage canal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the provinces did that.


John Campbell Elliott: We are not going on with the work unless the provincial government contribute half.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why does the minister introduce this vote and ask the committee to pass it unless his engineer believes it is the right thing to do? Is he simply asking us to pass the item because the provincial government's engineer recommends the expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is recommended by our engineer.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it in accordance with the usual practice for the Dominion to assist-in drainage work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provincial governments look after drainage work.


John Campbell Elliott: Many years ago the
Dominion government constructed a canal on the south side of the St. Louis river at the foot of lake St. Francis. This canal is known as the Beauharnois canal and its construction resulted in a permanent rise in the level of lake St. Francis, which lake borders Huntingdon county. The result was that the river Laguere, which acted as the natural drainage basin for the land adjacent to the lake front, was unable to fulfil its functions, and between 18,000 and 22,000 acres of arable land was totally ruined for agricultural purposes and an additional acreage became only fit for cultivation in extraordinarily dry years. It is claimed that the work done in connection with the canal caused the trouble.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is, work done by the Dominion government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is admitted?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, federal
work which results in loss or injury to private property is a proper case for compensation, but not a reason for constructing drainage canals. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, and in Ontario too, the provincial authorities look after drainage canals and the land owners are assessed with respect to the cost. I think the minister with his long experience in Ontario will agree that it is laying down a dangerous principle for the Dominion to become responsible for a drainage canal. Navigable waters are within our sole jurisdiction. Has not compensation been paid?


John Campbell Elliott: No. This is really compensation, I take it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be that.


John Campbell Elliott: The federal department of Public Works was responsible fifteen or sixteen years ago, and an item was put in the estimates to improve the drainage of the river, but during the war years nothing further was done. It is claimed that this flooding was caused by works constructed by the Dominion government. I assume that no compensation was paid or this demand would not have been made. My hon. friend has raised a very important point. What we have in mind is that the local municipality should do the work with the contribution from the. province and the Dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But surely 20,000 acres of land have not been destroyed without compensation being paid or a claim made for it. We cannot be deluded with the idea that the people who owned the property made no claim for damages. There must be something behind it; they did not let the statute of limitations bar their claim.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
shortly before the outbreak of war this damage was caused.


Mr. ROBB:: Long before that.


John Campbell Elliott: At any rate fifteen or
sixteen years ago an amount was put in the estimates as a settlement of the government's liability. On account of the war the work was not proceeded with.
336G	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not change the wording of this vote to "compensation for damage?" I would be the last to say we should not pay just compensation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -but I think you are
starting a very dangerous precedent by taking responsibility for the cost of constructing drainage canals, I care not where.


John Campbell Elliott: I look upon "contribution" as better than any admission of damage.


James Alexander Robb: As explained by the minister, at the time of the construction of the old Beauharnois canal forty or fifty years ago a dam was thrown across and the level of the lake raised considerably. I am told that the owners of the low lands immediately along the canal received certain compensation, but the river Laguere was the natural drainage for a wide area of country going back eight or ten miles from the lake. The owner's of that area were not considered. The river has gradually filled up, and this has destroyed the natural drainage of a large section of the country. The case was reviewed by the department's engineer, and if hon. gentlemen will look at the records they will find that in 1912, 1913 and 1914 an item of 840,000 appeared in the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the work done?


James Alexander Robb: The work was undertaken and part of it done, but it was stopped on account of the war. Eventually, when Mr. 'Carvel came into office and everything was being pruned, this work was dropped. But it is the natural drainage of the ground. We met the municipalities and said to them that the provinces had responsibility for the drainage, but they said, "You have destroyed our natural *drainage into lake St. Francis, and in consideration of that the federal government should at least contribute a part". It seems ho me the minister is perfectly sound in his contention that, having voted this amount, we should say to the county council, "You will undertake this work and complete it and assess the land for the difference, whatever it may be, between the vote we are making and the sum total, and the province should contribute an equal proportion."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation is perfectly reasonable, and compensation should be paid if injury has resulted from a federal work. But it should not be done as a canal. It is compensation for damages done, So that you

do not create in the estimates a precedent that could be relied on in future cases. The rule is reasonably clear that wherever a federal work causes damage the damages must be compensated for. This is a damage that has arisen more recently-


James Alexander Robb: We want to blear it up and get the land drained. We do not want anyone to get money now-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The work is in lieu of paying compensation to individuals. In other words, you are making the land arable because it is now demonstrated that by reason of the canal it is not arable whereas before it was. This canal is being constructed to prevent the flooding from ruining the land, but it should be made clear that it is in lieu of compensation to individuals.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Minister of
Finance says it should be cleared up, but does this clear it up? I do not think it does, because the maintenance of this canal has to be taken care of.


James Alexander Robb: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is nothing to
show.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend did not
notice that we suggested that the local municipality maintain it.


William Garland McQuarrie: If there is a distinct agreement that they shall maintain it, that is another matter; but I did not hear the minister say that there was any such arrangement. Does the minister now say that there is. an arrangement now whereby the municipality will have to maintain this drainage canal?


James Alexander Robb: There will be before the work is undertaken.


John Campbell Elliott: Before we make any contribution they will have to give that undertaking.


William Garland McQuarrie: So this will be the end?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Gregoire de Montmorency-reconstruction of revetment wall, $5,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This has been requested by the municipality and mayor of St. Gregoire. It is required to prevent one of the streets of the village from being washed out. It is for the reconstruction of a section of the revetment wall 545 feet in length. The work commenced in 1924-25 and continued in 1925-26,

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
and sections totaling 700 feet have been rebuilt. The proposed work will consist of a concrete wall 12 inches wide at the top with a slope of two in five, and with an earth back filling.


William Garland McQuarrie: This is a bank protection work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is a revetment.


William Garland McQuarrie: How is the Dominion
responsible for it?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the reconstruction
of a work built by the Dominion years ago. Apparently the Dominion government, in their own opinion, were responsible at that time and we are asked to reconstruct the work now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lambert-reconstruction and repairs to dyke, $1,600.
William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister explain this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is under a contract,
and the amount of $1,600 is required to complete payments owing to H. Gravel, contractor, for the reconstruction of 802 feet of this dyke, and for minor repairs to the riprap adjoining the concrete wall.


William Garland McQuarrie: What kind of dyke is
it? Why does the Dominion have to build a dyke?	.


John Campbell Elliott: This is the report of the
engineer:
I beg to state that this protection wall was badly damaged last spring. The ice must have carried approximately 500 cubic yards of stone filling. It is to be feared that the next spring ice shove may carry away most of the protection work including the stone filling. If this were to happen, the cost of this protection work would be increased.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am interested in this
matter because we have the same problems in the west, and we are told that the Dominion will not contribute anything to works of this kind. Several cases have come up lately, and the department have said, "No, we have no responsibility at all; we have no responsibility for building dykes of that nature".


Harry Bernard Short: Is it the practice in Quebec
for the federal government to look after all these dykes? It is not so in Nova Scotia, where it is a municipal matter. Why should the federal government assist one province and not another? We have a number of dykes in Nova Scotia but whenever repairs are required they are done by the municipality.


John Campbell Elliott: This liability is due to
the fact that the construction of the harbour work at Montreal has so contracted the channel that ice during freshets comes over against this portion of the bank, causing damage, which will increase unless the wall is put up there.


Harry Bernard Short: That remark applies to every province. The same thing happens everywhere; these freshets cause damages that have to be repaired. The same thing is true in Nova Scotia as in Quebec, and why should we not have the same treatment? If you make this a federal matter I will insist that Nova Scotia be given the same treatment.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not a federal matter unless the damage has been caused by a federal work.


Harry Bernard Short: That is only an excuse.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is a reason.


Harry Bernard Short: The same reason applies to
every other province; freshets occur everywhere else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Petronille-wharf repairs and improvements, $11,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $11,000, of which $2,000 is a revote, is required for the following work:
1.	Repairing macadam surface and laying 800 square yards of concrete pavement, $3,100.
2.	New movable slip and hoisting apparatus, repairs to flooring and to shed, $3,510.
3.	Earth back filling which municipality agreed to carry out, $3,300.
Contingencies, $1,090. This makes a total of $11,000.


Robert Gardiner: Will this complete the
work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $31,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete the
contract with the Jackson Construction Company Limited for the reconsideration of the Pontbriand wharf consisting of a reinforced concrete dock wall 241 feet long resting on concrete sheet piling. This is to cost $22,000. It is also to provide for driving protection piles along the inside of the wharf in Lanctot
3368	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
basin, which is not under contract buit is being done by day labour, and which will cost $4,000. It also provides for the reconstruction of the old cribwork icebreaker in the Richelieu river, 25 feet by 25 feet, to cost $4,500.


Robert Gardiner: I presume this will complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: How much was spent
there last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Up to March 31, $40,755.18
had been spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
.Trois Rivieres-wharf reconstruction and repairs, $198,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister please explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to reconstruct the coal dock by demolishing the crib work down to one foot above low water level on a length of 753 feet, including 100 feet at t'he south end, for a width of 19 feet, removing the back filling and driving tongued and grooved sheet piling along the outside of the wharf for a total length of 824 feet, and to construct a concrete superstructure, concrete flooring and concrete walls to support coal elevators. Three elevators built on this wharf are in danger if this work is not carried out. Approximately 250,000 tons of freight are handled over this wharf annually.


William Thomas Lucas: What will be the total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It is estimated at $198,000.


William Thomas Lucas: Will this complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trois Pistoles-repairs to wharf, $5,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to
say with regard to this item, which is in my constituency. I wish to say that we are completely satisfied with the work done by the officials of the Department of Public Works in Quebec, and I wish to pay a deserved tribute to Mr. Decary, the superintendent for Quebec, to Mr. Sabourin, the district engineer, and to his assistants, who are very able men and who do their work conscientiously and to the complete satisfaction of the people of that province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
tMr. Elliott.]
Valleyfield-dredging, $40,000.
Mr. GARDINER. Will the minister explain this item?
John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to continue the dredging of a channel 3 miles in length by a width of 100 feet and to a depth of 14 feet from deep water in lake St. Francis to the government wharf, with a turning basin at the wharf 650 feet by 700 feet.. This project was commenced in 1924 and continued in 1925 and 1927.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the estimated cost
of this?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Robert Gardiner: How much has been
expended, and how much will be required to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1924-25 we spent
831,993.62; in 1925-26, $32,064.98; in 1926-27, $18,647.01; in 1927-28, $48,074.56.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the estimated cost to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimated cost is

Item agreed to.
Varennes-dredging, $20,000.


William Thomas Lucas: Mill the minister explain
this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to complete payments to Les Chantiers Manseau in connection with their contract for dredging shoal areas to provide a 14 foot channel 500 feet wide to the government wharf.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the total amount
of the contract, and what expenditures have been made to date?


John Campbell Elliott: To March 31 the expenditure was $44,674.95. This will complete the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Ontario-Blind River -dredging, $12,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain?


John Campbell Elliott: This dredging is required
to facilitate the turning of the large boats which call at Blind River. Merchandise to the value of $100,000 is handled over this wharf annually.


Robert Gardiner: What would be the
tonnage of that merchandise?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that information.


