BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) presented the fifth report of the select standing
committee on Banking and Commerce, as follows:
Whereas the subject of rural credit was referred to this committee for further consideration; and
Whereas the Banking and Commerce committee of the year 1924 in its investigation into questions of credit reported that it found a lack of credit facilities for farmers at rates, and upon terms, suited to agriculture and upon conditions such as obtain in competing countries; and
Whereas it is essential to deal with the serious condition of agriculture consequent thereon:
Therefore be it resolved, that the attention of the government be called again to this important matter, with the urgent request that legislation be brought down at this session for the establishment of an adequate rural credit system.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It is my duty to inform
the House of the resignation from the ministiy of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray). The following communications will give to the House the reasons which have caused the Solicitor General to tender his resignation and His Excellency to accept it:
Office of the Solicitor General of Canada
Ottawa, May 20th, 1925.
Dear Premier King:
Matters of a professional and private nature induce me, after careful consideration, to tender you my resignation from your government.
In asking you to accept my resignation permit me to express my thanks for being honored with the appointment of Solicitor General and a seat at your Council Board; also accept my deep appreciation for many personal acts of courtesy and kindness.
I avail myself of the opportunity to express my deep regret in disassociating myself from your self and colleagues with whom I had such cordial relationship.
May I urge for reasons above recited that I bo relieved from my duties as a member of the government and as Solicitor General at as early a date as possible.
Sincerely yours,
E. J. McMurray.
My reply was as follows:
Prime Minister's Office Canada
Ottawa, May 21, 1925.
My dear McMurray :
It is with sincere regret that I have received your letter of yesterday stating that, owing to matters of a professional and private nature, you wish to be relieved from your duties as a member of the government and as Solicitor General at as early a date as possible.
Your letter confirms the representations you have already made to me in conversation. Were it not that the reasons which impel you to desire to be relieved of your present public responsibilities are of the character to which you refer, and that we have already talked the matter over very fully, I should be most unwilling to have you sever your connection with the government. I realize, however, from what you have said to me, how considerable in many ways are the sacrifices, both professional and personal you have made in placing vour time and abilities so exclusively at the service of the public. In the circumstances I have felt I had no
Marine Insurance

alternative but to meet your wishes, and have accordingly tendered your resignation to His Excellency.
I have read your letter to the other members of the government and they desire to join with me in expressing our united regret at your withdrawal from the ministry. May I be permitted to add my own vpry grateful appreciation of your loyal and helpful co-operation in the work of the administration ever since you became a member of it, and of the enjoyment of the closer personal relations which this association has afforded.
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
Hon. E. J. McMurray, M.P.,
* House of Commons.



MARINE INSURANCE RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MURRAY MaoLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert): Might I ask the Prime Minister if the government have received a report from the Imperial Shipping committee dealing with marine insurance as affecting Canada, and if so, will he state to the House in a general way the terms of that report.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: A report has been received dealing with the subject to which my hon. friend has referred. I shall look over it and unless there is some special reason for regarding it as confidential at this stage I will lay it on the table of the House at the next sitting.



ALLEGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THE BREWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin):: I would
like to draw the attention of the government to a paragraph in the Toronto Globe of yesterday in which the president of the London Methodist conference is reported to have spoken as follows:
Then, while our minds are upon the topic, we read in the press that brewers owe the federal government thousands of dollars, and as an explanation of this we read further that the government and the brewers have a gentlemen's agreement, which reads more like a rogues' agreement, whereby for money to be paid by the brewers to the federal government the latter will make certain concessions in filing the clearance papers of liquor presumably for export.
I should like to ask the government if that report is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
gentleman who has made the reference to a so-called " gentleman's agreement " would indicate to my hon. friend the source of his information, and supply him with a copy of the agreement. The government will then be prepared to answer my hon. friend's question.



WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has seriously considered the advisability of making provision for Wednesday evening sittings, in view of the legislation that is yet to be brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not the
intention of the government to have the House sit on Wednesday of next week, but on subsequent Wednesdays we will ask the House to meet in the evening.



TIBURCE MALLET

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16, last, the House ordered a Return showing all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and others, regarding services rendered in saving lives, by one Tiburce Mallet, of Ste. Marie, Shippigan Island, New Brunswick. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries when this correspondence will be brought down.


Mr. CARDIN (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the hon. member that this correspondence will be brought down without delay.



