[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Brown.

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I desire to lay on the table of the house the remainder of the file with respect to air mail service, containing copies of air mail contracts asked for by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) and the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart).



DOMINION OF CANADA GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY

Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved:: That the petition of the Dominion of Canada Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company, presented on the 8th May, praying for the passing of an act to change the name of the said company and also to increase its capital stock, together with the report of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent. Motion agreed to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES' A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations, and to issue substituted securities therefor guaranteed by the Dominion as to principal and interest, but not exceeding _ $18,000,000, the aggregate face value of the original securities.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
GERMAN REPARATIONS On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a Canadian Press despatch from

Paris, among the statements contained in which is the following:
It was confirmed to-night that the plan for revision of reparations payments by Germany proposed by Owen D. Young of the United States at the reparations conference would leave Great Britain nothing for the dominions or for arrears of interest on debt. It would award that country just enough from Germany to pay the United States from now on.
There is also the following statement:
The absence of direct representation for the dominions at the conference is considered by the British delegation as all the greater reason for not yielding on the question of the dominions' share of German reparations. The delegation is practically certain to reject that phase of the Young proposals which would reduce the German payments to the dominions to zero.
In view of the effect which this would have on Canada's interests in this matter, will the Prime Minister lay on the table a statement showing the terms upon which the present payments are made, the arrears if any that exist, and the amount received to date, together with any information regarding the new suggested arrangements, so that we may have an opportunity of studying the .proposals.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My impression is that the information which my hon. friend asks for has already been given to the house, but I will endeavour to see whether it is not available in a form in which it can be again tabled.



UNITED STATES TARIFF REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. EiRNST (Queens-Lunenburg):
I desire to direct the attention of the government to a Canadian Press despatch that appears in this morning's papers-I am reading from the Montreal Gazette of this morning's date. I do not purpose reading the whole despatch but merely two paragraphs:
Paragraph 717 of the existing or old law-
This has reference to the proposed United States tariff regulations or revisions.
Paragraph 717 if the existing or old law, imposes a duty of 2 cents a pound on "fish, fresh, frozen or packed in ice-such as halibut, salmon, mackerel and swordfish," with one cent a pound on other fish "not specially provided for".
The new bill keeps substantially the same rates but adds a provision for 2J cents a pound on fish which is filleted, skinned, boned, sliced or divided into portions. It also provides for 2J cents a pound on dried and unsalted fish, of cod, haddock, hake, pollock, and eusk and If cents on other dried and unsealed fish.

C.N.R.-Grain Elevator at Port Huron
In view of the very serious effect such a provision must have on at 'least two branches of the fishing industry in Canada, namely, the fillet trade and the dried fish industry,
I would like the government to lay on the table of the house all conventions between this country and the United States with respect to' fisheries	.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: Of course my hon. friend
understands that the officers of the department are not in a position to supply any definite information as to the effect of the changes mentioned by my hon. friend, but I am told that if these changes are as stated in the press they cannot seriously affect our trade at present. The officers of the department have looked into that report and they do not believe such changes can have a very great effect, but of course we cannot do anything in the matter. This is only a newspaper report; nothing definite has been done and . as yet this has not become the law of the United States. With regard to my hon. friend's request, I am quite ready to comply with it.



TORONTO BUILDING TRADES STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough):: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, or in his absence the Prime Minister, whether the strike at present in progress in Toronto in the building trades is in course of settlement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot answer my hon. friend's question, but I assume that a strike in the building trades would be primarily a matter for the consideration of the provincial government.


Joseph Henry Harris: Then I might ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Labour is participating in the deliberations having to do with the settlement of the strike.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I
cannot answer that question, but perhaps I might make a further reply to my hon. friend's previous question. A moment ago I said that a strike of this kind would come primarily within the jurisdiction of the provincial government; as a matter of fact I believe it would come entirely within the jurisdiction of that government. However, if both parties concerned requested the good offices of the Minister of Labour under the Conciliation Act he would be in a position to take action, and I am sure he would be ready to lend whatever good offices might be in his power.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	On Wednesday
last the hon. member for East Lamlbton (Mr. Fansher) asked me a question based on a despatch appearing in the press with regard to the construction by the Canadian National Railways of a grain elevator at Port Huron, Michigan. I undertook to obtain the information requested and I am now in a position to say that the construction of a grain elevator at Port Huron, is being undertaken by private interests on the Canadian National lines in the United States; it is being financed by United States capital to take care of United States grain. The Canadian National Railways are cooperating to the fullest possible extent in the matter, and those interested desired to erect these facilities in their own country.
George Reginald Geary: Does the minister know the proposed location of the elevator well enough to tell me where it is to be eercted?


Mr. DUNNING:: Port Huron, Michigan,
is just across the river from Sarnia, Ontario


George Reginald Geary: Will the elevator be near
the tunnel entrance or further up the river?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say exactly; I
know it will be on the Canadian National lines and that is mainly what I am interested in, since we will get the traffic. I cannot give the details to my hon. friend.



NOVA SCOTIA FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On April 29 the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) asked certain questions of importance. I was not in the house at the time, and his questions escaped my attention. The other day when the hon. member referred to the questions again I made a reply but had something else in mind; I thought he was referring to some other questions on the order paper. The hon. member asked as to the policy of the government in regard to steam trawlers and also as to what was the intention of the government with regard to the fishermen of the community of Ingonish, in his constituency.
Answering his first question I may say that the policy of the government with regard to steam trawlers is contained in the bill which

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
was introduced by myself and read the first time on February 14, which bill is still before the committee on marine and fisheries. As to the intention of the government with regard to the fishermen of Ingonish, it has been represented to the department that the dealers in that community were offering a very low price for fish and that they were buying fish by count. After inquiry as to the dealers in that locality we made representations to them suggesting that they should buy the fish by the pound and pay the fishermen a reasonable price. Of course the house will understand that we have no power to dictate the price of fish; we have made representations to these dealers but up to the present no answer has been received.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
sat last we were considering vote 133, and were dealing with the following item:
Tabusintac-wharf extension, $3,000.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: There were one or two
questions asked by my hon. friends which I promised to answer. One question was asked by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLarem) in connection with Lomeville. The hon. member asked why the total appropriation of $11,300 had1 not been fully expended. I have looked into this matter and I find that the estimate of the cost of removing 11,250 oubic yards, scow measurement, was $1 per yard, and it was estimated that that work would take up the whole of the appropriation. Whether the engineer's estimate was high or whether the contract price which we got for the work was low, we were able to have the work done at 65 cents per cubic yard, with the result that the total expenditure for removing very nearly that amount of material only came to about 65 per cent of what we had anticipated. I am told that it is probable that some work will be done the cost of which will come out of the general vote.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I pointed out to the
minister that the work had been found to be incomplete and not carried out to such an extent as to enable the work to serve the purpose for which it was intended, to make a safe refuge from heavy weather. The minister stated that he would read the report of the engineer, and I had hoped that the engineer would be recommending that some further work be done.
'Mr. Cardin.]


John Campbell Elliott: In the latter part of December, before the work was completed, a report was made by the engineer, and if my memory serves me aright that was the last report we received. He said, he would probably ask for a further amount to complete this next year, but apparently there has been no further request from him. I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the actual dredging done was within 115 cubic yards of the 11,250 cubic yards which had been estimated and for which the appropriation was made last year.


Murray MacLaren: Do I understand the
minister to say that he expects to make arrangements to continue the work and complete it?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say to complete it, but further work is going to be done and I expect that it will be provided for out of the general vote. Since the hon. member asked the question the other evening I have inquired into this matter, and I have the engineer's report of September 22, reading as follows:
Your letter of 30th July, authorizing dredging to be undertaken by Mr. James S. Gregory at Lorneville. I have to report this dreging was begun on 3rd August and completed on the 22nd August, 1928. The work has been thoroughly inspected and has been found to be left in satisfactory condition. Mr. James S. Gregory, the contractor, has executed the work to my satisfaction and in accordance with the terms and spirit of the contract. I find that he is entitled to receive payment for the removal of 11.134.9 cubic yards, scow measurement, class B, at 65 cents, a total of $7,237.69.
Youirs obediently,
Geoffrey Stead,
District Engineer.
The engineer has furnished a plan which I shall be glad to show to my hon. friend. This plan shows that the work was done around the inside and that there is a certain amount of work to be done additional to what was authorized and for which he suggests that he would ask for an estimate. However, no request for an estimate has been received, but I am sure that part of that work can be done out of the general vote.


Murray MacLaren: I hope that will be sufficient. I am sure that the desire of the minister is to have the work carried out so that the result will be satisfactory, and I would ask him to request the engineer to look over that area again and consult with the people in the neighbourhood. There was a certain amount of dredging done but the work is of little value. Perhaps the additional work may correct that, but I think

Supply-Harbour's and Rivers-N.B.
it would be well if the minister would instruct the engineer to interview the people who are using this shelter and obtain their views on the situation.


John Campbell Elliott: When we found that we did not have the additional request which the engineer had anticipated making, we issued instructions that a report be made as to what work will be required this year and as to whether or not it can be done out of the general vote. The hon. member is evidently under a misapprehension in thinking that because only S7,312.50 was spent last year out of an appropriation of $11,300, the work was not completed. The appropriation of $11,300 was based on a cost of $1 per yard for 11,250 yards, whereas the work was actually done at a cost of 65 cents per yard. The report from the engineer, which I take to be correct, shows that the work was well done.


Murray MacLaren: That is not the view of the people who are trying to make use of this shelter, and I think that practical experience in a case of this kind is a very valuable test. I am under no misapprehension, as the minister thinks, because I was not considering the amount of money which was spent; my point is that the dredging has not been done in such a manner as to make the shelter suitable and available for the purposes intended. I am basing my views on the knowledge and experience of the men of the locality, who can give a very valuable, practical expression of opinion. I do not, however, want to say too much now, because I really think the minister intends to have something done. I would ask that, apart from the engineer's opinion and some soundings that have been taken, he consult with the men of the locality. They inform me that the work has not been done in accordance with the conditions of the locality so as to make it a serviceable, safe refuge.


John Campbell Elliott: Would my hon. friend mention anybody in the locality with whom he would suggest that I confer?


Murray MacLaren: It is about a year since the people interested spoke to me in regard to the matter. I cannot give the names offhand, but I will look into it.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend and I
are endeavouring to arrive at the same goal; we want this work properly done. My information is as I have given it. If there is a complaint, none has come to the department. The only statement the department has is the report showing that the work not only is satisfactory, but has been done at a very low price. If my hon. friend will give me the
name of anybody he would like the engineer to confer with when he visits the locality,
I shall be glad to have him do so.


Murray MacLaren: The people complained
to me, and I suppose when they did so they were depending upon me to bring the matter to the attention of the department, as I have done. It may take a few days but I shall be pleased to get some names and forward them to the minister.


George Reginald Geary: Has the department dredged out the harbour and left a shoal outside guarding it?


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend suggests is that further work be done around the edges. It is the work around the edges that, it is stated, has not been completed.


Murray MacLaren: It is not quite that.
They say, first that the dredging has not gone near enough to the pier so that at low tide vessels cannot remain near the pier; and, second, that the dredging is being done in an irregular way so that there are hillocks through this space. If a boat happens to be anchored on the top of a hillock, it may turn over when the tide goes down.


Mr. HANSON:: Unfortunately I was not
in the house when the item with respect to Escuminac was under consideration. I think it was some days ago that it was under discussion, and I have not been able to find it in Hansard. I should like to know what is the situation at Escuminac. It may be recalled that this work was started, I think as long ago as 1924-25, and that we have been since then making annual votes of about $50,000. This year I notice an amount of $40,000 is being required, and I should like to know whether this completes the work or just where we stand. My information is that what was predicted in the house some years ago has actually happened, namely, that no breakwater can be built at that point and remain there because of ice conditions. I have information now to the effect that the ice has actually lifted the works; that they are more or less of a wreck, and that the contractors are greatly exercised as to who is to bear the loss. Would the minister give a comprehensive statement as to the situation?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to complete the work now under contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is only the part
under contract. Of course this has been built, as the minister knows, in sections, one contract for each section. How much more is to be required in addition to this $40,000 to complete the whole work as projected? My recollection is that the minister's colleague,
2380	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
the Minister of Health, who was Minister of Public Works at the time the project was undertaken, stated that this work was to cost a quarter of a million dollars. Nearly all, if not all, of that amount must have been voted by the house. That is the first point I should like to have elucidated.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite right in stating that the work was to be done in sections. The last section is the one for which this $40,000 is required; this will complete the contract for that section. Of this amount, $23,000 is a revote. There is no appropriation at the present time for any further section or for any further portion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many more units are to be built in order to complete the whole project which, I understand, originally consisted of five different units?


John Campbell Elliott: The original project evidently contemplated doing eventually all that is shown in red and yellow on the map that I have under my hand. My hon. friend has no doubt seen it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am familiar with it.


John Campbell Elliott: The parts marked in red on the map have been contracted for, and this is to complete the last part of what is marked in red.
. Mr. HANSON: Contracted for?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; they were thought to be the most urgent. No contract has so far oeen entered into for the balance, and no estimate has been inserted for it. The work <hat has been done is the work that it was thought should be done first. As to how soon afterwards the balance will follow is a matter for future consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I quite agree. I should like to know how much, including this appropriation, will 'be expended, and also how much money will be required, according to the engineer's estimate, to build the portion which has not yet been contracted for?


John Campbell Elliott: We have no estimate for the cost of the balance. The cost of this last section is $69,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would that be the total expenditure to date, including the $40,000? There is something obviously wrong about that, because we have voted several sums of $50,000 for this project, with all due respect to the minister, I think his information is incomplete.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not under my hand the total expenditure in that vicinity. AH I
I Mr. Hanson.]
can say is that the present contract is $61,729 and the probable total cost of the work as shown by the details I have under my hand is as follows:
Amount of contract	$61,729
Inspection, contingencies, etc.. ..	7,271
Total.,	$69,000


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is Obviously for only one unit.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me just for one moment. In 192627, 310 feet of this breakwater was built under contract with the Burpee Construction Company, and the amount of the final expenditure was $44,672.56. With the $69,000 that will make about $113,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Obviously that is not the
whole story. There was $50,000 voted by this house prior to the general election of 1925 as a direct consequence of a 'bargain which took place before a by-election held in that county about the year 1923. I am giving this information to the minister because he was not in the department then, but the deputy minister knows the facts.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will readily understand that I know nothing about any bargain that took place in any by-election or in any general election.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to know how much this project has cost the country so far, and how much it will cost when completed. I venture to suggest that the figures will be very startling. In addition, predictions were made which have already been fulfilled that no breakwater would ever stand the ice conditions at thaJt point. I made a sporting offer to the Minister of Public Works of that day, the Hon. Doctor King, that if he would get a statement over the signature of Mr. Gray, who was then the district engineer in the city of St. John, that the structure proposed by the government would stand the ice conditions, there would be no opposition to the vote from this side of the house-from me at all events, because I realize that the fishermen require a shelter-but the minister was never able to get that undertaking. The prediction made by those who knew the conditions has been amply fulfilled. The ice has lifted up part of the work that has already been completed, and I want to know what the government are going to do about it. Are they going to make the contractor suffer the loss that has been sustained by reason of these ice conditions, or will the government sustain the loss? In my humble opinion it is not fair to put the loss on the contractor, because the government engineers and departmental officers 'had been fully

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
warned about the ice conditions before the vote was ever passed and, before the project was undertaken.
What is the whole project estimated to cost?
I remember distinctly that prior to the federal election of 1925 the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Doctor King, estimated that it would cost 8250,000. The work was started in units estimated to cost 850,000 each, and the separate units were proceeded with year after year. I do not recall just how much work was done, but it is apparent from the minister's figures that he has not the whole data before him. I am satisfied that more than two units have been completed.
I would like an expression from the minister with respect to the ice conditions to which I have referred. The only excuse that could be given for not making a complete statement would be that litigation was pending, in which event I certainly would not want to prejudice the government's case by pressing for a statement here. I do know this, however, that information has reached me that the predictions that were made with regard to this whole project have been already fulfilled, that the work could never stand the ice conditions in the Northumberland straits or in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, where this work happens to be. That is very unfortunate, but it is nevertheless true. I want it distinctly understood that I am not opposing this vote if it can be demonstrated that the work will stand against the ice conditions 'but if the ice conditions are as I believe them to be, and as I have been informed, then I tell the minister that this is just so much money wasted.