Mr. MANION:: Recently there has been
a great increase in the lumbering industry in that section. I know nothing of this item, but no doubt the work is being done because of that increase in the lumbering industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burlington channel-reconstruction of south pier, $31,000.
Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Just before we
deal with this item I should like to ask the minister and the government to see if the amount proposed to be expended cannot be substantially increased. This amount is entirely inadequate for the work needed, and the benefit to be derived will be general in its nature and not confined in any sense to this particular locality. It is a matter which has already come before the minister and his department. The Steel Company of Canada have just begun a wharf and pier at the end of the bay to which this channel gives entrance, costing over $1,500,000. The coking plant of the United Gas & Fuel Company is also being constructed, and will cost at least another 81,000,000. The success of both these enterprises is dependent on its being possible to bring coal in in large quantities by the larger boats. The proposed appropriation will not make it possible to bring large quantities of coal into Hamilton bay. As I have just intimated, the benefit is not limited to the city of Hamilton. The minister knows that this matter came before his department and representations were made by people from Kitchener, London, Galt, Guelph and other localities, which would all be beneficially affected if the channel were so enlarged as to enable coal to be brought in in large quantities. Hamilton, which is most nearly affected by the enlarging of the channel, has been a pioneer in the matter of bringing to Ontario large quantities of Alberta coal. The efforts to bring Alberta coal to Ontario were instituted many years ago in that city, and have been continued ever since. There has been great encouragment from Hamilton and district to the movement of Alberta coal into Ontario, perhaps more so than from anywhere else in the whole Dominion of Canada. The best way in which adequate encouragement can be given to the use of Alberta coal in Ontario is by the enlargement of this channel.
The Welland canal is expected to be completed within something like two yearn. I am told by those interested in the construction
of the coke ovens and of the Steel Company of Canada's wharf and pier, that unless they are in a position to have the accommodation which that canal will give, they will not be a'ble to handle the increased tonnage that the completion of the Welland canal will open up for them and for that part of the province. Under these circumstances it is beyond all question that the adequate enlargement of this canal at Burlington should be undertaken at an early day, and if the work is proceeded with this summer it will in no sense be undertaken to soon. The enlargement of the beach canal should be commenced without delay, otherwise the benefits that will accrue to that section of the country through the opening of the Welland canal will be largely if not entirely lost. For that reason I ask the minister and the government to reconsider the amount of the appropriation.
I ask it not purely because of Its locail advantages to the city of Hamilton-I ask for that only incidentally-but on the very much larger ground of its general benefit to the western part of the province of Ontario.


John Campbell Elliott: The representations to
which my hon. friend refers, have been made to me, and I have been giving them consideration. It will be noted that that work is also to enable a private company to carry on its business. It is very similar in principle to the matter we were discussing this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Bell: It is absolutely different,
iMr. ELLIOTT: I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of the government to provide facilities to enable boats with full loads to come through there.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The coking plant ' surely cannot be considered in the light of a private enterprise, solely, nor can ithe expansion of the Steel Company of Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: They are not government enterprises.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The hon. gentleman mentioned Alberta coal being brought to Ontario. This coaJl must have been transshipped at Port Arthur, because it would come by rail from Alberta. I understood that the Alberta lignite was shipped all the way by rail.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If I had been in politics before the 23rd day of September, 192S, I could explain that. As it is, it is an entirely new thing to me, and I could not
3370	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
tell my hon. friend the modus operand!. I only know that the securing of that coal was a live issue in that district, and was forwarded by every means in the power of the people there.


Robert Gardiner: Woufld the minister give us the engineers' report regarding this work?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that we were talking about something different from What the hon. member for West Hamilton is now discussing. This is in regard to Burlington channel, and the engineer's report, dated November 30, 192.7, is as follows:
This section of the pier is in a very dilapidated' condition and a certain amount of material is washing into the channel at this location. I would further point out that the lighthouse marking the bay entrance to the channel is located on this section of the pier and 1 consider it of the utmost urgency that this work be gone on with. Should the pier tail the lighthouse would he destroyed as well as there being a grave possibility of blocking the channel to navigation.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think this item shows
the shortsighted policy of the Department of Public Works. This is the hardest channel in the great lakes to get through. The steamer Corona had only two feet clearance on each side going through it. The steamer Chippewa cannot go through at all, on account of the paddle boxes. The Corona was on this route but they took her off. Perhaps it was for economic reasons, but I believe one of the reasons was the great difficulty in making that channel. The channel ought to be twice as wide. The Canada Steamship Company are running freighters there, and it has been found to be one of the most difficult ports to make on the great lakes. When there is an east wind it is practically impossible to get into the bay. The government has spent some money on the north and south piers, but this channel should be twice the width. A large freight business is being done at Hamilton and with the opening of the Welland canal the larger boats will not be able to call there. The channel should be both widened and deepened, and the money spent now will have to be spent all over again a few years hence. It is not only at this port that this same mistake is being made, but at others as well. The new oil tankers now running on the lakes cannot get through this channel, and the $31,000 might just as well not be spent. It would be far better to widen the channel out to at least three or four hundred feet, and in addition to that the piers should be concrete. If you are going to do the thing at all it should be done right.

The city of Hamilton and the harbour commission have brought this matter to the attention of the government for years. All the city of Hamilton was allowed last year for the post office was a couple of revolving doors and even that was voted out. Hamilton through its post office, customs, income tax and other branches contributes a very large revenue to the government, and I hope the minister will look seriously into the matter. I have received complaints firom captains saying that they cannot make the harbour on account of the channel being narrow. The government have done some work on the north pier and the swing bridge, but I hope they will do something to widen the channel. The money that is being spent now is money wasted. The work will have to be done all over again in the future when the Welland canal is opened.


John Campbell Elliott: Might I draw my hon.
friend's attention to the fact that this is for the reconstruction of the south pier? It does not refer to the matter about which he has been speaking.


Thomas Langton Church: My hon. friend may know
a great deal about getting a town clock in his home town of Glencoe, but when the question is one of meeting the needs of the town of Hamilton, he does nothing. He is like his illustrious colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who when a terrible disaster occurred on the great lakes, sent a wireless and had the crews taken off by a United States life saving vessel.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am asking the
government to undertake the work in an adequate way generally. I am not asking them to expand their dredging unnecessarily, but I should like them to make a channel which can be properly used by boats of the tonnage necessary.


James Alexander Robb: As Minister of Finance I find myself to-day in a very embarrassing position. I thought I had to fight only my own colleagues to keep down the estimates in order to meet the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite. To-day I find hon. gentlemen opposite are urging that we increase the estimates by more than one hundred per cent.


Leslie Gordon Bell: For something
worth while.


James Alexander Robb: They are all worth while.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cobourg-harbour improvements, $75,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain this item?

Supply-Harbours
and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required towards the following harbour improvements:
Maintenance dredging of an irregular shaped area between the outer ends of the entrance piers to a depth of 22 feet-28,000 cubic yards scow
measurement at 55 cents	$ 15,400
Reconstruction in concrete of 786 linear
feet of esplanade or north pier.. ..	50,000
Reconstruction in concrete of 110 linear
feet of south west breakwater. . ..	46,000


John Campbell Elliott: 
Robert Gardiner: Will this complete all the contemplated work?


William Thomas Lucas: Will this complete the work? Mr. ELLIOTT: No.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the estimated cost? Mr. ELLIOTT: $111,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Colling wood-dredging, $64,000.
Robert Gardiner: I should like an explanation of this item.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the following:
To complete payments to C. S. Boone Dredg-]nS and Construction Company on contract for dredging a section of the main channel 1.590 feet long to 18 feet, 6 inches, $5,800.
To complete dredging ship channel to 18 feet, f>
inches, approximately 2.400 feet remaining to he done, 22,400 cubic yards scow measurement at $2 per yard, $44,800.
This forms part of the dredging required in connection with the proposed new elevator to be constructed at Collingwood. The following project is now under consideration:
pTo dredge a 100 feet channel to the Imperial l/n Company s dock and a turning basin at the end of the dock to a depth of 15 feet, the whole area being 1.280 feet long, $12,000.
To dredge a small area 310 feet by 50 feet to * teet, 6 inches at the town dock, $1,300


Robert Gardiner: What- will it take to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This will complete all of the above. I may say to my hon. friend that further work will have to be done in the harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
. Goderich-harbour improvements, $75,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated amount to complete it?


Mr. ELLIOT  T@: This will complete all that we are providing for at the present time, but in order to make the harbour sufficient for the increasing demands that are made upon it there will have to be quite substantial expenditures in the future.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any engineers report as to possible expenditures in the future?


John Campbell Elliott: The amounts spent on this harbour in round figures are as follows:
Year
1922-	23 (construction work
1923-	24.. ..
1924- 25	 " "
1925-	26	
"1926-	27.. ..	"1922-	23 (dredging)1923-	24..1924-	25.. . .1925- 26..	'1926-	27.. ..	
Amount

Or a total for the work done to March 31, 1927, of about $458,000. The construction work remaining to be done and proposed to be spread over three years, including 1927-28, is as follows:
North pier reconstruction. . . $48,000 bouth pier reconstruction. . .	24^600
Dredging 1927-28 and 1928-29 complete inner and outer harbour

So that the total estimated cost of the improvements is about $625,000.
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
Grand Bend-repairs to pier, $2,400.


William Russell Fansher: What is the nature of these repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the renewal of the decking and stringers of the north pier on a length of 210 feet starting from a point about 216 feet from the outer end. The work is required to protect the existing harbour works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hamilton-harbour improvements, $35,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $35,000
is required for the dredging of an approach channel outside of the harbour headline in Burlington bay, at Stipes inlet, in conjunction with the proposed construction of wharf and the dredging of a slip by the Hamilton ByProducts Coke Company, Limited. This channel will be approximately 200 feet wide at the inner end and will extend from harbour head line in a northerly direction, in line with the ship channel for a distance of 1,600 feet, gradually widening to 300 feet at the outer end, involving the removal of 108,637 cubic yards of silt, loam and clay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kincardine-harbour repairs and improvements, $43,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: There is a revote of $20,000. The details are as follows:
(1)	To complete the contract with Messrs Henry and Ross for the reconstruction m concrete of 174 feet of the superstructure of the south pier and 300 feet of the north pier, $15,800; . . ,
(2)	Towards the reconstruction ot two lur-ther sections of the north pier, 100 feet long and 200 feet long, respectively, the former section requiring to be completely removed by dredging. Allotment for 1928-29, $17,200;
(3)	To dredge entrance channel to , depth of 20 feet, a total distance of 1,490 feet, 20,000 cubic yards at 45 cents, $9,000;
(4)	General repairs to harbour works, $1,000.
That makes a total of $43,000.