SUPPLY PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Ontario, $1,215,875.
["If the committee\nwill permit I will hand the statememit to Hansard.\nList of Appropriations not required for 1925-26 Nova Scotia\nChargeable to income\nExpend-Appro- iture to priation March 31,\nHarbour and rivers\t1924-25\t1925\nAnderson's Cove-pier and improvements\t $ 12,000 % 11,988 52\nApple River-breakwater repairs. ..\t2,000\t1,978 36Babin's Cove-wharf extension. ..\t1,700\t1,699 68\nBarrington Cove (Sydney Mines)-\nwharf repairs\t 6,000\t6,003\t31\nBass River-improvements\t 1,500\t\nBayfield-breakwater repairs\t6,000\t5,912\t17Bay St. Lawrence-breakwater repairs\t\n5,000\t3,009\t71\nBroad Cove Marsh-replacement\nbreakwater wharf\t\n8,400\t7,933\t15Cariboo Island-breakwater reconstruction\t\n8,000\t4,013\t57Carr's Brook-breakwater repairs..\t1,275\t1,274\t23\nChapel Cove (West L'Ardoise)-\nbreakwater extension\t 10,000\t9,038\t99\nChester-to purchase, rebuild and\nextend wharf\t\n5,400\t4,774\t20Chimney Corner-wharf reconstruction\t\n8,000\t7,999\t75Comeau's Cove-breakwater improvements\t\n4,900\tCow Bay-breakwater repairs..\t..\t5 500\t5,499\t99Culloden-breakwater extension. ..\t10,600\t9,827\t89D'Escousse-wharf repairs\t\n1.420\t1,419\t92East Bay-wharf repairs\t\n1,600\t1,600\t66East River-repairs to lock\t\n3,000\t2,283\t36Eastern Harbour-improvements. ..\t42,000\t33,472\t98Ecum Secum-wharf\t\n6,100\t6,095\t48French Village-rebuilding, wharf..\t3,700\t3,340\t74Friar's Head-harbour improvements\t\n1,500\t762\t51Grand Narrows-wharf extension..\t2,000\t2,007\t16Half Island Cove-rebuilding breakwater\t\n3,000\t2,998\t95Hantsport-wharf repairs\t\n3,250\t3,249\t71Indian Harbour-wharf repairs. ..\t1,600\t1,325\t02Inverness-pier extension\t\n4,900\t4,909\t29Irish Cove-wharf repairs\t\n3,500\t3,494\t88Judique (Baxter's)-wharf repairs.\t1,300\t1,286\t31\nKingsport-wharf renewals and\nrepairs\t 18,000\t17,673\t31\nLittle Anse-breakwater repairs...\t2,000\t\nLittle Bass River-repairs to channel protection work\t\n1,200\t1,294\t91Marble Mountain-wharf repairs..\t3,180\t3,177\t55McKay's Point-wharf repairs.. ..\t2,700\t2,699\t59Merigomish-wharf repairs\t\n1,400\t1,397\t56Meteghan-wharf extension\t\n6,500\t5,825\t32\nDeceased Member-Mr. Drummond\nNova Scotia-Concluded\nChargeable to income Expend-Appro- iture to priation March 31,\nHarbours and rivers\t1924-25\t1925\nMorden-breakwater renewals and\nrepairs\t\n1,500\t1,499 81Newellton-wharf repairs\t\n1,500\t1,500 01Noel-wharf repairs\t\n3,240\t3,166\t44\nNorth East Point (Indian Brook\nFlats) rebuilding wharf\t 4,000\t\nNorth West Cove (Tancook)- breakwater wharf extension..\t..\t8,500\t8,076\t36Parrsboro-wharf repairs\t\n2,000\t2,011\t05Parrsboro-dredging\t\n25,000\t4,304 34Pembroke-breakwater repairs..\t..\t1,750\t1,942\t33Port Hastings-wharf repairs..\t..\t2,300\t2,307\t76Port Hood-wharf repairs\t\n5,800\t5,424\t42Port Lome-breakwater extension.\t8,000\t7,997\t70Port Medway-to purchase and extend wharf\t\n6,100\t6,050\t25Selma-wharf repairs\t\n1,300\t1,260\t18\nSheet Harbour West-rebuilding\nwharf\t\n2,000\t34\t53Shelburne-wharf repairs\t\n1,500\t1,267\t47Ship Harbour-wharf\t\n4,100\t4,026\t35Skinner's Cove-rebuilding breakwaters and beach protection..\t2,500\t2,330\t75South Bar (Sydney)-beach protection\t\n2,500\t2,502\t79South East Cove-breakwater repairs\t\n1,700\t1,698\t38Swim's Point-wharf repairs.... 2,500\t1,903\t46Tiverton-breakwater extension.\t..\t14,000\t13,470\t30\nToney River-repairs to channel\npier\t\n3,000\t2,995\t52Turner's Island-wharf repairs..\t..\t5,200\t2,438\t20Upper Port Latour-wharf repairs.\t1,200\t1,204\t88Wedgepoint-breakwater extension.\t11,340\t9,337\t66Western Shore-wharf repairs..\t..\t1,200\t1,200\t00\nWest Green Harbour-breakwater\nand wharf\t 2,500\t\nYarmouth Bar-breakwater extension\t\n6,000\t5.966\t74Yarmouth Bar-beach protectionrepairs and improvements... 2,000\t1,927\t96Yarmouth Harbour-dredging..\t..\t22,000\t22,010\t57", 'Progress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.\nMonday, May 25, 1925']
The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of
the committee to take up the appropriations in this vote item by item?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Item by item.
Beaumaris-repairs to wharf, $1,000.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: I think if hon. members will glance
over the list of items that go to make up the total of this vote, they will see that these items are largely for repairs and replacements or improvements. There is an increase this year in the vote over last year. That is largely made up of three or four items, namely, the harbour of Goderich where there is an increase of something like $80,000 over last year; the harbour of Oshawa, where there is a new work that was approved of by parliament in a vote last year; and the work at Port Maitland. Port Maitland was formerly under the control of the Department of Railways and1 Canals, but it has been transferred to the Public Works department. The work

