[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 12) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Costigan.
Bill (No. 13) respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.- Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Bfiland.
Bill (No. 15) respecting the River St. Clair Railway Bridge and Tunnel Company. -Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 16) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 17) to incorporate the Lake Bennett Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 18) to incorporate the Velvet (Rossland) Mine Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 19) relating to the Regina Law Library.-Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
First reading of Bill entitled : * An Act to confirm an agreement between the Government of Canada and Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited.'
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that this Order should be dropped as the matter will be dealt with in another way.
Order dropped.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Trade and Commerce, including J. P. Nutting, at $2,000, and J. Byrnes at $1,450, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $12,690.
["T must say that it is the same boat.\n4t six o'clock the committee took- recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I might explain to my hon. friends opposite that, owing to the inspectorship having been added to this department, they will find an increase here of one officer in the item of first-class clerks, who has been transferred from Inland Revenue to our office. With respect to the other matters of increases they will observe they are all of the $50 order with the exception of one, a chief clerk, Mr. J. Byrnes. Mr. Nutting, who is to receive $100, is an officer of long standing in the service and has now a pretty high rank, in fact, virtually acting deputy.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is his place filled in the Inland Revenue branch by another man, or is the expenses of the Inland Revenue decreased by that amount ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It is decreased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with the work done by the inspectors, there has been considerable adverse criticism of the system. Would the minister inform us how the system has worked ?


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: My experience is not quite sufficient to enable me to answer that fully. I would just mention to my hon. friend that an item will come up under the head of grain inspection, when I shall probably be able to give the fullest explanation. Somewhere at the very close he will find that that item will come up. One complaint which was made to me, and I think it was made before I took over this branch, was that very large fees had been paid, I think amounting to as high as $10,000 or $12,000, to these inspectors ; and it was thought better to put them on salary and to have the fees paid into the general treasury, than to allow these gentlemen to go on collecting these very large amounts. That is the chief thing. Of course if there are any points in which the trade has occasion to complain, we should be glad to look into the matter and rectify it to the best of our ability. Then a complaint has been made, and is now being investigated, so far as I remember, that there is an unnecessary number of inspections, and that some of them might well be done away with. We are investigating that matter to see if it can be remedied. Of course it is our object to see that the trade is harassed as little as possible ; at the same time if the inspection is to go on at all the grain has to pass through the hands of an inspector. But later on that will be taken up. On page 87, item 276, my hon. friend will see that the whole matter will come up, and then it will be fully discussed.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I observe that on this page there are, I think, 24 items altogether and with respect to 13 of them the Civil Service Act is repealed pro tanto. Does the hon. gentleman think that is a desirable style of legislation-to have an Act which is repealed with regard to any particular item whenever it is found convenient to repeal it ? The estimates are sent up to the other House under a conditiou that they must either accept the whole appropriation Bill or reject the whole of it. I have brought the matter to the attention of the House on other occasions, and I cannot allow this to pass without putting in my protest against this practical repeal of the Civil Service Act. The Act should be amended if it cannot be observed. It does not seem to me to be a good system, and I do not think my hon. friend will say it is a good system to pursue with reference to this Act.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend says. But at the same time he will see that often great inequalities have crept Hon. Mr. BERNIER.
into the payments of many of these officers. In the case of Mr. Nutting, for a considerable number of years he received no increase at all, and this is virtually giving him the statutory increases which in the ordinary course he would have been receiving. In the other case it is only a statutory increase of $50. But this gentleman had been, as I understand, at the head of the second service class for a considerable time, and when he was put into my department and given charge of a rather important branch, it was thought the least we could do would be to give him $50 as well- as the rank of first-class clerk. While I candidly admit that both legally and otherwise the hon. gentleman is right and we ought not to have so many of these cases, still these are very small sins, as he will observe.


Robert Laird Borden: These are the pin-pricks which make our life intolerable on this side of the House. I want to say to my hon. friend that I am not finding any fault with these gentlemen, or criticising the increases to them in any way, for I have no doubt they are capable gentlemen and deserving of the increases granted. My remarks are applicable to the system. It seems to me a bad system, and that we would do better to amend the Act so as to confer some greater discretion, if necessary, on the different departments, than to repeal it from time to time in a way which prevents the Upper House from dealing with it. I am not sure that the Senate would not be perfectly justified in throwing out the whole appropriation Bill on this account. They are not supposed to amend that Bill at all, but must either reject or accept it in its entirety. The result is that an Act which they have passed is being repealed by this House in such a way that they have not one word as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the proposed repeal. That is net a satisfactory way of conducting legislation, and I am glad that, so far as the principle is concerned, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce agrees in the view I have stated.
Department of Trade and Commerce-Clerical and other assistance notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $2,500 : printing and stationery, $1,700 ; sundries, $2,800 ; total, $7,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This increase is caused exclusively by the addition of grain inspectors to my department.


Mr. CLARKE.: What is the mode adopted for the selecting and appointing of grain inspectors ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That will come up more particularly under item 276, on page 83, which is a special vote taken for these inspectors, under the General Inspection Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman bring down a list of the inspectors, their salaries, stations, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is the printing done ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is all done at the Printing Bureau, I am informed.
Salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $85,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have one item in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department reserved for any remarks in connection with the department by gentlemen not present.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There will be items in the supplementary estimates, both for the current and coming year, on which any information may be asked.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Before considering the item before the committee, I would like to take this opportunity of answering one or two questions put by the hon. member for Grey with regard to a hydrographic survey. In connection with the hydrographic survey ou the lakes, Mr. Stewart, the officer in charge, states that all the work on Lake Huron has been completed. The Americans having finished their work, the whole lake is therefore surveyed. The charts are about completed and will be forwarded to the hydrographic office in London, for engraving and publication. The expenses attending the printing, publication and issuing is made by the hydrographic office. As to the charts that have been issued, all, except this last season have been completed, accepted by the hydrographic office and will be on sale by the opening of navigation. The proof of the last one issued was received yesterday. As to the next year's operation, Mr. Stewart will leave with his staff on board of the ' Lord Stanley ' for the eastern end of Lake Superior, working from Point Aux Pins westward. Although the whole work has been completed on the American side, there is only the demarcation of the shore line on the Canadian side, and Mr. Stewart thinks that this work will probably occupy several years. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for North Grey, as to whether any award has been made to Captain McDougall, who had saved a number of lives from an American barge or steamer, and who had been given a very handsome testimonial for his conduct by the United States, I beg to say that I have looked up the records in the department and cannot find record of any application for an award to Captain McDougall. Other-1
wise his case would have received every attention.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where can these hydrographic charts be got. Will they be on sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They can be got at the Printing Bureau and also at Montreal, Quebec and Toronto. My deputy will have a circular sent to the hon. gentleman stating the places where these charts may be obtained.
In answer to the hon. member for Peel, with a regard to the silver medals promised to the men who saved life at Port Credit, Ontario, I may tell the hon. gentleman that I made inquiries by telegram and was informed that they were arranging to present these medals at an early date and I will see that this is carried out at once, and I thank him for drawing my attention to this matter. My hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. McLennan) wanted information about the light at Port Hood. I have looked into the matter and have directed that the Port Hood light be kept in operation during the season of navigation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to put the hon. minister a further question respecting a matter to which I drew his attention last night. I asked him whether he had received a petition from the National Association of Marine Engineers with regard to amendments they desired to the Steamboat Inspection Act. I understood him to say that he had received a petition and also had met a deputation from that body. Has the hon. minister anything further to communicate to us regarding the result of his meeting with that deputation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I said further that after I had heard the deputation, the chairman of the Board of Examiners for the steamship engineers had made out a report on the various matters which came up before us. I also had an interview with the president of the association this morning, at which the chief officer of the department was present. The president of the association and the chairman of steamboat inspection of the department came to an agreement with regard to several matters, and after I have had an opportunity of studying the report following that interview, I intend to give the president: of the association another meeting with regard to a few matters still left unsettled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was about to ask whether there had been anything done to define our rights in the fisheries, under the decision of the Privy Council. A few years ago the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that the fisheries belonged to the provinces with the exception j of some ocean fisheries, and we naturally 1 expected that there would be a reduction

in the cost of looking after them. Last year, however, there was an increase in the item of salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers, and guardians amounting to $15,000, instead of a decrease, and I notice that this year the item is $85,000, the same as last. Has the government reached any agreement with the provinces as to the rights we have or the duties we are required to perform ? And would it not be possible to reduce the expenditure on this item in view of the fact that the fisheries have been declared to be the property of the provinces ? There ought to be some understanding between the Dominion and the several provinces on this matter.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There really has been no progress made since last session with regard to this matter. The decision of the Privy Council is difficult to understand. So far as I have been able to inform myself, after looking into the communications between the different provinces and the department, the parties seem to be further away from an agreement as to the meaning of this matter than when they started. It appears to me, not being a lawyer, that this matter will have to be settled by one or other of two courses. So far as the present condition of affairs, it is certainly very unsatisfactory. Either the points in dispute must be referred to some tribunal for settlement, aud both the Dominion and the provinces must abide by that decision, or there must be a conference and an agreement reached satisfactory to both parties. Before coming directly to the estimates, I may say that we all recognize the great importance of the fisheries of the Dominion and the necessity of having proper regulations to govern them. This one point is not in dispute-that the power to regulate the fisheries remains within the jurisdiction of the Dominion. That being the case, I think all will agree that, until some arrangement is made, it is the duty of the Dominion to see that the regulations are enforced and the fisheries protected. With regard to the item to which my hon. friend referred, that of $85,000, I find that at the time the judgment was given, the minister reduced the item, for some reason or other, by $25,000 or $30,000. It so remained, I think, for two years. But the expenditure remained the Lame as it had been an,d the result 'was a deficit* which, I believe, was made up bv a supplementary vote last session. After careful investigation it is found that nothing less than $85,000 would do for this item. Previously, I think, it was $90,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is very desirable indeed that any difficulties with regard to the relative position of the Dominion and the provinces, if there are any such, should be settled at ouce. I have not recently examined the judgment of the Privy Council and am not sure now how


Thomas Simpson Sproule: far it goes. But I think that the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, during last session of parliament, told us that negotiations were to be had, or a further case submitted to the courts for the purpose of determining certain further questions. I may point out to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. James Sutherland) that the matter is of some immediate importance, because, as I understand, the provinces are about making a claim upon the government of Canada in respect of the fisheries award. I believe that the Attorney General of the province of New Brunswick has recently announced to the people of that province in an election manifesto that he proposed to make, or has made, a formal claim on this government for a portion of that award. If, while we are subject to a claim of that kind, we continue to pay for services, which, perhaps, legitimately belong to the different provinces, we are, certainly, not pursuing a very wise course. If these difficulties and uncertainties exist I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should lose no time in putting himself in communication with the Department of Justice aud having a matter so serious dealt with at once.


Mr. WADE.: In the decision of the Privy Council on this question and others that were submitted by the Dominion and the provinces, there are specific findings that it is well to understand. It was contended on the part of the Dominion that the Dominion had the proprietary right in certain of the fisheries. That was settled adversely to the Dominion, it being held that proprietary right of the fisheries were vested in the provinces or in the individuals who possessed the same at the time of the British North America Act. But it was also held that the Dominion has absolute control, so far as the regulating is concerned, and that in regulating, they can interfere to any extent with the proprietary rights, except to the extent of granting an absolute right of fishery to other parties. It is also decided that the Dominion, under subsections 3 and 12, has the right to raise a revenue by taxation on the fisheries by way of license, and that the provinces have a similar right. The whole question is reduced by that judgment, as I understand it, to this-that the Dominion government has the sole right to regulate the fisheries and the provinces cannot interfere with that in the slightest degree. Thus, the Department of Marine and Fisheries is left in the same position as before in this matter and must make the same expenditure as before, in order to enforce the law, because this parliament is the only parliament that has power to make regulations about the fisheries. Back of this, there is a question that may arise in the future, and that is whether the Dominion has or has not, in days past, undertaken to give an exclusive right of fishery when they

granted licenses for the use of traps and other engines for the capture of flsh. If they did so, the question arises whether the parties who paid these license fees supposing that they were receiving exclusive rights of fishery would have a claim upon the Dominion for the refund of that money. But this does not question in any way the obligation upon the department to make and enforce fishery* regulations, for. in that respect, the provinces are absolutely powerless.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that a great part of what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) has told us was generally known. What I wished to know was whether any effort was being made to have a conference with the provinces with a view to a determination of the powers of either side.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There have been a great many negotiations in this direction. I may explain that, by agreement, we still receive all the revenues, except from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, pending final arrangements. Negotiations have gone so far that we have in the department now a memorandum from the province of Quebec of a case that they would like us to join in submitting to the courts. The province of Quebec also has recently sent a very formidable statement of claim with regard to the province's rights in the matter. I agree with the leader of the opposition that, as soon as possible, some conclusion must be come to with regard to these difficulties. It will probably be slow work at the best, but it is my intention, as far as I can, with the assistance of the Department of Justice, to put the matter in shape and have it settled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who issues the licenses, the Dominion or the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The province, in the case of Ontario and Quebec ; but, in the other provinces, the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) to say that it was clearly decided by the Privy Council that both the province and the Dominion have the right to raise revenue from the fisheries. In what way does the Dominion propose to raise a revenue to recoup us for looking after the fisheries and control-ing them ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is one of the matters that parliament has to decide after these other matters are settled. We have not taken action to make up the loss of revenue. If the hon. gentleman had understood me he would have understood that we have receipts as formerly, except from Ontario and Quebec. Last year these receipts were about .$45,000.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Although under the decision, territorial rights or powers are held by the provinces it does not in any way relieve the Dominion from the obligation it is under to protect the fisheries. The Dominion has all the powers to regulate and even to restrain the fishery rights and carrying with it those powers certainly it carries with it the onus of protection. Now, in the province of New Brunswick they have enacted legislation giving power to the government to enter into negotiations and to lease the territorial rights to the Dominion. It would seem to me to be in the best interests of the provinces generally and indeed of the Dominion that the Dominion should control and should have all the fishery rights, even to the territorial rights. From the standpoint of the Dominion and from the standpoint of our trade and navigation all interests combine and unite in pointing to the Dominion as the proper authority. Under these circumstances it would seem to me that it would be wise on the part of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to conclude negotiations at as early a date as convenient and where possible with the several provinces with a view of acquiring the rights of the provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say in connection with this matter that I understand that we have the right to regulate and protect the fisheries ; that is to say the size of the mesh of the net, to regulate the close season and to prescribe the kind of fish traps to be used. But, the question is : If we get no revenue from it, is it worth our while to protect the fisheries all over the country ? If we have the right over and above the provinces to raise a revenue upon the sale of fishing licenses or from some other source had we not better avail ourselves of it, because otherwise the Dominion will be paying out money for doing the work of the provinces ? As this decision has been given some time ago, it would seem to be desirable for the government to endeavour at the earliest possible moment to reach some conclusion with the provinces in regard to the rights we have, the duties we must perform and where the revenue will come from to pay the expenses incurred in protecting the fisheries.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the Dominion has been collecting a revenue from these fisheries for years by selling licenses to parties to fish with seines and fish traps. All along the coast of Nova Scotia these licenses have been sold by the Dominion authorities and the revenue derived from them has come to the Dominion.
Mr. SPROL'LE. The question is whether the Dominion shall be permitted to retain that revenue.


Mr. FRASER.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) must understand the dif-

Acuity in the distribution of powers. It is not an easy matter with a question over which the local legislature may have a partial authority and in which the Dominion may have rights to decide it as quickly as the hon. gentleman thinks. But, what I rose to say was that I dissent entirely from the proposition he makes : It is no difference if the Dominion has only such power to look after our fisheries, it must not do it unless it gets a revenue out of it. That is a proposition, I think, which must not be entertained for a moment. If the Dominion alone can do certain things it makes no difference whether we get a revenue or not. The Dominion must do it in the interests of the fisheries and the people of Canada. You cannot decide a question by saying that it simply costs so much and we must get so much for performing this duty or we will not do anything at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not pretend to advocate any such doctrine. What I suggested was that if the provinces get all the revenue and all the advantages from the fisheries, would it not be desirable to have a conference with the provinces and to decide who shall assume the full responsibility of protecting the fisheries.


Mr. ERASER.: The government can only do what they have power to do. The argument, if I understand it, meant, that while the power might be inherent in one parliament to do a certain thing, unless it paid, parliament should not do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman must not forget that the decision explicitly said that we had joint powers with the provinces.


Austin Levi Fraser: Very able lawyers differ about what it means.


Mr. COCHRANE.: They always do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is this anomaly, that while the territorial right is in the provinces, the Dominion may adopt regulations making entirely valueless these territorial rights; in other words, the Dominion, under its powers, can, by regulation, absolutely prohibit and restrain the use of a river in respect to its fisheries, and yet the territorial right is in the provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A stronger reason for coming- to an amicable understanding.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman says with respect to the desirability of coming to an arrangement, but pending such the Dominion must expend the money in order to protect the fisheries and carry out the regulations, it alone having the power. The provinces have no power in that direction at all.


Mr. GANONG.: Would the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) kindly tell us at what time that legislation was Mr. FRASER.
passed in New Brunswick to which he referred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In 1900.


Gilbert White Ganong: I am really pleased to hear the hon. gentleman saying this. That is not the tune we got in Charlotte when he was running his last election. The tune there which was sung to the poor fishermen was this : These are the fellows that will have you by the throat if you do not vote for the local government. To-day he has changed his tune, and it is a very different story to that which we heard in the election.