Robert Gardiner: Has-the minister the
tonnage handled at this port?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1927, 20,000 tons were
handled.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingston-dredging, $14,200.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I should like to
impress upon the minister, notwithstanding what the Minister of Finance said, that for [Mr. Elliott.)
some years there has been no dredging done at Kingston except what has been paid for by private parties. When the minister realizes that there are now some eighty large boats wintering at this port, he will see the necessity for additional work there.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday May 22 consideration of the motion of Mr. Goodison for the third reading of Bill No. 23 to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company, and the proposed . amendment thereto of Mr. Irvine.
Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Goodison moves,
seconded by Mr. Sanderson, that Bill No. 23, to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company, be now read a third time. In amendment thereto Mr. Irvine moves:
That the said bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it.
That all the words after the -word "directors" in the eighth line of section 12 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"but no such issue or allotment of shares as fully or partly paid up shall be valid or binding upon the company.	_
(a)	Unless before any such issue or allotment of shares shall have been made as fully or partly paid up otherwise than in cash, the company shall have filed in the office of the Secretary of State a contract in writiftg, duly executed by the parties thereto, setting forth the considerations other than cash for w-hich the company is about to issue and allot such shares as fully or partly paid up; nor
(b)	Unless in each and every case in which the company shall allot or issue shares upon the footing that the -whole or some part thereof shall be credited as paid for a consideration other than cash, such consideration shall be received and credited by the company at not more than its then actual cash value;
(c)	And, in case the foregoing provisions of this section are not complied with, the holders of the shares so issued shall be liable to the company and to its creditors to the amount of the par value of the shares held by them respectively.
The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Irvine) negatived on division,


Hewitt Bostock: The question is now on
the amendment moved by Mr. Garland (Bow River):

St. Clair Transit Company
That bill No. 23 to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company be amended by adding at the end of clause 14 the following words:
"And provided also that five per centum of the gross tolls received by the company shall be paid by the company to the Receiver General of Canada annually.
I must declare this amendment out of order because it is a tax. Bourinot, at pages 430 and 431, on the imposition of taxes, says:
As a consequence no private member is now permitted to propose a dominion tax upon the people; it must proceed from a minister of the crown, or be in some other form declared to be necessary for the public service. A motion or a bill of such a character should properly be introduced by a minister of the crown.
The question comes under standing order 60:
If any motion be made in the house for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned until such further day as the house thinks fit to appoint; and then it shall be referred to a committee of the whole house, before any resolution or vote of the house do pass thereupon.
May at page 511, 13th edition, says:
The principle that the sanction of the crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue, applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.
The principle is clear. The recommendation of the crown is always signified in matters of taxation. There is no question that this amendment imposes a charge on the people.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, before you declare the amendment out of order, I wish to say a word in connection with it. It is very difficult for one not versed in the rules of order to appreciate the point of your objection,-


Hewitt Bostock: I have not given my
ruling yet.


Edward Joseph Garland: -for this
reason, that the bill itself involves taxation and was permitted to stand. If a toll upon the users of a public thoroughfare cannot be looked upon as a tax, then I submit that a charge of five per centum on the gross receipts of those tolls cannot be looked upon as a tax either. To go back to the bill itself, I assume your honour was very lenient with its sponsor when you failed to rule the bill out of order. However, I have no intention of pressing the amendment. My purpose is served by expressing the opinion that toll bridges, in principle, are unsound. But I admit that the hon. gentleman who moved this bill and his friends are under a difficulty. They apparently need a bridge
badly, but neither the federal nor the provincial authorities are prepared to build it. Therefore, we have private interests coming to this parliament and asking for the right to build a bridge, and in order to reimburse themselves to be permitted to charge tolls. My only reason for presenting this amendment was this. Inasmuch as this parliament is being asked to give private individuals an extremely valuable franchise, which no doubt will reimburse the original investors handsomely for the investments made, the country is certainly entitled to a small portion of the receipts from the bridge. However, I feel satisfied that your honour will rule the amendment out of order, and my only regret is that you did not rule the original bill also out of order, for in effect it amounts to the same thing. It is a tax upon the people, just as effective as though it were imposed by the Minister of Finance. It is a tax upon the users of the bridge, and all I sought to do was to get 5 per cent of the gross receipts or taxes back into the Dominion treasury in order to assist the Minister of Finance to declare another surplus in his budget next year.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has ably defended his amendment, but relying upon my standing authorities, Bourinot and May, and also upon standing order 60, which was quoted a moment ago, I must rule the amendment out of order.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to
a point of order. May I direct your honour's attention to the fact that I had not yet moved the amendment. Your honour, believing that I had done so, ruled it out of order. It will be an interesting point for your honour to decide just what status the amendment has under the circumstances.


Hewitt Bostock: According to all the
authorities, when a bill comes for its third reading the duty of the speaker is to take all proposed amendments, notice of which has been given, and have the house dispose of them one by one. The first amendment moved was that of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). After it had been disposed of, I looked in the direction of the hon. member for Bow River and I did not observe him to dissent. His amendment was next in order. As an error occurred the last time I wished to avoid a repetition of any mistake this evening. I do not think the
Sun Life Company

point of order is well taken. The question is now on the third reading of the bill. It has been moved that the bill be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and parsed.



SUN I.IFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) moved the third reading of Bill No. 93, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: This bill is before parliament for the second time, and I presume hon. members realize its great importance. We have given it so far this year scarcely two hours' consideration. The bill in the amended form in which it came from the select standing committee on banking and commerce has not yet been printed and distributed to the house. We have passed it through the committee of the whole not knowing what we were passing. The measure was not even printed, and here we are about to give it its third reading, notwithstanding the possibility that there are some members who do not know what it contains. I suggest, sir, that this is not very good practice. There seems to be an attempt to push the bill through the house whether it is acceptable or not from the point of view of public interest.
There are some things in connection with this bill to which I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the house. This bill reminds me of a pirate ship; it is sailing on the high seas of finance but it is not flying the jolly roger.	If she were
flying the jolly roger at the masthead everyone would know exactly what her objective was. But she is flying the Canadian flag on the foremast, the union jack on the mainmast and on the mizzen a burgee of goodwill to the public. With these decorations she sails on to victory. No one questions the skipper as to what the port is; no one raises any objection to the course that is being steered; no one asks anything about the nature of the cargo. She is allowed to pass by unquestioned. If she were true to her real purpose and destiny she would fly the jolly roger.
The history of this bill was given very ably by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn), who analysed the demands of the company, discussing the different clauses of the measure. I will not follow his course; I will present my view of the matter from a different angle. The bill provides, as I presume we all know, for an increase in capital

stock to the amount of 82,000,000. I should
like to have some reason either from the company or from the sponsor of the bill-at any rate, from some authority-for this increase in capital. I shall deal later on with the reasons given by the company itself for increasing the capital. These reasons I regard as a mere subterfuge; they do not really explain why the company seeks to increase the capital stock by $2,000,000, Let me here observe that capital in a well established insurance company is not only unnecessary but is a hindrance to the company. Every dollar of capital in an insurance company so well established as is the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada becomes n charge on the earnings of the company. That is its only service; it is not required. No one will argue that an insurance company which is well established requires capital at all. The capital which this company now has is more than sufficient, having brought the company from small beginnings to where it now stands, one of the most successful insurance companies in Canada or even on the North American continent. I contend therefore that as the company has been brought thus far on a comparatively small amount of capital we should demand from the sponsors of the bill or from the management or the directors just why they now seek to raise the capital stock of this company by another $2,000,000.
The general tendency to-day in connection with insurance companies is not to increase, but to decrease capital stock; the tendency is towards [DOT]mutualization, capital stock not being required at all. In this connection I think it is illuminating to read an extract, taken from the Citizen of April 23, which comes from the Mutual Life Assurance Company. He says:
An interesting announcement is made by the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada to the effect that a special extra dividend to the amount of $700,000 is to be paid this year to its participating policyholders. From information received from the company's head office, it is learned that the percentage of dividend wall he graded according to duration of policies, those which have been longer in force receiving a large percentage of extra dividend. The scale of extra dividend commences at 10 per cent of the regular annual dividend payable in 1928 on policies one year in force, and is as high as 25 per cent for longer durations. . .
While special extra dividends have occasionally been paid by other life insurance companies elsewhere when warranted by earnings and accumulated surplus funds, this is the first occasion on which a Canadian company has adopted this method of sharing earnings with policyholders.
I submit that it would be far more in keeping with the modern practice of life insurance companies for the Sun Life Company to use its profits as the Mutual! Life Assurance Com-

Sun Life Company
pany have used their pirofits rather than, to devise new capital issues of stock as a means of absorbing the extraordinary profits made by the company. There are two ways in which the company could handle its excessive profits, other than the course it has chosen to follow. First, the company could give to the policyholders the extra profits which it is now seeking to find some way of covering up, or if it did not wish to take that course it could reduce the cost of insurance to all policyholders both present and future. I contend that .either of these suggestions would be a far better way to deal with the situation confronting the Sun Life Assurance Company at the moment that the one proposed in the bill.
Next I want, to direct attention to the amount paid by the shareholders for the $2,000,000 of stock they have under control. By examination I find that the shareholders of this company have paid in all $380,000; that is the entire amount of the capital invested in the Sun Life Assurance Company by the shareholders. They have received profits on that amount; 'they have received other profits on other amounts which they have been able to control by certain manipulations; they have voted bonuses to themselves and in that way have paid the rest of the $2,000,000. and they are charging profits on that amount, making from 25 per cent to 30 per cent annually on their investments. Not only that, 'but from 'that small initial investment of $380,000 the shareholders to-day have standing to their credit $30,000,000. Surely these earnings are sufficient .to make us pause for a moment and ask whether we will give them a further gift of $2,000,000, by means of which they will pry out of the pockets of their policyholders another enormous amount in profits, equal to the amount which they are now getting on the $2,000,000 of stock already issued.
I regard this bill as a scheme to obtain greater profits for the company, and to obtain them in such a way as to enable the company to pose as a benefactor to the public, through its magnanimity in reducing the profits from 10 per cent, to which they are entitled by law. to 5 per cent. Meanwhile the company will get twice this amount by increasing its capital stock unnecessarily. The company almost boasts that it takes a profit of only 5 per cent when it might take 10 per cent, and attempts to make a plea to parliament rather on compassionate grounds as to why this bill should go through. Let me turn to a statement which appeared in the large daily papers throughout Canada a short time ago, coming directly from the manager of this company. In its headlines this statement bears that mark
of servility which characterizes the attitude of most daily papers towards huge corporations, a servility which I sometimes wonder whether parliament has been able to escape. This article says:
The phenomenal record of the Sun Life Assurance Company is an inspiration to all Canadians. Its income of $102,000,000 is already equal to the total revenue of the government of Canada in the year 1910, and $38,000,000 is certainly an amazing sum to have earned as profit in one year. Not many corporations anywhere can report such figures. The president's intimate, practical comments at the annual meeting explaining how these huge profits were made were illuminating.
They were illuminating!
Of even greater moment, however, were his statements regarding the danger that this great Canadian institution may pass from Canadian control. Some months ago. Mr. Macaulay referred to the activity of Wall street in the buying of Sun Life stock, and cautioned policyholders and shareholders of the mpnace it involved to an institution which was founded and developed by Canadians and which lias obtained its phenomenal growth under Canadian management. Subsequent events have justified these misgivings, and at the meeting to-day the first public intimation was given that the Sun Life directors are seeking legislation at the present session of parliament which is intended to effectively forestall this danger.
This news item, which was sent to the great dailies of Canada., and which contains the announcement that a bill was to be introduced to save this great company from passing into the hands of Wall street, was advertising, carefully guided and planned in order to affect the minds of members of parliament when the bill was presented. Now let me read a very short extract from the report made by Mr. Macaulay, general manager of the company, at the last annual meeting:
The new assurances completed amounted to $328,000,000. an increase of over $62,500,000. The amount in force at the close of the year had risen to $1,487,000,000, and at the present moment is well over $1,500,000,000. The income exceeded $102,000,000. an increase over the previous year of $23,800,000. To me, this is very impressive. Not only has this item passed the one hundred million mark, but the increase alone is equal to what was our total income but eight years ago, which had been accumulated by forty-nine years of strenuous effort. A life company with a total income no greater than our increase would be an important corporation.
The assets have increased by $56,000,000, and now exceed $400,000,000. But the most wonderful of all these wonderful figures is the amount earned as profit-$38,000,000. How great this figure is may be judged from the fact that the earnings of the previous year, in which we so rejoiced, were $20,500,000.
There was an increase last year in the earnings of this company amounting to approximately $18,000,000, and the total amount which the company made last year was $38,-
Sun Life Company