John Campbell Elliott: In the first place, I am advised that the total estimated cost was not $250,000 as my hon. friend said, but $200,000. That was some years ago. As to the contract to which my hon. friend refers, where the ice conditions, storms or something of that kind rendered it more difficult for the contractor to perform his work, I think my hon. friend will be one of the first in the house to agree that that is something that cannot always tbe foreseen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Forewarned is forearmed.


John Campbell Elliott: Not necessarily. There are certain things that all the forewarning in the world cannot provide against. The precautions that were taken under these specifications were the precautions that the engineers considered reasonable under the circumstances, and they were carried out. A claim has been made, I understand, and is receiving consideration, but as to what will be done about it, no decision has been made, and I am unable to inform my hon. friend what the decision will be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not going to ask the minister to tell me what the judgment of the department is, but I would point out to him that all these ice conditions were brought to the attention of the department when the project was first announced. The department and its engineers were amply warned from this side of the house that the ice conditions were such that it would be practically impossible to maintain the structure as planned and laid down by the engineers. What was then said is in accordance with what has actually happened. I understand that there has been very considerable damage to the structure by the ice conditions, for which the contractor is in no way responsible and for which he should not suffer. In any decision which the minister may arrive at, I would like to assure him that if the facts are as I understand them, there will be no criticism from me at all events-I am speaking only for myself-provided the contractor is treated fairly and squarely and decently, and provided the minister does not load on the contractor the cost of the damage occasioned by the ice conditions, unless it can be shown that he was guilty of negligence or malfeasance in the execution of his contract. I would ask the minister to give this matter his attention, because this work will run into a quarter of a million dollars before it is done if the whole work is completed. That is a large sum of money to pay for a fishermen s shelter. If it were a matter of $15,000 or $25,000, it would not be so much, but this is a quarter of a million dollars of the taxpayers money.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To win a by-election.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, the vote was certainly made for the purpose of influencing a by-election as far back as 1923 or 1924. There is no doubt about that; this certainly is the payment of an election debt. But I am not so much concerned about that, because all that is over and past long ago, and we are dealing now with things as they are. I repeat that this large expenditure should not be gone on with, much as this shelter may be needed by the limited number of fishermen to whom it will be available, unless the government is absolutely certain, on the best engineering advice it can obtain, that the conditions to which I have referred will not recur. They have occurred, and that is justification enough for the attitude that has been taken on this side of the house in regard to this vote in recent years. I ask the minister to look into the matter personally before he spends one dollar of this money. May I say I am not interested in the contractor at present, for he
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.

has passed his responsibility on to the subcontractor. Nor am I personally interested in the subcontractor-he is not a political supporter of mine, he is a supporter of the government. I know him; he is all right, he is a decent fellow. I want him to have fair play in the settlement of any claims of his which may now be pending before the department in relation to damage done by reason of ice conditions. That is as far as I wish to go.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to prolong the discussion,-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not either.


John Campbell Elliott: -and I do not propose to get into an argument with my hon. friend. He is much more familiar with local conditions and with what took place there in connection with the elections than I am. But if his prophecy and the prophecy of his friends was a warning against something that was going to happen as a result of ice conditions-I take it he agrees to that; he nods his head1-then his prophecy has not been fulfilled, because the claim made by the contractor, if my information is correct, is that the damage is not in any way due to ice conditions, but rather to storms.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I may be all wrong, then.


John Campbell Elliott: This "I told you so" may be so easily stretched to cover something that never was intended originally that I do not want to leave my hon. friend under misapprehension any longer. With regard to the claim of the contractor, and that is always a difficult matter for the man in Charge of the department, I make no promise-my hon. friend will readily understand that I cannot- as to what will happen to that contra.etor; but I hope when he gets through that he and the people whose money we are spending will both feel that the fair thing 'has been done in the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
White Head-dredging, $20,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this White Head island in the county of Charlotte? There are a good many White Heads, you know.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it is in the county of Charlotte.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there two items in respect of the same White Head?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. One is dredging and the other a breakwater.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many yards of material are intended to be moved in this dredging? And is this re-dredging; has it ever been done before by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The first item, $20,500, is asked to be provided towards dredging a channel 100 feet wide extending shorewards from low water at ordinary spring tides, about 725 feet, and a basin in front of the public Wharf about 200 to 250 feet wide and 200 to 300 feet long, to low water ordinary spring tides. It is contemplated that it will be necessary to remove 27,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel at $1.50 per cubic yard at an estimated cost of $40,500. The next is a breakwater at Gull Cove. The amount of $10,000 is required to construct a breakwater 153 feet long, and from 17 to 25 feet wide, for the protection of the 28 motor fishing boats employed in the cove.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt the work is required. Has the channel ever been dredged before? I think the minister will find that years ago it was. Perhaps he has not the information before him.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the estimated cost of $1.50 is very high, unless there is rock there, which I do not think there is. For the information of the committee I would point out that this is an isolated island out in the bay of Fundy containing a fishing settlement. They have a great many weather conditions to contend with, and I would be the last one to deny them the facilities they ought to have if they are to carry on their work and be protected from storms. But $1.50 for that dredging is not what I should like to pay for it on a commercial basis. I hope the minister will keep that in mind when having the work done. Is it to be done by the government's own dredges or by Mr. Gregory's?


John Campbell Elliott: By contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It will go to Mr. Gregory then.


John Campbell Elliott: To the lowest tenderer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is the only man who is in the business in St. John.


John Campbell Elliott: There is the St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure that they are in the dredging business now.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps it is just recently.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend can rest assured that the same care will be taken to see that this is done at a reasonable cost as is exercised in all cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the only warning I would give the minister. I may say that the great rise and fall of the tide there is an important factor in the cost of dredging, but even then I have no doubt the work can be done for less than $1.50.


John Campbell Elliott: If somebody tenders for less than that he will get the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Woodward's Cove-Breakwater	extension,
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the New Brunswick items are carried I wish to call the minister's attention to the necessity for some dredging in the river St. John at the Oromocto shoals, nine miles below the city of Fredericton in my Constituency. The soil is alluvial and rapidly fills in, and there has been no dredging done in the locality since previous to the war,
I think 1912. These shoals form bars which at low water in the summer season render navigation very difficult. There is a daily steamboat running there, and at times she finds it pretty difficult to navigate. Has the minister before him in his records any recommendation with respect to dredging on the Oromocto shoals? I have not made any formal representations to the minister or to his department because I find usually they do not pay much attention to me in that respect.


John Campbell Elliott: You are entirely wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are always very
courteous, but I never get any action, so I have concluded it is not worth while. But I do now very seriously urge upon the minister the necessity and desirability of having such work done on the Oromocto shoals during this present season. I think it could be paid for out of the general vote. I do not ask for any large appropriation.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: There is a general vote of $30,000 at page 43.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a miscellaneous
vote for the maritime provinces, I understand.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Dredging, maritime provinces, $650,000, page 44.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, harbours and rivers
generally, $650,000. These of course are suffi-
1929	2383
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
cient to take care only of the small repairs to wharves; I should not expect dredging to be done out of this money. But there is an item somewhere-


John Campbell Elliott: The item of $60,000 is
not for dredging. The item that would cover the question raised by my hon. friend is for dredging in the maritime provinces, $650,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Out of that item I hope
the minister will use a sufficient sum on the Oromocto in the coming year.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to look
into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Harbours and rivers,
Quebec, $1,826,970.
Amos-wharf repairs and improvements. $1,350.


George Halsey Perley: Amos is away in the north country. Is the government undertaking to build wharves on these interior rivers?


John Campbell Elliott: This is not a new wharf,
and the work is requested by the district engineer for the proper maintenance of the present structure.


George Halsey Perley: On what river is it?


John Campbell Elliott: This work is for the proper maintenance of a public wharf to accommodate traffic to and from Amos, which is on the Harricanaw river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Anse au Griffons-wharf, $20,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this new?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a new wharf. The engineer's report states that 120 fishing boats operate from this place and the work is to provide proper facilities for the handling of trade, which would double in value with adequate accommodation. It is in the county of Gaspe.


George Reginald Geary: Are all these Anses in Gaspe?


John Campbell Elliott: I think they are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many items are there for Gaspe?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not tell you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We had a list of the post offices there; there were some eighteen, ana I suppose there would be eighteen items for the county.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: This is one of the counties with extensive shore lines, and a great many places where the fishermen have been working under particularly hazardous and difficult conditions. We have had to refuse at least two-thirdls of the requests made. They do not think they are too well treated. I believe we are doing pretty well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Berthierville-reconstruction of icebreakers, $5,800.
George Reginald Geary: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This has been requested by the district engineer for the past three or four years, and is required for protection against the spring ice shoves which menace the road and buildings along the river front. It is to reconstruct in concrete two icebreakers already there, 27 feet by 21 feet at the base, and 14.4 feet by 9 feet at the top, with a height of 20 feet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the gin mill?


Mr. POWER:: It must be the match factory -something equally inflammable.


George Halsey Perley: Is it on the St. Lawrence?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bradore bay-wharf, $25,000.
George Halsey Perley: Is this neiw?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. McGIBBON:: What constituency?


John Campbell Elliott: Charlevoix-Saguenay.


George Halsey Perley: What is it required for?


John Campbell Elliott: Wharfage accommodation has been requested by the residents of the locality and by the Clarke Steamship Company^ for a number of years to provide for growing traffic which is at present greatly handicapped. Three steamers call regularly, and water is the only means of transportation for a population of about one thousand. The exports are estimated as follows: fish, fish oil and furs, $300,000; general merchandise and provisions, $250,000.


George Halsey Perley: Is that an outlet for the Saguenay river?


John Campbell Elliott: It is about 770 miles below Quebec on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence.


George Reginald Geary: Is that the whole cost or just a start?


John Campbell Elliott: Just a start.


George Reginald Geary: How much will it cost?


John Campbell Elliott: This is towards the wharf, which is estimated to cost $55,560. In order to render it of value, however, there will have to be a freight shed as well, worth $5,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And breakwater?


John Campbell Elliott: No breakwater is proposed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cabano-wharf repairs, $2,400.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this on Temiscouata lake?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do any steamboats operate on that lake?


Mr. POULIOT:: I am not the Minister of Public Works but I might give a short explanation with regard to this item. Cabano is a big place on the shore of Temiscouata lake, which is 27 miles long and over a mile wide. On the other side of lake Temiscouata there is a farm settlement called Squatek, which consists of 700 or 800 people. A big mill has been erected at Cabano by the Fraser Company, which cuts the wood on the eastern shore of the lake.


Charles Gavan Power: For which company is this wood cut?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know, but I do know that my hon. friend from York-Sun-bury is the attorney for the company.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The company does not use this wharf at all; the company builds its own wharves and does not ask the government for help. This is a public wharf for the good of the community. I am not objecting to the item, but I want to know if any steamships operate on that lake. I have been there a good many times without seeing any steamships, although I understand a ferry operates across that lake, which is long and narrow as my hon. friend has said.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is also very deep.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that the wharf is used for small vessels carrying supplies for the lumber camps in that district, and the engineer reports that repairs are necessary at Cabano because of the dangerous condition of the flooring on the wharf.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to the item but I wish to know if there is any public traffic there. I want to correct the impression of the hon. member for Temis-couata that this wharf is used at all by the Fraser Company.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that the traffic at this point is comparatively heavy; the ferry boats make from six to ten trips daily with passengers and freight and the exports and imports amount to approximately 1190,000 annually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap Chat-harbour repairs and improvements, $8,500.
George Halsey Perley: Is this on Anticosti island?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is in Gaspe county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is Cap Chat on the line
of the Quebec Oriental railway which is about to be purchased by the Canadian National Railways?


Charles Gavan Power: No, it is on the north shore.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any railway communication at this point now?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap Chat [DOT]-harbour improvements-The Canadian Paper Board Company to contribute one-third of cost, $25,000.
George Halsey Perley: Is there anything for Anticosti this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a revote?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing was spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the work be proceeded with this year?


John Campbell Elliott: That depends on whether the parties interested can satisfy us that the developments for which this sum is intended to provide facilities are sure to go on.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Charlemagne-dredging, $10,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is that?


Ernest Lapointe: It is at L'Assomption,
near Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cross Point-wharf repairs, $1,900.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Cross Point is immediately opposite Campbellton. I understand that a wharf has been maintained at Cross Point for a number of years.


Mr. MARCIL:: Since 1904.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I presume this amount is intended to repair that wharf. In connection with the whole situation on the Baie des Chaleurs, would the minister tell us whether the dredging of the harbour at Campbellton and the other necessary dredging between Campbellton and Cross Point was completed last year? This is a large shipping point both for exports and imports.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course my hon. friend
is aware of the item for Campbellton in the New Brunswick list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not here when that
item was passed, and I would like to know if that is the estimate of what is required to complete the dredging at Campbellton or whether that is what is to be done this year.


John Campbell Elliott: That is all that will be
done this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to point out that there is a very substantial development in that part of the province, with a large paper mill being erected at Dalhousie and a very large sulphite pulp mill being erected two miles above the town of Campbellton. A very large amount of supplies will be brought in through Campbellton and it will be the point of shipment by water for perhaps eight months of the year if these companies utilize water transportation, so I think the government should do that dredging at Campbellton this year. It has been requested for quite a long time, and now it is really required; this is practically the only point in the province where there is any large development going on. This is one case where an expenditure of this kind can be fully justified and I submit that the work should be done now and not carried out piecemeal. That is my judgment in the matter and I would like to see the department give attention to this request that the dredging at Campbellton be completed at once. The officers of the department will tell the minister that this is the point of shipment for millions of feet of lumber during the open season and difficulty has been experienced in getting the ships to the piers by reason of the .fact that the river fills in the channel, which must naturally recur from time to time be-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
cause of the very nature of the river and of the deposits which are brought down annually. I hope the minister will give attention to this request.


John Campbell Elliott: I can only say that at
present there is nothing in the estimates for Campbellton other than the item of $13,600.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that nothing was done last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, a good deal was done last year. This $13,600 is a revote because we spent only $16,628 last year out of an appropriation of $30,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is mjr recollection that only part of the work was done, and I would like to know why it was not completed'. It might be more convenient to the minister if we could delay this matter until the vote comes up again, but possibly we could have the information now. The minister may have a very good reason why the contemplated derdging was not done.


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently they succeeded in doing $16,628 worth of work last year up to the 31st of March.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that a contract?


John Campbell Elliott: That was under contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who was the contractor?


John Campbell Elliott: Felix Michaud of Buctouche. The contract was for 571 cents per cubic yard, scow measurement, and that probably accounts for the difference. The contract was dated September 12, 1928, and completion was set for December 3, 1928, but apparently they were not able to complete the work. The time was not very long between September 12 and December 3.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand why there was a delay in letting the contract, because the money was voted prior to June 1.
I am, interested in knowing whether Mr. Felix Michaud owns a dredge. This gentleman is the brother of the late member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska, a gentleman for whom we all entertained the very highest regard during the many years he was a member of this house, but who was peremptorily retired by the electors of that constituency in 1925. I would like to know who actually did the dredging work, as my recollection is that Mr. Felix Michaud is a very respectable farmer of Buctouche and has not hitherto been in the dredging business.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that he has [DOT] been in dredging business for many years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand so, and I do not believe it either.


John Campbell Elliott: I can only say that there seems to have been some delay.