Mr. HACKETT.: In connection with this question, I desire to offer an observation or two. We had a very interesting decision by the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island in regard to this question a few days ago. The farmers of Prince Edward Island have for the last twenty or thirty years been digging mussel mud in the beds of the rivers for the purpose of fertilizing their farms. A regulation was passed by the department that no farmer should use his mud machine within 200 yards of a live oyster bed. They submitted to that, but now we find the department has placed an arbitrary line across certain rivers restricting the farmers from using this mussel mud for the purpose of fertilizing their farms. While the oyster fishery in Prince Edward Island is a very important fishery, the farming industry is also equally important, and if you restrict the farmer from taking his mussel mud within 200 yards of the live oyster bed, you will give full protection to the oyster fishery. The decision in the Supreme Court was this : Up the North river, I remember very well, au oyster fishery, or a bed for the protection of the oyster, was set aside by the government of Canada some years ago. A farmer in the prosecution of his industry came along and placed his mud digger within the limits as laid down by the government of Canada. Now, we wish to protect this oyster fishery, but you will see that you have an oyster bed of so many hundred yards square. You have a live oyster bed that must be protected by the government, but can you prevent the farmer from coming along and prosecuting his industry in the vicinity of that oyster bed ? It is true the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island decided that the government of Canada had the right to pass these rules and regulations, but if they were to be enforced, every farmer would be debarred from getting this valuable fertilizer in the vicinity of these oyster beds. I asked the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries a question a few days ago in connection with the lines drawn across the rivers in Prince Edward Island. Is it the intention on the Trout river and the Biddeford river in Prince county that no farmer shall be allowed to take mussel mud except within the lines he has defined ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In reply to the hon. gentleman, 1 would say that when he brought the matter to my attention the other day and when another application was made to the department, I looked into it and came to the conclusion that a good deal of discretion might be used in enforcing these regulations. I gave instructions to the principal officer of the department in charge on the island that he was not to enforce the regulations strictly unless it was really necessary to protect the oyster beds. I think we will all agree that it is necessary to protect the oyster beds, but otherwise I think a great deal of discretion can be left to the officers as to whether this practice will really destroy valuable beds or not. I have issued instructions to that effect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is very little connection between the subject now under discussion in this committee and the elections which were held in New Brunswick in 1899.


Gilbert White Ganong: Not just now, but there was then.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I fear that the hon. gentleman's memory fails him in respect to the attitude of the local government of that day. I can only say that the opinions which I have expressed here to-day were the opinions expressed by me, not merely in other counties in New Brunswick, but in the county of Charlotte. I know that my hon. friend (Mr. Ganong) feels a little sore with respect to that election, because he failed to carry out the pledge which he gave to the celebrated Moncton convention to send four Conservatives to the New Brunswick Legislature. That pi'obably is a sore spot with him.


Gilbert White Ganong: I have to say that while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) does not mean to misrepresent me, his statement is absolutely untrue. I do not place the responsibility at the doors of my hon. friend, because I do not believe he would make the statement if he knew it to be untrue. Whether the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) made the statement or not, these men who followed him and did his work certainly said so, for I was at their meeting when they did say it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I spoke there at three different places.


Gilbert White Ganong: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) was like the ex-Minister of Marine ; instead of talking to fishermen he went to talk to the farmers. That was usually the way down there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I talked with pretty good effect in the county of Charlotte.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand that Ontario and Quebec issue licenses and refuse to pay the revenue over to the Dominion
Treasury while the other provinces do pay us the revenue.


The MINISTER OF SIARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is practically correct if not technically so. So far as the other provinces are concerned we go on collecting the revenue by arrangement just as in the past. This vote amounts to some $300,000, and even if all the provinces collected the revenue, the House might come to the conclusion that it was desirable to vote money for the protection of the fisheries, the management of fish breeding establishments and so on. The hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying that Ontario and Quebec now collect the license fees, which formerly brought in a revenue of some $40,000 or $45,000 per annum to the Dominion, and we do not now receive any revenue from that source in these two provinces.


Mr. INGRAM.: This appropriation is for the purpose of protecting the fisheries, and I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to what is now being done on Lake Erie. Before the province of Ontario took hold of the fishing rights the Dominion government limited the number of licenses ; but 1 am informed that the Ontario government proposes now to increase the number of licenses by some sixty or seventy along the Lake Erie front. If that is done it will be only a matter of a year or two when the valuable fishing grounds there are depleted. If. the Dominion government had any control over the matter I could understand that we should vote money for the protection of the fisheries whose duty it would or ought to be to protect the fisheries and that can be done largely by limiting the number of licenses.


Edward Hackett: I want to say that this question of the protection of the oyster fishery, and allowing the farmers of Prince Edward Island to take mussel mud in the rivers is a very important question with us. The minister said that in connection with these two lines drawn across the Trout river and the Biddeford river, that the enforcement of that arrangement will be left entirely to the discretion of the local officers. You have quite a sufficient quantity of mussel mud for the use of farmers irrespective and clear altogether of the oyster beds. The first duty of this government is to protect the oyster fisheries and at the same time they can allow the farmer to prosecute his industry by getting this valuable fertilizer from the beds of our rivers. If you allow this matter to rest altogether in the hands of the local officers you may have partisanship. You may have one man digging mussel mud and taking it to his farm, while another man of a different political stripe will be prohibited from doing so. The government should not allow this matter to remain altogether in the hands of the local officers.


Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The authority of the inspector in Prince Edward Island to exercise his discretion in this matter is subject to the approval of the department. I do not think there can be any partisanship because the officer once he decides that they can take mussel mud out of a certain place, cannot interfere with any one from taking it there.


Mr. PORTER.: This vote includes the salary of a certain official residing in the county of Hastings, who had the honour of representing East Hastings for one parliament, who at the last general elections was defeated by the electors, and who shortly after that was appointed to the position of Inspector of Fisheries. I refer to Mr. Hurley, the ex-member for East Hastings. I understand that the principle is laid down by the government, that officials of the government should not take an active part in elections, and certain officers have been dismissed because it was alleged they did take an active part in politics. I wish to state that this official to whom I have referred, during the late by-election in the adjoining riding of West Hastings, was found to be active during the whole of that election. I am happy to say that his efforts to defeat the Conservative candidate were not successful. I am, however, unhappy to say that a petition has been lodged protesting the result of that election, and this officer whom I have mentioned, was, I am informed, upon authority on which I can safely rely, the very gentleman who solicited the petitioner to sign the petition against the return of the present member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter). I wish now to ask from the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). I know much of this vote is intended to pay the inspector of fisheries for his duties as inspector, and what proportion of it is intended to remunerate him for the part he took in the late election.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, heai-.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is no part of this vote intended to pay him for work in the elections. It is contrary to the rules of the department that its officers should take an active part in elections. From what I know of my friend and late colleague here (Mr. Hurley) and from what I have seen of him since I have been at the head of the department, I would be surprised to hear that he took any active part in politics. I met Mr. Hurley in Ottawa one day when he was on business with the department, and forgetting for the moment I made some reference to politics to him, and Mr. Hurley at once replied : I do not talk any politics now. It will be seen that he was very guarded in his political utterances even when speaking to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Hurley when a member of this House won the respect of every one who knew him, and I do not think it can be possible that he would be indiscreet enough to take a prominent part in the election. My hon. friend (Mr. Porter) ought to be pleased to have such a large majority, and probably if he knew the truth this officer of my department may have voted for him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the department any control over the number of licenses granted by the Ontario government ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No. That opens up the whole question of jurisdiction. I suppose that if we thought the province was issuing too great a number of licenses, or were depleting or injuring these valuable fisheries by any action they took, we might by a regulation indirectly interfere with them. Directly, we would have nothing to say about the number of licenses they could issue.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have the best authority for making the statement that it is the intention of the Ontario government to increase the number of licenses by sixty or seventy , and if they do that they will certainly deplete the fisheries along the frontier of Lake Erie. Is it not the duty of the department to communicate with the Ontario government to find out if this report is true, and if so to take action to prevent them issuing these licenses ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a matter which would come under the notice of the inspectors, and we have had no report from any inspector with regard to it. We might by arrangement as the hon. gentleman suggests, extend the close season or we might allow them to fish one week out of three or something of that kind.


Mr. BLAIN.: I suppose the hon. minister would have no objection to allowing the correspondence respecting the presenting of those medals, to which I referred last night, to be placed at the disposal of the committee V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: None at all. I found on inquiry there had been some delay-not purposely but through carelessness-and I at once telegraphed and got a reply saying that the matter would be attended to at once.


Richard Blain: I must say that the hon. minister was prompt in the answer he gave, but I explained last night that the department had decided to give to the captain of that life-saving crew a silver watch and to each member of the crew five dollars, and that the watch and the money were sent up to Port Credit. But for some unex-

plained reason the presentation was never made. On whose recommedation was the change made by which each member of their crew, instead of getting five dollars, is to get a medal ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not remember the hon. gentleman making any reference to that last night, and did not look into that phase of the matter, but will do so and give him what information I can obtain.
Mr. SI'ROULE. It may be all very well for the hon. and amiable Minister of Marine and Fisheries to dismiss the subject introduced by my hon. friend from West Hastings with a good-natured smile, but when we find a flagrant violation of the principle which the hon. gentleman admits, namely, that officials of the government should not take part in elections, we cannot allow the hon. gentleman to get rid of the matter in that off-hand way. When Conservatives are guilty of the same offence they are summarily dismissed. Is the hon. gentleman not going to apply the same treatment to his own political friends ? Are they to be allowed to interfere in a political campaign without incurring any penalty ? The hon. member for West Hastings has told this House that he was informed on authority which he believed to be absolutely correct, that this man had got up an election petition and solicited signatures, and possibly may have committed other improper acts, in view of the official position he holds, and all the minister has to say in reply is to pass it, off with a wave of the hand and a good-natured smile. But the country will Insist on something more, because otherwise we will have friends of the government in office doing with perfect immunity the very thing for doing which Conservative office-holders have been over and over again dismissed and dismissed without trial.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it was during either the second or the first session that I had the honour of a seat in parliament that the principle was laid down by the leader of the hon. minister, that if any civil servant undertook to devote his attention to politics and interfere in elections, he would be given full liberty to devote his whole time to that purpose. That is a very good principle, if carried out impartially, but not if it be used merely for the purpose of dismissing office holders whose political convictions are opposed to those of the party in power. That doctrine laid down by the leader of the government has been frequently applied in my own constituency. A postmaster in the county of Halifax was very recently dismissed from office solely on the ground that he had taken part in the last election and was dismissed without any trial, although he was prepared to prove that the charge was without foundation.
Unless this declaration of the leader of the government was intended merely to humbug the public, the statement of my hon. friend from West Hastings is deserving of investigation at the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not ask that this official should be dismissed on the mere statement of the hon. member for Hastings that he had interfered in the elections, although that is the kind of justice that has been meted out to many Conservative officeholders-and one of them I might name in my constituency, who was dismissed from office during the past year-but we are certainly entitled to demand that an investigation he held.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I understood my hon. friend from West Hastings to have brought this matter up in a good-natured way, and did not understand him to have accused the inspector of taking part in an election, but simply of having spoken as he should not have done to some person in connection with the petition filed. I agreed with the hon. gentleman that that was a very injudicious and improper thing for this official to do, and it is my intention to call his attention to the statement and ask for an explanation. I agree with my hon. friend that men holding positions in the public service cannot be too careful. I have always insisted upon their being careful. But I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman in his sweeping statement regarding dismissals of Conservatives from office, and I think that on reflection he will admit that a very small proportion indeed have been dismissed on account of politics. And those who have been, he will find have been more injudicious than the gentleman referred to, and have taken more active part in the different campaigns. For my part I am inclined to take a broad view with regard to this matter, because after all in many cases it is simply gossip started by somebody who may want the job himself. However, I agree in the principle laid down, and, so far as I am concerned, will see that this matter is investigated and the officer punished if guilty.


Gilbert White Ganong: Has the hon. minister decided upon any action with regard to the number of licenses for fish weirs issued in the county of Charlotte 1 Last year we had trouble. Many fishermen made their application asi usual, having received no notice, and they were only notified that they would not be allowed to build weirs after they had provided themselves with the necessary material. The matter was then brought to the notice of the minister, and he decided to allow the weirs to be built. Some applications this year, I understand, have been refused, although the parties are distant the required distance, 1,000 feet or more, from the weirs owned by their neighbours. What I wish to call attention to is the fact that while the de-



partment has issued 300 or 400 linceses, these weirs are not all built, but the issue of these licenses prevents others building. Would it not be better to issue 25 per cent of these licenses-that being the proportion not built-to people who will build. We have lost in population simply because the fisheries have not been as well looked after as they should have been, and I am not attributing the blame to the Liberal government alone. I think our people should be allowed to take advantage of all the catch within their reach. We hear a good deal about the depletion of the fisheries, but if any one had ' been in Charlotte county this year and seen the thousands of hogsheads of fish taken out of the sea there, he would not have concluded there was much chance of depletion in the sardine fisheries. There were probably more fish in the inshore waters this year than has been known in the history of the sardine business.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is a matter upon which the Minister would hardly Come to a decision without consulting the officers of the department. Every hon. gentleman who has taken any interest in these matters knows that there are great differences of opinion upon these subjects and knows also that the quantity of fish varies greatly with the different seasons. It may be that the regulation in this case is too strict. I will take the matter up with the officer in charge of this branch and will let the hon. gentleman know the decision of the government.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Who is the present inspector of fisheries for Manitoba? Has Mr. Colcleugh, who was inspector, been dismissed, or has he resigned ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. W. S. Young is the present inspector.


William James Roche: What is his salary ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Twelve hundred dollars.


William James Roche: What was his previous business ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I understand he was a hardware merchant.


William James Roche: He had no previous training, then, in this particular line ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I am not aware that any expert knowledge is required of the occupant of this position. I should suppose that any sensible man could discharge the duties of the office.


William James Roche: Was Mr. Colcleugh forced to resign or was he dismissed ? If he was dismissed, will the minister say that it was because everything was not in good shape in connection with the fisheries ?


Gilbert White Ganong: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My information is that he resigned voluntarily.


William James Roche: Can the minister tell us whether everything was found in good shape or not ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not the report, but I will look it up.


William James Roche: Has a separate officer been appointed for the hatchery or is the management of the hatchery part of the duty of the inspector of fisheries ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The inspector is looking after the hatchery. An expert was sent up there to see about it.


William James Roche: Is it the intention of the government to appoint a separate officer as manager of the hatchery ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not at present


Robert Laird Borden: Before the item passes, I would like to ascertain the views of the Minister of Justice with regard to the necessity of having questions as to the respective rights of the Dominion and the provinces in the fisheries again submitted to the courts. I understood the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries to tell us last year that it was, in his opinion, necessary, or, at least, desirable, that some other question should be submitted. I think, also, he expressed his intention of having that course adopted at an early day. From the views that have been put forward by my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) and my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), apparently the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not correct in the views he then expressed. I would like to know the views of the Minister of Justice with regard to that, and whether he considers it necessary to adopt such a course.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The judgment of the Privy Council, is in my opinion, extremely confused and indistinct. In fact, were I not speaking of a decision of the highest court of the empire, I would be tempted to say that it is self-contradictory in its terms. However, I think we can safely say that there are two points which are firmly and clearly established. One is that the provinces have all the territorial powers as regards fisheries, and the other- but I had better read from the text so as to have it absolutely correct:-
That the enactment of fishery regulations and restrictions is within the exclusive competence of the Dominion legislature and is not within the powers of the provincial legislatures.
Therefore, we have this condition of things, it seems to me, that the territorial rights as regards the fisheries are vested in I the provinces and that the regulating of

the fisheries is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. Now, in my view, speaking without very much preparation on the subject, I would be inclined to consider that the federal government can, irrespective of locality, declare that no one shall fish generally without paying a fishing fee or tax to the department; that they can also determine the close season, regulate the size of boats, license the boats-they can do all those things that have reference to the general regulation of the fisheries. Coming to the special question which the leader of the opposition has put, I would be disposed to say that the Dominion and the provinces might get together and, through their representatives, come to an agreement as to how this judgment is to be construed. If they are not prepared to do that, then, because of the vague and indistinct terms in which the judgment is couched it will be necessary to submit further questions to the court for the purpose of construing the judgment of the Privy Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) understand that the duty of protection would follow the territorial rights or the power of regulation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that would follow the power of regulation. In fact, I think there are very much larger powers vested in the Dominion than is at the present time generally admitted.. I think the provinces are under an entirely erroneous impression with regard to this judgment. They are told virtually, if I may interpret the judgment: You are the proprietors of this property, but you have no control over it. I think the sooner we define and settle these questions the better for all concerned. The present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. James Sutherland) has begun discussing the matter with the department ; and, if I -may say so, I am ready to take the matter up and have it disposed of almost immediately. It may be anomalous to ask a court to construe its own judgment, but if we are forced to that *conclusion, the fault is not entirely ours.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one *other matter I would like to say a word about, and to this I would ask the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is a matter I brought to the attention of the late minister. In a great many cases we find very small salaries paid to fishery inspectors accompanied by very large travelling expenses. At page P-109, of the Auditor General's Report, we find a salary of $218.75 accompanied with a charge of $746 for travelling expenses ; another salary of $187.50 with travelling expenses of $507.05. On the following page we find ' salary, $175 ; travel, $562.73.' And on the same page a salary of $187.50 is accom-184
panied by travelling expenses of $603.01. The explanation made by the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries last year was that the travelling expenses were really a part of the salary ; that the inspector went out with his own horse and buggy, and sent in vouchers as if he had spent so much money in travelling, though, in fact, he had spent no money, but had used his own conveyance.
I think it would be better to put these things on a proper basis. If this is part of the salary let it be paid as part of the salary and not entered as fictitious travelling expenses.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is quite true, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says that comparatively small salaries are accompanied by comparatively large charges for travelling expenses. I am assured by the officers of the department that these matters are very closely scrutinized, and that in no case that may be investigated will it be found that these are paid as part of a salary. The districts, in some cases, are very large, and the inspectors have to travel by hiring horses and rigs. They are allowed a fixed rate of ten cents per mile of travel, twenty-five cents for each meal, twenty-five cents for horse-feed, and twenty-five cents for a bed. These accounts are sent in and sworn to by the parties, and are carefully investigated by the department. Whether any other system can be adopted that will be better while securing equal efficiency, I could not say. I will look into the matter.