Sun Life Company

I do not know whether the tendency you mention has been more marked since the amendment of your bill at the last session or not, hut I shall be glad to know if, in your opinion, a requirement that a larger proportion than a bare majority of directors be Canadians and British subjects, would have a deterring effect on the dealings in the stock. I understand that the movement of the shares to New York had commenced before the amendment of your charter respecting the board of directors last session, and I had a feeling at the time that possibly the change proposed then permitting directors other than British subjects might strengthen that tendency rather than diminish it. You will probably be able to say whether or not this is so.
You will, of course, have noticed a somewhat similar movement with reference to Canadian bank shares, which indicate that amount of japital is not a determining feature.
I am glad to know that so large a proportion of your capital is in the hands of yourself and associates and in the hands of those who may be fairly well counted on to preserve the company as a Canadian company.
In that communication it is revealed that the company itself, by altering the regulations with respect to its directors, made it possible for United States directors to come in, whereas before they could not. Therefore it would appear that they were not very much afraid of the United States at that time. Moreover, as is made clear in this letter from the Superintendent of Insurance, the amount of stock issued by any company is no guarantee of its control remaining in Canada. This is a letter from Mr. Macaulay to the Superintendent of Insurance on the subject:
I have your favour of the 23rd.
I am quite sure that the question of the nationality of directors has nothing to do with the movement in our stock. At present the buying appears to be only for investment, but if a New York group should obtain control they would find no difficulty in appointing Canadian associates or nominees.
The transfer of our stock to American ownership appears to he increasing steadily in volume. Even since I wrote you, several more blocks of fairly large amount have gone across the boundary lines. Several other blocks have been offered to us here, and, as we were unable to find purchasers for them, they too, no doubt, will be in the United States within a few days. Another block was offered to me this morning. An American broker has just written asking for a number of copies of our annual report that he may give them to persons who may become interested in our stock. Another report indicates that it is proposed to give our stock a prominent place in the holdings of some investment trusts. This very morning also we have had a call from the president of one of the National Banks of Hartford, who wished to find out as much as possible about the value of our stock, in order that he might accommodate brokers by making loans on its securities until such time as they find customers. Mr. Wood had a long interview with him and tried to discourage him but was smilingly told that we are like most inside executives, we do not know the real value of our stocks. He spoke
IMr# Irvine.]
of buying some for himself at $1,200 per share. Even since I dictated this letter a Toronto broker tells us that he has an offer of $1,410 per share from the United States. Almost every day there are fresh developments.
So every day in every way according to Mr. Macaulay the company wias going to be snatched from him by somebody in the United States.
I want to occupy a few of the remaining minutes of my time to deal with what the policyholders have to say about this.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


William Irvine: I presume that Mr. Speaker knows when my time is up. If the hon. gentlemen who are hollering "time" want to be hung up on a nail and become the alarm clock we are going to have next year, I have no objection, but until they are so appointed, if they will kindly hold on to themselves the Speaker will govern the house.
I have here a report which was made by an eminent counsel of Toronto at the request of a number of policyholders. A number of the policyholders came to this counsel and asked him to investigate the company with respect to the legislation now before parliament. This counsel was Mr. R. A. Reid, LL.D., D.'C.L., advocate, barrister at law, Kent (building, Toronto. I will try to read a portion of this report before the alarm clock goes off again. Mr. Reid says:
History of the Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Canada since Incorporation in year 1865
1865. The Sun Life was incorporated with an authorized capital of $500,000 all of which was subscribed and one-tenth paid-up. The original 5,000 shares were sold to the public at $10 per share and no further call has been made in cash, although it has become paid-up to the extent of $50 per share by frequent bonus issues.
I am willing to put the remainder on Hansard without reading it, if hon. gentlemen have no objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


William Irvine: I am glad that you like my voice so well. It continues:
1877. Authorized capital increased to $1,000,000; subscribed capital $500,000. First dividends declared at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. In addition a bonus issue of $12,500 was made increasing the paid-up portion to $12.50 per share.
1882. Dividend rate increased to 9 per cent per annum.


Hewitt Bostock: Time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker-

Private Bills


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker must alternate, and not see only the members of one group. There are several groups in the house, and I saw the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner).


William Irvine: Is that motion debatable, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: No. A motion to adjourn is never debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to ask your honour what is the effect of that motion being adopted?


Hewitt Bostock: The effect of it is to adjourn the debate.


Edward Joseph Garland: I mean its effect with respect to this ball.


Hewitt Bostock: As regards the bill, it will keep its place on the order paper.



WINIFRED OSBORNE GIMBLETT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion of Mr. Garland (Carleton) for the third reading of Bill No. 84, for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett.
Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Church (for Mr. Garland, Carleton), that Bill No. 84 (letter O of the senate), for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett, be now read a third time.
There is an amendment to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I do not see him in his seat, and therefore I will not put the amendment. The mover of the amendment must be here.


Mr. HEAPS:: I believe on previous occasions when the mover of a motion or an amendment was not in his place, some other member was allowed to act in his behalf.


Hewitt Bostock: Not in the case of an amendment of which notice has been given. This amendment stands in the name of the hon. member who has moved it. He is not in the house, and therefore the chair must ignore the amendment. The question is on the third reading of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: A number of hon. members to my right, Mr. Speaker, have asked what bill this is. They have not the least idea of what is going on.


Hewitt Bostock: This is a divorce biLI. I announced it quite audibly, I think. It is a bill for the relief of Winifred Osborne Gimblett. It has received its third reading and has 'been passed by the house.



EDMONTON, DUNVEGAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The house again in committee on Bill No. 57, respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company-Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that it is now nine o'clock and that the hour for private bills is exhausted.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to supply.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works 

 Harbours and rivers - Ontario-Kingston-dredging, $14,200.
John Campbell Elliott: This item was under discussion before the recess.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lions Head-dredging, $17,800.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: It is proposed to dredge a channel 200 feet wide by approximately 400 feet long to a depth of 18 feet, involving the removal of 31,750 cubic yards scow measure of class "B" material. The work has been urged by the resident engineer, and is necessary to enable boats to reach the wharf loaded with hay and general farm products, which at the present time is done with great difficulty owing to the shallow water.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that difficulty has existed for thirty years.


John Campbell Elliott: I expect the water is a
littler shallower this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Midland-harbour improvements, $48,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain
this item?
3380	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly. The information furnished me is as follows:
This is to complete the dredging contract of Randolph Macdonald Co. Ltd., for dredging an area of 880 feet by 625 feet to a depth of 22.5 feet in front of the elevator wharves and an area in front of the new Midland Simcoe Elevator Company for a length of 2,180 feet by 120 and 500 feet. Approximately 50,000 cubic yards, scow measure of the former area remains to be dredged in 1928 season, $30,000.
2.	To construct two shelters 200 feet by 24 feet including office and warehouse and paving 2,317 square yards of the new wharf $9,500.
3.	Reconstruction of old dock leading to new wharf, $8,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $60,000.
Mr. RYERSON:: May we have some information on this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is required for
the following work:
1.	To dredge along the harbour wall for a length of 2,100 feet to a depth of 20.5 feet, including the removal of an angle of shore line recently transferred to the department to permit a new alignment of the harbour wall, involving the removal of 19,000 cubic yards, place measure, of mud, silt, sand, etcetera, at 65 cents-$12,800.
2.	Towards the construction of 750 linear feet of the west entrance channel wall, consisting of pilework substructure and concrete superstructure with a width on top of 3 feet. Estimated cost-$30,000. Allotment for 1928-29-$27,700.
3.	Construction of an extension of 415 feet to the harbour wall near the elevator slip consisting of close sheet piling with concrete anchorage. 180 lin. ft. of this already constructed as an extension to the contract with Messrs. Woolrieh & Brigham, estimated to cost $10,645 -$18,000.
4.	To complete payments to Messrs. Wool-rich & Brigham on their contract for the reconstruction of several sections of the harbour wall-$1,500. Total amount for 1928-29 $60,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Arthur-harbour improvements-Thunder Bay Paper Company to contribute one-third cost, $50,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that represent the
total cost, or our two-thirds?


John Campbell Elliott: The whole cost is more
than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Burwell-harbour repairs and improvements, $200,000.
Harry Bernard Short: As this is a pretty large
amount, will the minister give us particulars?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. This vote is required for the following work:
1.	To reconstruct two sections of west pier from water level up, 150 feet long
and 50 feet long respectively	$	5,000
2.	To reconstruct and complete 505 feet of sheet pile wall along east side
of harbour near carferry slip	 20,000
3.	To renew 510 feet of walling on
west side of harbour; construct sand fences and for minor repairs	 1,000
4.	To provide for the contract with the Port Arthur Construction Company for the reconstruction of a rubble mound checkwater 200 feet long projecting westerly from the centre of the existing concrete breakwater; for repairs to existing rubble mound wall between outer end of west pier and inner end of concrete breakwater; and for the construction of a rubble mound extension in four lengths of varying direction having a total length of 1.800 feet and commencing at a point 50 feet inwards from the outer end of concrete breakwater. Total estimated cost $450,000. Amount to be earned in 1928-29	 174,000
Total	$200,000
There has been expended to March 31, $23,060. These amounts were requested by District Engineer Craig in his annual estimates, in which he reported:
These works are urgently required to maintain the harbour walls along both sides of the harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Colborne-repairs to harbour works,
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give
particulars of this?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to. This
is required to repair damage to the east and west breakwaters caused by a severe storm of December 8, 1927. The proposed work is as follows:
1.	To reconstruct the superstructure
of several sections of the west breakwater totalling a length of approximately 1,885 lineal feet	$ 92,018
2.	To reconstruct the superstructure of three sections totalling 277 lineal feet and to repair the rear wall of 77
feet of the east breakwater	 36,165
Inspection, contingencies, etc	 11,817
Total amount required	$140,000


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why is the amount
limited to $100,000?


John Campbell Elliott: It is expected that that
is all they will do this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
Port Dover-repairs to piers, $50,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, after one of my
colleagues has moved an amendment.


James Alexander Robb: I move, Mr. Chairman, that
the Port Dover item be changed to read:
Repairs to piers and harbour improvements, revote $12,000, vote $50,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert Edwy Ryerson: Will the minister explain why the full amount was not spent last year? I am not opposing the vote. I know Port Dover requires the improvements.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount, of which $12,000 is a revote from 1927-28, is required towards the reconstruction of the east pier which was damaged by a severe storm on December 8, 1927, and for repairs to the vertical timbers and to the stringers of the west pier. We now propose to build a new east pier instead of reconstructing the old one. The engineer reports that practically the whole superstructure of the east pier has been demolished except for a portion recently reconstructed, about 200 feet, near the outer end of the pier. At present there remains about eighteen inches of timber substructure, stone filled, above water level. All cribs have been shoved out of line and no doubt considerable damage has occurred below water level.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Is there any provision for dredging there?


John Campbell Elliott: No; this is just harbour work.


Robert Gardiner: Is it proposed to build a new pier?


John Campbell Elliott: The east pier, a little further over where the channel is better.


Robert Gardiner: Will there be better protection from storms?


John Campbell Elliott: The channel is wider, but I do not know that there is any better protection from storms; we shall be subject to storms in the same way.


Robert Edwy Ryerson: Of $25,000 voted last year for dredging purposes, only $13,000 has been expended. I presume there was still more dredging to be done there.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is hardly correct in saying that $25,000 was voted for dredging purposes; it was voted for repairs to the pier and only $12,693 was expended. This is part of the same project.


Robert Gardiner: The amendment just carried has reference to other harbour improvements. What are those other improvements?


John Campbell Elliott: We had to change the wording of the item owing to the fact that the location was changed.
Item as amended agreed to.
Port Stanley-harbour repairs and improvements, $16,000.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item and say what tonnage passes through the port?