Charles Marcil: I would like to explain the situation at Cross Point. This is the most important wharf in my constituency due to the fact that all the traffic between Campbell-ton and Cross Point passes over this wharf. I think over five or six thousand automobiles passed over this wharf last year. The wharf was erected a long time ago-in 1904-and it was proposed to erect an interprovincial bridge at that point. The government of New Brunswick has undertaken to pay its share, the government of Canada is to pay one-third and we are waiting for the government of the Province of Quebec to agree to pay their third of the cost of the bridge. It is estimated that the bridge over the Restigouche river will cost about a million dollars; it will be very important work and is badly needed. Of course the wharf at Cross Point will be retained because there is very heavy traffic at that point. Ohampoux Brothers used to have a large mill at Restigouche but it was sold to the International Paper Company. The Madawaska corporation has purchased or leased this mill for four or five years and this year will conduct very extensive operations on the Mata-pedia and Restigouche rivers. I am in accord with the member for York-Sumbury when he says that Campbellton is the most important port in northern New Brunswick. An extensive development is going on at Dalhousie where the International Paper Company are erecting a huge pulp mill, and another mill is to be erected at Athol. In view of the operations being carried on at Campbellton, and in view of the intended operations at Dalhousie and Restigouche, I am sure the minister should give this matter more than passing attention and see that facilities are granted to this part of the country, which includes territory in both provinces, so that the trade may be carried on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister say that the dredging will be done this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Where?


Richard Burpee Hanson: At Campbellton and Cross Point. It is all the same thing.


John Campbell Elliott: We will make every possible endeavour to do it, and I am rather hoping that it will be done this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no reason why the minister could not give an undertaking that it will be done if parliament provides the money.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: We cannot always get dredges to do the work, and we sometimes get tenders which look a little high. I do not think the hon. member realizes the difficulties in connection with these different contracts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do your best.


John Campbell Elliott: I will do the very best I can; that is all I can say to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Donnacona - harbour improvements 

 The Donnacona Paper Oo. to contribute one-third of cost, $50,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This will be new work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think this vote requires considerable explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to go toward the construction of a long wharf oult to deep water in the St. Lawrenoe river, mainly for the shipment of newsprint, pulp, roofing and agricultural products. The Donnacona Paper Company has been urging these harbour improvements for a number of years, and several schemes have been studied. This wharf will also be used as a coaling station and general operating base for the government ice-breakers and will be available as a shelter for river craft between Cap Rouge and Pointe Platon. It is claimed that this structure will hold the ice and .prevent jamming at Ca,p Rouge, thus preventing the disastrous floods from Cap Rouge to Sorel. The whole work will be very expensive, and it looks as if the total would run into the vicinity of a million dollars, to be divided between the company and the government. The following letter has been received from the chief engineer of the province of Quebec:
A letter has been received from the Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries enclosing copy of memorandum, dated 12th April, 1929, from Mr. N. B. McLean, of the river St. Lawrence ship channel engineering staff which deals with the points raised as to the influence of this proposed structure.
Mr. McLean is of the opinion that the wharf would not interfere with traffic or ice conditions;
(2)	That the wharf would hold a large section of batture ice in place, preventing it floating off during the high water to jam later at Cap Rouge;
(3)	That the wharf would make a place of shelter far ice-breakers and commercial vessels. At present when ice-breakers are working at Portneuf, it is necessary to shelter in the batture ice, which is not always safe.
In order that the wharf may be of the greatest advantage to ice-breakers and commercial vessels, Mr. McLean suggests that the outer end of the wharf be built out to the 30-foot contour line shown on the chart, copy of which he attaches. He further suggests a
berth 500 feet in length, dredged to not less than 25 feet, should be provided on the upper and lower sides of the wharf inside the head-block, and that the depth at the outer face of the headbloek be not less than 25 feet, all depths at low water.
The district engineer in his report calls attention to the fact that Donnacona is situated on the river Jacques Cartier on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, in the county of Quebec West. Previous to 1911, Donnacona consisted of timber and farm lands; now it is one of the most important pulp and paper centres of the province of Quebec. In 1912 a sixty-ton newsprint paper mill was erected by the Donnacona Pulp and Paper Company, with a 60-ton groundwood pulp mill and a 30-iton sulphite paper mill, giving employment to 800 men. Since then the company has increased its plant so as to have a daily production of 220 tons of newsprint 200 tons of groundwood pulp, and 60 tons ol sulphite pulp, giving employment to about 1,600 men. The company has not yet completed its program of extension and if necessary accommodation by navigation is provided at Donnacona. it is the intention of the company to double the capacity of its mill, to produce at least 500 tons of newsprint per day, meaning an additional population of about 5,000 inhabitants. The company owns and operates another groundwood pulp mill at Pont Rouge, .producing about 5,000 tons per year.


George Halsey Perley: Is this a public
wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very rosy picture to paint in the face of present conditions.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the only condition on which we would be spending the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister, before
he spends this money, say that he will bind the Donnacona Company to build a plant turning out 500 tons of newsprint per day? Because if he does so I am satisfied the money will never be spent.


John Campbell Elliott: In matters of this kind
appropriations have been held up because the development has not been started, and before we commence -this work the government will be satisfied that its expectation in regard to the development that is to take place is assured.
2388	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am satisfied that the
work will not go on this year under present conditions.


John Campbell Elliott: Then the money will not be spent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish to know whether
the building of these piers and works and the expenditure of this public money will take away from the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific a freight tonnage which they now possess, and whether that is the policy of the company? That is what happened in relation to Matane and still worse, if was for a foreign company in Erie, Pennsylvania. This government spent a large sum of money to build a pier at Matane and, if my recollection is correct, the Hamroermill people did not contribute anything, but the direct consequence was a reduction in tonnage from that point to the national railway. What effect will this have upon the Canadian railways?


John Campbell Elliott: If my information is correct, this will take nothing away from the Canadian National railway. The object is to encourage the creation of new business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about taking tonnage away from the Canadian Pacific?


John Campbell Elliott: It will not.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I should be the last to rise in the house to defend any project initiated by the Price Brothers company. The Donnacona Paper Company belongs to Price Brothers, and for many years members of the Price family have been in distinct and energetic antagonism to the principles which I represent in the constituency for which I sit in this house. But at the same time, common justice compels me to say that in this case at any rate there is a good deal to be said in favour of the passing of the item. I do not think it is intended to go on with any further newsprint production. The hon. member for York-Sunbury was, I think, quite right in saying that no newsprint company at the present time wishes or would be allowed to increase the production of newsprint, but I understand there is to be a mill utilized for the purpose of using the waste products, slabs, et cetera, of some of the other mills. I am not quite sure what the product is. It is a species of fibre board, but I do not think it is along the lines of insulex and other fibre boards that are being made. It is proposed to bring the waste material from other mills belonging to Price Brothers on the St. Lawrence river and 	-
rivers in the north country to Donnacona as ' much as possible by water and to export the finished product by water to the old country. That, I understand, is the project which the company has laid before the minister and which it intends to carry out. If such be the case, there will be no question of taking away tonnage from either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is this a settled policy adopted by the government that they will provide large amounts for wharves and repairs provided that some industry contributes one-third?


John Campbell Elliott: Every case has to stand or fall on its own merits. For years this practice has been followed with a view to encouraging industries which perhaps would not come here at all or would not go on with the development which they contemplate unless the government were sympathetic in regard to wharfage facilities and dredging.


Arthur Edward Ross: Last year the
estimates contained one or two items of the same nature and evidently they have been dropped.


John Campbell Elliott: They were not gone on with because the project had not reached the point where we were satisfied that it was going on this year. For that reason they were dropped.


George Reginald Geary: Does the department get any security for the performance by the company of its promise to pay?


John Campbell Elliott: We take a guarantee bond from them.


George Reginald Geary: A company bond?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dundee-improvement to drains, $7,000.
George Halsey Perley: What has the government to do with the improvement of drains? I thought that was a matter with which the municipality or the province had to deal.


John Campbell Elliott: In this case it was represented that the government had responsibility because the construction of the dam at its outlet had raised the level of lake St. Francis.


George Halsey Perley: Where is Dundee?


John Campbell Elliott: Chateauguay-Huntingdon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
Grande Anse (Gaspe County) - wharf, $15,000.
George Halsey Perley: Is this a new
item?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. MacNUTT:: What is it for?
Mr. ELLIOTT' This work is to provide facilities for the loading and unloading of fishing barges, one hundred in number, which at the present time have to be lightered under great difficulties.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grondines-completion of wharf, $18,000.
George Halsey Perley: There was no vote last year. Would the minister explain how he is going to complete a wharf on which no work seems to have been done last year?


Ernest Lapointe: That is Sir Lomer
Gouin's birthplace.


John Campbell Elliott: The proposed work is to
complete the construction of the wharf commenced in 1923-24 by the addition of an extension 120 feet in length and 30 feet in depth, to be cribwork substructure with a concrete wall superstructure, the space between the walls to be filled with stone ballast and surfaced with crushed stone macadam, and the whole extension to be provided with a slip to enable boats to use this approach.


George Halsey Perley: It is really an enlargement of the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Has business there grown so much that this is required?


John Campbell Elliott: That is what the engineer reports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lake St. Louis-dredging, $50,000.
George Halsey Perley: I suppose this is a work that has to be gone on with nearly every year?


John Campbell Elliott: Work has been done nearly every year, but we are pretty nearly finished now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Montreal river-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $15,000.
George Halsey Perley: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Laprairie-Napier-ville.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marsoudns-wharf, $5,500.
George Reginald Geary: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to construct a small wharf or landing pier 75 feet long and 27 feet wide, a short distance from the outer end of the jetty on the eastern shore of the mouth of the Marsouins river. In his annual estimates District Engineer Amiot reports as follows:
It is requested that the slab jetty located on the eastern shore of mouth of river be protected by an outside crib of 75 feet by 27 feet. This crib can also be utilized as a landing and will protect and facilitate the entrance to the harbour.


George Halsey Perley: What county is this in?


John Campbell Elliott: Gaspe.


George Reginald Geary: Are there any boats there at all? How much will this wharf be used?


John Campbell Elliott: I am unable to give my hon. friend the number of boats, but there are tugs used in connection with the lumber industry. The exports of lumber amount yearly to $80,000, and the imports of goods and general merchandise to approximately $30,000.


George Reginald Geary: Where is this place?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a village twenty-five miles below Ste. Anne d'es Monts on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence in the county of Gaspe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Matane-harbour improvements, $33,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: This is a very large sum. What is it for?


John Campbell Elliott: It is required for the following improvements:
(1)	An extension to breakwater 300 feet in length by 25 feet wide in stone filled open faced cribwork, $22,000;
(2)	Repairs and improvements to town whtarf consisting of driving protection _ piles along west and north faces of outer end, $5,000;
(3)	Laying a double two-inch flooring over present flooring on outer end, $1,500; and renewing stringers and planking on older part of wharf, $2,500, or a total of $9,000;
(4)	To complete renewal of superstructure of older portion of east breakwater on a length of 140 feet by width of 27 feet which is in a dilapidated condition, replacing stringers, planking and cap pieces and reinforcing outer end, $2,000.


Finlay MacDonald: I understand that Matane is only a small place. What would be the trade for the port, and what would it consist of? When we are spending $33,000 of public money there must be some justification for it.

2390	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: The main industry is
lumbering. I will give my hon. friend an extract from the district engineer's report.
Matane is a large and ambitious village situated on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, 60 miles east from Rimouski. It is the shiretown of Matane county and the industrial and the business centre of the portion of the county located along the gulf shore. The Canada Gulf Terminal Railway, which joins the Canadian National railway at Mont Joli, has its terminus and main office in Matane. The population of the village itself is 3,500 inhabitants; with the parishes, it is approximately 7,000.
The main industry is lumbering. The Price Bros. Co. has a 15,000,000 feet board measure yearly capacity mill operating at that place; the Hammermill Paper Co. of Erie, Penn., which bought, a year ago, the timber holdings formerly operated by the Canada Gulf Terminals Railway, is also operating a .saw-mill and more particularly a pulpwood plant of an approximate yearly capacity of 25,000 cords.
He goes on:
Matane harbour has become the shipping and distributing point for the many lumber, logging and cutting camps, and saw-mills are operated on the north shore from Bersimis down to Moisie.


Finlay MacDonald: I notice again that a large sum .of money is being spent presumably for the benefit of Price Brothers. I understand they are the large operators there. We are developing a better harbour for them at an expense of $30,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not Price Brothers; the
Hammermill people.


Finlay MacDonald: I do not think this expenditure is justified.


Arthur Edward Ross: As a matter of
curiosity, in what estimate does this vote of $30,000 for 1928-29 appear? It says " 192829, $30,000." Matane does not appear in the main estimates of last year. Is it in the supplementaries ?


John Campbell Elliott: I should think my hon.
friend is incorrect, because I have here a revote of $25,000 of $30,000 in the estimates of last year.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have been following the figures given here and in several cases they are wrong. In the main estimates for last year Matane does not appear at all.


John Campbell Elliott: It must be in the supplementaries then. Has my hon. friend the supplementaries before him?


Arthur Edward Ross: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
can take it as pretty certain that these con-fMr. Macdonald (Richmond).]
tracts to which I have referred, and which cover the greater portion of this expenditure, would not have been entered into if we had not had a vote last year.


Arthur Edward Ross: In several cases the figures are wrongly stated in the vote for last year.


Finlay MacDonald: In
which constituency is this money to be spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Matane county. Do you want the name of the gentleman who represents it?


Mr. DIONNE:: I know this place very well, for the one good reason that I was born there. The following figures will give some idea of the amount of business done at this point:
Price Brothers & Co. Ltd.
Lumber shipped.. 10,543,000 B.M
Lath	 4,047,800 B.M.
R.R. ties	 7,387 pcs.
General freight received:
Price Brothers & Co. Ltd	
Hammermill Paper Co.
(pulp shipped) ..	33,439 cords
Freight unloaded and loaded at Matane by coasting traders:
Ros e-Helene
(Capt. Z. Castonguay)	
A. Renaud
(Capt. Ls. Castonguay) ..	..
Legere
(Capt. T. Piuze)	
Gilly
(Capt. W. Guimond)	
Marco Pola
(Capt. C. E. Heppell)	
Toussaint, Odilus, Pucelle d'Orl5ans
Heppel Transportation Company
And there is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Georges-Léonidas Dionne: And there is a lot of other business transacted at Matane.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mechins-wharf extension and repairs, $20,000.
George Halsey Perley: This is a new item, apparently.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: In many instances the references are wrong.


John Campbell Elliott: I hardly think my hon. friend is correct. This amount of $20,000 is required to complete payment to Messrs. Clouthier & Gaudreault in connection with their contract for the reconstruction and extension of this wharf, for repairs to the flooring and fenders on a length of 191 feet and towards a further extension of 200 feet.
300 tons
3,027
2,750
3,340
3.000 2,025
4.000

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Finlay MacDonald: Are
Clouthier & Gaudreault the same contractors as are doing the work at Matane?


John Campbell Elliott: They are the same.


Georges-Léonidas Dionne: Mechins is 45 miles from Matane. There is no railroad. The wharf is under construction. It is one of the finest places along the St. Lawrence for a harbour. After the construction of this wharf shelter will be provided against the heavy storms along this coast and it will enable the people to land there at any time, because there will be at least 25 feet of water at low tide.


Arthur Edward Ross: How much of the vote last year was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Finlay MacDonald: Was
this work done by tender and contract?


John Campbell Elliott: All but $1,600 was done by contract.


Finlay MacDonald: How
many tenders were received by the government, and what was the amount of each?


John Campbell Elliott: Only two tenders were received:	Cloutier & Gaudreault, $36,378, and
Ludger Lemieux Limited, $38,434. The $1,600 worth of repairs to the flooring were done by day labour.