Supply-Public Works
being done there is necessary to maintain the harbour. Finally there is Port Stanley; there is also an increase under this head, but the work to be done there is essential.


Arthur Meighen: What are all these
for? Are they new votes, or are they simply the ordinary " pork-barrel " votes?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I made the statement just a moment ago that I thought members in glancing down the list would find the items to be largely for improvements of harbours, or replacements and repairs. As we go on, that statement will be found to be correct. The first item is a small amount of SI.000 for repairs to a structure on lake Muskoka, which is used largely during the tourist season. The larger ships using the wharf are those owned by the Muskoka Lake Navigation and Hotel Company, the Archer Lines Lake Service Company and the Muskoka Lake Navigation Company. These boats not only serve the local people but provide connection with the National and Canadian Pacific Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Blind River-dredging. $47,000.
['I made the statement just a moment ago that I thought members in glancing down the list would find the items to be largely for improvements of harbours, or replacements and repairs. As we go on, that statement will be found to be correct. The first item is a small amount of SI.000 for repairs to a structure on lake Muskoka, which is used largely during the tourist season. The larger ships using the wharf are those owned by the Muskoka Lake Navigation and Hotel Company, the Archer Lines Lake Service Company and the Muskoka Lake Navigation Company. These boats not only serve the local people but provide connection with the National and Canadian Pacific Railways.']
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: There is an increase here of 125,000.


John Warwick King: This amount is
required to complete a contract for dredging entered into in 1924-25. The contract which was awarded to Messrs. A. B. McLean and Sons, is for the dredging of a channel, 9,260 feet in length, and 150 feet wide, to a depth of 16 feet. The contract was made late in the fall, and we are asking this year for a vote of $47,000, of which $22,000 is a revote. The amount is required to complete the contract.


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the minister tell us when the work was first commenced on this river, and what the total expenditure has been up to date?


John Warwick King: Yes. There has
been construction work done there amounting to $48,855.86, repair work amounting to 84843.41, and dredging amounting to $60,019.91.


Edward Joseph Garland: Sixty thousand dollars


John Warwick King: Yes, for dredging.


Mr. CRERAR:: Where is Blind River


John Warwick King: In East Algoma.


Mr. LEWIS:: I notice that the item says
there is a revote of $22,000.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur John Lewis: The only amount down for
Blind River is "wharf reconstruction, $10,000."


John Warwick King: There was a supplementary vote last year of $25,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Could the minister give
the committee some information as to what is sought to be achieved by this expenditure?


John Warwick King: Blind River is
principally a lumbering town; large lumbering operations are carred on there. Its population is about 1,500, and its shipments by water consist of 20.000,000 feet board measure of pine lumber per annum, and the import of about 600 tons of general merchandise. Shipments were treble this quantity, and this factor of the waterborne commerce of the place will undoubtedly revive. About 200 tons of fish are landed at the government wharf and shipped to eastern points by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. BOYS:: What causes such a large expenditure for dredging there? I would have thought there was deep water at Blind River, and a pretty good harbour.