John Campbell Elliott: I want some hon. member to move that this item be reduced by $12,000. The explanation is that the contract with A. W. Robertson, Limited, was closed out after the main estimates had been prepared, and the $12,000 will not be required.


James Alexander Robb: I move that the item be so reduced.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Rondeau-harbour repairs and improvements, $41,700.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: Of this amount $34,000 is a revote. The vote is required for the following work: (1) reconstruction of inner end of east pier, $4,500; (2) reconstruction of section of west pier, $2,700; (3) further extension to shore protection, $2,500; (4) revote for dredging slip for Lake Erie Coal Company for proposed extension to wharf to be constructed there during 1928, $32,000-total, $41,700.


Robert Gardiner: Will this complete all the proposed work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; this will complete all that is projected at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sarnia-dredging, $45,000.
Mr. GEARY:: Has any dredging been done on the American side?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for dredging a channel to the new elevator at Sarnia.


George Reginald Geary: The channel is off the river.


John Campbell Elliott: Off the main channel of the river; it is to the elevator constructed last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Whose elevator?


John Campbell Elliott: The city of Sarnia financed it; they guaranteed, I think about $400,000 of the cost and the company put up the balance. I cannot tell the name of the comnanv.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


George Reginald Geary: What is the total amount?


John Campbell Elliott: Until March 31, 1928, $123,164 had been spent and we are asking now for a revote of $45,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Southampton-repairs to breakwater, $6,600.
Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):: Will the
minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the reconstruction of the east breakwater on a length of 250 feet on the inner end of the north face and on a length of 400 feet on the inner end of the south face. This work is to be done by day labour. It is hoped that the completion of the work will result in there not being more than $5,000 to expend during the following year. Unless unforeseen damage occurs we should not require to expend any large amount on repairs to these structures for at least two years. The work is required for the accommodation of the fishing fleet and for the general traffic of the harbour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why done by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineer is of the impression that he can carry it out with his own forces to better advantage than by letting the contract. *


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the committee will remember that a few weeks ago I indicated that work done by day labour, in some of these Public Works items, was limited to those who professed the Liberal faith. I read a letter that came to me from Riviere Nouvelle, Bonaventure county, in March, 1928:
We the undersigned take the privilege of writing you concerning some public work performed at our river during the summer of nineteen hundred and twenty-seven (1927).
We Conservatives asked the foreman Mr. Richard Molley for work; he refused all Conservatives one hour's work by orders of Hon. Charles Marcil. Is this a free country, or does a man have to be a Liberal to live here? Are we to be deprived our rights in the future as in the past? At the time the work was being performed last summer we wrote the hon. Minister of Public Works and got no reply. Is that justice? Do you call that kind of work public or private or party work?
If we are justified in writing you concerning this kindly reply to our request, and oblige Yours sincerely,
Hugh Watt, returned soldier.
Epiphane Talbot, returned soldier.
Peter Gignac.
Jean Abel Thiriault.
Joseph P. Laroque,
Joseph Gignac.
Godefroi Thiriault.
Remio Theriault.
Simon LoiselfMr. Elliott.)
If that sort of thing is going on in this country it is time parliament did something to assert the rights of individual Canadians and especially returned soldiers, to jobs by which they can keep themselves at least in food and clothing for themselves and their families. It is not limited to that particular constituency, as I have said, and I would like to ask the minister whether it is the settled policy of his department to instruct his engineers that the local member shall limit employment to those who support the administration, in the expenditure of public moneys.


John Campbell Elliott: I must say I do not recall the circumstances of this case, but I shall be very glad to look into the question of the letter not being answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the smallest part of it.


John Campbell Elliott: I know of no letters coming to the office which do not receive a reply just as promptly as possible. The reply may not be satisfactory, but we always try to reply. As far as the practice is concerned, I have given no special instructions with regard to this or any other place. If the work is done by day labour we expect to engage men who will give a reasonable day's work for a day's pay. I have given no instructions as to who should be employed.


Harry Bernard Short: For the benefit of the committee I might say that this is the practice in vogue in the constituency which I represent. A man cannot earn a dollar on public works there if he is not a supporter of the administration. I presume the minister has nothing to do with it, but the local politicians certainly act that way.


An hon. MEMBER:: So does the local
government.


Harry Bernard Short: No, the government of
Nova Scotia employ many Liberals in the expenditure of public money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Harry Bernard Short: I can give an instance which occurred during the last election. I asked one of the road men, a man driving a team on the road and drawing $6 a day, for his vote, and he said he could not vote for me. I said, "At least you are honest, notwithstanding the fact that you are drawing $6 a day from the local government." He was not fired for that, either; he continued right on until the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
job was completed. However, in my constituency it is impossible for a Conservative to get a day's work on any public work being carried on.
Mr. GARDINER. With regard to this item I should like to ask the minister if it is not the practice that when an amount exceeds $4,000, contracts should be given, and the work should not be done by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: No, there is no such
regulation, but I may say that in nearly every case we try to let contracts, where we can, at a price which would be equal to the cost of carrying on the work by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is not the minister wrong
in that answer? I am not going to quarrel as to whether or not he is doing it, but if I recall correctly there is some regulation, some order in council or some statutory provision which says that any work costing over $5,000 must be done by contract, or putting it another way, where the minister thinks it is best he may do any work costing less than $5,000 by day labour.


John Campbell Elliott: No. I think what my
hon. friend has in mind is the letting of contracts for $5,000 and upwards by public tender. There is an express provision in the act which authorizes the department, where it is deemed advisable or in the public interest, to do the work by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Up to $5,000.


John Campbell Elliott: No, there is no limit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the amount
was $4,000, but my hon. friend says it is $5,000; is there not a treasury board minute carrying that provision?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is statutory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then up to $5,000 you
can do it by day labour, but anything in excess of that must be done by contracts called for by public tender?


John Campbell Elliott: No, there is no limit.
Take this building, for example; it was built entirely by day labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But that is different; parliament appointed a special non-partisan committee and so on; that was a special provision of parliament.


John Campbell Elliott: That is quite true, but
there is no limit under the act to the amount of work which may be done by day labour.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there not some provision by which you must call for public tenders if the work is to cost over a certain amount?


John Campbell Elliott: I did not quite catch that question.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there not some
provision whereby works costing over a certain amount must be carried on by contract, advertised and called for by public tender? Under that amount contracts may be called for by private letters, on account of the expense and so on.


John Campbell Elliott: I think what my hon.
friend refers to is that for works costing under $5,000 we can call for local tenders, but my hon. friend can take my word for it, I think, that the act provides that contracts for over $5,000 are to be by public tender. There is no restriction other than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we say.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a provision that the work may be done by day labour, and that provision is not limited to the $5,000. My hon. friend will find that in the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if that is so you
could skate around any statute by saying you will do a certain job by day labour.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the provision in
the statute.


Mr. CANNON:: No, there is no limitation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-dredging and repairs to entrance piers, $32,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give us the particulars of this item?


Alexander James Anderson: Will the
minister explain what this $32,000 is to be used for, and if it is earmarked for any particular work?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for the
maintenance of the harbour works and to keep the channels open to the heavy traffic using this port. At the time the estimates were printed it was estimated that the expenditure in 1927-28 would be practically the whole amount of the appropriation of $31,000. However, a later report showed that only $14,000 would be expended during 1927-28, leaving a revote of $17,000. This amount is required for the following work.
1. Maintenance dredging in eastern channel on an approximate area of 275,000 square feet,
3384	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
involving the removal of 46,000 cubic yards, scow measure, of sand and silt, at 58 cents per cubic yard, $26,680.
2.	Maintenance dredging in western channel on an approximate area of 120,000 square feet, involving the removal of 5,000 cubic yards of sand and silt, place measure, at 65 cents per cubic yard, $3,250.
3.	Repair the concrete surface of decking on a portion of the west pier which is damaged and cracked. It will be necessary to remove the finish to an approximate depth of two inches and lay a new concrete finish on a length of 900 feet by the full width of the pier, which is 20 feet, $2,000.
The total estimated cost is given at $31,900; the appropriation for 1927-28 was $31,000; probable expenditure, $14,000, leaving a balance of $17,000.


Alexander James Anderson: That is all referring to the eastern entrance?


John Campbell Elliott: There is an item of $3,2,50 covering the maintenance of dredging in the western channel, and an item of $26,680 to cover maintenance of dredging in the eastern channel. Then there is an item of $2,000 to cover the repair of concrete surface of decking on a portion of the west pier.


Alexander James Anderson: Has the minister considered the necessity of deepening the western entrance to the harbour with a view to providing an entrance for larger vessels on the completion of the Welland canal? I believe the harbour board has already communicated with the minister regarding it, but I should like to know if he has considered it and what position the government or the department propose to take. It is very necessary that that entrance should be deepened in order to provide for larger vessels.
In this connection I might say that the western entrance is rocky and it will require a great deal of blasting. That kind of work cannot be done on short notice, and the arguments that I can put forward would only be the same as were offered to-day by the member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) regarding the Burlington entrance to Hamilton harbour. The larger vessels which will be enabled to come through the new Welland canal must necessarily get into these ports which are the largest on the lake, and this work should be done at once. If the Welland canal is to be completed in 1930 my contention is, and I believe it is the contention of the harbour board, that some work should be done each year, and I should like to know whether the minister can give some information in regard to that. I should like to know fMr. Elliott.]
also whether vote No. 144-dredging, Ontario and Quebec, $600,000-would cover any dredging in the western entrance to Toronto harbour.


John Campbell Elliott: The item to which my hon. friend has just referred cannot be utilized for that purpose. The amount required for that work would be considerable, and the desire is to have it completed by the time the Welland canal is finished, but I cannot say anything further than that the matter has been under consideration. Our information is that we can get depth of twenty feet in the western channel without any blasting, but if we have to go deeper than that we shall have to do some blasting, which will materially increase the cost. I cannot advise my hon. friend to be hopeful about much progress being made this year at any rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Windsor-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Mr. ROBINSON:: I believe $2,000 was
spent last year for renewing piles, and I should like to know what this amount is to be used for. Please understand that I am not objecting to the vote at all.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount is required
for the renewal of three six-pile fender clusters in front of the government dock, and renewing the roof on the warehouse to the extent of 163 feet by 40 feet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Manitoba-Gimli-reconstruction of protection work, $7,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister explain this item, please?


John Campbell Elliott: This work consists of the reconstructing of 1,200 lineal feet of protection work which was partly destroyed during 1927. Unless this work is reconstructed a portion of the lake frontage of the village will scour away rapidly. Gimli is the headquarters of the Gimli Fisheries Limited, a company carrying on a fishing business Which handles over 1,000,000 pounds of fish annually


William Garland McQuarrie: Why should the Dominion do this work?


John Campbell Elliott: Why should we not do it?