Finlay MacDonald: How is it that both contracts at Matane and Mechins were done by the same contractors? Is the government following the same policy that obtains in Nova Scotia, that of giving all contracts to one group of individuals?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend really mean that, in regard to contracts let by tender? Does he think that is a fair statement?


Finlay MacDonald: Is the
same policy followed in Nova Scotia?


John Campbell Elliott: The same policy is followed in both places.


Finlay MacDonald: In Nova Scotia we know exactly what has happened. We find that at two points the contracts were held by the same group of individuals.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think there is
anything unusual about that, where the man is the lowest tenderer. The lowest tenderer may get two contracts, and in fact he is more likely to get both in the same vicinity than in places widely apart. But if my hon.
friend means 'to suggest that any preference was given to contractors tendering for work done under this department he will find that the contractors of this country will not back him up in such a statement.


Finlay MacDonald: In the
past the contractors of Nova Scotia have not been backing me up, nor have they backed up anyone else but themselves and the government they support. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned I do not believe that, in the case of one or two contracts, the lowest tenderer got the award.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. gentleman
refer me to any place where the lowest tenderer did not get the contract?


Finlay MacDonald: A contract was let at Port Maitland this year.


John Campbell Elliott: The lowest tenderer got
the contract; he was the lowest by many thousands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montmagny-improvement to protection walls, $30,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Was there a supplementary vote last year in regard to this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote.


Finlay MacDonald: What is meant by "protection walls"?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote from
1928-29, and is required to improve the banks of the river at several points near Montmagny to prevent flooding and consequent damage.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why was no work
done last year?


John Campbell Elliott: There was a good deal
of delay getting releases from some of the persons whose lands were affected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Natashquan-wharf repairs and extension, $19,300.
George Halsey Perley: This is on the
gulf of St. Lawrence and it is a place in which I take a little interest in that some years ago I had to do with the service there. Last year there was a vote which does not seem to have been spent. Perhaps the minister will tell us what the condition is at Natashquan.


John Campbell Elliott: Of this amount $18,000
is a revote. The money is required to com-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
plete the construction of an extension to the wharf under contract with Mr. Joseph Gagnon. The amount spent last year to March 31 was $10,581.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is in the
supplementary estimates a large amount which has not been expended.


John Campbell Elliott: In the main estimates last year there was an amount for wharf repairs of $1,500, and in the supplementary estimates, for wharf extension, $38,000, making a total of $39,500. At the time these estimates were prepared the probable expenditure to March 31 was reported to us to be $211,500. Actually, only $10,581 was expended.


George Halsey Perley: In the Auditor General's report there is no mention of Natashquan as having received any expenditure last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the year before.


John Campbell Elliott: When the estimates are being prepared, in the early part of February and sometimes in January, it is difficult to tell in a great many instances how much will be expended before March 31, so that we have to arrive at the best estimate we can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Newport-wharf replacement, $10,000.
George Halsey Perley: Where is that?


John Campbell Elliott: Gaspe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Norton creek-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $28,000.
George Halsey Perley: Where is this and why are you spending all this money on a creek?


John Campbell Elliott: This is in Chateauguay-Huntingdon, and is required to complete excavation work begun in 1912^13 and continued in 1913-14 and 1914-15. It was suspended during the war. The object is to enable this creek to take care of the spring floods.
_ Sir GEORGE PERLEY:	Does the minister really think this is something which should be done by the Dominion government? I happen to know something about this work and I understand it is really for the purpose of assisting in the drainage of the country; it is not in any sense a harbour improvement, as I understand it, or anything in which the Dominion government should take an interest. This is work which, if they think 
it should be undertaken, should be done by the county or by the provincial government. I would like the minister to say whether this work is not really for the purpose of draining that part of the country.


John Campbell Elliott: There is something to
be said for my hon. friend's contention, and I went over this matter with a good deal of care when we were considering the estimate. Of course, in these years when flooding is much more troublesome than in previous years we are meeting with claims from all over the country, but it is pretty difficult to get over the contention that we should carry on the work we have already started and on which we expended $18,816, especially if the provincial government is ready to assist. The previous work at this point was done with no contribution from the provincial government, and in nearly all these cases there is something which has been done by the Dominion government which is urged as one of the reasons why the particular damage has occurred.


George Halsey Perley: The minister
should be able to give a better reason than that. We have the Rideau river right at our doors here, and every year there is trouble in connection with the flooding of that river. Would the minister consider an application for half the cost of necessary works to take care of that condition if the Ontario government paid the other half?


John Campbell Elliott: The minister must consider every application coming from any source, and if a precedent has been established by this government it is difficult to refuse such an application particularly if the provincial government says, as in this case, that part of the work was done by the Dominion government years ago with no contribution from the provincial government, and that all the work done previously will be wasted unless a further expenditure is made. In this case the provincial government is willing to bear half the expense, and in this way perhaps we can make useful the expenditure which was made in former years. With regard to the proposition of my hon. friend, I should be very glad to give consideration to it, and if we are bound by any precedent established in previous years, as is the case here, I should think we would have a good deal of difficulty in refusing such an application.


George Halsey Perley: I have no desire to hold up the committee on a matter of this kind, but I believe this to be a danger-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
ous policy, and if the minister stays in office very long I believe he will have a great deal of difficulty with other cases as a result of adopting it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word to
say with regard to this item. This is the second instance in which the provincial government has contributed an amount equal to that contributed by the federal government for dredging. I remember that some time this spring the Premier of the province of Quebec said that the sum of $5,000,000 should be spent for dredging the St. Charles river near Quebec, and I wonder if the government of Quebec has offered to pay half that amount.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not remember receiving any word to that effect.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: The hon. member for
Temiscouata has raised the question of the St. Charles river, and I am grateful to him for having done so. I have known of the conditions existing in the St. Charles river for a number of years; some work has been done there and I believe about $2,500,000 has been spent on that work by the federal government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the balance should
be provided by the province of Quebec.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Just let me follow
up my argument. Over $2,500,000 was spent on the St. Charles river, but when the Tory government came into power in 1911 they saw fit to suspend this work and since that time the greater part of the work done has been destroyed. The citizens of Quebec are very anxious that this work should be proceeded with, and I understand that at a banquet in Quebec not long ago Mr. Tasche-reau said that this work should be proceeded with and that his government would certainly contribute to the cost. More than that, the city council of Quebec would be quite willing to share the cost. I think this fact should be mentioned and the government asked to continue the work which they undertook to carry out under a written agreement between the city of Quebec and the federal government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I would make
another suggestion; the provincial1 government should not be the only body called upon to contribute. I suggest that the Royal Trust Company, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Sun Life Assurance Company,
Barclay's Bank and La Caisse d'Economie, of which Mr. Taschereau is a director, should also be called upon to contribute to this work.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am sorry my hon.
friend does not take this question seriously, because the work on the river St. Charles should not be made a joke. The citizens of Quebec believe this work should be proceeded with, and as I said a moment ago I know that the provincial government would be willing to contribute to the cost.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am quite serious in the matter, and in addition I would suggest that when the hon. member for Quebec-Montmor-ency dies a monument should be erected to him on the banks of the river St. Charles.
Mr. MoGIBBON: If I might interrupt this family quarrel I would like to ask if this is a principle which has been laid down iby the government and) if so whether they are following that principle in other provinces. I understand that in this case money is being spent to drain land. Is this private or public land?


John Campbell Elliott: We endeavour to carry out the same policy throughout the country wherever we have started work of this kind, and I think there are some places where we would not be carrying on this work had we not started it in previous years. I think we are doing similar work in one place in Manitoba and at another point in Ontario, where we were confronted with practically the same situation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this would be a
good time to stop.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps it would not be
a bad time to stop this work in all these places. I am not going to enter into a discussion on this point, but in nearly each case there is the difficulty that some Dominion work, a railway or some other public work, is linked up with the matter. I do not recall that this is the oase at this point, but I have no doubt that whoever started this work in the first place did so with the idea that it would assist navigation or do something which was part of the obligation of the Dominion government. At any rate the same practice is followed throughout.
Mr. MoGIBBON: The minister had better include those two items in what the Prime Minister calls "vicious" principles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2394	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
Peribonka-wharf repairs, $3,500.
George Reginald Geary: One has to study geography to know whether or not there are any other places in the province of Quebec where a wharf might be required.


John Campbell Elliott: I can furnish the hon. member with a list of many scores of requests for wharves which have been absolutely refused. We have granted only those requests where the residents seem to be undergoing a certain amount of hardship on account of not having accommodation.


George Reginald Geary: Is it on account of that province being on the St. Lawrence river?


George Halsey Perley: I do not think Peribonka is on the St. Lawrence river.


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is on lake St. John.


George Reginald Geary: I am not complaining in regard to these votes, but one is struck with the n-umfoer of places which seem to require this sort of work.


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. member will compare the proportion of the total expenditure and the number of different works he will find that there is not a larger percentage attributable to this province than to any other, either in amount or in number. In the constituency of Gaspe, Charlevoix-Saguenay and Bonaventure there are many settlements which have no railway accommodation.


George Reginald Geary: It is largely a question of serving the communities along the St. Lawrence which are not served by railways?


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


George Reginald Geary: I am not speaking in a critical tone at all, but I wanted to know how it happened that so many places seemed to have only water communication.


Charles Marcil: The province of Quebec has over 2,000 miles of coast line, and if you leave the railway and go down to the limits of Labrador you have practically one thousand miles of shore line on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. Quebec is one of the important maritime provinces of the Dominion. From Murray Bay to Labrador there is no railway and from Matane to Gaspe there is no railway; the only means of communication is by water, and the majority of the people make their living from the water and must have protection for their boats.


Mr. FRASER:: Are these to be temporary re permanent structures?


John Campbell Elliott: There will be some timber used, but the structure will be as permanent as it is possible to make it.


George Taylor MacNutt: I have a pretty good knowledge of the life of underwater timber construction in Nova Scotia, and if the timber differs in other provinces as it does in Nova Scotia, I think the day has arrived when treated timber should be used for these smaller wharves. I realize that the larger structures are built with creosoted timber, but in view of the enormous cost of maintaining our wharves in the maritime provinces I believe some consideration should be given to the greater use of treated pilings. Has the minister given this feature of the matter any consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: Wherever limnoria are present we endeavour to have the timber treated, but as far as we know there are none in this particular district to which we are referring. Wherever the engineers consider that creosoted timber should be used we endeavour to employ that class of timbers. In some cases it is difficult to get it without going outside of the country, and we are making some progress in encouraging the treatment of timber in Canada.


George Reginald Geary: There are a great many wharves along the river-front at Sarnia, and I should like to know whether there is a government wharf among them. Is it the policy of the government to provide water transportation or communication by means of government wharves wherever the people require it?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the hon. member is correct; I do not believe there is a government wharf at Sarnia at the present time. However, there has been considerable expenditure at Sarnia with very excellent results. We have provided for the elevator there, and there has been a great deal of dredging done.


George Reginald Geary: Will it be the policy of the government from this time on to provide water communication where required, irrespective of what the town may be or where it may be?


John Campbell Elliott: You cannot lay down one rule which will apply to every case. You must consider whether or not the town has railway facilities and whether the people are using the waters for pleasure only. I think the best answer to make would be to say that you must consider every case on its own merits and try to overcome those cases of hardship where the people are suffering through lack of accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
Port Lewis

dredging, $15,600.
Arthur Edward Ross: Where is Port
Lewis?


John Campbell Elliott: Chateauguay-Huntingdon.


George Halsey Perley: Is it on the St.
Lawrence river?


John Campbell Elliott: It is on lake St. Francis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richelieu river-improvements, $150,000.
Peter McGibbon: Will the minister give
us some explanation of this?


Mr. EILLIOTT:: This amount of $150,000,
of which $83,000 is a revote from last year, is required to continue a scheme of improving navigation on the Richelieu river, the dredging part of which was commenced in 1928 under contract with Les Chan tiers Manseau. The contract amounts to $96,904. Last year we were able to expend only $11,000 out of the amount that was voted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere au Tonnerre-wharf, $50,000.
George Halsey Perley: Will the minister explain about this? It is a new work.


John Campbell Elliott: This work was requested
by District Engineer Sabourin in a report dated September 22, 1928, and by various petitions from the residents ever since 1915. The annual traffic at this point is reported to amount to about $90,000. This amount of $50,000 is required towards the construction of a wharf composed of an approach of the pier and bridge type 675 feet in length by 16 in width, and an open-faced cribwork head'bloek, 425 in length by 30 feet in width and having a height at the outer end of 35 feet with 20 feet of water at low tide.


George Halsey Perley: How much will
it cost altogether?
Mr, ELLIOTT:	The estimate would be
about $110,000 altogether.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere des Prairies-improvements, $40,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: This is a new
vote. W'hat is it?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required toward
the restoration of navigation in Riviere des Prairies by providing a 12-foot channel from Bout de l'lle to the village of Riviere des Prairies and the construction of a wharf at the village. This work has been requested since 1910 when the channel, formerly kept in good condition, was allowed to fill in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Antoine de Tilly-dredging, $64,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
explain this item? It is a large amount of dredging.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $64,000
contains a revote from last year of $28,500. It is in the county of Lotbiniere. This work was requested by District Engineer Grand-mont in his annual estimates. Owing to insufficient water in the channel leading to the wharf at this place, the boats can land only at high tide, which makes it very inconvenient as there is no railway connection at this locality, the only means of transportation being by water. There are two regular lines of steamers calling at this wharf four times a week when water conditions permit. There are now under contract with the National Dock and Dredging Corporation, dredging operations for deepening the channel, 150 feet wide leading to the government wharf, involving the removal of 35,402 cubic yards scow measure of clay, sand and gravel.


Finlay MacDonald: Could
the minister give us offhand the quantity of dredging to 'be done in Quebec during the present year?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not give that offhand', but the total appropriation for Quebec under harbours and rivers is $1,826,970 and, if my memory serves me aright, it is a lower percentage of the total amount than in a number of previous years.


Finlay MacDonald: I notice there are some large sums for dredging, for instance $20,000, $30,000, $69,000. I also note under item 141 an amount of $600,000 for dredging for Ontario and Quebec. Could the minister give the committee offhand the amount that is to be expended for dredging alone in Quebec? This is a very large amount of money for that purpose, and I feel that we in Nova Scotia are not receiving a like amount, although we have a great deal of sea coast and our harbours and rivers are more important to us on account of our fishing industry.


Arthur Edward Ross: When there are
these large amounts for dredging, why not increase the large amounts instead of inserting the small items? What is the object in doing it in this way?


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my hon. friend, but this practice has prevailed for years. We may be very frank in the committee with regard to the reason for it. It is that the Department of Public Works is the only one that does not receive large lump

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
sums to expend as the other departments do. I am not sure that the house is not entitled to pas upon these various small items. Of course it takes up a great deal of time, and I am not objecting to that; but there is a feeling in the department that if we had the freedom to put in a larger amount for harbours and rivers generally, and not put in so many separate little items for $1,000 or $1,100, it would be in the interests of the country as a whole and would undoubtedly save the time of the committee. I am entirely in the hands of the committee. We are simply following what has been the rule in the past, and I felt that it was not fair to put these small items into the general vote.


Peter McGibbon: It is a pretty good rule, and you had better stick to it.


John Campbell Elliott: It makes the passing of
your estimates much more difficult, but it has this advantage, that everybody knows before the money is voted where it is to be spent. I have no serious objection to that practice, but it would leave much greater discretion to the officials of the department and to the minister if these small items were bulked in the general vote. I submit very respectfully to the committee that with the business of the country increasing, with business being done to-day at places where it amounted to practically nothing a few years ago, the general vote must of necessity be increased much beyond what we have attempted to increase it this year.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not objecting to these smaller items being put in separately. I am objecting to the large amount in the general vote, and then when an emergency arises and people want a little bit of dredging done at some important place the owners have to pay for the dredging themselves. I would rather see this large general vote broken up into smaller items so that we might know how the money is going to be spent. With such a large amount as this for dtedging, one would think that private people would not have to pay for any emergency that has to be done. I have no objection to the practice of putting these small items in separately; I think it is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shelter bay-dredging, $10,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: In Charlevoix-Saguenay.
This work is requested by the district engineer in his report dated June 19, 1928. It (Mr. Elliott.]
is to provide sufficient depth of water to permit steamers and barges to land at the north side of the wharf. The traffic amounts to some $2,550,000 annually, handled by three steamers and about seventy-five lake barges.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is this wharf private or public?