Mr. CLANCY.: Will the hon. minister say who is the inspector of fisheries at the town of Wallaceburgb, Ont., and what is his salary ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not find in the list any officer at Wallaceburgh.


James Clancy: I think if the hon. minister will make inquiries he will find that there is a gentleman acting in that capacity there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am assured by the officers of the department that we have no officer there.
Building and maintenance of fish breeding establishments and lobster hatcheries, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is an increase of $10,000 owing to four new hatcheries having been established during the year, one at Margaree, in Nova Scotia, a combined salmon and lobster hatchery, one at Gaspe, and two salmon hatcheries in British Columbia, one at Bedford Creek and the other at Skeena River.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many hatcheries have we now altogether, and what are they for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are fourteen now. One at Newcastle, Out., for salmon; one at Sandwich, Ont., whitefish; Ottawa, salmon and trout; Quebec, salmon; Magog, salmon and trout; Gaspe Basin, salmon and lobsters; Campbelltown, N.B., salmon; South River, N.B., salmon; Grand Falls, N.B., salmon; Bedford, N.B., salmon and trout; Bay View, N.S., lobsters; Margaree, N.S., salmon; Selkirk, Man., whitefish; New Westminster, B.C., salmon; Battle Creek, B.C., salmon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that there were splendid opportunities for establishing fish hatcheries on the Georgian Bay. The place where they collect fish fry for their hatcheries is about 300 miles distant from here. It seems to me it would be a better plan to establish a hatchery in close proximity to where the fish fry is collected, because it would sustain less injury in transportation. There are several streams entering into the Georgian Bay that I believe would be very suitable places for fish hatcheries. One especially at the Beaver River, which enters into Georgian Bay at Thornbury-I do not think there could be a better place found in Canada for a fish hatchery for salmon, trout and whitefish. Salmon, trout and whitefish fry are collected there and also at Meaford. There is only one other hatchery on these waters, that at Sarnia, none on the Georgian Bay whatever. The minister last year promised to give it some attention, and I inferred he would consider the matter favourably during the summer. But although three new hatcheries have been established since then, or are in process of being established, I see he has overlooked my request entirely. As the present minister is an Ontario man and knows the locality well, I merely direct his attention to it. There is very little distribution of public money in these constituencies up there. I think the business could be carried on more economically there than down here, where fish fry have to be brought some hundreds of miles before they are deposited in the hatchery.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In accordance with the promise made by the minister last year, the officers of the department inform me that an investigation has been made regarding this matter, and probably a vote will be put into the supplementaries this year to carry out the project the hon. gentleman refers to.


Gilbert White Ganong: I am glad to see the additional amount here, because I think there is nothing we can do that adds more to our national wealth than the development of fishing industries. I had hoped that a portion of this money would be spent in the Bay of Fundy or in the county of Charlotte. I would like to have seen one Liberal promise carried out. The late Minister of Mar-Mr. SPROULE.
ine and Fisheries and the Minister of Railways and Canals, when they were down there certainly promised that a fish hatchery should be one of their first considerations. In a business point of view there is no location in the country in which a hatchery would add so much to the national wealth as it would in the county of Charlotte. The fish hatcheries, some of them at least, such as the lobster hatcheries on the Nova Scotia coast, I think at Bay View, are providing lobsters chiefly for canning. The hatchery on the Bay of Fundy, as the hon. member for St. John will admit, would furnish a class of lobsters that bring 18 or 20 cents alive. The fact that we are so close to the American market certainly makes that location one of the best in the lower provinces for such a hatchery. I hope the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries will, at his earliest convenience, take this matter into consideration. Those waters in years past have been teeming with lobsters, and so far as a feeding ground is concerned, no doubt the biological report will show there are no waters in the country better fitted for propagating lobsters than the waters of Charlotte county.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he makes provision for any lobster hatcheries in New Brunswick ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, but representations have been made, the matter is being investigated, and probably we will deal with it later on in the session.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the hatchery at Pictou has been doing very excellent work indeed. I am informed that the officers of the department have had under consideration a very favourable report on the necessity of establishing a hatchery somewhere on the Straits of Northumberland, at or near ShemogueJ of which place we have heard; and also in the county of Gloucester, at Shippegan. I am sure the necessity must be apparent if one takes into consideration the decrease in the fishery returns in respect to lobsters. I need only invite the attention of my hon. friend to the importance of establishing such hatcheries in New Brunswick.
Fisheries protection service, including maintenance of new vessels in British Columbia, $120,000.
Mr, SPROULE. What headway has the hon. gentleman made with the new vessel they were building last year in British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will very soon be ready for service.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister to reserve one item in these

estimates so that the higher estimates could be discussed later on, and those relative to the fisheries generally.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I made that proposition yesterday, and I am glad to agree to it. Being new in the department, I am anxious to hear criticisms from both sides, and I am also anxious to get all the information I can on these subjects.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Fictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) I expect will be here next week. He has taken a good deal of interest in matters relative to the fishery protective service, and has made, I think, some suggestions with respect to permanently employing the crews instead of dismissing them in the fall. I do not want to discuss the matter now, but merely ask to have the matter stand.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The greatest latitude will be given to the discussion on that or any other matter. In a very few days the supplementary estimates will be presented, when another occasion will be afforded for discussing the matter.
Canadian fisheries exhibit, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is that for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is for caretaking and incidental expenses incurred at the exhibit on O'Connor street.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it for use for the purpose of improving and increasing the exhibit from time to time, or for maintenance ?	,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is to be used in a practical way. There is a hatchery in operation. I would ask my hon. friend to go down and see the important work that is going on.


Robert Laird Borden: I saw it a few years ago and I wanted to know whether it is just the same as it was then or whether it is improving.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is improving.
To pay persons employed in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for services in connection with the distribution of the fishing bounty, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the explanation of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend, perhaps, is aware of the fact that there is a large amount of this bounty to be paid out and a large number of temporary employees, altogether young ladies, are engaged about the first of the year getting out the bounty
cheques. This has been the practice ever since this bounty has been paid.


Robert Laird Borden: This work is performed here in Ottawa? ,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Gilbert White Ganong: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if the commanders of the cruisers receive any additional pay for the distribution of the bounty cheques ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed they are not distributed by the captains of the cruisers at all but by the fishery overseers.


Gilbert White Ganong: That may be true in some instances, but I had some corfimunication with the department some time ago in connection with Captain Pratt, who should have paid the bounty to the fishermen several weeks sooner but did not do so, simply because he happened at the time to be away on the coast of Nova Scotia. I made the suggestion that the cheques be sent to the collector of customs at Grand Manan.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He is an inspector of fisheries as well.


Gilbert White Ganong: I think that some better means of distribution should be arranged. The captain may be at North Head one day and the fishermen may be 14 or 15 miles away, unable to make communication with him, only having their boats. Unless the tides serve well, it is impossible for them to get up in time. If these cheques were left with the collector of customs, who is a very honourable and trustworthy man, and a good Liberal, at North Head, he would be able to distribute them much more conveniently. I think that at some time in the future the hon. minister might consider another thing to which I shall draw his attention, and it is that I believe that the inspector's position in these coastal waters would be much better served by having available a steam launch of sufficient size to perform the service in these waters alone. This steam launch would be available for service in the event of any wrecks such as have occurred along the coast of Grand Manan. I think the hon. gentlemen all know of the reefs cff that island and of the disastrous wrecks that have occurred there. While we have a life-saving station at Seal Cove we have not the advantage of steam communication. If these two services were combined it would make them very much more efficient, and I believe that the navigation of these waters would be made very much safer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am pleased to have the statement of the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) who lives in the vicinity, and

55$
I shall certainly ask a report from the officers of my department upon the suggestions he has made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much money is distributed in fishing bounties every year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Distributed amongst how many-boats, I suppose it is ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, it is individuals-in round numbers 25,000 cheques.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it takes $5,000 to make out 25,000 cheques ?
Oyster culture, $7,000.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I would like to ask the hon. minister if out of this vote ground is to be prepared at Goat Island in the Annapolis Basin ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am unable to give the information, but I will make a note of the question and bring the information later.


Mr. BELL.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what work is proposed to be done under that estimate in the lower provinces- Nova Scotia for instance, this year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is proposed to provide oyster beds in Nova Scotia, at Minas Basin, Annapolis Basin, Malagawatch, Mira River and East Bay, south side of Bras d'Or Lakes. There are five places where beds are being prepared.


Edward Hackett: How many of these beds have been prepared in Prince Edward Island


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Beds have been prepared at Murray Harbour, North River, Grand River, and Richmond Bay.


Edward Hackett: In what part of Richmond Bay is this bed placed ? Richmond Bay is a natural oyster bed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am sorry that I am not able to give the information, but I will send the hon. gentleman a sketch of the point where this bed has been placed.


Edward Hackett: What has been done on the North River 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that beds are being prepared there. The planting will be done during the coming session.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman tell us what the practice of the department is in regard to the issue of oyster licenses ?


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: When the application is made for an oyster license, a lease is made out and the location is defined by the inspector, or fishery overseer of the district.


Robert Laird Borden: For what period of time are they usually granted and what is the fee ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: One year. In some cases I am informed they have been given for three years. The accountant does not remember just what the fee is that is charged. It seems to me the fees vary according to the size of the ground granted by the overseers.
To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for deep sea fishermen under conditions to be fixed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, $25,000.


Mr. KENDALL.: Before this item is carried, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the results which have attended so far the initiation of the cold storage system in Nova Scotia have been more gratifying than we could have anticipated. I wish to point out to the government that if we are going to deal with this great question of bait supply for what is perhaps the greatest industry We have in the maritime provinces, an industry which would represent $15,000,000 annually, we cannot stop at the point we have now reached. The bait freezers at present in operation are principally to serve the wants of the shore fisheries while no provision has been made for the bank fisheries. Of course, the stores in these small freezers can be drawn upon by the bank fishermen, but when we take into consideration the enormous loss entailed every year by the bank fishermen it will be seen that something more will have to be done. I would' throw out by way of suggestion that in my humble opinion it would be a paying thing for the country and for thel government to establish one freezer at a cost of about $35,000 or $40,000 at some important point along the Atlantic coast where bait could be most easily procured, in order that five or six hundred vessels, some large and some small, would be enabled to obtain a sufficient supply of bait. I think there is no doubt that our losses would average at least anywhere from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 yearly from the want of this accommodation. I wish to point out also to the government that the adjoining colony of Newfoundland is now arranging for the installation of a bait plant there. If we are to compete with the Newfoundland fisheries, we must be thoroughly supplied with bait as are the Newfoundland fishermen. I would point out that our competitors from Gloucester, New York, and Boston have also constant supplies of frozen

bait on band. It is a matter of prime importance that perhaps the largest industry, except agriculture, in the maritime provinces, should be accommodated with all necessary adjuncts for its successful operation. There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the House. I wish to point out that the freight receipts from the growing fresh fish trade from the maritime provinces to the west are increasing and increasing rapidly. I will give you one instance. Four years ago one firm, probably the largest of the fish firms, paid $10,000 in railway freights from the Straits of Oanso ; next year it paid $12,000 ; next year $14,000, and last year it paid, I think, $20,000. Let me say also that the facilities at the railway terminals in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are not what they should be. Before we can meet the requirements of the fresh fish trade we must have a few small refrigerators costing anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 at the principal railway terminals in the maritime provinces.


Gilbert White Ganong: Do you refer to mechanical cold storage ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No. As far as I can understand the mechanical cold storage is more economical when you freeze over 800 tons, but under that, the idea seems to prevail that ice and salt is more economical.
I repeat what I said last year, that on the Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway the cold storage cars provided are not what they should be. Numbers of these cars are defective in construction. At some other time I shall draw attention to this matter, but I may state now in passing, that a great number of the cold storage cars on Canadian railways are not in a sanitary condition. It is also true that many of the refrigerators in Canada are not in a saui-tary condition and very frequently meat and fish transported arrive in a semi-putrid condition. I am nevertheless of the opinion that the results from our system of cold storage have been very gratifying up to the present time, and I beg to urge upon the government that they should grapple with this larger question which is certainly one of very great concern to a large proportion of the population of the maritime provinces -a population which seems inclined to remain by the fishing industry, and which I regret to say is very much inclined indeed to move to the United States.


Edward Hackett: I corroborate the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall). Some few years ago, that hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) came to Prince Edward Island for the purpose of establishing these bait freezers and the undertaking has proved a complete success. If there was nothing else done by the government during their period of office to assist the fishermen of the maritime provinces, the establishment
of these bait freezers has been a great boon to them. On the coasts of our maritime provinces, we have fishermen who must go out to sea in their small boats, and if they have not proper bait they cannot succeed in their calling. Gentlemen from the other provinces may not think much of the bait freezing experiment, but it has undoubtedly proved a great boon to the fishermen of the provinces by the sea. I would like to call the attention of the government to the fact, that after a shore fisherman catches the fish he must have some appliances whereby he can cure his fish properly for the West Indian and other markets. I believe that the government should do something in the way of providing patent driers to assist the fishermen in carrying out their industry. If you have these driers you will have the fish cured in proper condition, so that it can fairly compete with other fish in the markets of the world. That is especially true of the province of Prince Edward Island where, because of the sandy and loamy soil, and damp weather causing evaporation, the fish becomes dark when sun dried, and do not take the position on the markets which they should take. I trust that in addition to the bait freezers, the government will see its way clear to assist the fishermen in getting these patent driers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from Gape Breton (Mr. Kendall) and also to hear an endorsement of the benefits which these bait freezers have conferred. I think the proposition of my hon. friend is a practical one, and while I promised probably to do a good deal, I certainly feel that the subject he has brought before the House, and the suggestion he has made is a very important one, and it will have early consideration.


Gilbert White Ganong: Perhaps I may be in a better position to speak on this vote than some of the other members of the House, because I have invested some $15,000 in mechanical cold storage for precisely the purpose that is referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Kendall). There is no question but that this scheme can be carried out, and I think the amount the hon. gentleman suggests probably would be sufficient. I believe a cold storage plant that would cost $35,000 would probably freeze and care for, from two millions to three millions pounds of fish. You may wonder why I did not continue in the business, but I may say that the fish were running erratically for a year or two, and other matters demanded my attention. I may say, however, that the establishment built at White Head, Grand Manan, is still there and 1 have an engineer to look after it every year so that it will probably be running again. One year I successfully froze 750,000 pounds of fish. It was the year of the Spanish-American war and this fish was sold to American

fisherman. They sent boats to Grand Manan and bought the fish from the freezers, and carried them away in American bottoms. It occurred just about the time of the declaration of war, and the Gloucester fishermen were advised to throw their fish overboard and come home, which they did, fearing that some Spanish cruiser might tramp along the coast. I very much favour the proposition made by my hon. friend (Mr. Kendall) as it is one of the most important things which the government can possibly take up. There is a great deal of expense in connection with it. While there is a great difference between the initial cost of the fish and the price for which we can sell them, yet you have constantly to maintain your power and appliances, and with other attendant expenses the scheme gets too costly almost for a private corporation to take hold of. Up to the present time there is certainly some element of experiment in It.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I wish to recognize on behalf of the maritime provinces, the benefits we have derived during the initiation of these plants, from the services of Mr. J. F. Fraser, one of the engineers of the department. Mr. Fraser has given a degree of satisfaction that has made him the friend of every fisherman on these shores where he has visited. I also wish to observe that while we have had success in connection with a number of these freezers, we have not had success with regard to all. We have found it very difficult indeed to get the fishermen to co-operate. We started out with an ideal plan of putting the refrigerators in the hands of the fishermen themselves, but I am afraid that in some cases at least we will have to recede from that position and endeavour to enlist the sympathies of some business men.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendall) what railways he is referring to when he speaks of the refrigerator cars being in an unsanitary condition. Does he include the refrU gerator cars on the Intercolonial Railway, or are there any such ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: There are some refrigerator cars on the Intercolonial Railway, and while I do not say that they are in an unsanitary condition, yet the construction of some of them is defective. I have seen cars arriving in Sydney and Glace Bay loaded with meat from large Ontario concerns and when the meat arrived, it certainly was not fit for food.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as many railways are concerned, we have no particular control over them, but in the case of the Intercolonial Railway we have something to say. If the hon. gentleman has anything to complain of with regard to the construction of the cars or the aecommo-


Gilbert White Ganong: dation on the Intercolonial Railway, we should know it, so that we may bring that matter to the attention of the railway department.


Mr. KENDREY.: It has been brought to the attention of that department.
Ottawa-Astronomical Observatory, $15,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Before this passes, I would like to remind the Minister of Public Works that last year he promised the Committee on Public Accounts that Mr. Charleson and Mr. Rochester and any other necessary witness would be present before that committee this year with all necessary vouchers. I would like to know whether or not he will be in a position to redeem that promise.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Charleson and Mr. Rochester are both in town and available as soon as the committee on Public Accounts meets. Mr. Boyer, one of the officers sent to the Yukon, will also be here a short time, and Mr. Tache.