William Garland McQuarrie: As I understand it, you do not always do protection work, and you have refused in a great many cases to undertake responsibility of that kind; you say it is a matter for the municipality or for the provincial government.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Manitoba


John Campbell Elliott: This is the reconstructing of work formerly constructed by this government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The old Northwest Territories did it all. Is it a navigable stream upon which this protection work is being done? That has been the test heretofore.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is on lake Winnipeg; it is navigable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has generally been the test that has been imposed. On a navigable water the Dominion government, if it has control over the water, may erect protection work. As the hon. gentleman has said, they have declined to place protection works on many of the smaller streams in the western provinces.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


William Garland McQuarrie: Even in regard to
navigable streams the Dominion refuses to assume responsibility for bank protection work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


William Garland McQuarrie: In this case the minister says that it is the reconstruction of work previously undertaken by the Dominion, and I presume the minister does not know why it was originally undertaken by the Dominion; is that right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a principle
behind this, and all the western provinces are affected. For instance, the Bow river is a very rapid stream and it has eaten into the bank and destroyed some of the streets in Calgary, but thus far the Dominion government has taken the attitude that it has no right to put a single dollar into this protection work. Why is Gimli selected and other places left out? The same thing applies to Edmonton, where the river has cut into the banks and they have made unsuccessful efforts to get some money from the government for protection purposes.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This is not a river; it is lake Winnipeg, Which extends for nearly three hundred miles in length and nearly eight miles in breadth. There are very extensive settlements along the east and west shores of the southern part of the lake, and there are some docks and wharves, and that sort of thing, that are very necessary. A great deal of fishing is done on the southern part of this lake. If it is necessary to have docks,
wharves and harbours for the fishing industry on either the Atlantic or the Pacific, it is just as necessary to have them on lake Winnipeg.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken. I am not going to leave the matter as it is, although it may take a little time. No one is talking about docks or wharves. What is being referred to is a protection work to a bank that has been broken down of a river or a lake, and we certainly have not in recent years been able to get any appropriation for that purpose.


John Campbell Elliott: Let me give the history
of this structure. The department constructed a shore protection 2,420 feet long, starting near the public wharf. This work was carried out in 1908-09 and it has been repaired subsequently. The wharf was built in 1899-1900 at a cost of $10,660.75 and extended in 190708 and 1912-13.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman say that this is a wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: A wharf.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a different thing altogether. This is a protection work.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to protect the
portion of the lake frontage in the vicinity of the wharf. Judging from the map I should think that the movement of the water controlled by this structure was originally caused to a large extent by the construction of the wharf. At any rate for some time we have been assuming liability in this connection and I take it that when the work was started it was thought we were liable for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roseau river-improvements, $65,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the explanation
of this?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $65,000 is asked to be provided towards work now under contract with G. B. Wpod, Limited, of Winnipeg, Manitoba. The work consists generally of the construction of thirteen miles of dykes, 10 feet wide on top, averaging 6 feet in height, having a slope of two to one on the inside and one and one-half to one on the outside, and of a control dam across the Roseau river in the line of the east dyke.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it a navigable stream?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This looks like an irrigation project.
3386	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Manitoba


John Campbell Elliott: It is not an irrigation
project. The government of Manitoba has promised to contribute one-third of the cost of the work and land to be acquired in connection therewith, up to a maximum of $50,000, which sum has been appropriated by the provincial government. District Engineer Goodspeed reports on the 21st April, 1926:
The years 1919 and 1925, produced very serious summer floods. Last year the discharge exceeded 1,000 second feet from June 8 to July 26, and the flood practically destroyed the crops of a large number of farmers of Vita, Arbakka and vicinity.
This question has been before the department since 1893, going from worse to worse since that date. Steps to avoid further flooding in the Roseau district, in the southeastern part of Manitoba, at a cost of $150,000, will be undertaken by the provincial Department of Public Works during the coming summer.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: I should like a little
more information about this. It seems to me that comparisons might well be drawn from this item rather than from the other, because this item is apparently concerned with the protection of the adjacent country from flooding from freshets in the river. Might I ask the minister if the flooding conditions which necessitate the dyke are caused in any way by some federal construction work?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think that is the case. The Roseau river, as my hon. friend may know, has its main source in the state of Minnesota, although two branches, Mud creek and Pine creek, rise in Canada to flow south across the international border to the main river. These branches drain about 300 square miles in Canada, while the river has a total drainage area of 1,350 square miles where it crossps the boundary and 1,525 square miles at Stuartburn. In the state of Minnesota drainage projects of considerable magnitude have been carried out. Before artificial improvements, some 300 square miles were occupied by swamps and marshes, which during wet seasons turned into shallow lakes. While some of this swamp land has been improved, much waste land still exists, and further drainage projects are under consideration. During 1913-15, eighty thousand dollars was expended in enlarging the channel for a distance of seventeen miles, beginning at a point near the Canadian border.
On the Canadian side of the border the river for some twelve or thirteen miles flows between low banks through a flat country. The cross section of this stream is small, with a minimum of about 400 square feet, and the slope in this distance averages about two feet

to the mile. With this restricted section the waters in flood season are pushed out over the low banks and cover the surrounding country, particularly to the east and northeast, where a portion of the flood water escapes to Rat river. West of the river, the land flooded, about two miles wide, is swampy and of poor quality. It has been estimated that a total of 100,000 acres is sometimes flooded. Not only does this occur at the time of spring breakup, when it probably does least damage, but frequently summer freshets occur, which destroy prospective crops and do lasting damage to cultivated areas.


Alfred Speakman: Is this a reclamation
project, or is it merely for the protection of the surrounding country?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not a reclamation
project.


Alfred Speakman: I am not objecting
to the protection being given, but I should like to know on what peculiarity of circumstances the protection is based in this instance whereas it is refused in others where the freshets do equal damage? This is rather an important point, because a good many damage claims have been made and there have been a good many requests for the control of water. I should like to know just wherein the singularity of this situation lies.


John Campbell Elliott: It is claimed that this is
not a provincial liability; that it has been aggravated by certain drainage works that were carried on in the state of Minnesota. Apparently the Dominion has for some time assumed liability and is contracting to do the work to which the province has contributed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria beach - repairs to wharf and approach, $4,400.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any application for more extensive improvements in the way of a breakwater. There is a very rough bit of water there which makes it practically impossible for the summer people to do anything at Victoria beach, and which also makes it very dangerous to the fishermen and others whose duty takes them around the lake. Has any application been made for more extensive work as regards breakwaters and wharves around Victoria beach and Grand beach?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no mention of it
here, and I have no recollection of any fur-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
ther requests being made. The note which I have here reads:
The work will consist of rebuilding with stone-filled cribwork, the inner 40 feet of the public wharf damaged by storm this season, and of repairing 500 feet of the road approach, destroyed by the high water of this year, by a close cribwork face along the lake side, and filling with dredged material. This wharf provides accommodation for a summer resort of approximately 2,500 people. Victoria beach is also the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which patrols the country in connection with fire protection.
Tht district engineer reports:
The expenditure is required to give access to and maintain the public structures used by people of Victoria beach.
I have no memorandum of any further work being required.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The work that is required at Grand beach is a little distance from Victoria. There is a larger number of summer people at Grand beach; there is a good deal of travelling from point to point, and very often we have had serious accidents to the fishermen out on the lake from the very violent storms that come up in that locality. Have no representations been made along that line, for protection at Grand beach?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not say what
representations may have been made about Grand beach, because I have no data here in connection with it. All I have is in connection with Victoria beach, but I shall be very glad to look it uip for my hon. friend and let him know what applications, if any, we have received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers - Saskatchewan and Alberta - Athabaska river - improvements, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us hear about this.


Mr. KELLNER:: Where and when is it (proposed to expend this money?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think i-t should not be expended.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think it should be, but some of these items have been in the estimates year after year -and the money has never been spent. I was wondering if you are going to spend this amount.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The details are as follows:
This amount of $40,000 is asked to be provided towards the following improvements in the Athabaska river.
The dredging of a 150 foot channel through the existing shoals in the Athabaska river, between Fort McMurray and Stony Island, a distance of approximately nine miles. The proposed channel is to be dredged to six feet below zero of gauge, or approximate average low water level.
The amount of dredging required is estimated to be:
Scow measurement
Class "A"	
36,300	cubic	yardsClass "B"	
6,900	cubic	yardsTotal	
43,200	cubic	yards


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Co-wan dam - repairs and maintenance, $3,300.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a dam maintained by the department for raising the elevation of Cowan lake or Long lake, and for assisting in the navigation of the river between the dam and Beaver river, about thirty-five miles, by supplying flood water to carry canoes and scowloads of freight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is merely a storage
dam?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any other case
of a storage dam being constructed in Canada by -the Dominion government? Is this a stop-log proposal?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
three similar dams have been constructed by the Dominion government on the Ottawa, at Quinze, Ivippewa and Timiskaming.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Faust-wharf, $12,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is this wharf? I
think a lot of money is being wasted on wharves that are not required, and at the same time money is refused for public buildings where you are getting a revenue. In the one instance you are looking for votes; in the other you cannot get them.


John Campbell Elliott: This is in the Peace River riding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought so.


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose it could be
stricken out if anybody-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That sort of thing is
not worthy of the minister.
33S8

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: This wharf is very necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where is it?


John Campbell Elliott: It is on Lesser Slave
lake. The wharf is needed at the Faust United Fishermen's landing point, which is in the federal constituency of Peace River. I understand that at present there is no wharf on Lesser Slave lake, notwithstanding that there is a large fishing industry carried on there which yields a considerable revenue each year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that is done
by the company on whose prospectus I saw the names of some members of parliament.


John Campbell Elliott: I could not tell my hon.
friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It looks like it. In the
meantime great communities have to go without public buildings that are urgently required, while this wharf on Lesser Slave lake, some few miles from the north pole-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -some few miles from the north pole-


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is not good advertising.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is on the Lesser Slave lake. I should think the name itself indicates sufficient for my hon. friend's purposes. Really there should be some principle in this thing. I saw the prospectus of a fishing company up there on which appear names of members of parliament. Now they are getting a wharf on Lesser Slave lake, while communities really requiring the expenditure of public money cannot get it. That is not the way public money should be expended.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think my hon.
friend wants to make statements that are not justified by the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
there is no wharf whatever on the Lesser Slave lake, where there is a tremendous fishing industry, yielding a yearly revenue of from $150,000 to $200,000, without mentioning other traffic, tourist and otherwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Revenue to whom?
Mr, ELLIOTT:	To the fishermen, I presume.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


John Campbell Elliott: That is to whom it usually goes. My information is that fishing boats of

a reasonable size as well as other boats ply these waters. They have to be anchored one-quarter of a mile out on account of lack of landing facilities, and the fish have to be hauled twice, and sometimes during heavy weather it is very dangerous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the minister
has been good enough to give us the information, but it does not detract from the statements I have made, nor in any way indicate that they were not accurate. The fishing is mostly done in the winter, through the ice, and this year an application was made to extend the time. I do not know of much fishing being done there in the summer, because they have not refrigerators to take care of the fish. I presume the next application will be for a cold storage plant subsidized by this government for taking care of the fish caught in Lesser Slave lake in the summer. The minister says the wharf will be used for tourists-tourists on the Lesser Slave lake!


Mr. KENNEDY:: Most of the fishing in
Lesser Slave lake is done during the summer. About 600.000 pounds are taken out of the lake annually, most of which goes to Chicago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If, as my hon. friend
says, the fishing is done in the summer time, then I am entirely in error; but certainly during the past winter I had a telegram asking for an extension of the season for winter fishing on these lakes, and I know the member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) received a similar telegram. The department was asked to extend the time.


James Alexander Robb: I understood from my hon.
friend on one occasion that there was no winter in that part of the country; it was all summer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not
got it quite right: It is always summer there in the winter.


An hon. MEMBER:: And always winter in the spring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fort McMurray-wharf, $21,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Tell us about this.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to construct a
wharf, consisting of a round sheet pile wall, extending 100 feet parallel with the river bank, and 58 foot wing walls connecting same with the bank at both ends. The walls will be anchored to anchor piles and back filled with stone to the height of the wall and for a width of 25 feet on top. The estimated cost is $21,000.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Richard Bedford Bennett: That memorandum, I
take it, was prepared at the time when the constituency was represented in this house by Mr. Cross, because it has been on the records of the Public Works department for three, if not four years, and nothing has been done. Everybody wants the accommodation. Am I to understand that because it has been voted once you are going to continue revoting it so that it may be a bait to induce the electors once more to vote by proxy behind hedges in certain sections of the community as they did on previous occasions?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is dealing
with speculations, with which perhaps he is more familiar than I am.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are not speculations.