John Campbell Elliott: The Ontario Paper Company, Limited, own the wharf at this place.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is a private
wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Templeton-dredging, $43,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Is this a private or a public wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a private wharf. This dredging is required to provide sufficient depth of water to enable boats to reach the wharf which is to be constructed by the International Fibre Board, Limited, and provide shipping facilities for the boats of the Canadian International Paper Company to reach the booming area with their logs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Valleyfield-dredging, $50,000.
Peter McGibbon: Would the minister give us an explanation of this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to continue the dredging of a channel three miles in length by a width of one hundred feet and to a depth of fourteen feet, from deep water in lake St. Francis to the government wharf, with a turning basin at the wharf 650 feet by 700 feet. This project was commenced in 1024 and continued in 1925, 1927, 1928 and 1929.


Arthur Edward Ross: How much has
been spent on it so far?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Arthur Edward Ross: How much is it intended to spend?


John Campbell Elliott: The total will be $403,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yamachiche river-dredging, $20,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: What is the purpose of this dredging?


John Campbell Elliott: It is required to pay the balance owing to the National Dock & Dredging Corporation in connection with their con-

Procedure Respecting Divorce
tract for dredging completed during 1928-29, to provide for tlhe dredging of a turning basin having an area of some 56,000 feet to enable boats using the channel to turn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yamaska river-dredging, $12,200.
Arthur Edward Ross: Is this for the same purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: This is dredging in the river. It is under contract now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Halsey Perley: When dealing with the Ontario harbours and rivers vote to-night, we want a general item held over so that any Ontario members who are not here at the moment may have an opportunity later to discuss anything they like on tlhe vote.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Harry Babing-ton Millward-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Wallace Evered Gillespie.-'Mr. Anderson (High Park).
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Myrtle Virginia Maulson-Mr. Spence.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Claude Le Cheminant-Mr. Spence.
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 116, for the relief of Alla Chretter-Mr. Ross (Kingston)

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are there any
children involved in this case?


Arthur Edward Ross: I had all the facts
the other night, but the hon. gentleman did not make any inquiries and I am sorry I have not that information at the moment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We shall have to
ask that the bill stand. It was understood that while no details would be discussed on the second reading they would be, if necessary, in the committee stage.


Arthur Edward Ross: There was a child
in the case of the first bill, which the hon. member allowed to go through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In that case the
petitioner was the father and perhaps it is-easier for the father to look after the child.. In this case the petitioner is a woman.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am almost certain there are no children.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



ALICE GLADYS BARKEY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 135, for the relief of Alice Gladys Barkey-Mr., Spence-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
children, if there are any?


Mr. SPENCE:: I have not the record,
here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is just as well:
to get information regarding any children that, have to be provided for.


James Houston Spence: I will get it if you wish.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?'


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we should have information with respect to the children.


James Houston Spence: I will furnish the information later on.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of the committee that section 1 shall carry?


Charles Marcil: I think it desirable that, the information requested should be furnished, by the sponsor of the bill.


John Frederick Johnston: Those in favour of section 1 being carried will kindly say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A few of us who objected some time ago to the passage of 'these bills in this way were practically asked not to delay the business of the house. We protested quite sincerely that we were not attempting to block the business of the house but -that we were desirous of seeing this work done in a little more decent manner than had been the case in the past, and we have ad

hered to that principle since. However, I think the least that can be done is to have

Procedure Respecting Divorce
the sponsors of the bills prepared to answer a few questions which may be asked, and one question I have wanted to emphasize is whether or not children are involved and, if so, whether those children are being cared for. True, the Minister of Justice informed us that it is noit within the competence of parliament to grant the custody or demand the maintenance of the children, but even if that be so under the existing interpretation of the British North America Act I still say it is within the competence of parliament to refuse to grant a divorce until such time as the children are cared for, and I think I am quite within my rights in asking this question. I know we cannot do very much in these cases, but if an outstanding case is brought forward where children are being neglected, we might refer that case back to the committee for reconsideration.
In the meantime I want to emphasize the fact that in this house we are occupying a most anomalous position. As far as the state is concerned the chief reason why marriage is recognized is that there may be care for the family, yet here we are in a position where we cannot give effect to this principle which lies at the very root of marriage. That sort of thing should not and cannot continue very long. That we should recognize the union of two people and yet not be in a position to see that their offspring are cared for is hard to understand. Judging from the communications which have been coming to me from different quarters it is only beginning to dawn upon the people of Canada what an outrage has been perpetrated here throughout the years, and I do not think society as a whole will agree to permit a procedure to continue whereby we simply throw the children on the streets. In many instances these children are cared for by children's aid societies and other philanthropic institutions; we are ndt asking too much when we request this information.


James Houston Spence: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so I will give him the information.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will get it in a moment. I think we are not going too far when we require that the sponsor of the bill be prepared to give us at least an outline of the case or to tell us something about the children.


James Houston Spence: I have no hesitation in
giving the hon. gentleman the information, but I had simply forgotten to bring the evi-
dence down with me to-night. There is one child in this case, living with the mother, and by order of Mrs. Patterson, a Toronto police magistrate, the father pays $5 a week for the maintenance of the child.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 160, for the relief of Irene Mabel Usher-Mr. Ross (Kingston)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the children?


Arthur Edward Ross: There are two children in this case, aged thirteen and fourteen.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is any provision made for them?


Mr. BOURASSA:: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is of extreme importance. I was not here the other day when the Minister of Justice gave his opinion with regard to the jurisdiction of this house with respect to what I might call the civil consequences or results of a divorce granted by this house, but I think that opinion is incontrovertible, and it exemplifies the absurdity of the whole situation. Of course, the principle of divorce is just as bad in the case of married people without children. But as I have already stated my position in that regard, I need not go over it again.
But when it comes to the question of children I know of no civilized and so-called Christian country on earth where the dissolution of marriage or the separation of married people, what we call in French, separation de corps, which is allowed in the province of Quebec,-you call it in English, separation a mensa et thoro-nowhere is it allowed without the court giving its decision with regard to the children, deciding which of the separated parties, the father or the mother, shall have the custody of the children and what means shall be taken to provide for their maintenance. That is done everywhere. I know of no country, whether it be the United States, Engjand, France, Belgium, Germany or any other country the legislation of which I know anything about, which does not always look

Procedure Respecting Divorce
alter the children. It is essential; it is the duty of the state, as represented by the jurisdiction created by the government, to adjudicate upon such matters, to consider what will become of the children. The responsibility of the state towards the child is greater than its responsibility towards the man and woman who cannot agree to live together and are asking for a separation. If it is the decided opinion of the government, or of the Minister of Justice, who is the legal adviser of the government, that this parliament is not em,powered judicially or constitutionally to carry out its primary duty towards the child born of a marriage dissolved by this parliament, then this parliament has not the moral right to pronounce any divorce in oases where there are children, until and unless some means have been found to provide for the children, as they are provided for by regular courts of justice in any country where such separations or divorces are granted. This only shows that the problem cannot be solved until we have amended the constitution in such a manner that the power which has jurisdiction over the marriage will have the whole jurisdiction. So Jong as we exercise one jurisdiction here and the other jurisdiction is exercised by another power over which we have no control, we will never get satisfaction. Some harm may be done in cases where only two individuals, the parties to the marriage contract, are concerned, but it is much more strongly exemplified where there are Children.
At times I hear some suppressed laughter in the house, but I would ask the members of this house to remember that this is one of the most serious questions before the country. It is concerning the thoughtful people of Canada much more than thoughtless people seem to imagine. Not very long ago the Anglican synod-quite a respectable body, I think-gathered and expressed its opinion with regard to this matter. Two of its most respected and high placed members, the Bishop of Ottawa and one of his colleagues, have issued a document which is one of the most comprehensive pronouncements on this question I have read for a long time. They called the attention not only of the members of their own church but of all thoughtful Canadians to the threat to the country arising from the disquieting increase in divorces from year to year. If that is a threat in itself, surely it is a much greater threat when we dissolve a family and, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said, throw the children on the street and leave it to haphazard to decide how they will be taken care of, to which of the parents they will be given, whether to the worthy one or to the the unworthy one.
I am not a believer in the doctrine of the state taking the place of the parents in the matter of education, whether it is family education or school education; but when the state takes upon itself the responsibility of breaking the family tie, surely it should do something for the preservation of those members of the family who are incapable, either morally, physically or legally, of protecting themselves. We decide that the marriage is dissolved, the man goes where he likes and the woman does what she wishes, and no provision is made for the children; we wash our hands of all responsibility towards the children. This is an extremely serious aspect of the question, apart from all the circumstances surrounding it. When we consider the basic principle of the indissolubility of marriage, we must not forget that this other principle is just as important.
I assume that it will take some process of education to bring home to the people of the country a realization of the harm which was done at the time of confederation with regard to divorce. The power which per-'orms the operation of breaking a family tie has now to admit that it is incapable, that it is impotent to perform what is considered in every civilized country as the primary duty of the authority which pronounces divorce-to take care of the children. It seems to me that the least we could do would be to say that before a divorce is granted, in cases where there are children concerned, such procedure should take place as was spoken of a moment ago by the member for Parkdale. The hon. member mentioned a case where a court of justice in Ontario had decided, before application for divorce was made, as to whom the child should be given and as to the allowance to be paid to the mother or the father, as the case may be, for the maintenance of that child. I say that it is essential that no petition for a divorce should be received by this parliament in cases where children are concerned until such procedure has taken place before a regular court of justice. That seems to me to be the least we could do. Finding out that we cannot ourselves exercise that duty, we should say to the parties who ask for divorce, " In case you have children you must go before a court of justice and have it decided as to what will become of the children, how they will be taken care of, and to whom they will be given." It seems to me that that is an extremely reasonable proposition, and if we still believe in the necessity of the maintenance of the principle of the family tie, it is about time that we retraced our steps as far as that aspect of the question is concerned. Therefore I think
Procedure Respecting Divorce

that in connection with this bill or any other bill involving children in regard to whom no judicial decision has been obtained in the province in which reside the parties in the case, no such petition should be received, and no such bill should be passed upon. It may be said that this suggestion is late; but it is never too late. Let what amount those parties have deposited be remitted to them; let them put themselves in a proper position in that regard before they ask for divorce from this parliament, and parliament should not grant a divorce until the whole case has been covered as it should be.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is a case where the mother about nine or ten years ago contracted a filthy disease from her husband. She separated from him; for nine years she has been living apart and supporting her children and she wishes so to continue.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There again is the question whether or not the parties should be given the right to marry again. If they are diseased the danger is obvious, and the sponsor of the bill should put a question mark as to whether we should turn them loose on the community.
Mr. MARC'IL: I want to approve every word that has been uttered by the hon. member for Labelle. It is bad enough to divorce people, but if parliament is going to continue to act as it is doing now, separating these people and making no provision whatever for the children, it is a most heartless procedure to follow, and I am sure public opinion in general would back us up if we insisted that people coming to parliament asking for divorce should at least prove to the committee that provision has been made for the care of the children. That can easily be done by an application to the courts as is done in the case of judicial decisions in Quebec, where no such separation is granted unless a decree is issued by the court providing for the children. Surely parliament should look after these poor innocent children, minors, who are left practically on the street. The suggestion made by the member for Labelle is worthy of consideration. This bill should be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 161 for the relief of Anna Estella DeNike.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children in this case?


Arthur Edward Ross: I can find no evidence of any children.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 162 for the relief of Elizabeth Spain.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
children?


Arthur Edward Ross: There is one child in this case.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What provision is
being mode for it?


Arthur Edward Ross: I find this in the transcript of the evidence:
My husband was up for non-support, he had not supported our child since she was three years old, and Magistrate Brunton at Toronto -he is dead now-he told my husband he must pay me so much a week to help support our child. He didn't do it, and Major Brunton had him u,p in front of him. That is how I happened to know where he lived.


Mr. MANION:: She is looking after the child?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 164 for the relief of Louisa Hitchman.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)

Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children in this case? I think we ought to give the sponsor time to read the case.


Arthur Edward Ross: No issue.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

Procedure Respecting Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 116 for the relief of Alla Chretter.-Mr. Ross (Kingston)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any *children?


Arthur Edward Ross: There is one child, horn at Gallipoli.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How old is the
child?


Arthur Edward Ross: Eight years old.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In whose custody is the child at the present time?


Arthur Edward Ross: With the mother.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Claude Frederick Burgin.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Mary Addie Linton.-Mr. Geary (for Mr. Lennox).
Motions for second readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) (for Mr. Edwards, Ottawa) moved the second leading of Bill No. 195, for the relief of Jeanie Mathieson Howell.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the sponsor of this bill state the ground on which divorce is sought?


Joseph Henry Harris: This divorce case was unopposed. There were no interruptions by the members of the senate committee; the evidence was presented by counsel, and there was no collusion between the parties.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot hear at
this end, Mr. Speaker. I asked what was the ground for divorce in this case. There was one bill for which the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards) was sponsor that was of a very exceptional kind. I should like to know if this is the case.


Joseph Henry Harris: I understand that the
ground in this case is similar to that in many other of these divorce cases, misconduct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to that
sort of answer. We are here dealing with legal matters if we are dealing with anything.
I have heard hon. gentlemen stand in this house and talk about the "usual statutory grounds". I am not a lawyer, but if I understand the situation aright, there are no statutory grounds. Divorce is granted according to certain practices which prevail in the senate, and I say that there are several grounds upon which divorce has been granted. I asked a straight question, what is the ground upon which divorce is granted in this case? I think I am entitled to an answer.


Joseph Henry Harris: The information I have is
that there was evidence of misconduct.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) (for Mr. Edwards, Ottawa) moved the second reading of Bill No. 199, for the relief of Gordon Ashur True.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle)): I have been absent for several sittings during which these manufactured divorces have been passed, but I understood when we agreed after the declaration made by the Prime Minister to let the ordinary procedure, hasty and indecent as it is, go on for this session in order to give the government time to think over the whole situation, that at least the ordinary rules would be observed. One of them was that each bill should be called; that is being done. And I also understood that when the sponsor of any of these bills was not here it would not be called. I thought that that had been agreed to. Now, two or three of these bills have been called, although the sponsor is not present.
Henry Herbert Stevens: He is ill and unable to be here.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Suppose it was another matter-


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a matter of courtesy.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is something more than a matter of courtesy. It is not a matter of courtesy to the member directly concerned, because I think that most hon. members take very little interest in the bills and know very little about them. One hon. member whose name has been connected this evening with several of these bills had to look after them when called. I do not blame him for that; I know it has been the custom. But that is precisely why we want to remedy this state

Procedure Respecting Divorce
of affairs, and it seems to me that when the sponsor is absent somebody else should be in a position to explain what the sponsor himself is supposed to explain. It seems to me to be more than a matter of form. Take another class of bill. I do not object to a member moving the second reading in the place of the sponsor, but at least the substitute sponsor should be able to state to the house what the original sponsor, is supposed to know. Any member taking the responsibility of presenting a measure to the house is supposed to be able to give to the house an explanation of the bill. If he is absent, and somebody else moves the second reading, the latter is supposed to be able to supply whatever information may be required by the house. There again a practice that I think was clearly understood should cease is left to go on again in the same old way. I am not doing this to hurt anybody, but I simply desire to express my opinion.