Robert Laird Borden: How much has been expended and what will be the total expenditure on this item ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not made much progress. The plans have been prepared and a site chosen on the experimental farm. But the plans prepared were too expensive, and new ones are being made for a building, the cost of which is not to exceed $40,000.
Ottawa-Branch of Royal Mint, $50,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect visited England, France and Belgium in order to obtain data for the preparation of plans. He has come back and prepared plans which have been sent to England and have not yet been returned. We are ready to begin the work now and are awaiting the return of the plans. The site chosen is on Nepean Point. The cost will be about $300,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the plans have to be approved by the Imperial authority ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is a branch of the Royal Mint.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Has the Minister decided whether this building is to be constructed on the day labour principle.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In every work yve have undertaken, we have always submitted our rates to the Labour Department, although perhaps at times that has caused us a lot of work and trouble. Still we have acted in good faith with the House.
Parliament buildings-addition to building over engine-house and improvements in main vestibule, including two electric elevators, $15,-
000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I move that the words 'including two electric elevators' be struck out as these elevators are paid out of another appropriation. The SI 5,000 I am asking for is destined to provide further accommodation in the attic. I think the work carried on has been successful. We intend taking as many rooms as possible in the attic for members of parliament and replacing the old flooring by mosaic pavement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this include the new building put up here ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, this is new work altogether not yet undertaken. If my hon. friend will go up stairs he will find that we will be able to give more accommodation by building rooms in the attic and continuing the work' wre have begun.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose this is intended to induce us to live on another year on promises.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid my hon. friend lives too much In the past.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year we were promised a considerable number of rooms for the use of members, but this year we find very few more than last, although considerable extensions have been made. The [DOT]opposition have hardly been given their just rights and would like the Minister to do something more.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What I have done for the Opposition this year is not as much as I would like to have done, but I propose to do more later *on. I have consulted Mr. Speaker, and we have given a large room to the leader of the [DOT]opposition for the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk) and another room to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). That makes two additional rooms for the opposition, and when we have built more rooms in the attic I think we will be able to gratify the wishes of our friends opposite. Our friends on this side complain just as bitterly and perhaps more so than my hon. friends opposite. We cannot give more than we have. We have built a very fine committee room. The debates reporters have been given nice quarters and their old room has been given to the Minister of Finance, who requires a large room as he receives large deputations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As regards the distribution of the rooms, I think there might have been a better distribution without doing great injustice to any person. While on my feet, let me say that last year I understood that one of the objects of building this extension was to give a much larger committee room to the Railway Committee and allow the Railway Committee room to be
used by some other committee. I asked that the Agricultural Committee should be allowed to use the old Railway Committee room because it is the next largest committee to that of railways and because the room in which it has been the custom to meet is altogether too small. In fact it is impossible for its members to get seats when there is an average attendance. I suggested, at the last meeting of that committee, that we should use the old Railway Committee room, but was told that we could not be allowed the use of it for the present. There was no particular reason why we should not use it, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether it was not the intention, when providing this increased accommodation, to furnish larger rooms for the use of some of the larger committees.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Speaker has the right of distributing the rooms and I do not object to his doing so at all. I am prepared to give up all my privileges in that connection because they really give more trouble than pleasure. I am in the hands of the House. If the House prefers to deal with Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to give up all my rights immediately. If I am to distribute the rooms, I am prepared to be responsible, or I am quite ready to act jointly with Mr. Speaker. After the observations made, I do not see why the old committee room should not be used by jhe Committee on Agriculture, which is a very important committee. We have a large committee room up stairs, large enough to accommodate a considerable assembly of people. So, I do not see why the old committee room should not be used in the way pointed out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would hardly be convenient to have this room assigned exclusively to the Committee on Agriculture. There are other important committees, and they do not all meet on the same day. I should think that several committees could use this room, with a little adjustment. I would like it understood that such committees as that on Banking and Commerce, Public Accounts, and others, have equal rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I had no intention of suggesting that the Committee on Agriculture should have sole use of the room. The Committee on Public Accounts and possibly others might also use it, as they do not meet on the same days as the Committee on Agriculture. This room might accommodate two or three committees. As soon as the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Speaker come to a decision as to who has authority, we shall be able to discuss matters. It is easier to deal with one of these gentlemen than both. Both are very able, and I do not know with which of them I would prefer to deal. Heretofore we have always considered that Mr. Speaker has authority in these subjects.	,

56*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we find who has the authority, we will deal with him.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did I understand the Minister of Public Works to say that when he got the plans for the Royal Mint he was going to construct that building by day labour ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WO'
No, it will be by tender-most decidedly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many additional rooms does the hon. minister hope to be able to provide in the attic of this building by the expenditure of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect thought he would be able to provide four large rooms.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will there be any further accommodation for hon. gentlemen on this side ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think we may speak of that when the rooms are ready. I will do the fair thing next year, as I have done this year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is another matter to which I wish to direct attention, and I am sure that I have only to mention it to have hon. gentlemen opposite agree with me. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has a room about twenty feet long by ten feet wide. An hon. gentleman beside me suggests that it is six feet wide, and probably it is nearer six than ten. In the discharge of his important duties, the leader of the opposition, as hon. gentlemen opposite know, must receive a great many persons who desire to call upon him. He requires also the services of a stenographer. And, when I point out to the minister that when a gentleman calls upon the leader of the opposition on business, he must send his stenographer out to stand about in the lobby until the Interview is over, I think I say ail that is necessary to convince him that better accommodation is required for the leader of the opposition. The suggestion has been made-I do not know enough about the internal arrangement of the House to form an opinion as to whether it is practicable or not-that if the room between No. 6 and that occupied by the hon. leader of the opposition were vacated by the present occupant and added to the room which the leader of the opposition occupies, it might be used by his stenographer and also by some other members who have large correspondence and require some better accommodation to enable them to handle it. At any rate, I feel I can appeal to the hon. Minister of Public Works on behalf of the leader of the opposition to ask that better accommodation be provided.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know very well that the hon. leader of the Mr. SPROULE.
opposition is not accommodated as he ought to be. It is true that all leaders of the opposition for the last twenty years have occupied the same room, but that does not make the case any better.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is time for a change.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some respects-yes. So far as the point referred to is concerned, I fully agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that it is time for a change. The room allotted to the hon. leader of the opposition is so small that no ordinary business man would locate even a subordinate employee in it. His secretary must be in the same room and right at his side. When the new rooms are built upstairs, if my authority in the matter is admitted, I think I may find it possible, not by a general change, but by a pretty general change, to accommodate my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) as he has a right to be, and as the country has a right to expect that he will be accommodated.


John William Bell: Do I understand that that part of the vote relating to two electric elevators is struck out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the elevatots are built and are being paid for out of another appropriation.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-public buildings-Ottawa-Victoria Memorial Museum, $50,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We would like some information about this.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry to say we have not done much yet. The chief architect has been away in connection with the Royal Mint, and we had so much on hand in the way of public buildings that we have not been able to proceed very fast. Moreover, there are difficulties in the way. The first difficulty is as to site. It was suggested last year that we might choose Major's Hill Park. I am free to admit that I have not made up my mind about the matter yet. This is a very important question. We claim to be a nation, and we are getting big very fast. We are not building for to-day only, but must think of the future. I have, therefore, hesitated to make definite choice of a site. Moreover, I would not like to spend too much money on this museum. At the same time, I feel the responsibility which rests upon this government as it has rested upon previous governments, in that we have a valuable national collection which is exposed to destruction any day. I would not like, however, to spend over half a million for this building. I have no doubt that when I come before the House next year a definite step will have been taken. So far, at least, no money has been spent.


Robert Laird Borden: I notice that the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) seems to be very

much worried over the expenditure of ; money. X have observed the same thing : ever since I have come into the House. I hope his anxiety concerning this expenditure ' or any other is not affecting his health ser- * iously. As to myself and the accommoda- I tion which has been afforded me, I am glad to say that, so far as the room can be made i suitable, I certainly am indebted to the hon. minister for doing everything in his power to provide for me.

Public Works-chargeable to capital-Harbours and rivers, River St. Lawrence Ship Channel, $500,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the hon. minister going to do with this money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the work that is in progress between Quebec and Montreal. We have six elevator dredges, and one large suction dredge lately built at the Poison Iron Works in Toronto. These six dredges work night and day at a cost of $30,000 each. We expect that the large suction dredge to which I have alluded will cost for operation $70,000 a year-and by a year, I mean 185 days. That dredge was tested last fall. Should it, in actual work, respond to our expectations- which are very high, I wish to say-she will work at a very cheap rate. She has a capacity of 2,000 yards an hour; in other words, if she works well, she will dredge nearly nine millions of cubic yards in 185 days.
I do not rely on such large results; but, even if you take off 20 per cent you will see that the dredge will carry on our work very fast and at a very cheap rate. In fact, if it worked to its full capacity the cost of dredging will be only eight-tenths of a cent per yard, that is, if it worked twenty-four hours a day at its full capacity. But I do not expect that result. But even if it only does half that, you will have the dredging done at a cent and a half a yard. We expect that that dredge will do work for one cent a yard. Other modern dredges we have built during the last three or four years are doing work for 3, and 4 cents, while the old dredges did work at a cost of 25 to 30 cents a yard. Now, of this $500,000, $250,000 will be employed for dredges on the St. Lawrence river. The balance of the money will be employed, among other things, to build a new twin screw tug to replace an old one, which will cost in the neighbourhood of $25,000; for the construction of two large dump scows for dredging, $26,000; completion of one scow, $4,000; construction of one flat scow with boiler, $7,000 ; construction of one saw-mill, $15,000 ; construction and equipment of a marine railway, workshops and shipyard, $20,000 ; refitting shipyard, $5,000 ; rebuilding wharf, $3,000. We have $30,000 left for unforeseen expenses.
I will add for the information of the House that we have now in Sorel a shipyard in first-class condition. We are building not only for the St. Lawrence channel, but for the whole country. For instance, we are building at this moment a large dredge for the maritime provinces. We are building it with Canadian labour, we are building it on Canadian soil, we are training Canadian skilled men, we are doing the work as cheaply as it can be done on this side of the ocean. I hope and trust that in the future the government will never be obliged to go elsewhere for our ships or anything else that we can build here. I have endeavoured, as far as my department is concerned, to carry out a policy of building on Canadian soil, either at Sorel or elsewhere, all the plant that was necessary to do our work.
The capacity of the dredge that we are building in the maritime provinces will be 1,800 yards an hour. I may say that I hope it will be the best dredge in the world. It is a very complicated piece of machinery indeed. That is saying a good dleal, but I think I am within the truth in stating that the dredge that we have huilt in Toronto is the most modern dredge that has been built. The dredge for the maritime provinces will be a suction dredge and an elevator dredge at the same time; in other words, when the dredge is called upon to work in soft material we will use the suction machinery, and when it works in harder material we will use the elevator machinery. Now this suction dredge has discharging pipes, and at the same time it will be a hopper dredge. In other words, it will carry away its own material when the weather is stormy, or when the dredge works in some exposed place. I think that dredge will cost in the neighbourhood of $300,000. The Toronto dredge costs $250,000 with the whole equipment. The capacity of the Toronto dredge is 2,000 yards an hour. My opinion is that that dredge will do work for less than a cent a yard.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: I am delighted to hear from the Minister of Public Works that we are going to have in Nova Scotia the benefit of the best dredge in the world. I think that will be very satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia. Being a suction dredge, I hope it will be successful in sucking up some of the shoals we have in the harbours already built. There is a harbour in my own county that cost $80,000 or $82,000, on which no work or any improvement has been made for the last twenty-eight or twenty-nine years. It now needs to be dredged, and I hope before the season is over to see this great dredge doing service in several places in Nova Scotia.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I listened with a good deal of pleasure to the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Public Works, and was glad to learn that he had adopted the plan of building dredges which I recom-

mended to liim three or four years ago. I made a statement in the House some time ago that material in the city of Liverpool for deepening the Mersey had been excavated and removed a certain distance for a sum so small as to seem incredible, T think it was in the neighbourhood of 3 or 8$ cents per cubic yard. I stated also there were improvements likely to be made in the port of New York, and that dredges of the kind they used in Liverpool were going to be adopted in New York. My remarks fell upon appreciative ears, and I find that the Minister of Public Works lias built [DOT]dredges after the Liverpool plan and the New York plan. The hon. gentleman says that material can be moved for eight-tenths of a cent per cubic yard on the St. Lawrence. Possibly that may be so, under the system he tells us he has adopted, of using a hopper dredge having pipes carrying away the material to a certain distance and depositing it on either shore. If he succeeds, he will reduce the cost which has been in the past as high as 28 or 29 cents per cubic yard. Even if he reduces it to 4 or 5 cents, he will accomplish a great deal, and the dredge will well repay the expenditure of money used in building it. These dredges are necessary. The minister has not stated the number of cubic yards that require to be removed on the St. Lawrence and the probable cost of doing that work, or when it is likely to be completed. It is only a year or two since all the requisite improvements upon the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec have been [DOT]completed. I remember when I was a minister of the Crown that we determined upon selling off those useless dredges which were encamped down at Sorel or in the neighbourhood. There were fifteen or twenty, for which there was no use at all after the improvements on the St. Lawrence river in the way of deepening had been nearly completed. The minister it appears has decided upon having a further depth at the port of Montreal, and I think he is correct. He is extending the depth from twenty-six or twenty-eight feet to thirty feet. I think that is the least we can do if we are going to make Montreal a terminal port for the purpose of transportation, so that a vessel of thirty feet draught will be able to come up to Montreal. As it is nearly six o'clock, I would like the minister to state the amount of material which is required to be excavated for the purpose of accomplishing his object, and the time it will require to do it. It is to be hoped that we may have soon an end of this enormous expenditure we have made in the past for improving navigation between Quebec and Montreal.


Mr. TAYLOR.: As I will not be here after eight o'clock and as this item may be passed In the meantime, I would like to ask the hon. minister a question or two. He may answer it after eight o'clock, and if I am Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
not here, I will read his answer in the 1 Hansard ' on Monday. I have no objection to a very large amount being voted for the purpose of improving the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec. I will go as far as the hon. minister, or any person in this House in that direction, but when that money is voted I want to know that it is applied to the purpose for which it is voted. I notice by looking at the Auditor General's Report, V-43, a long list of items charged against the money which is voted for this purpose and which have nothing whatever to do with the deepening of a ship channel. I do not suppose these goods are bought by tender because of the very large amounts which, I find, have been paid for them. At Y-43 of the Auditor General's Report I find that Robillard & Co., of Montreal, received $1,271.45 out of the money voted for the improvement of the ship channel, as follows :
Wilton carpet, made and laid, 179-42 yards at $2.75, $493.41.
Two dollars and seventy-five cents for Wilton carpet ! I had my hon. friend (Mr. Birkett) telephone down to one of the large carpet houses in Ottawa and find out the price of the best Wilton carpet. He found out that Wilton carpet is worth from $1.50 to $2.35 a yard. For this same carpet the hon. gentleman has paid $2.75 a yard.
Wilton stair carpet, J, 7 yards at $2.75, 1, 6J yards at $3.25 ; paper, 100 yards at 10c., Brussels carpet, 20 yards at $1, $69.83.
Linoleum, 38 yards at $1.50, 202 yards at 65c., 100 yards at 60c., J24S.30.
Livonea, 614 yards at $1.50 ; table oil cloth, 18i yards, $7.80, $104.55.
Edging, 180 yards at 50c.; bazier, 24 yards at $1.85 ; velvet rugs, 5 at $4, $154.40.
Silk lining, 60J yards at $1.25 ; special loops, 32 at $2; 1 sweeper, $4, $143.31.
This is one of those carpet sweepers that you can buy at apy carpet store for $2.25.
Table cloths, 1 at $20, 1 at $5; tassel hooks, 32 pairs at 35c.; 2 mats, $7.50 ; sundry, $13,95, $57.65.
Making altogether a grand total of $1,271.45, taken out of the money that we voted last year for the improvement and deepening of this ship channel, and for what purpose ? Fitting up, I presume, some tug boat down there, because the hon. gentleman has nothing but dredges and tugs. It may have been for the fitting up of the steamer ' Eureka ' or some other tug. Is that a proper way to spend the money that we have voted for a specific purpose, for the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec ? I turn over to the next page V- 44, and I find that Messrs J. & R. Weir, Montreal, were paid $4,125 for a marine, D., title boiler for tug boat tested to 200 lbs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: After a tender this time.


George Taylor: Then the tenders must have been very limited, because I am asking for tenders for a boiler of practically the same capacity and I have a tender which I will bring on Monday for a boiler of 150 h.p. placed in our factory for $1,000.


Mr. COWAN.: It is second hand.


George Taylor: No, it is not second hand ; it is made by the best makers. It is practically a marine boiler and just as good a boiler as there is in any tug boat, and it is made by Messrs Goldie & McCulloch. My hon. friend talks about the price of a tug boat, but if he pays $4,000 for a boiler he will have nothing left for the rest of the equipment. I find in the report of the Auditor General large sums of money, which we have voted, expended in the purchase of goods, bought without tenders and for which two or three prices have been paid to the political friends of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Prince and Princess of Wales were to visit this country. I thought it was only fair to have a boat equipped on which they might be entertained on the lakes. We were building a boat at Sorel, and I plead guilty to the charge of having equipped her in a way in which I would not have thought of equipping a boat under ordinary circumstances. I quite admit that my officers have spent perhaps $2,000 or $3,000 and perhaps more, but they have done it in providing a boat in a fitting way for an event that was expected to take place.


George Taylor: For the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Minister of Public Works has been only twice on board of that boat. I am not a man who travels for pleasure. I have not done it so far. I hope I will be able in my older days to do so, but so far I have not found time to do it. I would like to have that pleasure. This boat was equipped with a certain degree of luxury. Those of my hon. friends who have been ministers of the Crown will freely admit that it is not a bad thing when strangers of distinction come here that we may be enabled to place at their disposal, cars and boats that will not be a disgrace to us. However, I state the case as it is. I quite grant that we have spent a little too much money for ordinary purposes, but there was no boat on the lakes suitable for the expected occasion.


George Taylor: How about the prices that I have quoted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not bought carpets myself. If my officers have paid too much, I would be very sorry, but my hon. friend has proved on several occasions that he falls into exaggeration. There are carpets and carpets,
as there are men and men. There are some carpets that cost more than other carpets do. I am very glad that my hon. friend has asked the question, because if it had not been explained it would not have looked very well for an ordinary tug boat to be equipped in such a way as that.