John Campbell Elliott: They have very peculiar
methods in certain sections of the province mentioned by my hon. friend, but having spent only a fraction of the time that he has spent there, I am not nearly so familiar with those methods. It should not be necessary for me to assure him that everything is put into these estimates with the utmost good faith and with a view to serve the country as this government always strives to serve it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am happy to say that the province in which I live has been singularly free from electoral troubles; but in two sections of the west, in Prince Albert and northern Alberta, they learned a lesson from the voyage of the Minnie M. and machines that my hon. friend had more to do with as a member of the local legislature, that is, they copied certain devices for conducting elections without reference to the electorate. In one instance this was done with dire results, because it deprived the hon. gentleman who now sits for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) of one term in this house, and in the other case the former Attorney General, who now adorns the Supreme Court of Canada, with the aid of the present chief justice of Saskatchewan, gave back to another candidate his stolen seat.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say to my hon.
friend that I am not so familiar with the lady to whom he refers as he appears to be. I never had the pleasure of her acquaintance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: She was one of the seven sisters.


John Campbell Elliott: Did you know them all?


Malcolm McLean: I think the hon. leader of the opposition ought also to advertise the two other western provinces as they were during the regime of his friends.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-Saskatchewan and Alberta - repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I wish to supplement
something that was said by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). He said that the particular part of the Bow river to which he referred was encroaching upon the streets of Calgary. It has done more than that. The Dominion government, I understand, own the boulevard facing the river, and it has been washed away in certain sections. Not only that, but the property alongside is becoming eroded. If it is justifiable to protect the banks of other rivers, I would suggest that a few thousand dollars be spent to put in piling for, say, a quarter of a mile, to confine the river to its proper channel, and so prevent further erosion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The protection work at
Prince Albert is on the river, I take it?


John Campbell Elliott: On the North Saskatchewan river. It is reconstruction work. The original work was built in 1912 and 1916 at a cost of 161,885.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the character
of the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Rebuilding with pile work and filling a portion 400 feet long of protection work on the North Saskatchewan river on the waterfront of Prince Albert. District engineer Goodspeed in his estimates for 192829 says:
Some years ago the Dominion government built a pile breastwork or breakwater along the south bank of the Saskatchewan river in the central part of this city. It has stood well, but when the river broke up last spring the ice floes made two considerable breaches in the work. The breastwork is still a real protection to the bank as a whole, but with the two breaehes_ which are now made, next spring's flow of ice might destroy the greater part of the work.


Mr. COOTE:: Does the minister think that $10,000 is sufficient for repairs and improvements generally to the harbours and rivers of Saskatchewan and Alberta? I suggest that he include a little more in the supplementary estimates. I desire to mention some work that is being done in High River. I think the minister's engineer has looked over it. It is similar to the work done in Manitoba for
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

protection of towns from floods. The provincial government has given considerable thought to the work, and I think the Dominion government has contributed to it in part. Will the minister continue the policy of contribution? The work I refer to is for the protection of the town from flood. A few years ago the main street was flooded to a depth of three or four feet for days at a time. This is a great hardship, and the cost of constructing the necessary works would be more than such a small municipality could bear. I hope the government will do as they did several years ago-contribute to the cost of this work.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the Interior department and this department are co-operating with the town along the line suggested by my hon. friend. The amount for this item last year was a little over $4,000. We think $10,000 will be adequate to meet this year's requirements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-British Columbia- Arrowhead, improvements, $1,100.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: Will the minister explain this item?
John Campbell Elliott: The proposed work is to discourage the meandering easterly branch of the Columbia, over the Arrowhead delta, from breaking through and filling up the steamer berth at the Canadian Pacific Arrowhead wharf. It is proposed to build a fence retard across the false channel with a view to inducing the river itself to build up a sand and silt dam and the Sand bars back of it. The retard consists of six-foot stakes driven in the ground at one-foot centres.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Crooked. Pack and Parsnip rivers, improvements, $3,500.
Mr. BRADY:: What is the extent of the work to be done on these rivers?


John Campbell Elliott: This work is to facilitate and make less arduous and dangerous the navigation of this waterway for trappers, traders and others' going into the upper Peace River country to investigate the possibilities there. The known freight passing down the river in 1925-26 was 100 tons of general freight, supplies and so forth, but the actual amount was probably considerably more. The catch of furs coming out would fall within 20 per cent, either way, of $60,000. The traffic is by open boats, usually with outboard motors attached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Fraser river: in full and final settlement of claim o-f N. E. Broley, in connection with contract for dam at Woodward's slough, $11,639.74.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This is required in full settlement of the diaim of N. E. Broley in connection with a contract for a darn at Woodward's slough. In a memorandum of December 13 the chief engineer recommends the following amounts to be paid: on Broley's claim, $7,038.77; on subcontractor's claim, $4,600.


Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of the trouble?


John Campbell Elliott: The department made a change in the dasign of work, occasioning a loss to Mr. Broley. We find he sustained a loss of $8,226 due to outlay on construction over and above the amount of the estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river, improvements, $150,000.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: What does this include?
John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked for improvements on the Fraser river as follows:
(1)	Sapperton bar-construction of dyke No. 1, $25,000.
(2)	Steveston-repairs and extension of Woodward's training wall, $25,000.
. (3) Steveston-towards extension of north jetty, approximately 5,000 feet, $100,000.


George Gibson Coote: Is any dredging done there?


John Campbell Elliott: No, not in this item.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: These works, I understand, have all been recommended by the resident engineer, and I have no doubt they are necessary. The work being done on the Fraser river is justified. The shipping to the port has very largely increased, as the minister knows, and New Westminster is becoming one of the important ports on the Pacific. Will the minister inform the committee what is the minimum depth of the channel at present and what objective the department is striving for in connection with the channel from New Westminster to the gulf? As the minister no doubt knows, the draught of vessels coming into the ports of the Pacific has very materially increased of late years. The Minister is also aware that there are certain ships which so far have not been able to get into New Westminster for business there. I understand that the objective of the department is and has been to provide a sufficient depth to enable ships which would naturally do business in this port to get in there so as to take out the products, which

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
are being manufactured in New Westminster and on the Fraser river, to the markets of the world. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee unnecessarily, but I desire some information on this matter.


John Campbell Elliott: We have been able to get a minimum depth of twenty-seven feet, which is sufficient for present requirements. That is our information.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister suggest that twenty-seven feet is the objective? According to my information that is not sufficient for ships which want to get into the port now. The former objective of the department was a thirty-foot channel, and the demand now is for a thirty-five foot channel, which seems to be absolutely necessary. Surely the minister does not say that he considers a twenty-seven-foot channel sufficient for that port. I do not think he intended to make that Statement.


John Campbell Elliott: I am told that the training piers which are being constructed are expected so to guide the course of the river as to scour it out and keep the channel sufficiently clear for purposes of navigation. It is quite true that the demand is for a thirty-five-foot channel, 'but a twenty-seven-foot channel seems to meet present requirements. I do not think I should go so far as to say that it will suffice for all time, but if the training piers work out as Satisfactorily as we hope they will the depth will increase.


William Garland McQuarrie: More than twentyseven feet?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: The question I asked
was as to the objective of the department. I know that the answer given on former occasions was that it was thirty feet, and if the minister is going to cut it down to twenty-seven feet there must be something wrong.


John Campbell Elliott: We are at twenty-seven
feet now, and it will be a matter of experience, to a large extent, as to what amount of scouring will take place and to what they will be increased. We have no doubt that they will increase.


William Garland McQuarrie: I have been complaining time after time in this house because of the manner in which the works on the Fraser river have been carried on. I have not objected to what has been done; I do not say the department is not accomplishing anything, but I have complained about the delay in giving a sufficiently deep channel for that port, a channel demanded by the citizens
in that vicinity and the people who are doing business in the port, and which is warranted by the amount of business available. I have suggested from time to time that a contract should be let to provide a thirty-five foot channel from New Westminster to the gulf. This afternoon the minister explained quite logically that in many cases it was found advantageous to let contracts for works in his department. I am suggesting now that this is a case where a contract should be let to finish up this work, which has already taken so long. I quite understand that the engineers of the department have been working on this matter for many years, and that lately they have been devoting a great deal of attention to it; I realize the study which has been given to the subject by Mr. Cameron, the chief engineer. I think he really does take an interest in this work and that he is endeavouring to do his best. He seems to be a very capable engineer, but I am objecting to the policy of the department, the policy of delay, of waiting to see what results will be produced by the construction of certain works. All the engineers have said that there are no engineering difficulties in the way of providing a satisfactory channel from New Westminster to the gulf. There are hon. members of this house who have visited New Westminster and who have gone from there to the gulf; they know the amount of business offering; they know the advantages of the port, the details of which I am not going into at present. I am very much surprised that the minister should be content with the results so far attained, and I impress upon him the fact that the people out there are not going to be satisfied when they learn that he thinks a twenty-seven foot channel is sufficient for the needs of the port.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend misunderstood me.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister did not
mean that? I do not think he really did mean what he said, but he must realize the necessity for a channel deeper than that.
Then there is another matter which I have mentioned from time to time in this house and to which no particular attention has been given; I refer to the dredge 303. That is a very old dredge which has been operating for some 25 or 30 years; it is a suction dredge, sucking up sand and water into its hold and then taking that sand and water to the gulf and discharging it. I do not know what the engineering department think about dredge 303, but certainly the opinion of the people of that district seems to be unanimous that it has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any. There is another type of dredge which has
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

done valuable work in connection with the channel of that river; I refer to the dredge King Edward. Again I am going to suggest to the minister that some investigation should be made into that matter. I am not suggesting that the one dredge, the King Edward, will be sufficient, but I do say that the dredge 303 should be replaced by a modern, up-to-date dredge of the King Edward type. I also understand there has been some kind of investigation conducted into the matter of dredge 303 by a special investigator sent out by the department. According to my information the investigator did his work in March of this year, and I should like to know if any report has been made, the nature of that report and what action is going to be taken in regard to it.
Then there is one other matter I should like to mention, in regard to the compensation for Sunday work to be allowed the employees working on the Fraser river dredges. There is an order in council which provides that no employee of the Dominion government shall be employed on Sunday except in cases of necessity, and that in such cases compensation shall be provided. With regard to the men employed on the Fraser river dredges, no compensation has been allowed for this Sunday work. I know the matter has been before the department several times; various suggestions have been made but nothing has been done to meet the situation. I would ask the minister whether he does not think it about time that this matter was settled. If the men cannot have their Sundays off at least they should be given compensation for that extra work.


George Gibson Coote: I have very pleasant recollections of a visit to British Columbia last summer and a trip over a short part of the Fraser river. I can bear witness to this fact, at any rate, that the people of New Westminster are very anxious that they should have a deeper channel to the ocean. I suggest that the minister have his engineers report to him on the cost of providing a somewhat deeper channel from New Westminster than exists at present, so that at least a large number of the vessels which call at Pacific coast ports would be able to reach New Westminster. I am interested in the question because I think it would be of advantage to the Canadian National Railways to have a terminal elevator built at Port Mann. The larger portion of the shipments would go via Vancouver, but I think a large part could be bandied at Port Mann. It would be a good idea if the minister would have an examination made as to the cost of deepening the channel.