Arthur Edward Ross: Childish.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No. It may look childish to the hon. gentleman, but everyone is entitled to have his point of view respected. I think the hon. member should pay a little respect to the opinions of others. It is the trouble of some people that they are impatient with those who differ from them. I respect the point of view of any member who differs from me, and I am entitled to the same respect from him. I submit to the house, first, the rules should be observed in this as in other cases; second, when practically an arrangement has been made with the government that certain things should be done, then that arrangement should be observed. Therefore while there is no desire on my part to retard the passing of these bills, I think the ordinary rules should be applied as it was stated they would be applied.


Charles Marcil: Mr. Speaker, as very much importance seems to be attached to the information which should be in the possession of those who sponsor these bills coming from the senate, I am sorry that in many cases they are not able to furnish the particulars whidh the house should have as a matter of simple justice. I raise the point now, sir, so you may give us a ruling on it at another sitting, as to whether when the sponsor of a measure is not present in the house that measure can be proceeded with except by unanimous consent.


Hewitt Bostock: No exception can be
made to the rule unless by unanimous con-
sent. If the point is raised, I should say that the hon. gentleman who moved the second reading of this bill is out of order. But certain amenities are observed in the parliament of Canada. We have the word of the hon, gentleman who moved the second reading of the bill that the real sponsor, the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards), is ill and cannot be present. On two or three different occasions of late we have taken the word- as we should take it-of those who ask to be substituted for the original sponsor. Of course, if the hon. gentleman insists on his point, it will be tantamount to refusing to accept the word of an hon. member. I leave it to the house. If the point of order is raised, certainly the original sponsor should move the second reading of the bill; but, as I have stated, there are certain amenities that should be observed, I would not say for the good government of Canada, but to facilitate our dealing with the ordinary matters that come before the house. Do I understand that the point is raised?


Charles Marcil: No, I was anxious to know what the rule of the house was.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is very clear.


Arthur Edward Ross: Was the procedure any different when the hon. member from Bonaventure was in the chair?


Charles Marcil: The rules have been very
materially changed since then. I am quite willing to accept the declaration made by the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: Then if the point is not
pressed the bill may receive second reading.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of personal explanation I want to make it clear that my objection is not to any member moving the second reading in the place of the original sponsor of the bill who is ill and out of the house. My objection is to the fact that the gentleman who takes that responsibility is not in a position to explain the matter. I want that to be clearly understood.


Joseph Henry Harris: If the hon. gentleman will give me a few minutes I can furnish the explanation, but as the hour of nine o'clock is approaching I must ask the house to accept a very brief explanation. In this particular case there was misconduct on the part of one

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
of the parties. The one child of the marriage is being taken care of by the father and is in the custody of the mother-in-law, who is well able to provide for and take care of the offspring.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of suply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 135, harbours and rivers, Ontario, $2,033,300. The details will be found on page 41.
Beaverton-reconstruction of harbour works,


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman, some of the Ontario members who are not here to-night would like to be given an opportunity to comment on certain of these items. If the minister will agree to leave the item "harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $75,000", on the understanding that any of these items might be discussed by Ontario members, we are prepared to go on with the rest.


John Campbell Elliott: All these items are comprised in one vote; it would be impossible to proceed if that were done. And it may be some days before I shall have an opportunity again to be in committee. Would it suit the hon. member's purpose to have "harbours and rivers generally" in the Dominion left open?


George Halsey Perley: That is item 140?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, certainly, on that understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hamilton-harbour improvements, $212,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: What is the reason for this increase?


John Campbell Elliott: Extensive work 'has to be done there if the harbour is to be utilized by ships coming into the canal, and even this amount will not suffice. The $212,000 includes a revote of $48,000; $29,000 is to provide for the contract of the Russell Construction Company for repairs to the revetment wall, and it is intended by contract to do the dredging of the channel and the slips in the
proposed new terminal for the Canada Steamship Lines Limited. It is also to serve the Otis-Fensom Elevator Company when they construct wharfage. There will also be dredging of the channel and slip in connection with the proposed new 1,500-foot wharf to be built in 1929 by the Steel Company of Canada, one-third to be paid by the company. The estimated cost is $100,000, the department's share being $66,667. A very large traffic is to be provided for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingston-dredging, $7,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: What part of the work was left undone last year?


John Campbell Elliott: This revote is required to complete the contract with R. G. Weddell for dredging in front of the university and hospital dock on an area of 17,500 square feet with an average cut of three feet, involving the removal of 1,900 cubic yards place measure of class A material. The apropriation for last year was $14,200. The work done to March 31 last amounted to $5,258.61.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think a good deal more will be required there. For the last few years we have had from ninety to one hundred grain-carrying steamers harbouring there during the winter, and in addition to that the second extension to the dry dock will certainly bring large vessels. The minister should be prepared to cariy out a good deal more dredging because the harbour is considered pretty safe for winter storage of these ships. They are tied up to the causeway and in various parts of the harbour eight and ten deep. I would point out however that following a storm a year ago the stays were removed, .and although they were put back I do not think the engineers will say that they are now fixed with any degree of permanency, because they were stirred again this year.


John Campbell Elliott: W'hat was put back?


Arthur Edward Ross: The stays to which the steamers are moored in the winter. These stays were pulled up in the great storm a year ago, and as I say they were put back, but there is no great permanency about them; they came loose again this year. I think the engineer's department should consider some better means than this, because it certainly is not very pleasant having eight or ten Large steamers which are held abreast loosened in the winter.
2404	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


John Campbell Elliott: The bon. member is aware that representations have been -made with regard to this and other matters relating to Kingston, and I may say that arrangements have already been made with regard to tying posts and other facilities of a similar character.


Arthur Edward Ross: When we come to the vote for dredging the minister might tell ns how much was spent last year -and where, and what proposals are under consideration this year regarding further expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give that Information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sarnia-dredging, $70,000.
James Houston Spence: What is the explanation
[DOT]of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The work is required to
accommodate the -heavy grain traffic and relieve the congested condition of this harbour. A new elevator with a capacity of 1,-4)00,000 bushels was constructed at this point in 1927 and is to be enlarged to a capacity [DOT]of 3,000,000 bushels. Over 10,000,000 bushels of grain are handled at this point every -season. These improvements were requested by the Sarnia Elevator Company, Limited, in December, 1928.


James Houston Spence: Did the government build the elevator?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


James Houston Spence: This is for dredging?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-dredging, $29,000.
Mr. MATTHEWS:: Is that for the western *channel?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Item No. 137, harbours and rivers, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Craven dam-in full and final settlement of claims, $25,000.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the explanation
of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked to
be -provided in full and final settlement of claims on behalf of certain land owners for

damage alleged to have been done their farms below the Craven dam in Saskatchewan. The claims arose through the breaking of the dam built by the Department of Public Works, resulting in a flood which caused this damage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally

repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Mr. AD8HEAD:	I suppose any claim
against the government arising out of damage to property along the -rivers, which damage might be caused by the washing away of government boulevard property, might be provided for out of this item?
John Campbell Elliott: My ho-n. friend is correct
in that assumption with this exception, that if it were a large claim it could be hardly cared for -out of this item because the practice has been not to take large amounts out of these general votes.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: But I suppose if the
minister granted a small claim which might be established to his satisfaction it could be cared for from this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Item No. 138, harbours and rivers, British Columbia.
Crooked, Pack and Parsnip rivers-improvements, $3,500.


John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister tell us
why the total vote last year was not spent, and how much of it was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Of the $3,500 voted, $1,-
445 was spent.


John Anderson Fraser: What work was done for
that amount?


John Campbell Elliott: Last year we carried on
the removal of boulders and the building of wing dams to improve the river channels, chiefly at the Harriston riffle, some nine miles downstream from Summit lake. The expenditure was approximately $1,500.


John Anderson Fraser: Is the work proposed for
next year approximately of the same character?


John Campbell Elliott: The work now proposed
consists in the main of improving existing channels by removing rock, boulders and gravel bars. The remainder of the work will be in -clearing the banks of overhanging brush, sweepers and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
Digby island-repairs $5,700.
Mr. BRADY:: I should like to have a few particulars about this item.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of $5,700 is
to provide for repairs to the float approach.


James Charles Brady: Is that the breakwater?


John Campbell Elliott: To construct a triangular
shaped pile work breakwater 20 feet by 20 feet, 30 feet wide at the base; the proposed work to be built alongside the approach to the float.


James Charles Brady: What is the purpose of the
breakwater?


John Campbell Elliott: The breakwater is required to give a much needed protection to the float which is exposed to southerly gales. The float is used for departmental purposes by the officials of the government wireless station as a landing when going to and from Prince Rupert, and by the children when going to school.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-improvements, $300,500.
Mr. BARBER:: Is that to be spent at
the mouth of the Fraser river?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is practically all
to be spent at the mouth of the river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Glenannon-wharf, $6,400.
John Anderson Fraser: Could we have some particulars with respect to this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to construct a wharf 248 feet in length at the east end of Francois lake at a point known as Glenannon, where there is no landing at present for the tugboat and five gas boats handling supplies, logs, and so forth, for 29 logging and tie camps operating on the lake. The proposed work is asked for by the loggers, ranchers and tie contractors operating on the lakes, who claim that they are handicapped by the lack of a wharf. The annual lumber cut is valued at $180,000 and the population to be benefited numbers about 250.


John Anderson Fraser: Will that work be done
by day labour or by contract?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be done by contract if we can obtain a satisfactory price.


John Anderson Fraser: Have you called for tenders as yet?


John Campbell Elliott: No, we do not call for
tenders until we get the vote.


James Charles Brady: I would like to draw the
attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that last year the residents around Francois lake, through their board of trade, requested that something be done to give assistance in the matter of wharf accommodation. The lake is about 90 miles long and most of the traffic from that country passes up and down the lake. I spent about three weeks travelling up and down that country and found that requests had been made that a wharf be placed at MacDonald landing and also at one or two other points along the lake. The Burns Lake board of trade, representing that great district, presented their views on this matter. After obtaining full particulars of these requests I visited Victoria and presented them to Mr. J. P. Forde, the federal engineer, and he promised me that he would send in one of his men to investigate the conditions. I happened to be at Burns Lake when Mr. Forde's engineer came there and I assumed that he had come in at the request of the board of trade at Burns Lake, but I found that he had travelled these thousands of miles at the request of the secretary of the Liberal association at Endalco. The question arises in my mind as to why a federal engineer should be sent in at considerable expense at the request of one man and the request of the main body of the people concerned should be ignored. I have been in this house three years and the more I examine into the Public Works department the more I realize that the sooner it is taken out of the realm of politics the better it will be for the development of Canada. I do not blame the Minister of Public Works as I think the fault lies with the men whose duty it is to present to the minister the needs of these outlying districts. Water transportation is the only means afforded to the people on this lake of transporting their produce to the Francois lake crossing where the ferry is. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that there is the greatest need on Francois lake for at least four wharves. On the opposite side of the lake is MacDonald landing where there is a large agricultural settlement, and they have no means of taking their products down to the lake and over to Burns lake where the railway is. From the Stellato river, where Glenannon is, down to Nadina, a distance of 90 miles, there is not a single wharf on that great inland lake. I have gone to the minto float approach,

2406	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
ister repeatedly and I have found that he has given me consideration, but the unfortunate thing is that the information he acts upon is from a quarter that I do not believe in nine cases out of ten expresses exactly the needs of that district. While I am on my feet I want to draw attention to the situation that exists at Stewart.


John Campbell Elliott: May I ask my hon. friend a question? I have no doubt he has followed the interests of British Columbia very carefully. Is he not aware that this year they are getting a much higher percentage of the Public Works appropriation than they have for many years, and they are certainly not getting it in ridings that are not supporters of friends of my hon. friend. I just wanted to know whether my hon. friend knew that.


James Charles Brady: I am thoroughly familiar
with the conditions. I have been in this house for three years and I know that section of the country very well. In the past three years there has been the greatest neglect in the matter of public works for the Skeena constituency. We are living on the Pacific coast; we have an immense coastline and the main need of the people who are living along that coastline is wharves. I grant that the government has done something this year, but it is a belated gift. There are two great needs in the matter of wharf accommodation along the northern British Columbia coast. A couple of years ago there was in the estimates an item of $40,000 for a new wharf at Stewart. That, however, was taken out of the estimates. Why that was done I am not going to explain, although I could give a veiy good reason. What is the condition of the Stewart wharf to-day? I have before me the results of a four-days visit that I paid last September to Stewart. I took with me the leading citizens of that town in order that they might corroborate what I was writing down in regard to tlie congestion on the government wharf there. I know the minister has in his possession from the federal engineer, and Captain Saunders at Digby, reports regarding the Stewart wharf. Nevertheless the conditions at Stewart to-day are such that it is imperative that the Public Works department build a wharf there. The Premier mine have a practical monopoly upon the government wharf; their ore is passed over it. There is congestion from one end to the other. I found on that wharf tons of machinery that belonged to the Premier mine and that had been lying there for months. I found that when the Canadian National steamers and the Union steamers called there, the congestion was so great with [Mr. Brady.1
all kinds of produce for the Marmot mine, the Premier mine and other places that is was impossible for the passengers to go down by the gangway and with impunity pass to their automobiles to take them to Stewart or to Hyder. The explanations given to me by the federal engineer as well as by Captain Saunders have been contradicted by every captain of the Canadian National and the Union steamships and also by the captains of the ore carriers, such as the Mogul and those boats that take the ore from that place. This is what the captain of one of those steamships said to me: after a wire had been sent to Ottawa ''Your wire is only a joke compared to what you should sent in." In other words, that particular section is the most important mining area in the whole of northern British Columbia. There is the Premier mine, the Big Missouri, the Marmot mines, the Silverado, the Prosperity,-a whole great section which is comparable with anything either in Ontario of Quebec. What happened was this: a new wharf was built by Mr. Crawford for his own special purpose, for coal and other things, and it did not in any way relieve the congestion at the government wharf. When I went there I was told that Crawford's wharf and the wharf built by the Premier at the Marmot, were able to relieve the congestion on the main Stewart wharf. That is not the case. I do not want to compel the Minister of Public Works to do anything he should not do, but I contend that the most necessary thing in that section to-day is that a wharf should be built at Stewart to meet the requirements of that fast growing mineral area.


John Anderson Fraser: When the minister made
the observation that British Columbia was getting somewhat better consideration in this estimate this year than last year, he left the impression that British Columbia generally was getting the benefit of that increase.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not say "last year"; I said "other years". Take it for the last fifteen years.


John Anderson Fraser: The impression I got was
that we were getting a larger appropriation, this year for works of this kind throughout British Columbia as compared with last year. Let me point out that the increase in the vote this year as compared with last year comes in three particular places: There is $100,000 for dredging the north arm of th->
Fraser river. Then there is $300,500 for improvements to the Fraser river, which is $100,500 in excess of last year. Then there is an item of $124,500 for dredging the First

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
Narrows, so that apart from these votes there is for the rest of the province $742,300, as compared with $774,000 last year. The hon. member for Skeena is certainly correct when he says that a lot of these places in the northern country are not getting the consideration they deserve. I have in the central part of my constituency Quesnel lake, and on the whole of the ninety miles of its shore line there is not a single wharf. I would ask the minister to have his engineers investigate the conditions in these and other places in that new and growing district, for I feel sure that the information he will get from them will cause him to give greater consideration to these outlying places.