Mr. KEMP.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the Prince and Princess of Wales were entertained upon that boat ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, because the Prince made up his mind not to travel on the lakes. The programme which was placed in our hands at the time-provided for a trip on the lakes. We had no boat ready, and I think it was not a crime for me to do what I have done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this the 'boat into which the neVv boiler was put ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the new boiler that my hon. friend speaks of is in the right place. My hon. friend speaks of political friends. Will he allow me to state that Mr. Weir, of Montreal, is not a political friend of mine. The order has been given to Mr. Weir after tender in competition with several firms and it was given to a man, who, as I have said, is not a political friend of'mine.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the boat from which that magnificent display of fireworks was made ? ,


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: T must say that it is the same boat.
4t six o'clock the committee took- recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 7) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 10) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Parmelee.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
River St. Lawrence Ship Channel, $500,000.
['I think we had better not take up the next item. I would suggest that perhaps the hon. minister is too tired to go on with anything further to-night.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Public Works, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.', 'Monday, March 3, 1902.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was asked by the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to state the amount of dredging required to be done between Quebec and Montreal to give a channel 30 feet deep. I have much pleasure in being able to give the information. There are
24.000.	000 cubic yards to be dredged to accomplish that work. This is made up of
2.000.	000 cubic yards for the Longue Pointe section which is between Longue Pointe and Cap St. Michel. It is estimated that three dredges will do that work in 200 days. The second section is the Contrecceur section and the quantity to be dredged is estimated at 3,000,000 cubic yards. Three

-dredges will do that work in 200 days. There is Lake St. Peter, 18 miles long, and there will be about 19,000,000 cubic yards to be dredged, if we dredge 500 feet wide ; but if we dredge it 450 feet wide there will be between 10,000,000 or 17,000,000 cubic yards of dredging. In the balance of the work between Lake St. Peter and Batiscan, there are 2,800,000 cubic yards. I have no doubt whatever that that work will be completed within the next two years. We have now the equipment to do the work. The ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has very truly said that a few years ago we had only very old dredges. In point of fact when the care of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal was handed over to the government by the Montreal Harbour Commission fti 1888, we had five dredges which were between fourteen and fifteen years old. They had wooden hulls and were altogether out of shape and out of date. You can imagine the condition in which these dredges were when I took office. There was at the time practically only one dredge which was fit for work. That was the dredge ' Laval ' that was built by my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Ouimet. Since then, thanks to the generosity of parliament, thanks to the attention that has been given by both sides of the House to the transportation question, I have been able to get enough money to build a magnificent fleet of dredges, of stone elevators and tugs. With the dredges we have on hand now we will complete that great national work of dredging the St. Lawrence river 30 feet deep and 450 feet wide between Quebec and Montreal during the next two years, or about that time. As I have said, in Lake St. Peter there are between 10,000,000 and 17,000,000 cubic yards -of dredging if we dredge the channel 450 feet wide. With the big suction dredge that was tested last fall in Toronto I am confident that work will be completed in two years or about that. There were 50 miles to dredge between Quebec and Montreal to make the channel 30 feet deep, but during the last two years we have dredged 19 miles. Therefore, to-day we have 19 miles, 30 feet deep and 450 feet wide, and still wider in the curves. There remains 18 miles in round numbers to be dredged in Lake St. Peter. That work will be done by the big dredge constructed for that special purpose.


Mr. WILSON.: How deep is the water in that part ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was supposed that we have 274 feet, but I am sorry to say that in reality we have not that depth of water. We are to-day dredging to 30 feet deep, which is to say 4 feet deeper than the lowest water in 1897.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does this channel fill in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 'The channel does not fill in.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: 


Albert Edward Kemp: The ice does not move the boulders into the channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. I have a statement here from Mr. Cosky, the engineer in charge of the work on the St. Lawrence, to the effect that during the last ten or twelve years we have not spent $20,000 to dredge any parts of the channel where there may have been some filling. In point of fact there is no filling. In two years or about that, we will have between Quebec and Montreal a channel 30 feet deep, 450 feet wide in the straight parts and from 500 to 800 feet wide in the curves. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has asked me how much it will cost to complete that work. It is an easy calculation to make. I am asking $500,000 this year. Out of that amount $250,000 will be for the working of the fleet of dredges. We do not expect to spend more next year for that purpose. This year, as last year, I expect that I will ask parliament for large sums of money to build dredges. It is practically our last year of building. Our fleet will then be completed as far as I can see. We will have some little work to do, but the main work of dredge building will be completed. Our expenditure will be then confined to the working of our fleet. There is some work to be done below Quebec. At low tide there will be, I suppose, about one mile to dredge where there is now only 22 or 23 feet of water at low tide. Of course we have betwen 16 feet and 18 feet of tide there. In the calculation I have submitted to the House I did not take into account the Cap la Roche and Richelieu channels, because there we are helped by the tide. I do not say that it will not be found necessary later on to increase the width and depth of that channel, although there is a difficult problem to solve there.


Albert Edward Kemp: Below Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) will kindly have a look at the map he will find that Cap la Roche is situated above Quebec. WTe have a tide there. When the trade develops later on, the country will see whether it will be necessary or not to do any work there. For the time being we do not find that it is necessary.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: What is the nature of the dredging to be done there?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Lake St. Peter it is sand and clay.


Jabel Robinson: Where do you deposit it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In Lake St. Peter we have a big suction dredge with a discharging pipe. The material is dredged out and at the same time deposits it 1,000 feet or even 2,000 feet away from the dredge. We will not have

any trouble there. Elsewhere we are obliged to use scows and tugs to deposit the material wherever it is most convenient to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did I understand the minister to say that the dredging done tyy this new suction dredge will cost only about one cent a cubic yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we expect it will not cost more than that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the estimated cost of all the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This year we will spend a quarter of a million; next year there is no reason why we should spend more; the year after we will spend about the same. In round numbers, I do not think, by what I can see, that it will cost more than a quarter of a million dollars each year for working the dredges we have in hand now. In two years I hope we will have about completed the work, but let us say that it takes at the outside three years to do it. I do not expect all the work to be done below Quebec in that time, although there is not much expenditure there.


Uriah Wilson: I did not quite catch what the hon. minister said about the cost of the dredging.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We expect to spend about a quarter of a million dollars each year for three years.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understood the hon. minister to say that the channel would be thirty feet deep, and I understand that St Peter's channel originally averaged nine feet deep. Does the hon. minister say that the walls of this channel through lake St. Peter, which is to be thirty feet deep, although of clay and sand, will stand as though they were masonry and that no filling in will take place.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When I said it was clay and sand, I should have added that in the channel itself it is only clay. The channel has been dredged for many years and there has been practically no falling in except in one part. We have the experience of the past to go by, and that experience shows us that the walls keep very well because they are of clay. There is sand on the bank, but the channel itself is of clay, and according to our experience that will stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are only about
24,000,000 yards to be dredged between Montreal and Quebec and if the hon. gentleman can do that at less than a cent a yard, that would be $240,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said I expected that the dredging in Lake St. Peter would not cost more than a cent a yard, but I did not say that the dredging in the other parts of the channel could be done for that price, because the material is harder. If my hon. friend wants to know what the dredging costs to-day, he will find it in my report at page 186. During last year the dredging done by the dredge ' Lady Aberdeen ' cost three and a quarter cents per yard in some parts and in others two and half. The dredging done by the ' Lady Minto ' cost in some parts two cents and in others twenty-two cents and in others four and a half and four and three quarters. The * Lady Laurier ' did the work at three and a half cents. The dredging by the dredge * Laval ' cost six cents in some parts. The cost varies according to the material to be dredged. The new dredges are doing the work at three cents and three cents and a half on an average. We have an old dredge, number 11-an old remnant of the past-which cannot do the work at the same prices at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the name of the new suction dredge built at Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have had the weakness to call it after myself, and I know it will do just as good work.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that these dredges were specially built for this work and that this work would be completed in three years. What use will there be then for these dredges V Can they be used in other places? Can they be taken through the canals and used In Lake Ontario, dredging out the harbours there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be no difficulty at all in taking all these dredges to the lakes. Their heaviest draught is between nine and ten feet when light. As to the use that will be made of them, I have not much anxiety. There is any amount of dredging to be done, and there will be no difficulty finding use for them. Of course it will be always necessary to keep some dredges on hand, but if the country should decide to dispose of those dredges, there will be no trouble doing so because they are very fine dredges indeed. Of course I do not know what the future of this country will be. It depends on the men at the helm, it depends on public opinion, but my hon. friends will agree with me that the transportation question is taking hold of public opinion more and more * every day, and I am glad to see so many demands made on me for maps. It proves that public opinion is on the right track at last. On the lakes, I do not hesitate in saying, we are not in it. We are only beginning. All our harbours have to be dredged and equipped, and we are doing that work now. There is that French river scheme of mine, which my hon. friends opposite are afraid of. All I ask

57a
of them is the careful attention which public men are bound to give any new question. That is not ashing too much. And since I am on this subject I may be allowed to ask my hon. friends on both sides how they intend to dispose of the crops of this country in the future. This year we have a crop of 100,000,000 bushels of grain in Manitoba. Now to carry 25,000,000 bushels of grain through the Canadian system of canals would in the fail require a fleet of over fifty Canadian boats, because an American boat cannot navigate between Canadian points, and each boat cannot carry more than 80,000 bushels through our system of canals. Well, we have not the boats, we have not the equipment ready, and it will take some time before we have that equipment. And when we have disposed of those 25,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat, we have not touched at all the American crop. Duluth, Chicago, Milwaukee-all the great American centres are tributaries to the St. Lawrence. There is only one St. Lawrence river, and thank Cod it flows through Canadian channels. Taking those figures, I ask you not to be frightened when I speak of the French river channel, because you cannot dispose through Canadian channels of your Canadian crop and you cannot touch at all the American crop. We have spent, and we are spending, large amounts to complete the equipment of our harbours. I want to know why we should not spend a good deal more to complete our channels. Is it not better that Canadian and American crops should be carried through the Welland Canal and French river than be carried through American channels. You have to choose between the two. There is no alternative. Some of my Ontario friends say there are some other routes. I do not hesitate in saying once more that if I had a free hand, if I were an absolute ruler such as the Czar of Russia, I would spend a large amount of money to build up all the avenues of trade that lead to the St. Lawrence. I would not hesitate to recommend a careful study of that air line which my hon. friends from Toronto speak of. The Canadian people do not realize the immense possibilities before them.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not wish to discuss the subject which the hon. minister has raised, but simply to ask him a question. He has told us the amount of Canadian grain we have to transport to the seaboard. What is the capacity per annum in bushels of the St. Lawrence Canal system, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic at present, and what capacity may they be expected to develop in the course of the next five years V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a question my hon. friend is just as competent as I am to answer. This year Hon. Mr. TARTE.
Mr. Booth's system has carried twenty million bushels of grain-not all by the St. Lawrence route, but to American ports also. The Grand Trunk Railway has carried a pretty large quantity. I know that the Canadian Pacific Raihvay carried twelve millions of bushels of wheat to Port William by the close of navigation. Of this quantity seven millions went out by Canadian ports, and five millions by American ports. If the Grand Trunk Railway would make up their mind to double their track between Midland and Montreal, if they* would make up then-mind to give up Portland and carry by the St. Lawrence route-and I hope they will- great things might be expected. As to the Canadian Pacific Railway, they have not in the past carried a great deal of grain by rail. I am glad to say that this year they are doing better than in the past. They have taken grain direct to the winter port. They are not doing it to very great advantage, perhaps, but they are doing it. When the improvement of the French river is carried out, when you have made it possible for the great lake carriers to take grain to Lake Nipissing, which is 360 miles from Montreal, you will necessarily see a vast accumulation of trade-not only grain, but other trade-at that point. From Lake Nipissing, the Canadian Pacific Railway, during the winter months, will convey the freight to our winter ports. When I speak of the St. Lawrence route, I do not speak only of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec, but of the St. Lawrence as a whole-of our winter ports just as much as any others. I believe the Canadian people are realizing more and more that, if we are to be a nation, we must make ourselves independent of our neighbours, not only industrially and commercially, but also in respect of transportation. I have never felt so strongly as I do now that Canadian people should be their own masters. Our American neighbours are, perhaps, friendly to us, but I think we had better be our own friends and consider the ways and means by which we may remain masters of our own destiny. And it is because I have given some attention to this transportation question that I ask hon. members on both sides of this House to study it-I will not say as much as I have done, because I do not boast of having studied more than others-but to give this question the attention that, in my opinion, it deserves.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: This question is the most important one before the country.	I may differ in opinion from
many members of this House, but my opinion is that, while, perhaps, these expenditures are necessary they will not be operative in the end. I believe, that, situated as we are, with the climate that we have, ultimately we must come to it that the exportation of the great volume of products of this country must be carried on from ports that during summer and winter are alike. It might

be worthy of consideration by this parliament whether the sums of money that are being voted could not be set aside to help tiie railways to make the freight rates as small as possible, so that all the year around the freight could go to the lower provinces to be exported. Of course, for a certain length of time in the year after the crop is gathered, there can be a good deal of exportation by waterway. But that is only for a short time at best, and we cannot look forward to any change in that respect. Might it not be worth our while to look at the larger question ? Is it of sufficient importance that all this grain raised in Canada shall be exported from a Canadian port ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear-.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then, if it is, we must see to it that we have methods of transportation in Canada and exportation from Canada that can be used all the year round. I have faith in Canada. I believe that not only shall we increase as we have been increasing, but that every increase now will help to make greater our ratio of increase for the future. The more people we get, the more grain we raise, the more we do, the more we produce, the more rapid will be our increase in the future. I believe in the St. Lawrence route. I believe it is necessary, even if they should fail in their immediate purposes, to make these expenditures. A nation often has to spend money to demonstrate a truth, it has often to spend money to find out what is the real value of an idea strongly held by many of its people. But I am firmly convinced that we must come to it that the lower provinces, with their ports open all the year round, must be the points at which we export as well as import. Nova Scotia is the vestibule of this Dominion. Geography is in our favour; and I believe that as we grow-and we shall grow-it will be seen that it is in this way that all our products must go and come. As I say, it may be necessary now to expend our money in the way proposed. In any case, it will do no harm to have an alternate way of carrying, subsidiary to the great system by which freight can be carried and exported all the year round. It is like the money spent on our canals, which was thought to make them all that was required, but which had to be supplemented with more money to deepen them-and I believe that, if those canals are to be really effective. we must deepen them again. We are only making these tentative steps in our history. I believe, however, that the country will yet come to the conclusion that the really useful expenditure is that which will make it possible for the producer in Canada to ship his products over a Canadian route and by a Canadian port, and that rather than spend our money continuously in other ways, we should devote our resources 19
to the carrying out of this idea. So strong am I in this position, that, while I am in full sympathy with the expenditures made, if they are necessary, I believe, looking at it in the broader light of geography and climate, we must ship from ports where neither frost nor tide will interfere with work whatever the season may be.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have before me a map which bears the name of the hon. Minister of Public Works. I am trying to get at the hon. minister's point of view. May I inquire whether he has ever considered the idea of having a harbour on the north shore of Georgian Bay near the mouth of the French river, for the purpose of allowing the Canadian Pacific Railway to tap it at that point and transfer grain ? Then, I would like to ask how much sooner in the autumn the French river is closed in the winter by ice than is the Welland Canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad to be in a position to give a definite answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp). I was asked a few days ago what the distance was between the Soo line and a port on Georgian Bay, and I was not able to give the exact distance at the moment. The distance between the Soo line and the nearest point on Georgian Bay is 90 miles. There are great engineering difficulties-


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the greatest distance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The distance from the Soo line to the Georgian Bay is ninety miles. That is the distance that would have to be covered if a branch line were built. Now my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) has a map in his hand. I hope my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), has one also. Let them look at the different centres of trade. Let them look at Fort William, which is a point from which our Canadian grain is carried. Now let them look at Duluth, Milwaukee, Chicago. From Fort William to North Bay the distance is 473 miles; from North Bay to Montreal, 317 miles, I speak of nautical miles. That makes altogether 890 miles. From Fort William to New York there are 1,182 miles, making 292 miles of difference in favour of the Canadian route. Now from New York to Liverpool there are 3,105 miles; from Montreal to Liverpool there are 2,773 miles, a difference of 332 miles. This is for the French river route. From Fort William to Port Colborne there are 737 miles; from Port Colborne to Montreal there are 321 miles, in all 1,058 miles. From Fort William to Buffalo there are 750 miles; from Buffalo to New York by the Erie Canal. 500 miles, or 1,250 miles in all, making 200 miles difference in favour of the Canadian route. But if my hon. friends will look at the figures published on the map they will find that, taking Fort William, Duluth, Milwau-



kee and Chicago as shipping points to Montreal or New York, there is a difference in round numbers of 300 miles in favour of our Canadian route. Now adding the difference there is between Montreal and Liverpool and that between New York and Liverpool, you will find in round numbers a difference of 600 miles in favour of our Canadian route. Now I want to know why we should not divert a vast quantity of trade from all these centres through the Canadian route.