John Warwick King: The engineer's
report says:
Its object is to provide a safe channel for boats leaving the wharves of McFadden Limited, with cargoes of lumber, with a depth of 16 feet below mean low water or elevation 580 feet above the sea level, which is the standard improvement plane used on other dredging improvements in this district. The foreshore is comparatively shallow owing to the existence of a large deposit of sand known as the Blind River bank, which stretches easterly from the mouth of the Mississauga river to a point near Algoma mills a distance of about 10 miles and extends into the lake for an average distance of about 2 miles. The greater portion of it is from 12 to 15 feet deep, and its outer margin slopes quickly to deep water. The channel opposite Blind River through this bank is about 7,000 feet long by 150 feet wide.
That is a channel we are making through the bank.


William Alves Boys: How has the channel been protected there?


John Warwick King: No protection has been provided.
Mr. BO.YS: Is it not the experience that the channel fills in every year?


John Warwick King: Not every year.


William Alves Boys: What depth of water is there six hundred feet out?


John Warwick King: You go out seven thousand feet to the banks, and then you get deep water.
Supply-Public Works


William Alves Boys: Is it seven thousand feet from the mouth of the lake before you get into deep water?


John Warwick King: No. These banks form out in the lake, as explained in the statement I have just read.


William Alves Boys: A "bank" means something
out of the water. Is this out of the water? Is it sand that drifts out of the river and is deposited? Surely you do not have to go through seven thousand feet in a channel, a hundred and fifty feet wide.


John Warwick King: Banks are forming in lakes and rivers, and in the course of time they come to the surface. It is not an unusual thing in these harbours that a drift from the river qr lake forms this deposit. I am informed the bank is about thirteen feet below the surface and the depth is supposed to go to sixteen feet


William Alves Boys: At the shallowest point you have thirteen feet?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Is there anything on file to show whether or not the engineer considered piers were necessary for protection from the drifting of sand?


John Warwick King: No, the engineers have not reported on that. The last dredging was done in 1913 and the channel has been maintained more or less since. It is probably considered cheaper to dredge under those conditions.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Is this work considered
necessary on account of the lowering of the water rather than on account of the drifting of the sand?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the
fact.


Arthur Meighen: How is it there is a
re-christening of the vote? It appeared first in 1922, in the first estimate the government brought down in that year, and it was called "wharf reconstruction." In the estimates of 1923, for the year 1924, it retained that name. The wharf was still being reconstructed. At the time of the 1925 estimates the wharf was not reconstructed and $10,000 more was put in to do the work; ibut in the supplementary estimates $13,000 more was added to get that wharf reconstructed. Then in 1926 the minister has taken it into 'his family under a new title, has christened it "dredging" and has raised the vote this year to $47,000. What is the reason? Was it feared by the govern-

ment that if they put in a dredging vote in the first place, other members would want dredging in their constituencies also, and the government wanted to keep the estimates all looking like repairs and reconstruction?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
knows that is not right.


Arthur Meighen: He does not know it
yet.


John Warwick King: The item must
show specifically what the work is for. It is for reconstruction of the wharf, and that work continued during 1923 and 1924. If the item were for dredging the Auditor General would not for a moment consider it as reconstruction or wharf construction. They are two distinct votes.


Arthur Meighen: Why is it that this
was called "wharf reconstruction" last year, as appears on page 39 of the Estimates of 1924, an amount of $21,000? In 1923 the same item was voted for wharf reconstruction. This year, as I say, $47,000 is voted for dredging which, it is stated, corresponds with the amount voted last year for the same work.


John Warwick King: That was dredging.


Arthur Meighen: No, it is dredging this
year.


John Warwick King: And dredging
last year.


Arthur Meighen: Then it should have
been called dredging.


John Warwick King: I thought it
was. I am surprised at that.


Arthur Meighen: Look at page 40 of the Estimates of last year. It still had the old name, " Wharf reconstruction," and what was wharf reconstruction last year is not a new work, but it is called "dredging" this year. When did the transition take place, and why was it not put under the proper heading at that time?


John Warwick King: I am surprised
that it is so. I have not the estimates of last year before me, but it should have been "dredging," that was the intention.


Arthur Meighen: I will send a copy of
last year's Estimates across to my hon. friend. This was wharf construction last year the same as the year before.