John Campbell Elliott: Just to clear this matter up, let me say that I am not finding fault with the criticism; I think I would be very unfair did I not express my appreciation of the tone of the criticism that has characterized the passing of these estimates. But I do think it is unfair to the people of the other provinces and to this department for the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Cariboo, in view of these estimates for British Columbia, to get up here and suggest that these estimates for public works are gauged largely by considerations of political patronage. I have taken the trouble to ascertain the percentage of the total appropriation for harbours and rivers that the province of British Columbia has received in past years, and I find that from 1914-15 to 1921-22- those were war years-British Columbia's percentage of the total expenditure was 2.24; from 1922-23 to 1927-28, British Columbia's percentage was 2.41, and for this year her percentage is 3.60 of the total appropriation. I do not think that any hon. gentleman will object to any one item in these estimates if he is fair. I would rather have expected my hon. friend from Skeena, who in season and out of season, every time this committee has sat, has asked for floats at Prince Rupert and has spoken of the great amount of credit he would give to this government and to this department if they saw fit to provide those floats, to express his appreciation now that those floats are provided for in the estimates, but he has never referred to that fact at all. He does not know the percentage of the total appropriations which British Columbia is now getting as compared with what that province usually gets, that its percentage is now half as much again as it has been for many years. There is nothing my hon. friend can say to which I will not give consideration, but I do believe that he tries to seize every opportunity to make a little political capital for 78594-1524
himself and his friends in that part of the country. I would ask him if he thinks it is fair, in view of what these estimates show, or if he thinks he is advancing the interests of Skeena, to make the criticism he made here to-night when not one of those ridings in which these appropriations are being expended is represented by a Liberal.


James Charles Brady: 
John Campbell Elliott: I did not say that.


James Charles Brady: The minister said that I was not grateful for what he did.


John Campbell Elliott: That is better.


James Charles Brady: So far as the appropriations in these estimates are concerned, they were essential, not this year, but three years ago, and these necessary works have been kept back all that time. I think I know the reason why. I have stated in this house, and I intend to repeat it until I get what I want, that the public works of this country should be outside the influence of any member of parliament and of any defeated member of parliament. There are great needs in the northern part of British Columbia to be filled of which the Minister of Public Works
2108	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
is not yet aware. He states that British Columbia's percentage of the total appropriation for this year is 3.60. Does he forget that there has been a wonderful development in northern British Columbia in the last three years?


John Campbell Elliott: And in the other provinces too.


James Charles Brady: I admit that, but I contend that there is an obligation upon the Department of Public Works to provide these wharves and other improvements for that section of the country where the great majority of the people live, not in the interior as in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, but right on the Pacific ocean. Wharves to them are as essential as roads in the province of Ontario. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Public Works misunderstood my remarks.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I did.


James Charles Brady: I think you did, sir, because if I had chosen-I did not think it necessary, as it was your duty-I would have thanked you for four or five of those. But, sir, there are many necessary public works in my part of British Columbia not yet provided for. Remember, I am speaking now to the Minister of Public Works. If the minister could get one of his engineers to make a thorough investigation of the needs of that vast constituency, and give him an honest, exact report, he would find that what I have said to-night can be absolutely verified. I will give you an instance, sir. Take Port Clements on Queen Charlotte Island. Port Clements to-day is the centre of the traffic from the south and the east end of the island. The provincial government have built a road whereby the whole of the traffic from east and west moves to Port Clements. Now, I ask the minister to instruct his engineer to proceed there and investigate conditions, and I believe he will find at Port Clements a great need for a new wharf and also for additional protection of the local fleet.
This is the first time that I have been told that anything I say in this house is for the purpose of making political capital. I spent over twenty-eight years of my life in teaching the youth of the empire, and I do not want now to retrace my steps, I do not want now to be placed in the position of being told that I am coming to Ottawa for one purpose only-political capital. I entered into the political world not for that purpose, and I say to the Minister of Public

Works that I have never yet spoken one word in this house nor outside of it, and I hope I never shall, that is not intended for the good of the people and for the good of the country.


John Campbell Elliott: If Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood my hon. friend. I am very sorry. The public works engineers who are charged with the responsibility of going all over the country to make reports upon the requests received-and they are numerous and sometimes very difficult to deal with-I believe are making a fair and honest endeavour to send in reports that w'ill best serve the interests of the various parts of the country concerned, and I do not think my hon. friend should have referred to the fact that if our engineers would send in honest and exact reports the department would do something different from what they have done. Our engineers are in a difficult position, they are working very hard, and I believe they are doing their work well.


John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to have one word more in regard to this matter. I am very glad indeed that the minister has brought it up. He says that British Columbia now has 3-60 per cent of this vote. I wonder how he justifies allotting that proportion of the vote to British Columbia. I wonder if he takes into consideration that we have thousands of miles of coastline and thousands of miles of shoreline in our inland waters, not only so far as rivers are concerned but also with respect to the immense lakes all over the interior of the province. If he would take the coastline and the shoreline of our inland rivers and lakes ' he would find that British Columbia is getting a pretty small percentage of the total vote devoted to the harbours and rivers of the Dominion.
I also want him to remember that the northern part of British Columbia is rapidly filling up with new people, and it would be in the interests of the colonization of that country if the Minister of Public Works would give a little more attention to the needs of the settlers who are going in there. I say this to the minister with the idea of assisting him in the work that he is performing for the Dominion. I would point out 'to him that the engineer in charge of that district lives in the town of Nelson, which is pretty near the southern boundary of the province. That engineer is expected to look after the work of his department in the northern part of British Columbia, four or five hundred miles away from his main office. What possibility is there of that man giving attention to the necessar,''

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
work over all that great expanse of country when he is situated four or five hundred miles away? I submit it is about time the minister stationed a public works engineer in the northern part of British Columbia. For his benefit and information I would suggest that a first-class place for such an engineer would be in the city of Prince George, which is pretty well in the centre of all that territory. I make this suggestion knowing the country to be covered, knowing the necessities of these people are growing every day, and also knowing that the need for wharves all over that country cannot possibly be taken care of by engineers situated four or five hundred miles away. I suggest it is about time the minister stationed an engineer at Prince George to look after that work.
If the minister has increased the appropriation-and I admit that his figures are probably correct-I would suggest to him that if he would take a little time to travel through the province of British Columbia-and we should all be very glad to see him there -I guarantee that after he has reviewed the local conditions he will set aside for next year a much greater appropriation than appears in these estimates.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister has enunciated a new policy to-night, that is, he has suggested that any of us to whose constituency a grant is given should rise in our place and say: Thank you, Mr. Minister.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.


Arthur Edward Ross: Well, we should be grateful anyway. But there is a little danger in doing that, Mr. Chairman. On one occasion my constituency received a little grant, but when tenders were called for the contract went to a Conservative and the money was never expended. So there is some danger, I say, in getting up and saying "thank you" for these little grants, because after all the money may never be spent.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Wait until the money is spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Halcyon-wharf construction, $7,600.
Mr. GERSHAW:: Is this a public wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: It is proposed to replace
the existing decrepit floating wharf with a new structure, 240 feet by 16 feet with a turning platform 32 feet by 32 feet, and an approach thereto. It is in West Kootenay. I have no doubt my hon. friend knows it is where the hot springs are located.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
John Anderson Fraser: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the condition of the wharf at Sicamous in my district, along the Shuswap lakes. The minister used the term "old and decrepit" in connection with a certain wharf under another item. I want to tell him that according to the reports I have heard regarding this particular wharf it is old and decrepit and very much in need of reconstruction. I would suggest that the minister take a part of the $65,000 and provide us with a new wharf there.


John Campbell Elliott: In the general vote there is $650 allotted for certain work at that point. It will not go very far.


John Anderson Fraser: I cannot imagine that such a sum would reconstruct a wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: It is for a new shed and
wharf repairs.


John Anderson Fraser: My information is that the old wharf is so old and so badly shaken that it is hardly worth repairing, and before the department gets into trouble as a result of the wharf falling down and killing someone a new wharf had better be built.


James Charles Brady: In the matter of harbours
and rivers, is there anything for the Stickine river, which is in a very bad way as regards dredging?


John Campbell Elliott: I repeat what I have said a number of times, that this general vote is not used for dredging.


James Charles Brady: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nicomen island-protection work and dyking, $35,000.	U i
Harry James Barber: What protection work was done prior to this last vote This amount is a revote. Prior to last year what was done in the way of protecting the bank at Nicomen?


John Campbell Elliott: Our expenditure to date on 1,650 feet of mattress work built in 1923-24 and 500 feet recently completed by day labour is $41,000. That is all the information I have.


Harry James Barber: Is this work which is going on now supposed to be of a permanent nature?


John Campbell Elliott: It is supposed to be as permanent as you can make work of that kind.


Harry James Barber: I visited this particular place in Nicomen island during the Easter recess and saw the nature of the work that was being constructed. I think the department are also
2410	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
aware of it; they know the conditions there. The bank is soft, almost perpendicular, and the engineers went back about eight feet on top of the bank and sloped it, covering the surface with straw, upon which they are laying one layer of rock. A portion of the west end of the 1,000 feet is of quicksand bottom, and I think the minister will agree that during freshets the work will not stand very long. This is a very important question which has been before the department for some time, and those of us who are well acquainted with the particular trouble on the Fraser river at that point believe that the proper thing to do is to remove the cause. The cause of the erosion of the bank on the north side of the river at Nicomen island has been set forth by the engineer in a letter which I received from the deputy minister on February 1 of this year, in which he says:
After the observations made during last year's freshet, I believe the main cause of the erosion of the south bank of Nicomen island is due to the movement of the deep water channel of the river towards the north. This is being caused by two factors. The first is the cutting of the river into the south bank above McDonald's bar, which has been very severe during the past years, and is still active, even at low water stages of the river. This cutting has formed a very sharp curve of this bank which guides the current during the lower stages of the river over towards Nicomen island more directly than ever before. The second is that the materials from this bank cutting-consisting of gravel and sand from above-mentioned high bank-have been deposited along the northerly side of McDonald's bar, thus extending the bar towards Nicomen island, and naturally pushing the deep water channel over towards the island.
The engineer reported in regard to the matter and action was taken in 1913 along that line. In that year this same engineer, under the same officers of the department, reported favourably on cutting a channel on the south side so that the main body of the river would be carried down and diverted from the Nicomen island side. In answer to a question of mine certain information was given on February 27, as reported at pages 534 and 535 of Hansard. This work was recommended by the present engineer, and the statement appears in Hansard that the object was to divert the current from Nicomen island, where the bank was eroded. This channel, known as the King Edward cut, was proceeded with; it was some 5,600 feet long and 150 feet wide and cost the country $87,225.40. This cut was never completed and therefore there was no relief given, although they came within about 1,600 feet of completing it. In answer to a question as to why tnis work was not completed the reason
7Mr. Barber. 1
given was the high elevation of discharge and also the running ice which endangered the plant.
I waited upon the deputy minister last year in regard to this matter and he informed me that he did not think it good business to do any more dredging at this point, that it was simply throwing money into the river and that the channel had completely filled in. Last October I went to that district and, with some of the residents, proceeded up this channel in a gas boat; and with a 12-foot pole we could not find bottom. I agree that at the upper end there has been some slight filling in, but the channel appeared to be in almost the same condition as when the dredge left it. As I say, we consider it will be good business to complete this work because, as the minister stated, a large amount of money has been expended in order to protect that bank. We are spending this year another $40,000, which will give only temporary protection. In 1927 the engineer pointed out that it was very necessary that the banks of Nicomen island be protected; he said that the bank then was within 100 feet of the dyke built by the provincial government about four years previously. Last year a portion of the dyke was washed out, and in the opinion of some of the provincial engineers and those who reside in that district this work will not stand the heavy freshets. On November 9, 1928, the deputy minister wrote me as follows:
Our efforts to induce the river to follow a cut at this point in the past were expensive and, as you are quite aware, produced no result. While those efforts were well intended the nonsuccess only makes us more hesitant to undertake any further expenditure there.
I would ask the committee how any results could be expected with this channel completely isolated during low and medium water. During the construction of the channel the material was thrown into the centre of the river; a sort of dyke or bar was thus formed and at the east end of the work the gravel is some fifteen feet high.
As I said before, the engineer has been favourable to the completion of this work. He visited this district on March 16, 1927, and I have in my hand a letter which was written the next day by a member of the party who met and accompanied the engineer to that spot. He says.
Mr. C. C. Worsfold, resident engineer, arrived at McDonald's Landing, Nicomen Island, yesterday at noon under instructions from Ottawa and received delegation of farmers on board Samson and proceeded across river to the head of old dredge cut which was never finished.
The piece of dredging the farmers Want done is 1,700 feet long, an average cut of 7 feet

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
deep, 120 feet wide. This means nearly 50,000 yards of gravel to be removed. These are Mr. Worsfold's figures; cost $15,000. He said if we could get that through it would save the erosion at McDonald's Landing, which has been greater this winter than ever before. He gave us the impression when he left that he would report favourably on the scheme.
I took this up with the department here, and I have in my hand a letter from the deputy minister in which he quotes the resident engineer as saying:
If this cut were made this spring before the freshet in the river, Mr. Worsfold does not think it would relieve the bank this year as it would certainly take two or three freshets for the new cut to scour out sufficiently to carry sufficient volume of water to relieve the banks of Nicomen Island	
That letter was written in March, 1927. I desire to point out to the committee the importance of this matter, because on Nicomen island the provincial government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have constructed a new piece of dyke some 100 yards back of the present dyke, and are also constructing a new and permanent highway. Back of these dykes we have not only the highway but also the line of the Canadian Pacific railway.
I hold in my hand a letter sent to the Minister of Public Works by the provincial Minister of Works of British Columbia, in which he states:
I understand that a grant of some $40,000 has been passed for the work in question and that your engineer has been instructed to carry out a certain amount of protection work on the banks of Nicomen Island.^
It has, however, been pointed out to me, not only by our engineers, but by residents on the islaud, that the channel on the Fraser which was dredged some years ago should be completed. I understand that there is a difference of opinion on this that your engineering department may not consider the work necessary as far as the channel is concerned. However. I will not dispute this but would point out that when the channel was excavated, known as the King Edward cut, a certain amount of material was left in the river which had the effect of diverting the water towards Nicomen Island, and gradually^ each year the banks have eroded to an alarming extent.
I would, therefore, ask you to seriously reconsider this matter and if, on your engineer's advice, you cannot do any work on the channel, that a larger appropriation be made to protect the banks of Nicomen Island, for our engineers feel that the appropriation which you have made will hardily do the necessary work.
If you will consult the correspondence on the subject you will notice that this department was assured by your government that if we would carry out certain dyking works your government would carry out the necessary river bank protection. Such an arrangement was carried out by your government but not to the fullest extent, for as results have proven our dyking works were taken out by the flood, and further protection in the same place has had to be extended.
I just wish to urge upon the minister and upon the department the importance of removing the cause of this trouble at Nicomen island. As the minister said, it is impossible to put up anything in the nature of a permanent protection of such a bank, so I would urge the government to consider removing the cause of this trouble at a very early date. In addition to the $40,000 which is provided for this work another $50,000 will be required, and it will be money well spent to open up and complete this cut, which I believe is from 1,200 to 1,500 feet in length.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Powell river-breakwater, to complete-The Powell River Co.. Ltd., having already contributed their share of cost of work, as agreed upon, $3,400.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: If my information is
correct, this is what is known as a company town, and I would like to know the policy of the government as to making available for public use wharves on which public money is expended. There was a similar case last year in connection with Anticosti island; a large vote was put in to cover dredging at a point where the public were not even allowed to land. Will the public be permitted to use this wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a public wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria-improvements	to Ogden Point
piers, $46,000.
Mr. PLUNKETT:: Is this money to be
spent on the approach or on the pier?


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is to be used
for:
(1)	Building of concrete parapet walls approximately six feet high across the ends of both piers' to prevent seas washing over same into freight shed;	;
(2)	Construction of four large creosoted pile dolphins near the corners of the two piers as protection to ships manoeuvering into berths;
(3)	The provision of floating fender logs moored to existing bollards by heavy chain, along four faces of piers.
The estimated cost is:
(1)	Parapet walls, $11,000.
(2)	4 creosoted pile dolphins. $26,000.
(3)	floating fender logs, $9,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Head-quarantine station-repairs to wharves, $6,100.
John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister give
us some information as to the meaning of the last item "appropriations not required for 1929-30, $326,739.74"? It appears in every vote.
2412	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the total of items which were either completed or the money not spent. I could give the hon. member some details if he desires.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh no, a great deal of it was spent. There are a number of cases where only a part of the vote was spent, but in many cases it was all spent.