Mr.   CLARICE@: But you are now pointing out the disadvantages of the Canadian route.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not at all. How so 7


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are speaking of all water Canadian routes. There are half a dozen routes partly rail and partly water that are 600 miles shorter than the all Canadian route.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not admit that. When I speak of the French river route, I speak of an all water route, not of a railway route, because Buffalo is our objective opponent, if I may so speak. Let us take Buffalo, and let us see what is the difference between Buffalo and North Bay, for instance. Between Montreal and North Bay-I do not now speak of nautical miles-there are 364 railway miles; between Buffalo and New York there are 445 railway miles. Between North Bay and Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway is running on the down grade, and can haul just as many cars as the New York Central does, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would have nearly 100 miles less. I want to know why we cannot acquire a vast quantity of trade at North Bay on Lake Nipissing and carry it In the winter months to the port of St. John 7


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would not that argument apply to other points on the Georgian Bay 7 Why could not other railways accumulate freight in. the fall at other ports on the Georgian Bay 7 I am only making these suggestions to the minister to ascertain how deeply he has looked into the qualifications of these other ports on the Georgian Bay. He has given the figures correctly. The distance from North Bay to Montreal is 364 miles. What is the distance between Parry Harbour, a port that not a dollar need be spent on now- what is the distance between Parry Harbour and Montreal by rail 7 What is the distance between Midland and Montreal by rail 7 These are two splendid harbours already provided on Georgian Bay. What is the distance from Collingwood to Montreal by rail 7 What is the distance from Owen Sound to Montreal by rail 7 We want the minister to give us all the infor-


Joseph Israël Tarte: mation so that we may study it out carefully; and when he comes down this session or the next session, and asks parliament for an appropriation which will eventually aggregate $5,000,000 to make this French river navigable from Georgian Bay to the North Bay, we, having all the facts before us, may bp able to discuss it intelligently with him. When he completes the work of making the French river and Lake Nipissing navigable to North Bay he will find that North Bay is five miles further away from the Sault than Parry Harbour, and ten miles further away than Midland. These two harbours already provided on Georgian Bay are nearer to the Soo, the common point from which all the vessels must start after they come through Lake Superior. Both these ports are nearer to the Soo than North Bay will be after this enormous expenditure has been made upon it.
Now, I am not saying that this expenditure ought not to be made, but surely we all, on both sides of the House, have a right to the fullest possible information as to these distances. And let me tell the hon. gentleman that this table of sailing distances which is printed on the lower right hand corner of this map may be misleading. I do not of course think it was put in there at all for that purpose. I think, too, that if he is going to ask us to consider this French river route the information contained on this map should be implemented. We should have the distances from Fort William to Collingwood and from Collingwood to Montreal, and from Toronto to Montreal or Quebec by water. We should have some data, some information as to the relative cost of carriage by water as compared with carriage by rail. The hon. gentleman who addressed us a few minutes ago said, what I believe to be substantially correct, that in the future a very large proportion of the grain grown in the west will find its way to the east almost altogether by rail or very largely by rail. We must not overlook the fact that at present we are engaged in a very large expenditure to complete our all water Canadian route. We are engaged in the work of making a harbour at Port Colborne, the Lake Erie entrance to the Welland Canal, and before that work is completed a very large sum will have to be expended. That route is unfortunately handicapped by being 600 miles, on the round trip, longer than these routes that are being spoken of. North Bay, Depot Harbour, Midland and Collingwood, but it has the advantage of being an all water route.
Now, if we want to get the best possible results for the producers of this country we must not tie ourselves up completely to railways. We must give our farmers the advantage, and our shippers the advantage of more than one avenue for conveying the produce of this country to the

seaboard. We have in the North Bay route, when it is completed, a line that obliges a land haul of between 300 and 400 miles to Montreal. We have as against that our present all water route, handicapped, as I have pointed out, by being, for the round trip 600 miles, in round figures, longer than these other routes, but with the advantage of an all water carriage. We can have another route by making a portage railway from Meaford, or from Collingwood, or from some point on the Georgian Bay, to Bake Ontario, which will give us a very much shorter water route, and which will give us just as short a route from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal as any of these other routes, and with only seventy miles or eighty miles at most of land carriage. I think in fairness to the members of this House all the facts in connection with all these propositions-and the minister says he has considered this proposition of a portage railway from Georgian Bay down to Toronto- 1 think all the facts should be laid before us so that we may be able to bring the best possible intelligence to bear before we are asked to come to a conclusion. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that there is nothing sectional, nothing narrow, in the opposition, if he can call it opposition, that we are offering to this French river proposition. We are not necessarily opposing that scheme because it means an expenditure of $5,000,000 away up in the north. But we want to be perfectly satisfied before we vote for that expenditure that it is the best possible way of expending the money, and will produce the best possible results in the years that are to come for those people who are going out west in such large numbers to make themselves homes. The hon. minister must not overlook this fact, that, as he has pointed out, there is a down grade from North Bay to Montreal, so that consequently, there must be an up grade going back. If he desires to see the Canadian inland marine prospering, if he desires to see large additions made to the tonnage of that marine he must give vessels all possible facilities to go up to the head of Lake Ontario and it is only policy carefully to consider at what point on Lake Ontario these vessels will be likely to get the largest and greatest number of return cargoes. My idea is that the making of a national port at Montreal will not completely solve this transportation problem.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Of course it is only my own opinion, but I believe that the old port of Quebec will eventually become the national port of this Dominion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hear, hear; one of them.
19}


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am perfectly well satisfied that before a complete solution of this transportation problem has been reached it will be necessary to equip our harbours on Lake Ontario and to build a portage railway from the head of Lake Ontario to a port on the Georgian Bay, so that we may have vessels running from the head of Lake Ontario, not only to Montreal but to Quebec, and if proper lines of vessels are established on that route I am perfectly satisfied they will get substantial freights to bring back with them and exercise a salutary check on the excessive freight rates charged by the railway companies. We have spent a large amount of money in the digging and deepening of our canals. As the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) pointed out that work is undoubtedly, to a certain extent, experimental. However, it was work that was necessary. We have spent a large sum in deepening these canals to fourteen feet. We ought not to abandon the St. Lawrence route entirely. We ought to utilize it to act as a check against the extortionate freight rates being now charged on the railways, and it is only reasonable that we should have information upon every single proposition before the country as to the advantages and disadvantages of these propositions before we are asked to seriously consider the proposition the hon. minister makes, to expend $5,000,000 of money on another harbour on the Georgian Bay, which when completed, will be no nearer the point of production than the splendid present harbours which exist on those waters. I ask from the hon. minister consideration of these other routes and that he will lay before the House elaborate maps of these other routes before he asks us to commit ourselves to this expenditure on the French river.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the committee to commit itself to the French river improvement. I am calling attention to it in connection with the work that is going on on the St. Lawrence, and I am very thankful to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) for having spoken as he has done. My hon. friend should not speak of abandoning our Canadian system of canals.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nobody thinks of it, but he has given us figures that are eloquent. He has stated that the Canadian system of canals; that is to say, the all-water route, is 600 miles longer than the route from North Bay, or Midland, or Depot Harbour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On the round trip.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, of course, and, moreover, it is a water route; that is to say it is a route that is closed for six months in the year in round numbers. Look at the map. What is the

use of talking as the hon. member for Guys-borough has talked ? What is the use of saying that we can transport grain by rail the whole year round ? It cannot be done. The route is on the great lakes; Fort William is on the great lakes, Milwaukee and Chicago are on the great lakes, our American friends can command to-day 96 per cent of the tonnage on the great lakes. We command only 4 per cent. Why ? Because we hare not equipped our waterways, because we have not to-day any Canadian harbour on the lakes. Again look at the map. Here is Buffalo at the right hand of Lake Erie; at the left is Port Colborne, 20 miles distant-Buffalo, with its fifty-five elevators which are being improved day after day. Last year they built four magnificent new and modern elevators at Buffalo, and they have miles and miles of breakwaters and basins. At Port Colborne there is not the shadow of a harbour. How can we expect the trade, I want to know ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a magnificent route, but it is only open six months in the year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is open as long as the French river is open.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will come to that. Depot Harbour has no western connection except by water.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Neither will North Bay have.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Midland is in the very same position-no western connection except by water; that is to say, that for six months in the year, these harbours are practically closed.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: So is Buffalo.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) says that North Bay is in the same position. I say no. North Bay is on the Canadian Pacific Railway line, the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has cost this country $100,000,000 in land and money, has a western connection. Where does our export trade come from to-day ? With what materials are the bottoms that are lying in St. John loaded ? Not with grain only. Grain is only a small incident in the very great traffic carried on there. The Canadian Pacific Railway have chosen St. John as their winter port because they carry to it a large amount of package traffic from the west, and from the American west especially. They are carrying to-day twenty-five cars a week of meat and so on from American points. I ask the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) where is the other railway in this country which is in the same position. There is not one. The Grand Trunk Railway have chosen Portland as their winter port. We cannot expect any export trade from the Grand Trunk Raii-Hon. Mr. TARTE. *
way, we cannot expect any export trade from the Canada Atlantic Railway during the winter months. The Canada Atlantic Railway is closed. Then, the Canadian Pacific Railway is the only road which has a western connection and which can give export freights to our winter ports. The reason I am speaking of the improvement of the French river, is that during the months of the fall when the grain is accumulated at Fort William, Duluth, Milwaukee and Chicago, it is seeking the best and easiest route, and the best and easiest route is undoubtedly the French river route.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How does the hon. minister make that out ? Will he give us the facts ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I will give the facts. The distance is the same between North Bay and Midland and Depot Harbour. Let us say that. But. will those railways carry exclusively grain during the winter months ? Not one. The Canadian Pacific Railway, having this western connection, will simply take the grain accumulated during the fall and carry it to the winter port. The Canadian Pacific Railway is the only railway which will take grain to the winter port.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has become of the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend must not try to trifle with the question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Well, what is the matter with the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman knows that the Intercolonial Railway cannot compete with the Grand Trunk Railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: What was the elevator at St. John built for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is a very small and incidental question. Let us not get into details. We are dealing with large questions.


Mr. CLARK.: We want to get the details.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not despair of seeing the elevator at St. John filled with grain. If the Intercolonial Railway cannot fill it, the Canadian Pacific Railway can fill it. There is no reason why it will not do it. Let not my hon. friends run away from the main question. The main question is : Which is the best route ?
I say that all the routes are good, and I say let the hon. member for Toronto not lose sight of this point that the Canadian Pacific Railway, as things are to-day, is the only railway which can give us an export trade. We are talking of a fast line are we not ? How can we have a fast line if we have no trade from the west to export by that line ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman in the course of this discussion informed us that

the Canada Atlantic Railway had carried from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 bushels of grain from Depot Harbour to the seaboard or towards the seaboard. Is that right ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About that much.


Mr. BOYD.: When ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: During the season of navigation last year. I appeal to the minister, that if facilities for storing the grain in the shape of elevators and warehouses were provided at Depot Harbour ; is it not a fact that the quantity of grain that could be carried to the seaboard from Depot Harbour during the winter months when the French river and Midland and Parry Harbour would be sealed up, would be only limited by the capacity of the railroad to carry it ? If the French river route were completed-I am not offering any particular objection to the French river route if the minister can persuade the House that.it is the best route-but, if the French river route were completed to-morrow, when that river and lake Nipissing are frozen up there can surely come no grain in by the French river route to augment the quantity that may be stored at North Bay. The Canada Atlantic Railway has no western connection during five or six months of the year, and yet it carried 20,000,000 bushels of grain during the season of navigation, according to the statement of the minister himself. Could not that quantity be duplicated by the construction of elevators at Midland, that splendid port now in existence on the Georgian Bay ? Of what advantage will it be to the Canadian public to have this French river route completed to North Bay, further than that during the period which elapses between the taking off of the crop and the close of navigation, great quantities of grain may be brought by water, and stored at North Bay to give the Canadian Pacific Railway traffic during the winter months ? Will not the same conditions apply so far as the Canada Atlantic Railway at Depot Harbour and the Grand Trunk Railway at Midland are concerned ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has proven a strong case against himself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad if it will assist the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman is a Canadian as he is, he must make up his mind that we must have Canadian winter ports.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You will not have a winter port at French river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to speak. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) is a Canadian.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am a Canadian and an Irish Canadian.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Any one would know that by looking at you.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is a good Canadian and I ask him to tell me where the grain that would be accommodated at Midland would be carried in the winter months by the Grand Trunk Railway if not to Portland.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then I would ask the Minister of Public Works if the Intercolonial Railway is of no use to the public whatever ? After all the statements we have heard from gentlemen opposite as to the advantages obtained for this country by the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, are we to be told now that these advantages amount to nothing ? Is it not the case that a proper national policy in connection with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway would give us competition from Montreal eastward, when the country is practically tied up to the Canadian Pacific Railway for its export business in the winter months ? Are we to be told now by the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that notwithstanding the fact that during these five years past we have spent $8,000,000 or $10,000,000 on capital account, on the Inter-* colonial Railway, that it is practically useless as an instrument to assist in carrying out the products of Canada from Montreal to the seaboard during the close of navigation ? Is that the situation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is makiug party politics now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Nonsense.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What are you doing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe that I am making party politics out of this question, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two and two make four, and not five. Surely my hon. friend did not mean to say that the Intercolonial Railway would be working in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway for the carriage of grain conveyed by the Grand Trunk Railway. It is a preposterous idea. Why should the Grand Trunk Railway give to the Intercolonial Railway any of its trade ? Where is the railway that would do that ? That is not a business proposition. The Grand Trunk Railway runs from Midland to Portland, their own winter port, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) suggests that the Grand Trunk Railway should hand over its business to the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal for transport to a Canadian port.

The hon. gentleman will not say that again. If he does I will let him say it, and I am sure that no other gentlemen in the House would make that statement. The position is exactly the same so far as the Canada Atlantic Railway is concerned. The Canada Atlantic Railway has its terminus in the United States. It has no terminus in Montreal. My hon. friend knows that the Canada Atlantic Railway does not reach Montreal on its own rails. So much is that the case that Mr. Booth has been obliged to establish a line of barges between Coteau and Montreal to carry grain during the summer months. The grain that Mr. Booth's railway system would carry in the winter months would simply be carried to American ports. During the summer months a good deal of the Canada Atlantic Railway grain is carried to Montreal, but the greatest part of it is carried to American ports. We are talking now of a winter port. In the winter months the Canadian Pacific Railway, as things are to-day, is the only railway that can carry export trade to our Canadian winter ports. The Canadian Pacific Railway has been built long ago. We had our eyes open when we built it. We have built it to make it what it is-a Canadian railway carrying trade through Canadian channels to and from all parts ; from Japan, China, the United States and Canadian points. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) says that we must not be at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I grant that. In the summer months there will be no danger of being at their mercy, but if perchance later on the French river scheme were carried out, and there should be trouble with the Canadian Pacific Railway should they try to exact unfair tolls, well, there are only 360 miles to be built after all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From Montreal to that point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: To what point ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To North Bay. But, when there are so many railways in competition, there is no danger that one railway will exact more than is necessary. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) not forget one thing. I know he is in good faith, but let him not forget that Buffalo is our rival. So far our trade has gone via Buffalo, we have very little of our own trade and very little of the American trade passing through Canada and so there must be something wrong. The Grand Trunk Railway was located at Midland long ago ; the Canada Atlantic Railway was located at Depot Harbour several years ago, but still our trade is going to American ports.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has not high insurance and high freight rates something to do with that ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I grant you that we were not equipped for the trade. The St. Lawrence was not deepened, or buoyed, or lighted, as it should have been. All that is true. But now, if we want to be independent; of the American ports we must have a winter port or winter ports of our own. We must have our winter ports as well as our summer ports. Let my hon. friend, let any member of parliament rise in his seat and tell me where is the other railway to-,day that can give us export trade for a Canadian port like the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway is the only one. I am always sorry-if I may express my regret- When I hear men of the standing of my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway as a monopoly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not fair to the country. I do not care about the Canadian Pacific Railway per se. I am just as independent of the Canadian Pacific Railway as my hon. friend is, but I cannot forget that I was a newspaper man here when Sir John A. Macdonald -who was just as big a man as the gentleman who is laughing over there-initiated the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in this House. The whole Conservative party was behind him and many Liberals were in their souls with him too. Those of the Liberals who then fought the Canadian Pacific Railway, perhaps have changed their minds a little today, as my hon. friends opposite will change their minds in reference to the speeches they are making now. The Canadian Pacific Railway is not a monopoly. It is a great transcontinental railway carrying trade from Japan and China and all parts, on Canadian soil as against competition from five or six American railways. We must not be ashamed of such a monopoly. I am not ashamed of such a monopoly. The Canadian Pacific Railway is only a factor in this question. Our waterways are a great factor; and the equipment of our harbours is a factor, and in point of fact we have an entire system to complete on land and on water. Perhaps I have wandered a little far from the estimate of $500,000, but still I feel that we have not wasted our time. I feel that we are dealing with a broad question, and I feel that all these questions are bound together. When we have' completed the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence channel, when the ports of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal are equipped, we will have that part of the St. Lawrence route in good shape. I share the views of hon. gentlemen who have spoken so far as Quebec is concerned. Montreal will not be able to handle half of the trade that is in store for the St. Lawrence route. There was a good deal of money spent in Quebec in

days past, and I feel that the time is coming when it is necessary to equip the port of Quebec. There are large ships that will never be able to come to Montreal. I will say more than-that: The port of Quebec will be opened and is open for five or six weeks both during the fall and the spring, longer than the port of Montreal and that amounts to a great deal.
Quebec has direct connection with the west by the Great Northern. I hope that route will be put in good shape in a short time. Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal will have their hands full. When the lake ports are equipped with proper harbours, they will be great reservoirs of trade. But that does not alter the position, so far as the improvement of the French river is concerned. You will not be able, by the canals alone, to handle the trade you have in store, not only Canadian but American trade. Of course, if you make up your minds that you do not want that trade, the system of canals will be suflicient. But those who think the matter over carefully-and I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will do so-will admit that all these harbours on the great lakes will have to be attended to. We are attending to them. Port Colborne is being equipped, Midland is being equipped, Depot Harbour is fairly equipped. Of course, if an American syndicate buys up the connection with one of these harbours, we must look carefully, before spending our money, to see where the Americans are carrying our trade. I, for one, will not be very enthusiastic about giving money to improve Depot Harbour if the American syndicate does not make up its mind to stand by our Canadian ports. When you have the Canadian Pacific Railway on Canadian soil, you are sure of one thing- that Canadian trade will go through Canadian channels. I say again, and I appeal to my hon. friends from the maritime province's, that you cannot have a winter port, you cannot have a fast line, you cannot have trade in the winter months, if you do not have an export trade; and where are you going to get it if the Canadian Pacific Railway does not take it to you ? You cannot have it otherwise. There is not enough trade on Canadian soil to feed our winter ports. As I have said, the port of St. John, and, to a certain extent the port of Halifax, are being kept by American trade as well as Canadian.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the hon. minister did not desire to misinterpret what I said respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway. I rather think I did not make myself clear enough to be understood by the hon. minister. I certainly repudiate any suggestion that I desire to exhibit hostility to the Canadian Pacific Railway. On the contrary, I desire to see that institution promoted and sustained by the Canadian people. With the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and most of the hon. members of this House, I believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway has done more to cement together the different portions of this Dominion, and to solidify the country, than all the other agencies put together. Consequently, I should have no desire to advocate any policy that would militate against the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway, so long as those interests do not run diametrically counter to the interests of the Canadian people. I suggested-and I think it was only just to the hon. members on both sides-that before we were committed to this scheme of improving the French river and Lake Nipissing and making a harbour for deep draught vessels at North Bay, we should have full information as to the other propositions presented to the hon. minister within the last four or five years. If the scheme has the merits that the hon. minister says it has, it is only just to the Canadian Pacific Railway, which will be one of the chief beneficiaries of this improvement, that the facts should be laid before parliament and the people, so that they may be as much convinced as the hon. minister evidently is that the French river route is a practical work and one of national importance. [DOT] I have said that it seemed to me that, if the scheme were carried out, the only benefit would be the laying up of large stores of grain, from the time the crop reached the head of Lake Superior at Duluth and Fort William, in an elevator at North Bay to furnish the Canadian Pacific Railway with freight during the winter months, and that would practically tie up a very large quantity of grain and leave it at the mercy of the Canadian Pacific Railway winter rates. I pointed out to the minister that if he desired to give employment to roads running from Georgian Bay eastward the same results could be accomplished by building grain warehouses at Parry Harbour, Midland, Collingwood, Owen Sound and other ports on Georgian Bay that are already fairly well equipped. I am glad we have had so much explanation from the Minister of Public Works, and all I can do is to ask him to go further and give us maps and plans showing these other propositions as clearly as he has shown this French river plan ; and I think, he can depend upon the patriotism of the Canadian parliament to promote Canadian interests.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman will consult the map he will see that there is information with regard to all routes