Arthur John Lewis: In the supplementary estimates you will find for Blind River the item,

Supply-Public Works
Dredging $25,000; so that it must have been changed when it came in the supplementaries.


Arthur Meighen: In the supplementaries
last year the vote was $25,000, and then we voted last year Reconstruction, $10,000; so that we had a total vote of $35,000 last year.


John Warwick King: I think that
explains the situation. The vote in the supplementaries is for dredging that is being continued this year.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been
spent on the wharf?


John Warwick King: Construction expenses, $48,000; repairs, $4,000, and dredging, some $00,000, making a total of about $113,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: In what
year was the work started and what was the nature of the work in the first year?


John Warwick King: This goes back
many years. I have a description of a warehouse built in 1905, and in 1908, due to heavy traffic resulting in an increased' number of activities, an extension was made to the warehouse. I imagine the record goes back further than that. I have not the record here; it would be in the department.


Edward Joseph Garland: When was it found necessary to commence dredging?


John Warwick King: The last dredging prior to this was done in 1913. I imagine there has been dredging there from time to time for many years.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the engineers could give the minister some idea just how permanent an undertaking this dredging is to be, and whether it will be necessary to dredge every year?


John Warwick King: The last dredging was done in 1913. We now find it necessary to remove certain debris. That is not a bad record for a harbour on the lakes.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much
was voted in 1913 for dredging?


John Warwick King: There was an
authorization by order in council of a contract to a company to remove 57,197 cubic yards in 1912 and 17,480 cubic yards in 1913.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What company?


John Warwick King: The C. S. Boone
Dredging and Construction Company, of Toronto.


Edward Joseph Garland: What was the cost?


John Warwick King: I have not the
cost here.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is rather difficult to come to any conclusion as the minister's information is rather vague. Although he claims that no dredging was necessary from 1913 until last year, $25,000 was voted last year for dredging, and the minister this year asks for a vote of $47,000 additional for dredging. The dredging business seems to be looking up. How long are we going to have to continue this expenditure?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is not quite right. Last year $25,000 was voted. The estimates were late in being passed and a contract was not entered into until late in the fall. Of the amount voted last year $3,000 has been expended. This year we are asking for $47,000, of which $22,000 is a revote, money unexpended last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Even at
that, how long are we going to have to vote $50,000-for $3,000 last year and $47,000 this year make $50,000. Is this to be a permanent annual vote, or shall we have to have another election before we have another vote?


John Warwick King: It is hoped this
amount will clean up the contract. It is not an annual affair.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is the dredging to be
done ly contract or by the departmental engine tis?


John Warwick King: By contract.


Robert Gardiner: What is the name of the contractor, and the total amount?


Mr. CARRUTHERS:: The vote should have been asked several years ago for the dredging of this channel. Lumber boats have been coming out of there for the last four years drawing only about eleven or twelve feet of water when they should be loaded to sixteen feet. This has increased the cost of carriage very much. I can warn the government and the House that, owing to the rapid lowering of lake levels, dredging on the Great Lakes within a very few years is going to be something enormous. This is only a sample of what you are going to get. The lake at that point is some three and a half to four feet lower than it was five or six years ago. In order to make a fund for expenditures of this nature, I would be in favour of going back to the old system of charges: canal tolls, harbour dues and dock dues. I do
REVtSED EDITION
Supply-Public Works

not see why the steamboat men have any right to use the lakes as they are doing now any more than the railway companies would expect the government to build a railway and then allow -them to run their trains over it. As regards this port, if you are going to carry on the trade of this country, you will have to do some of this dredging. The old warehouse on the dock was blown down some five or six months ago, and the next item is to cover reconstruction of that warehouse.


John Warwick King: The contract was entered into, October 9, 1924, with A. B. McLean and Sons, Sault Ste. Marie. There were two tenders, the lowest being that of Messrs. McLean at 48 cents per cubic yard, place measurement. The other tender was 75 cents.


Robert Gardiner: How does the price accepted compare with work done by the department?


John Warwick King: The cost of work varies in different localities on account of the material, but usually departmental work is on a par with that done by a contractor. We do not figure on a profit or interest or depreciation of plant as the contractor -must do.


Robert Gardiner: Was it not possible to use the departmental dredge in this case?


John Warwick King: No. We have
not the plant available for it.