John Campbell Elliott: With regard to the remark made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), as to the twenty-seven foot channel, I would say that the department has a channel of twenty-seven feet, having deepened it from seventeen or eighteen feet. As I explained, that is not our objective; we have been getting it deeper all the time, and it is expected that the twenty-seven foot channel will be scoured to a greater depth through the action of the training piers. My hon. friend surely does not think that we have not had engineers examining this situation. This vote provides $25,000 for the construction of dyke No. 1, $25,000 for repairs and extension of Woodward's training wall, and $100,000 for the extension of the north jetty approximately 5,000 feet. There has already been an expenditure on the Steveston jetty of $819,642, and with what we have in contemplation, while it is not our objective, we think this district of the country is being treated very liberally. We know that expenditures must be made, as this is an important point, but I am rather surprised to hear my friend from New Westminster complain that we are not going rapidly enough. I think we have been doing very well.
With regard to the question of a day off for the men working on the dredges. They all have their Sundays off with the exception of the cook, the fireman and the watchman. These men are engaged for full time, and I do not know how we could dispense with the services of any one of them on Sundays.
We are proceeding as expeditiously as possible with the important work that is necessary at this point, and we think we are doing very well.


William Garland McQuarrie: I understand there has been difficulty in adjusting matters so that these men would get their Sundays off.


John Campbell Elliott: Which men do you refer to?


William Garland McQuarrie: The ones who are not getting their Sundays off. I am not referring to the ones who do get their Sundays off; naturally they do not complain.


John Campbell Elliott: They all get their Sundays off except these three.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: The men who do not
get their Sundays off should receive some compensation.


John Campbell Elliott: They do, in their salaries.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: I assume the minister knows the provision of order in council P.C. 1537, which contains the following provisions:

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
1.	That no employee of the Dominion government should be required to work on Sunday except in circumstances of emergency or necessity.
2.	That in the case of any such employee who by reason of emergency or necessity is required to work on Sunday, he shall be allowed, in substitution, during the next six days of such work, a compensatory period of rest of twenty-four consecutive hours.
3.	That no exceptions to the foregoing principle shall be allowed except by departmental authority, and then only in cases where there may be no substitute help available to perform the duties which are involved.
It cannot be suggested that there is no substitute help available, because there will be when the dredge is in port. I am suggesting to the minister that, in all fairness to these men, when they work on Sundays they should receive extra compensation.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I am very much surprised at the remarks of my hon. friend from New Westminster. When I hear of a salary of $2,220 for a master of a dredge, I am very much surprised that my friend's electors are not satisfied with it. In our district they would work sixteen hours a day through the week and eight hours on Sunday for that salary.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And break the sabbath?


Joseph-Étienne Dussault: We are not Jews in our district.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do I understand from the minister that he will give consideration to that matter?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to give consideration to anything, no matter how unreasonable it may be. I would say to my hon. friend that I do not believe there is a ship sailing or working on any water in this country on which the men have Sundays off. Does my hon. friend seriously suggest that we should have another cook, watchman and fireman on Sunday, or is the answer to his question to be: Give them more pay? These men are well paid now, and I am told that there is not a ship which does what he suggests should be done. If he can name any I shall be glad to hear him do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does he do it himself?


John Campbell Elliott: The other men are given their Sundays off, which is very different from what is done in other parts of the country and different from the practice on board ship. On board ship the men work on Sundays as a usual thing, but on these dredges they are allowed to have that day off.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister, in taking the stand he does, makes it quite obvious that
there can be no blame attached to anybody else in connection with this matter. This subject has been under discussion for some time. It does not originate with me and the minister knows that.


John Campbell Elliott: It does not originate
entirely with me.


William Garland McQuarrie: When the minister
makes statements like those he made a few moments ago, he is simply forgetting himself. He is getting excited. There is no necessity at all for that. That is not the way for a minister to perform. I have brought this matter up at the request of an organization in New Westminster, which has met the minister, which has met the deputy minister, which has been making representations for months about this particular matter. Then the minister asks: Do I suggest this? Do I suggest that? I am not suggesting anything. I tell the minister that these men expect that they will be treated in accordance with the law. I brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister some two years ago and he said that he would give instructions that the provisions of the order in council should be complied with. I think he did that.


John Campbell Elliott: They are being complied
with.


William Garland McQuarrie: The intention is quite clear under that order in council that employees of the Dominion government should get Sundays off.


Lucien Cannon: If the cook is gone, how
will the rest of the crew eat on Sunday?


William Garland McQuarrie: That is very clever.
The Solicitor General is always very clever.


Lucien Cannon: That is not clever; it is
only common sense.


William Garland McQuarrie: I am quite sure he
eats enough anyway. The matter of compensation was discussed by myself with the deputy minister. There was no intimation that that was unreasonable at all. What I say to the minister now I say on the strength of representations which have been made by the Amalgamated Civil Servants' Association o>f New Westminster, who have had this matter in hand. I am not suggesting anything to him. I am conveying to him suggestions which have been by this association and by the men who are affected, and I say that in all fairness they are entitled to consideration. The minister says: Oh, yes, I am willing to consider anything, no matter



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
how unreasonable it may happen to be. I do not think that is a fair way of looking at the matter, and I do not think it is carrying out the promise which the Prime Minister made two years ago, that the provisions of the order in council should be lived up to.
There is another matter to which I referred, namely, the report of the investigating officer sent out there to inquire into the operations of dredge 303.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not answer my hon. friend with regard to that; I am sorry. The report has' been received and it is receiving the consideration of the chief engineer at the present time.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it possible to get
a copy of that report?


John Campbell Elliott: I fancy so, but before it
is handed out I should like to have an opportunity of having it considered by the government.


William Garland McQuarrie: At present it is not
available?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally (British Columbia)-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
Mr. FRASER:: How much of last year's
vote under this heading was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: $58,901 to the 31st March, 1928.


Mr. ESLING:: I wish to justify an appeal for necessary and reasonable expenditures, not for the construction but for the repair of wharves in my district, and to do so I want to make a comparison between what the older settlers put up with and the inducements which are offered to the newcomer. Prospective settlers are invited to come to Canada and the government provides them with farms, and assistance to the extent of $7,500 for each family, this amount to be repayable in twenty-five years with interest at five per cent. For families engaging in farm work there is a free grant by way of a portion of the passage money, and that is best emphasized in the case of an ordinary family of five, say three adults and two children. To-day they can reach a Canadian point, say Winnipeg, for $67.50 as compared with 563, which was the rate for a family of the same size which came out to Canada in the earlier days. That is a saving of $495.50. I say this simply by way of preface to the remark that in my district I have one thousand miles of lake and shore

line behind which there are many communities of good, substantial British settlers who came to the Kootenay country, who purchased land for as high as $250 to $300 an acre, who paid as much more for pleating it, who planted orchards, built homes and have thereby been the means of creating very substantial communities which make substantial contributions by way of provincial taxes. The only access which these people have to the outside world is by steamer, and for that purpose they must have wharves or landing places for the shipment of their fruit and the receipt of their freight. They are not asking for new wharves.
I remember in justifying expenditures for the: citadel and Rideau Hall last year and this year the Minister of Finance said that during the war and since then very little money had been spent on those properties and that therefore repairs were necessary. Such is the case also in the Kootenay district. There has been practically no money spent in that district since the war and all we ask is the repair of those wharves by replacing the planking, by driving some new piling here and there and making them safe. I have under my hand certain items. First of all, there are in the estimates just three items totalling $4,000 for my district. I have some twenty-two items of repairs to wharves, expenditures not asked for by a member or by the settlers only, but recommended by the government's own district engineer. He has presented to the Department of Public Works a list of estimates of repairs to some twenty-two wharves at a cost averaging from $85 up. In some cases new planking is all that is necessary. Among the various items is one for $8,000, to cover the replacement of the present landing place at a settlement called Ginol. The Minister of Health, who comes from British Columbia, knows the needs of West Kootenay. He has assured the settlers that he is behind all projects for the advancement and the needs of West Kootenay. He has written to the people of Ginol, saying that an item for the repair of this wharf or landing place will be considered in the supplementary estimates. All I ask of the minister and of the government is fair and reasonable expenditure by way of repairs, knowing full well, as the government must, that these settlers have gone in, and put in the best years of their lives and all their savings. Their conditions are vastly different from the inducements that are held out to the new settlers coming into British Columbia. May I ask the Minister of Public

Works simply to give us fair and reasonable consideration in the expenditures for wharves m these places that are without needed accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: There is a correction I
should like to make, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the item for Gillies Bay. The recommendation is that a float be constructed, and this is being provided for instead of the wharf repairs, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to move that the item for Gillies Bay wharf repairs, $4,000, be struck out.


James Alexander Robb: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Old Massett-wharf repairs, ?3,800.
James Charles Brady: It is five minutes to eleven, Mr. Chairman. I have already spoken on the needs of northern and central British Columbia in the matter of public works, and I wish now to take up another matter. I know that anything 1 say now will probably not avail one iota. Candidly, I do not expect that anything I have done in the matter of presenting the need for public works in my constituency, or anything I may say, will bring much reward-not to myself, but to the people concerned. But I do not wish these estimates to go through to-night without taking at least fifteen minutes to present to the house certain facts that peculiarly relate to conditions in western Canada. I feel very keenly my position as a member of the House of Commons. Having given twenty years of my life to the cause of education, believing that there is something greater than party, something greater even than personal aggrandizement; that the people's needs are above every other consideration, I trust that I shall be given the opportunity to say something which I have refrained from saying for at least the two solid years I have been here.
I am not going to condemn the government; far from it. I shall not condemn the Minister of Public W orks, but I do condemn the system we are following to-day in this young country which has the heritage of ages to look back to, and at least we should do something that will indicate no lack of concern with the building up of Canada as it ought to be built up to-day. Like other hon. members who have been here since the 18th of
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
January, I should like to get home, but there is something greater than family ties. One who represents the people is in duty bound to stand to that post to the last, and he must not forget the people in thinking of himself.
As a preamble to what I wish to say, I desire to quote a paragraph which I saw in the Ottawa Citizen to-night. I read there two little things that I thought were worth recording, written probably by the dozen of our journalists, and a man whose judgment and whose perspicuity I should think is not to be questioned. Here is what he says:
If people who sign petitions knew how little miluence they exert in parliament, they would never go to the physical exertion involved in signing them. They are placed on the table, deposited for a certain time in the vaults, and then carted away to the junk heap. Parliamentary experience is that it is quite possible to up a petition for anything, and those who indulge m it only engage in a process of industrious futility.
When I think of the petitions which I have had in my possession from British Columbia, when I think of the labour, the physical exertion, yes, even the agony these pioneers went through in the depth of winter, travelling hundreds of miles where no roads exist, to procure the signature of petitioners in order that their needs might be presented to parliament, I cannot help feeling, particularly after reading the item to which I have referred, that education is necessary even in this parliamentary assembly; because these petitions which are presented to parliament should not be treated disrespectfully, should not be regarded as trivial. They represent the heart searchings, the desires and the hopes of the people who have signed them. As it is now eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I shall continue my remarks on some other occasion. Progress reported.



NEW EDINBURGH MILLS PROPERTY


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I, with the unanimous consent of the house, ask the Minister of Public Works if he would be good enough to supplement an incomplete return which he has brought down? We are getting very close to the end of the session, and I should like to have these further details to-morrow if possible. I wish to have the details of figures which are not attached to the appraisal which is in this return regarding the New Edinburgh mills. I
Pacific Cable

should like the document showing the lease of Green Island, also the particulars of water rights attached to that property. These details should have been included in the return, but apparently were overlooked.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with everything we have.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned
without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, May 26, 1928