Edward Frederick Clarke: Oh, no. If the hon. minister will allow me I will give him a sample. Here, for instance, is a table of [DOT] sailing distances.' Now, that is a very simple expression and we all know what it means. The distance from Depot Harbour to Montreal-the sailing distance-is

given as 797 miles, from North Bay to Montreal 850 miles. This table shows the distances a vessel would have to navigate from Parry Harbour, or Midland, or North Bay or these other ports, if they went around by way of Georgian Bay, Lake Huron, Detroit river. Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, the Welland Canal, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence to Montreal. Surely it is not unfair to say that a table framed in that way is not as fair as it might have been. The sailing distance, it is true, is as stated on the map, because you must go around four or five hundred miles to get to the St. Lawrence river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend says that grain accumulated at North Bay would be at the mercy of the. Canadian Pacific Railway. What do we see to-day 1 The rate between Buffalo and New York is ten cents per hundred pounds. Canadian wheat that was carried to Buffalo during the last of the fall is paying that rate to the New York Central from Buffalo to New York. If the Canadian Pacific Railway accumulated twenty-five or thirty millions of bushels of grain at North Bay, I make bold to say, that the rates would not be the same-far from it. The hon. gentleman speaks of competition, but, to-day, the Canadian grain is practically in the hands of American routes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would it be better to have more accommodation by establishing elevators at Midland, Depot Harbour and other places so as to give us a chance against Buffalo ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Elevators are already provided. But my hon. friend must not forget that Midland is tributary to the Grand Trunk and American ports. That is the point I want to make the House understand. What I want is to give our Canadian ports the traffic of the west.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would like to ask the hon. minister if it is not the fact that the Welland Canal is left unlighted at night ? I think one of the very pressing questions in connection with our lake traffic is the lighting of the Welland Canal. I am informed that captains are constantly complaining of the great delay arising from that cause. A small expenditure would enable the government to light the canal at night. The canal itself would furnish the power, making the service a cheap one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have many things to do to-day on the lakes and canals. I do not know whether the Welland Canal is lighted at night or not. But when a ship laden with grain reaches Port Colborne to-day she has to lighter into the Grand Trunk elevator there. And do you know what the Grand Trunk charges are for the twenty-seven miles of Mr. CLARKE.
their road to Port Dalhousie ? They charge two cents per bushel. They charge two cents per bushel, and how in the name of Heaven can you expect trade to flourish under such an exorbitant charge ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will not that situation continue until you either deepen the Welland Canal to a greater depth or build a line from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is very much afraid lest we should commit ourselves to any further expenditure, and yet he wants us to undertake this enterprise. Does he know how much it would cost to deepen the canal ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister seems to have a streak of Irish in him, for he is answering my question by asking another. He complains of the extortionate rate charged by the Grand Trunk Railway for hauling grain from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie. I ask him whether, after he has completed the improvements at Port Colborne, which will cost $500,000 to $1,000,000, the situation will be improved, so far as the carriage of grain by land is concerned.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, what will happen is this : We have not got a harbour at Port Colborne. The great carriers of grain, which are going to Buffalo to-day, could not go to Port Colborne. My hon. friend knows that on Lake Erie the waves are as big as on the Atlantic ocean, and the big lake carriers cannot get to Port Colborne.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How will they get thx-ough the canals ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORK ' My hon. friend is a most impatient Irishman.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the hon. minister would answer the questions put to him instead of making speeches which tax the patience of the House, he would not have to complain of any impatience.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that two Irishmen are too many for me. My hon. friend, I am sure, is looking ahead. We must have Canadian bottoms on the lakes. The large lake carriers cannot go to Port Colborne because we have no accommodation there. There is neither wharf nor elevator nor anchorage facilities. We therefore have to be content with the ordinary carriers which can navigate our Canadian system of canals. But when Port Colborne is equipped, as it will be next season, those large freight carriers will be able to go there safely. Then from Port Colborne to the St. Lawrence you will have another fleet of steamers which, I hope, we are going to build.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How will yon get from Port Colborne down the St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will simply have boats that will draw fourteen feet of water.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Tliey will not get through the canals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, they will. The problem will be solved, and I hope my hon. friends on both sides will not lose sight of the vital importance of having Canadian bottoms on the lakes. If yon have not Canadian bottoms on the lakes within two or three years, you will not be much better off than you are now, because American bottoms cannot navigate between Canadian ports. But if you have, then the problem of the carrying trade between Port Colborne and Montreal and Quebec will be solved.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Will not these new steel steamers which the hon. gentleman speaks of from Port Colborne to the St. Lawrence have to lighten just as the present boats ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the hon. gentleman going to deepen the Welland Canal ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How then will he carry any more in these steamers than in the present ones.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To-day we command only about four per cent of the tonnage on the lakes. We have in round numbers between fifteen and seventeen Canadian bottoms carrying grain. There are ten boats to-day being constructed. I anticipate that we will have more Canadian bottoms built for that very navigation between Port Colborne and the St. Lawrence, now that the St. Lawrence is equipped. Those boats could not find any trade for the excellent reason that the large carriers could not unload at Port Colborne, but now that Port Colborne is equipped the large carriers will carry the freight there, and then we will have a fleet of smaller craft carrying freight between Tort Colborne and the St. Lawrence. I hope that the day is not far distant when our boats that will carry grain and other produce from the west will take back Nova Scotia coal to the west. I hope that when we have equipped our rivers and harbours completely, when we have the St. Lawrence a cheap route, our Canadian bottoms will be in the same position as the Americans. An American bottom goes to Buffalo loaded with grain or ore and returns loaded with coal, and there is no reason why Canadian bottoms should not carry Nova Scotia coal to the west. I am quite of the opinion that the Welland and all the other Canadian canals should be equipped thoroughly, lighted night
and day, and made as cheap and safe as money can make them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not the Welland Canal thoroughly equipped now for its depth of fourteen feet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is well equipped but we are just completing our work on that canal.


Albert Edward Kemp: May I ask the hon. minister one question with reference to this map ? What purpose was it intended to serve, in connection with this table of sailing distances, to say that Depot Harbour is 797 miles from Montreal. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We simply wanted to give all the figures and information possible. On the other side of the map the hon. gentleman will find the railway distances.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is a pity that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) was not present to hear the Minister of Public Works describe ns party politics the arguments we heard from the Minister of Railways and Canals three years ago. The Minister of Public Works is just as responsible for the statements made at the time when the contract between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway was brought before this House as was the Minister of Railways and Canals, and we were told then that the Intercolonial was extended to Montreal for the purpose of getting a large portion of the western trade and bringing it over the Intercolonial Railway to St. John and Halifax. When the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to-night made a reference to that statement, the Minister of Public Works said he was introducing party politics. If it was party politics now, I suppose it was party politics then, and the Minister of Public Works is responsible for what was said then just as much as if he had made the statement himself. He talks as if an expenditure of .$300,000 or $400,000 for an elevator were a trifle not worthy a moment's consideration. An elevator was built in St. John with the idea of bringing western freight over the Intercolonial Railway which we were assured could and would be done. I pointed out to the Minister of Railways then that it would be far better to attempt to bring the freight to Halifax and save thereby 250 miles of the ocean distance. I also pointed out that the Canadian Pacific Railway should not be ignored, and that instead of spending all the millions which were spent in extending the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, we should get running powers over the Canadian Pacific Railway from Quebec to Montreal, which would be available as soon as the bridge across the St. Lawrence at Quebec was constructed, and in return should give the Canadian Pacific Railway running rights to Halifax, and thus confer upon the people of Nova Scotia Hie right to use the Canadian Pacific Rail-

way, which they do not possess at present. The Intercolonial Railway-for the management of which my hon. friend is responsible as a member of this government-has not permitted the Canadian Pacific Railway to be available to the people of Nova Scotia during the past two years at all, as far as freight is concerned. The Intercolonial Railway has refused to accept freight for St. John to be delivered there to the Canadian Pacific Railway for transmission to Montreal. I do not know whether the Intercolonial Railway does so now', but for a considerable period, during the past two years, it refused to accept freight for transmission over that railway. Does the hon. gentleman think that that is dealing with the Canadian Pacific Railw'ay as a national railway and in the spirit in which it should be dealt with, and in which the people of Nova Scotia should be dealt with. These people have paid their share of the construction of that railway and are entitled to the use of it as well as the rest of the Dominion. If there is any change of mind on this matter, it is not on the part of my hon. friend from Toronto, but on the part of the Minister of Public Works himself. because he supported the Minister of Railways and Canals in that contract by his vote, if not by his voice, and that contract went through for reasons which the Minister of Public Works now says are absolutely unworthy of consideration and which should not have the slightest W'eight for one moment. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works knows well enough that that elevator was not built at St. John to be used in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railw'ay. He surely does not pretend that the idea was ever advanced by any member of the government of which he is a member.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say it was.


Robert Laird Borden: Then why does the Minister of Public Works suggest that it can be used for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It might.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). It might, but that was not the reason on account of which the hon. gentleman voted to expend $300,000 or $400,000, that was not the reason on account of which he supported his colleague when he brought dowrn that scheme. My hon. friend knows that the elevator has not been put to very much practical use since, though I quite agree-the same idea passed through my own mind in visiting St. John the other day when I saw these steamers lying on the western side of the harbour and wharf, and the elevator on the eastern side not used at all-I agree possibly that although this elevator could never be used for the purpose for -which it was intended, it might at some future time be used in connection with the operations of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the Canadian Pacific Railway. But it js hardly worth while for the hon. gentleman to cast a reflection upon an absent colleague, which he did to-night, by using the language he did use; and because the Minister of Railways and Canals is not here to defend himself I am rising in his absence to defend him from aspersions. I trust that any suggestions of this kind that have to be made to this House will in future be made when the Minister of Railways and Canals is here to defend himself.
Now, we are pretty far afield from the particular item under discussion. But there is one pi'actical question to which I would like an answer, as this subject has been gone into. What does the minister say is the relative cost of water borne freight on, this great waterway which he eventually proposes to construct, so far as I can gather, the Georgian Bay waterway; what is the cost of water borne freight on that waterway as compared with the probable cost during the next five years, or ten years, of freight borne by railways ? If we are going to discuss this question at all that is one of the first things that we have to ascertain, because we cannot come to any proper conclusion on the subject until we get the relative cost of these two modes of conveying freight. The hon. gentleman in answering that question will have to take into consideration all the modern improvements which have been made in railways, the great reductions which have been made in conveying freight on the American railways, and the probable advances towards further reduction of that cost which will be made in the near future. This is a practical matter w'hich I think he might present to the House, and possibly it would be of as much importance for us to know that as to know a great many other matters with which the hon. gentleman has favoured us to-night.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very sorry the Minister of Railways and Canals is not within the sound of the voice of the leader of the opposition because he would doubtless convey to him his thanks just now. I feel, however, that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals would not take objection to what I have said if he were here.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must ask the committee to come back to the item immediately under discussion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Please allow me to say only one word more. When it was decided to extend the Intercolonial Railway to the city of Montreal the main object was to connect the town of St. John with that great centre of trade. The income of the railway proves that the extension has been good policy, trade has increased very largely indeed.


Richard Blain: I would ask tlie lion. Minister of Public Works if be has got any experts engaged in looking into the transportation question at tbe present moment V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have conversed with a great many men in different parts of the country, and asked advice of competent commercial men of different political opinions. I have been in communication with dozens of such men all over the country who take a deep interest in that important question. I do not know what my hon. friend means by an expert.


Richard Blain: What I mean is this, has the hon. gentleman employed any person outside of his own department to look into this great question ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we have not.


Richard Blain: Just simply within your own department 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My own officers, and business men.


Mr. TUCKER.: In connection with these canals, I would like to say one word for what I may term the winter port of Canada, I refer to the port of St. John. Before I left home 1 procured some statistics which give the quantity of exports from that port. I find that the exports of this year exceeded those of last year, between the 27th of November, and the 25th of January, by $1,050,000. Now in regard to foreign goods shipped from the port of St. John between the 27th of December and the 25th of January, I have also statistics to show that from across the line, from the neighbourhood of places on the established railways of the United States, we had during that period shipped $1,400,958 worth of foreign goods. If we can do that in the present condition of our harbour we can do a great deal better after it has been improved. If these goods can be shipped from St. John in the present state of our harbour and the present state of the American railways, and we can compete favourably with them to the extent that I have indicated, there can be no risk in making that port the future winter, port for the business of Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: I desire to say a word concerning this St. Lawrence ship channel for which there was voted last year the sum of $669,000, and for which we are asked to vote this year $500,000 more. The minister says it is his intention to deepen the water to some thirty feet and make the channel 430 feet wide between Montreal and Quebec. The hon. gentleman has told us that he has a magnificent fleet of dredges. I have not been able to gleau from his remarks how much each dredge cost, the capacity of each dredge, and the
number of dredges that are employed in doing that work. But I notice in the Auditor General's Report that the following dredges have been engaged on this work. The ' Laurier,' the ' Lady Minto,' the ' Lady Aberdeen,' the ' Labelie,' No. 8, No. 11 and ' Spoon Dredge ' No. 6. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he intends to employ any more dredges than I have named on the work for which he proposes to spend $500,000. I would also like to know when these dredges were built, where they were built, who built them, what, is the cost of each dredge, and the capacity of each dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am employing this year a new dredge that started work last autumn it is called ' Sir Louis Hypolite Lafontaine,' which will take the place of No. 11. That will make one dredge additional. All these other dredges, except the ' Laval,' have been built since we took office-since 1896-7. There is a big dredge, the last one I have had built, in Toronto, which will be used also and which will bear my own name. That will be twelve dredges that will be employed. I have said that the suction dredge has cost $250,000 and that the other dredges have cost in the neighbourhood of $125,000. They have all been built at Sorel, except the one built at Toronto in the government shipyard with Canadian labfiur entirely.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has not stated the capacity of each dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The capacity of the dredges depends very largely on the material on which they work, but the capacity of these dredges night and day is between 6,000 and 8,000 yards per day. It depends very much on the character of the material and whether they strike a rock or other obstruction.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: The hon. Minister of Public Works referred to the dredges that entailed an expense of 25, 10, 6 and 4 cents, and so on, for dredging. What does the hon. minister intend to do with these old dredges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is not one on the St. Lawrence now. They are all gone. I am sorry to say that we have some left on the lakes, but I am now building two new dredges. When I come to that vote, I will give a more detailed explanation. I am building dredges for the lakes also. All of these old dredges are now gone from the St. Lawrence. They cost more than they are worth to operate.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is away to-night and possibly he may want to make some observations in regard to the matters discussed under this item. I am not asking it to stand, but I would like it to be undex


stood that it may be discussed at a future time if my hon. friend desires to offer any observations upon it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be full opportunity. I may say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier came to my seat and said that the only question he wanted to say a word upon was the post office in Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: Last year $669,000 was voted. That has all been expended, I suppose?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there is $170,000 which is not spent yet, but it will be expended by the first of July in building further additions to our fleet, equipping our shipyards in Sorel, and in doing other things in regard to which I will be glad to make a statement.


Robert Laird Borden: The result of the expenditure, so far as it has been made, is shown in the report of the hon. gentleman's department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It is all shown?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All shown.
Port Arthur extension of breakwater and dredging, $35,000. River Kaministiqula, $10^)00.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this all the expenditure that is to be made in connection with the harbours and rivers of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no, there is a lot of money for Ontario, but this is all for this special work which is chargeable to capital.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this all the expenditure that is to be made on the harbours and rivers of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot answer for the supplementary estimates but in the main estimates this is all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there nothing to be done to Toronto harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Toronto harbour has never been charged to capital account.