John Anderson Fraser: I am not interested in the details. Were the items completed or not spent?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is just an accounting
term.


John Anderson Fraser: Didl I understand the
*minister to say that they were items completed or not spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Works which were either
completed or money not spent.


John Anderson Fraser: I am, more mystified than ever. How could the work be completed and the money which was voted for it not be spent?


John Campbell Elliott: In certain cases the money was not spent; it is purely a matter of accounting.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is absolutely meaningless.


John Anderson Fraser: 
John Campbell Elliott: 
Robert James Manion: , The differences are all added together and make this figure?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is not the differences; these total amounts are added and they are called "appropriations not required" under our bookkeeping arrangement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are disposed of.


John Anderson Fraser: 
John Anderson Fraser: What about the $326,739,-
74; was any part of that spent?


John Campbell Elliott: The greater part of it was spent.


John Anderson Fraser: I would like to know what part of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: These words have been
appearing in the estimates for years. I do not think anybody has yet properly explained them, and I do not think anybody ever will. It is simply a bookkeeping item inserted by the accountants of the department for their own guidance. On one occasion we spent a whole day trying to find out what it was and we knew no more about it when we had finished than we did before.


John Anderson Fraser: If we cannot get any more information than we have now, I think we might as well let the matter drop.


John Campbell Elliott: I am willing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-dredging-maritime
provinces, §650,000.
Finlay MacDonald: Will the minister give us some particulars of what dredging is to be done in the maritime provinces?


John Campbell Elliott: 
Finlay MacDonald: The minister has not the places where they are all to work?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not settled yet.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec, $600,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: I suppose the same answer may be given in regard to this item. I should be glad if the minister would give us some details as to where these dredges worked last year and what part of the expenditure was in Ontario.


John Campbell Elliott: The details are as follows:
Estimated cost of operating and maintaining departmental dredging plant during 1929-30
Plant to Operate
Dredge No. 4. tug Sogenada and plant	
Dredge No. 110, International, tug Witherbee
and plant	; * * [DOT] [DOT]
Dredge No. 116, Progress, tug Storm King and
plant	
Dredge No. 117, Quebec, tug Hercules and
plant	
Dredge No. 121, St. Louis, tug Cliffside and
plant	
Dredge No. 123, tug Monitor and plant	
Dredge No. 126	
Dredge No. 127	
Dredge Q and R No. 1, tug Peel and plant.. Dredge Harrieana and launch Gwen	
Operation	Maintenance	Total$43,200	$19,700	$62,90045,100	15,700	60,80044,700	11,600	56,30049,190	13,600	62,79019,700	9,300	29,00033.200	14,800	48,0009.400	3,200	12,6006,500	2,050	8,55040.600	9,550	50,15016,760	2,510	19,270Total	
Maintenance of plant not to operate

Total


Arthur Edward Ross: That is all right, but what work was done by these tugs last year in Ontario and at what places?


John Campbell Elliott: These are the details:
Place	Cost
Amherst, Quebec Magdalen Island.. $37,633	78
Barachois, Quebec	 5,889	53
Beauharnois, Quebec	i 14,072 10
Chatham, Ontario	
40,278	07Colonie des Greves, Quebec	
3,124	67Quebec. Magdalen Islands	
4,073	07House Harbour	
1,702	64lie Sainte	
787	70Kingsville, Ontario	
5,685	06Lachine, Quebec	
34,282	74Lake Demon-Tigny, Quebec	
12,251	96Lobster Cove, Quebec	
1,642	96Matane, Quebec	
41,257	81Magdalen Islands	
8,667	35Pointe-au-Pic, Quebec	
2,236	99Port Burwell, Ontario	
58,979	57Red Cape, Quebec	
434	42Rimouski, Quebec	
1,178	79River du Loup, Quebec	
215	10Rondeau, Ontario	
9.171	17Saguenay river, Quebec	
71,712	S9Siscoe island, Quebec	
5,195	39Sorel. Quebec	
1.241	00Ste. Catherine's Bay, Quebec	
2,323	03St. Jean, Isle of Orleans, Quebec..	3,410	09St. Laurent, Isle of Orleans (Slipway)	
2,778	59St. Laurent, Isle of Orleans (Government wharf)	
4,883	58St. Laurent, Isle of Orleans (Chantiers)	
2,147	09St. Sulpice, Quebec	
20,086	36Yercheres, Quebec	
1,132	32Dredge No. 109, Goderich, Ontario.. 2,068	32Haileybury-Ship Yard Maintenance 196	35
Pattern warehouse, Ottawa, Ontario 1,909 30


Arthur Edward Ross: Are these works
in the public harbours, and are they all purely government works?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, all purely government works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape Breton telegraph and telephone lines- general repairs and improvements, $8,000.
Finlay MacDonald: Where is this telegraph line?


John Campbell Elliott: We are letting vote No.
142 stand, and I can give my hon. friend the information he desires on that item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 4, to amend and consolidate the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act-Hon. Mr. King-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. KING (Kootenay):: This bill being
of a technical character, it was decided when it was before the house on a previous occasion to refer it to a special committee. This committee held a number of sittings at which the bill was carefully considered section by
Narcotic iDrug Act

section, and in addition, those who 'are engaged in the legitimate traffic in drugs appeared before the committee and made representations-I refer to representatives of the retail and wholesale druggists. These representatives were also permitted to be in contact and consultation with officers of the department and with the officers of the Justice department who drew the amendments as recommended by the committee. The bill as now presented I think meets the objects and desires of the departmental officers, and I think also clarifies any misunderstanding or doubts that might have existed in the minds of members of the committee or of those engaged in the legitimate traffic. I have an amendment to move to section 6 when we come to it, something that has come up since the committee adjourned. I will explain it when we reach the section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Importing or exporting drug without license.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are we not going to
take up this section clause by clause?


John Frederick Johnston: If it is the desire of
the committee, we can take up the subsections separately, but I called section 4.


Mr. HOWDEN:: The hon. member for
East Calgary was a member of the special committee, and I think we were agreed on every clause as it went through.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The first subsection deals with the penalties, and there are two features in connection with the penalties to which I objected in the committee and to which I still object. Section 1 provides that upon indictment an offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for any term not exceeding seven years, and in addition, at the discretion of the judge, he may be whipped. I object, first of all, to the practice of whipping. It is a relic of the dark ages when the rack and the thumbscrew were used to torture offenders. Secondly, this subsection does not. fix any maximum penalty. In the case of penalties for any other offence, whether fine or imprisonment, there is a maximum penalty; it must not exceed such-and-such, but in this case there is no maximum penaitj'; it is left open to the judge to sentence a man to one or two or a hundred lashes as he sees fit. I think that is entirely wrong, even if you leave it to the discretion of the judge to order whipping, which, as I say, I look upon as a relic of the dark ages. Again, a 
man may be subjected to the penalty of whipping after a first offence. If you are going to whip at all, which I strongly object to, I do not think it should be inflicted as a penalty for the first offence. Give a man a second chance. I suggested in the special committee that that clause ought to be amended. I do not know how the committee of the whole house feels, but I would move, Mr. Chairman, to amend that subsection so that it will not be left to the discretion of the judge to order whipping.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman
will have to submit his amendment in writing.


John Warwick King: I know that my
hon. friend from East Calgary took exception in the committee to the penalty of whipping, but the matter was very thoroughly discussed and it was ascertained that whipping is not a new section in this bill, or a new principle applied to this offence. Whipping already was applied at the discretion of the judge where the trafficker gave or sold drugs to a minor. We have extended that principle in order to provide a greater deterrent to those who are engaged in trafficking. From the information I have received from all parts of the Dominion since the bill was in committee, I am satisfied that those who are interested in the curtailment and suppression of this traffic are entirely in sympathy with the provision that whipping be left to the discretion of the judge.


George Halsey Perley: Has the hon. gentleman any criticism of its being unlimited whipping?


John Warwick King: It is always limited by the judge.


George Halsey Perley: Was the old section in that form? It seems extraordinary. Under this section might not a convicted person be sentenced to be whipped once a week during his imprisonment?


Ernest Lapointe: In the criminal code it is the same-the judge exercises his discretion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister except whipping for the first offence?


John Warwick King: No.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The reason given in the committee for imposing the penalty of whipping for the first offence was extraordinary.


John Warwick King: I think the discretion can very well be left to the judge. I am satisfied that for the first offence the judge would not impose the penalty of whipping.

Narcotic jDrug Act


George Halsey Perley: Did any other
members of the committee object to the section?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I took exception; so did the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGib-bon).


Ernest Lapointe: And the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin).


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Unlawful for physician, etc., to prescribe a drug except for medicinal purposes.
John Warwick King: I have an amendment to move to section 6.


Robert James Manion: That is the section on
which we had so much discussion when the bill was before the house on another occasion?


John Warwick King: Yes. I beg to propose the following amendment as subsection 2 to section 6:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the criminal code, or of any other statute or law, the court shall have no power to impose less than the minimum penalties herein prescribed.
Until recently we have had very little trouble under this section, as we were fortified by a judgment of the appeal court of Ontario that upon trial by indictment and conviction the minimum sentence was three months' imprisonment, and that the judge had no discretion but to impose this sentence. However, in the last week or two, since the bill was reported by the special committee, the appeal court of another province has decided differently, and ruled that under section 1,035 of the criminal code it is within the competence of the magistrate or judge to impose a fine and refrain from imposing imprisonment. Our officer makes this note:
Proceedings by indictment are not taken against a professional man except under the most serious circumstances. As we are thus faced with two conflicting judgments, and as the intent of parliament is obviously that in such serious cases a minimum of three months' imprisonment should be awarded, the matter was discussed with the Department of Justice, who agreed that it would be advisable to place the matter beyond any doubt, and this can best he effected by adding a new subsection.
This is the subsection that I have just moved by way of amendment.


George Halsey Perley: I think as the other members of the committee that considered this bill are not present, and this is a decided change in the section, it had better stand.


John Warwick King: Then we will go on with the other sections.
Section stands.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister
taken into consideration such a case as I brought to his attention on a former occasion? A practising physician administered a narcotic drug-I do not know under what circumstances-and a charge was made against him. If some person had not taken up his case that physician might have been whipped.


John Warwick King: In such a case the judge would use his discretion. If the accused was found to be a regular trafficker, committing a crime worse than murder, and the judge decided that whipping was proper punishment,
I do not think anyone would abject. But ordinarily professional men are not proceeded against on indictment unless they are found to be really engaged in the drug traffic. The case referred to would not come under this section.
Mr. R.OSS (Kingston): The evidence of the special officer engaged in the case would have been sufficient to render the accused liable to such a punishment, would it not?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why not? I ask for information.


John Warwick King: The judge, exercising his discretion, would see that this did not happen. Some of these matters must be left to the judge; we cannot possibly prescribe for every case.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the officers employed in the enforcement of this law should be specially qualified. In the case I have referred to they should not have entered such a charge against the doctor. If they are to have full control of these cases as in the past ' we may have some very unfortunate results.


John Warwick King: We have special officers in the department known as enforcement officers under the narcotic acts. Their agents throughout the country are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the municipal and provincial police.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am quite sure that if they had consulted the municipal or provincial officers they would never have laid such a charge.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are the provincial police throughout the Dominion cooperating fully with the mounted police in enforcing this act?
2416	COMMONS
Speaker's Ruling-Freedom oj Speech


John Warwick King: Yes, we have had the hearty cooperation of the provincial and municipal police with the mounted police and our own officers in the enforcement of this act.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BRANCH LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 167, an Act to amend an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line between Pilkington and Niagara Junction, in the province of Ontario. (Withdrawal recommended by the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines).-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I beg to move, Mr. Speaker, that Bill No. 167 be withdrawn and this order discharged.
Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: I promised on Wednesday to give a ruling on the question then raised with respect to standing order 37. I may be allowed to read my ruling to-night:
On Wednesday, the 8th of May, Mr. Robb, on the orders of the day being called, moved:
That Mr. Speaker, do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means.
Thereupon Mr. Woodsworth rose from his seat and said:
Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring before the house a matter that affects a considerable section of this country.
He then recited his grievances having reference to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
Having spoken forty minutes, I told him his time was up. The hon. member claimed that he was entitled under standing order 37 to speak beyond forty minutes. He was supported in this connection by other hon. members.
I have been requested to consider more deeply the objection raised. Accordingly, I have gone very carefully into the study of standing order 37, adopted by this house two years ago. If one reads carefully the new rule, it will be found that in order to limit the length of speeches which were unduly 
protracted, parliament came to the conclusion that a forty-minute rule should henceforward apply to the debates in the house.
Exceptions were, however, made to that rule and they are set forth in standing order 37, which reads as follows:
Standing order 37. Speeches limited to forty minutes, 22nd March, 1927.
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the apposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
271a. The following resolution was adopted by the house on April 19, 1886:
"That the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons, of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate^ and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time, unreasonably lengthens the sessions of parliament, threatens by increased bulk and cost to lead to the abolition of the official report of the debates, encourages a discursive and diffuse, rather than an incisive and concise style of public _ speaking, is a marked contrast to the practice in regard to debate that prevails in the British House of Commons, and tends to repel the public from a careful and intelligent consideration of the proveedings of parliament."
It is argued that the hon. member, by addressing the house as he did on Wednesday, came under the exception "or a minister moving a government order and the member rpeaking in reply immediately after such minister."
My ruling hinges on the interpretation to be given to the words, "speaking in reply." Was the hon. gentleman speaking "in reply" to the motion, "that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means"?
He was, as a matter of fact, airing grievances which had no relevancy whatsoever with the subject matter, namely: resolution to amend the Special War Revenue Act by the Minister of Finance in the committee of ways and means.
It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary government that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies (vide Bourinot, p. 419). This principle applies with equal force when the motion is made for the Speaker to leave the chair to go into ways and means. Members may address the house on any subject of public importance or move amendments under the same rules as governed on going into committee of supply (vide Bourinot, p. 423).

Peace River District-Surveys
Therefore the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had unquestionably the right to speak as he did, on the motion made by the Minister of Finance-but could he speak more than forty minutes? Did he come under the exception provided for under standing order 37? In other words, was he speaking in reply immediately after the minister?
I have since given the most serious consideration to the interpretation of this standing order and as I said the whole question hinges on the meaning of the words "in reply" as they appear therein. What is a reply? According to the King's English dictionary, it is:
That which is said or written in answer to what is said or written by another; reminder; response.
Therefore, Mr. Woodsworth, in order to speak longer than forty minutes, was bound to argue against Mr. Robb's motion.
His speech, in this as in any other instance, had to be relevant to the issue. Was it relevant?
He actually objected to the Speaker leaving the chair until a certain grievance be aired before the house. He gave a reason for his objection, namely, that unless the house heard what he wished to ask the government on the question of freedom of speech, the ways and means for collecting revenue could not be considered.
As I have said, under an ancient constitutional doctrine, the redress of grievances is considered before the granting of supplies or the consideration of ways and means; and members may then discuss various questions without moving any amendment. As Bou-rinot says, 4th edition, page 421, a great latitude is allowed on such occasions.
I have come to the conclusion that the expression of any reasonable grievance on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair is a sufficient reply to bring a member's speech under the provision of standing order 37. I cannot conceive a case where he could then be irrelevant. It is not necessary that his observations should deal with the subject matter of the resolutions to be considered in committee. The member objects to anything being considered at all until he has had a hearing. Of course, if an amendment or a second reading of a bill, were moved, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter. But there was no amendment in Mr. Woodsworth's case.
Standing Order 37 being a restrictive regulation, as such it must be given the broadest construction possible. In cases of uncertainty
the benefit of the doubt must be given to freedom of speech in parliament.
I have considered the arguments from every angle and I have reached the conclusion that it is advisable to abide by the letter of this standing order. The ruling is that Mr. Woodsworth had the right to speak for more than forty minutes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 13, 1929