Robert Laird Borden: We perhaps might have some information from the hon. minister as to both of these items, in respect to the present condition of the work and the probable cost when completed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that we will spend much at Port Arthur in addition to the amount we are asking for now. As my hon. friend knows the Canadian Northern have now reached that point and it is in view of giving them more depth of water and better Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
accommodation that dredging is going on now. We spent in the neighbourhood of $10,000 last fall. We expect to expend $35,000 this year to complete the dredging necessary. As to the Kaministiquia, I do not know that we will complete the work with that amount, as we are having a great deal of trouble with it. As hon. gentlemen know, this is the terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway and every year we have to do a large amount of dredging there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the attention or the hon. minister been directed to the question of the Canadian channel in the St. Mary's river ? I was rather surprised, going up and down that river last fall, to learn that we were dependent on the Americans to enable vessels, drawing more than 15 feet of water, to get from the Soo Canal to Lake Huron. I was sorry to learn that vessels drawing 15 feet of water or over had to utilize the new channel at Hay Island constructed by the American government, and which has a depth of 20 or 21 feet of water. Is it the intention of the government to give us a Canadian waterway, or is it intended that we shall remain dependent on the courtesy of our American friends to enable us to get from our Canadian Canal at the Soo to Lake Huron ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Permission was given to the American gov-enment, I believe, some 25 years ago to dredge in Canadian waters. That permission has been continued ever since. Not only have they been allowed to dredge in our waters, but they have been allowed to place lights and other aids to navigation. Whether this is a right or wrong policy is a matter for the House to decide, but 25 years ago, and perhaps more, permission was given to the American government to do these things. So far no trouble has taken place and I hope we will not have to regret it later on.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not understand that we are in our own waters when we are in the channel alongside Hay Island. I understand the channel is in American waters. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether I am rightly informed. There is no use in talking about having an independent Canadian waterway from the head of Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence if, at a critical point after leaving Lake Superior, we are beholden to the good offices of the American government to enable us to get from tlie Soo Canal to Lake Huron. Have we a channel 15 or 16 feet in depth from the Soo Canal to Lake Huron ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that we are dependent on the American government to enable vessels drawing more than 15 feet of water to get down to Lake Huron.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Department of Public Works has not done any work of that kind on the lakes. I am not prepared to answer the question my hon. friend has asked. The Department of Railways and Canals is dredging in the lakes. Because there were canals at both ends of the lakes, the Department of Railways and Canals has always gone on dredging the lakes. Last year or the year before that, we undertake a survey between Kingston and Prescott in view of ascertaining whether we could not have a Canadian channel of our own, in the way that my hon. friend is pointing out. The survey will be completed in a month and then we will be in a position to know in an accurate way, in what position we are ? Again I say that the Public Works Department have done no work in the past in these lakes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We are asired here for an appropriation for harbours and rivers for Ontario and I thought this was the place to endeavour to elicit information. It is surely reasonable to expect that before making this appropriation the hon. minister will be able to make a statement to the committee, whether it is a fact that we have not got any Canadian water channel that will enable Canadian vessels drawing 15 feet of water or over to get down from the Soo Canal to Lake Huron, and that we are dependent on the amity and good will of the American authorities to allow our Canadian vessels to go down. I do not know whether that is a fact or not, but I am asking for information.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe that we have not such a channel now. Some parts of the channel were in Canadian waters but these parts have been dredged by the Americans. That does not make our waters American. We have simply allowed them to dredge in Canadian waters.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But this is American water as I understand.
. The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS. I do not think so. I will be in a position in a day or two to give a definite answer as to that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I submit that this is a matter of sufficient importance to be taken into consideration when we are discussing what is called the national transportation scheme. We have been flattering ourselves that we were independent of our American friends; that we had a perfect water transportation system from the head of Lake Superior to the St. Lawrence, a system of inland navigation that had not a peer anywhere else in the world. We have been speaking about the desirability of keeping pace with the times by getting freight vessels of a capacity of 250,000 bushels, to enable us to bring in Canadian bottoms to Canadian ports on the Georgian Bay, the
steadily increasing products of the Northwest that are available for export. Surely, if we have a comprehensive grasp of this transportation question it is of some importance that we should not be barred at any time, or under any circumstance from the right to navigate the St. Mary river and that we should have in Canadian waters absolutely, a channel of sufficient depth to enable these large freighters (which are the only profitable vessels on the upper lakes) to get from Sault Ste. Marie to Lake Huron and the Georgian Bay ports. I must confess that I shall be very much surprised to find out that the information that I obtained last fall is correct, but it is a matter of sufficient importance to justify me in taking up the time of the committee to make inquiry from the minister. If he is not advised at the present time, I hope he will make inquiries and take the House into his confidence in the near future. It is a matter we ought to know all about.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe that I am wrong in saying that we have a complete channel. I made a mistake in saying that some part of the channel was in American waters. I know that at Kingston


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not speaking of Kingston; I am speaking of the other end of the St. Mary river.
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS: I have no doubt that at the other end the channel is in Canadian waters, but the Americans have been allowed to dredge it. However, the next time I come before the House I will have the whole information on that point.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I may say to the minister that American despatch boats manned by American sailors are to be found along the route of that new channel, with the object of compelling vessels to observe regulations made by the United States authorities as to the maximum rate of speed at which vessels are allowed to travel through this channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to know exactly to what point the hon. gentleman refers ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The point I allude to is, that I am advised it is an American channel in American waters.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Where ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the St. Mary river; the river that connects Lake Superior with Lake Huron; twelve or fifteen miles east of Sault Ste. Marie. I have been told that this channel is in American waters absolutely, and that our vessels of large draught which take iron ore from Michipicoten, and the vessels that go to Port Arthur, Fort William, and Duluth, to bring down grain, are

compelled to use the American channel east of Sault Ste. Marie, because there is not sufficient depth of water in the Canadian channel. I wish for information on that point.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) need not be more surprised that Canadians use the American channel in the St. Mary river, than that in the Detroit river the Americans are using the Canadian channel and are spending thousands of dollars each year in deepening that channel. It is not more surprising that we should be using their channel than that they should be using our channel in the Detroit river.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That does not help the situation any. We all thought that we had a sufficient Canadian channel of our own.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will bring down the information.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that in going up the Sault channel on the Canadian Pacific Railway boat, the passengers can only be landed on the American side. I was humiliated last summer to find that to get to the Canadian Sault I had to go on the American side and take a ferry boat across the river. On making inquiries as to the reason, I found there was no pier with deep enough water on the Canadian side, and consequently that all Canadians who go to the Canadian Soo by boat must be landed on the American side.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) is perfectly right, but if he looks at the estimates, he will find I have placed in them a sum of money to have the channel deepened. When the Canadian Sault Ste. Marie channel was built there should have been further dredging done and a proper pier constructed. We are doing that now. Both the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) and myself are working at it now. I share the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Smith) that it is humiliating to see Canadian ships obliged to cross to the American side to take coal and unload there. I paid a visit there, and when I found that state of affairs I asked my colleagues to allow me to place in the estimates a sufficient sum of money to put an end to that condition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it a fact that the Canadian government never expended any money on the Lime Kiln crossing in the Detroit river, referred to by the hon. gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot answer that question, because, as I have said, my department has not interfered in the past with that part of the country. I am looking into the matter more carefully now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the minister ascertain if that is the fact ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With pleasure.
Harbours and rivers, Manitoba, St. Andrews Rapids, $125,000.


Arthur W. Puttee: Last year the appropriation for this work was $175,000, and $125,000 is to be revoted this year, making the expenditure last year $50,000 only. I believe the contract for this work is nearly two years old with only a life-time of three years, and at the present rate of progress it will take us twenty years to get the job finished. It seems to me that if there is any use at all in having these locks constructed, the work should be done within a reasonable time. I wonder whether the minister has got any explanation of the delay, or whether there is any hope that there will be better progress made in the future.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am indeed sorry to have to admit that the work there is not proceeding very fast. The lowest tenderer was accepted in this case. I knew very well when the tender was put before me that it was a very low tender. All my officers told me that it was a very low tender. The contractors deposited the money and I gave them the contract. Since then my officers and myself have been pushing them as hard as possible, but they have not done much work. They have not much plant on the spot. What am I going to do ? Am I going to take the contract from them ? I have notified them on two or three occasions during the last two or three months that unless they make more progress I will be obliged to take the contract from them and call for new tenders. There is no doubt there was ice on the river, and they, have thrown the dredging material on the ice, so that it may be carried away when the ice melts, but that is not a satisfactory way of carrying on that work and unless within the next few weeks they show better progress I will be obliged to report to my colleagues and ask them to allow me to take the contract from the present contractors.


Arthur W. Puttee: I believe now as I believed before that contract was let, that the department would be more capable of doing the work itself. I believe that such work as that should be done under the day labour system. I asked a question this afternoon with the idea of trying to get the minister to express his opinion and his experience on the operation of the day labour system. As to the unsatisfactory way the work is being done, of course that would not occur if the department had done the work itself. The department then would only have in view the object of completing the work properly and in good time, and that is what we want up there. Does the minister expect that the $125,000 now asked for will be all


Edward Frederick Clarke: the work that he will be able to get done this year 7


Mr. McCREARY.: I think the $175,000 as shown on the second column will lapse on the first of July next, and consequently unless there is some portion of it paid out between now and then there will be only $125,000 left for the following year. I must admit that the contractors have delayed considerably the progress of that work, but the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) is mistaken when he says that two years of the time given them has elapsed. As a matter of fact, the two years will not elapse until next October. There is some excuse for the delay. It happened that last year, Kelley Brothers, who are certainly one of the best contracting firms of the west, undertook to construct a bridge across the Red river at Winnipeg for the Canadian Northern Railway and also another stone bridge across the same river for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Each of these was a large contract, and as it was difficult to obtain labour in the west and wages were high not much progress was made with their contract with this government.
The plant required for the present work has been moved on the ground lately, and from fifty to a hundred men are employed on it now. This year the contractors intend to do work to the extent of $250,000 to $300,000 on this contract, so that the hon. minister is not providing sufficient in the estimates to pay them, and I would suggest that he should put an extra sum into the supplementary estimates.
I would ask the hon. gentleman if he has considered the petition sent in to have the cement work changed to stone. I might point out to him that this work is being done within a very few hundred yards of where there are large stone quarries from which the stone could be brought to the ground at a very small cost.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By using cement we save $200,000.


William Forsythe McCreary: The hon. gentleman cannot get in Canada the quality of cement required by the specifications. He will have to get either St. Louis or Portland cement. In Winnipeg we have never yet been able to get Canadian cement to meet the specifications required by our architects for public buildings, and even some of the American brands of cement, such as was used in the Osborne Street Bridge, were condemned by our architects. If this work could be changed from cement to stone- and I believe that could be done at a very small extra cost-the change should be made and ail the work done in this country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am putting in the estimates as much money as is necessary. My hon. friend will see that we are re-voting $125,000. The
$50,000 on last years vote we will be able to pay up to the 1st of July, and then we have a re-vote of $125,000. I will be very glad if they will do more work than that, but they have not done anything to prove that they will do more. If they do parliament will meet early next year, and we will vote a supplementary sum. As to the change from concrete to stone, my hon. friend is unfair to Canadian cement. I am using large quantities of Canadian cement, and my experience is that the Owen Sound and Deseronto cement are just as good as any American brands under the sun. The change suggested would cost about $200,000 to this country. There is no good stone available near by as the quarry there is soft stone which could not be used in such work. Cement being as good as stone and on many occasions better, there is no reason why we should make such a change. Canadian cement may be procured as cheaply, if not cheaper than American, and I say that it is better.
In answer to my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), who suggests that if the Department of Public Works had done the work by day's labour more progress would have been made, I believe he is right But parliament has such strong objections to day labour work, that every time I ask for even a small expenditure on any public work, hon. members insist that I should give it out by tender. I remember saying some five years ago, when I first took office, that when you can find a good foreman and a good engineer-and both are procurable-the day labour system is as a whole the best. I have nothing to gain by this system. It gives the minister a great deal more trouble to carry out the work by day labour, but it has this advantage to the labouring community that the government do not expect to make any profit out of the men or out of the purchase of the material. There is no reason why a government should not carry on work by day labour just as well as any contractor does. But public opinion has to be educated. I have not been able yet to educate it up to that point that I would ask the House to permit me to carry on a work of such importance as this by day labour. But if my hon. friend, who is an educator of public opinion, will help me in that matter, I shall be very glad to have his assistance.


Arthur W. Puttee: Is the contractor bound to use Canadian cement 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not believe he is. I have found out in another contract that the contractors were using American cement, and since then I have instructed my officers to specify Canadian cement.


Arthur W. Puttee: In that case the minister should urge on the contractor to use Canadian cement. The petition circulated very extensively throughout Winnipeg and Sel-


William Forsythe McCreary: I am certainly surprised that such good cement can be found in Canada. That has not been our experience in the west. The contractors of our great corporations use nearly entirely St. Louis and Portland cement.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The Canadian Pacific Railway are using Owen Sound cement.


William Forsythe McCreary: It must then be very lately. The city engineer at Winnipeg condemns it. With reference to the hon. minister's statement that the stone quarry is not suitable, my information is that the Tindall stone quarry, nine miles from the works, has as good limestone as can be found on the American continent. That stone is used in the Canadian Pacific Railway bridges and the Canadian Northern, and nearly all the bridges in our province are built of it, and it is found most satisfactory. Portions of the stone are to be seen in the industrial exhibition grounds, thirty feet long and two and a half feet square in one piece, which is pretty good size stone. Mr. Carson, formerly of St. Catharines, an old stone quarry man of large experience, is in charge of the quarry, and he tells me that it is one of the best he ever saw. Even if stone cost a little more than the cement it is due to the people of the west that it should be used. Of course should it transpire that the hon. minister can change the specifications, so that the cement may be bought in Canada of equally good quality, the argument that the money is being sent out of the country will not apply, but if the stone were used, that would enable the people of the west to develop those quarries. I would ask the hon. minister to make further inquiries for his engineer cannot be aware of the fact or he would not have given the information he has. The stone is perfectly suitable and I have no doubt just as cheap as the cement. I have no doubt that some Mr. PUTTEE.
of these stone quarry men would undertake to furnish it at the same price.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot make any promise to my hon. friend. I have reports in my department from competent officers-not alone my engineers in the west, but competent officers of the department here-showing that the stone out there is not fit for such a work. It may be good for bridge work, but cannot be used in work such as this. It is not strong enough. My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) will not lay down the doctrine that, because there is a local quarry, even if the use of that stone would cost $100,000 more and would not do the work so well, we must nse the stone. Such a doctrine could not be defended in parliament. I compliment the hon. gentleman, however, on defending the interest of his province. But the work has been designed for concrete and the concrete is better. Canadian cement can be procured cheaper than American. Messrs. Kelly have not bought any cement yet, but if I can use any influence with them, that influence shall be exerted to have them use Canadian cement.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-Transportation facilities-Montreal Harbour (lower division), improvements below Ste. Marie's Current, $300,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This work is under contract and is proceeding rapidly. The time limit fixed for completion is the 25th December, and I have no doubt it will be completed by that time. The contractors are a first-class firm and are proceeding with the work with rapidity and.skill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who are the contractors ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Malone & Poupore.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of these improvements ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A jetty 1,000 feet long is being built in the eastern portion of the harbour. The harbour commissioners built two wharfs there some time ago. They are low-level wharfs, but the wharf we are building Is a high-level wharf. As we have learned from the newspapers, the Canadian Pacific Railway are going on with very extensive works in that part of the city. Already, a very large trade is going there-the bulky trade seems to be locating in that part of the harbour. It is for the accommodation of this trade that the work has been undertaken. I think I may make bold to say that it will be one of the finest works on this continent. All the work above the water line will be concrete work.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: This item speaks of the lower division. What about the upper

division ? Is that being completed ? And when will the harbour be finished ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only work being carried on by my department is the one under discussion. All the other works are under the direction of the harbour commissioners. Things are not going quite so quickly, perhaps, as I would like, but still we are making a great deal of progress. If my hon. friend knows the harbour of Montreal, he will understand that a great longitudinal wharf is being constructed, and three large piers. The longitudinal wharf is very much advanced, and two of the piers are built. The third will be completed during the season. After that, the equipment of the harbour will have to be undertaken-we must lay down tracks, put up sheds and build elevators. I suppose that it is too late to-night to discuss the question at greater length, but, on another occasion, I shall be glad if questions are put to me on these subjects. The country takes a great interest in the port of Montreal. That port does not belong to the city of Montreal alone, but is essentially a part of our national system, and we all take a great interest in it. I anticipate that in a couple of years we shall have a port well enough equipped to handle the vast trade in store for us.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-Transportation facilities-Port Colborne-Harbour im->
provements, $220,000.	'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much has been spent on Port Colborne harbour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount paid to the contractors so far is $75,000. Of their first contract of 1,300 feet of breakwater, they have completed 900 feet. I was there a few weeks ago, and I am glad to say that the work has stood the test of the storms, though the plan was a little weakened while I was on the other side of the ocean. Before I left we had specified a breakwater 25 feet wide, with a buttress inside. Only the breakwater has been built. Though it has stood the test very well, we have been obliged to put heavy rip-rap on the outer side. My hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) knows Lake Erie better than I do, and he knows that when there is a large storm there the waves are as high as on the Atlantic Ocean. In spite of that, and in spite of the fact that we had this winter two big storms, the breakwater has not budged more than a couple of inches. Still, on examining the work I thought it better to authorize the rip-rap to be used. To build the work to the shore, we shall require an additional length of not quite 4,000 feet of breakwater and 800 feet of stone approach. The whole length of the breakwater and stone approach will be about 5,700 feet. When this is completed you will have an area of twelve acres for a harbour there. The De-20
partment of Railways and Canals are building wharfs at the entrance to the canal. The breakwater is intended to protect the grain trade conjing into the canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much more is it going to cost before we are through with it?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The whole contract all expenses included, amounts to $435,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does that include the extra work that the hon. minister found it necessary to do on account of the storms ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was a very small amount, only about $10,000 or $12,000.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That is exclusive of elevators ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am reminded that the contract itself is for $395,000.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That is exclusive of any elevators ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better not take up the next item. I would suggest that perhaps the hon. minister is too tired to go on with anything further to-night.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Public Works, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Monday, March 3, 1902.