Arthur John Lewis: Does the government receive any fees for all these numerous works involving an expenditure of millions of dollars? It is unfortunate that any government ever started such a system. The people who use these rivers and have the advantages of the wharves and warehouses, are just as much under obligation to pay for them as the farmers in the west are under obligation to build elevators. Moreover, this House demands that there shall foe sufficient traffic before branch lines are built. I would be in favour of abolishing these votes altogether. The present system takes up a great deal of the time of this House; it involves the government in millions of expenditure; and nobody gets anything.


John Warwick King: No changes have
been made in government policy in connection with the water channels. In the matter of warehousing and wharf privileges, at the larger centres fees are charged but in the smaller localities it would not pay to keep a wharfinger to collect fees, so the people use the wharves there free.
rM>. Carruthers.]


Mr. GOULD:: I take it that the minister has a complete statement from the engineer as to the amount of money that will be required to complete the dredging in this harbour.


John Warwick King: It is proposed to remove 90,000 cubic yards of fine drift sand at an estimated cost of $43,200, and there will be an allowance for inspection and contingencies.


Oliver Robert Gould: What will be the depth of the dredging?


John Warwick King: Sixteen feet.


Mr. CARROLL:: I have no personal interest in this vote, nor have I any personal knowledge' regarding the conditions. I want to point out however that a great deal of the emigration from this country to-day is due to the fact that the people in the small localities have not the requirements they should have, especially on the lakes and rivers and on our coasts. The fact is that they are not receiving justice in the matter of public works. We talk about emigration from Canada, and we are spending millions of dollars to bring people into the country. Well, I can take hon. gentlemen dowm to the Maritime provinces and show them there a state of affairs that would sufficiently answer the remarks that have been made about all these votes being cut out. On the shores of the Atlantic and of the gulf of St. Lawrence there are deso'ate villages, from which have emigrated people whose fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers had lived there since this country' was first opened up. They have gone away simply because this and previous governments have not done them justice; they have not been able to secure the improvements which they badly needed. There is one place in particular where two years ago, because this government and past governments as well would not do something in the way of protecting the boats of the fishermen, twenty-five families found it necessary to clear out. These people all left in the fall of 1923, removing to Gloucester in order to make a living. And there are various other places in the Maritime provinces where the same thing has taken place. We are spending millions of dollars on our great ocean terminals, and rightly so; no one wall criticize expenditures of that nature. And we are also faced with a deficit of some $50,000,000 or so in connection with our railways. It is clear therefore that we are not stinting on any of these expenditures. This deficit is due in part to

Supply-Public Works
the low grain rates which we give in the west, while the people of the east are also demanding lower freight rates for their lumber. Now, this is all very well; but why should we not extend some consideration to the small hamlet as well? I do not care how small a village may be, the people who have been born and brought up there are better qualified and in every way better adapted to make a living there than anybody we could bring from Europe or elsewhere. And these people have their rights. I should like to see not only the public works of the country but the postal service as well extend in every way possible the facilities for making life a little more comfortable in the rural communities, especially on our harbours, rivers, lakes and sea coasts.


Arthur Meighen: I would receive with very much sympathy the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Carroll), but the question here is not as to any hamlet in Nova Scotia or anywhere else, or any small settlement at all. When one makes improvements on the Atlantic coast the thing is done, and no draining of water will render the work futile. But according to the hon. member (Mr. Car-ruthers), who represents the riding in question, this is only the initiation of a tremendously vast expenditure at this and other points, due to a lowering of the lakes. If he is right, then I would presume that we might as well entitle this, " A vote to pfovide water facilities for the city of Chicago"; that is about what it is. Really, the thing is becoming appalling. I listened with amazement to the words of the hon. member, and I do not know that he has exaggerated the situation at all; it seems to me, in view of late events, that the path that confronts us is pretty nearly untraversable. We might as well therefore sit . around a table and see whether we intend to start or not. If we have to continue lowering our canals, improving our docks, and dredging our rivers and lakes even, year after year, at an expenditure of untold millions, the show-down might as well come first as last. I was going to ask, before the hon. member rose, how these people got along before we started an expenditure which has now reached $113,000 and which, with this money now voted, will be $160,000 odd. Of course, the water now is lower than it has ever been. This water wThich is going to furnish power for the people to the south of us comes out of lakes that are the common property of both the United States and Canada, lakes from which neither has the right 219J
to divert any water at all. Has the government really considered the wisdom of calling a halt to all this type of expenditure in order that there might be an object lesson to the world at large as to just what this country is suffering?


Mr. POWER:: Is this Satan rebuking sin?


John W. Carruthers: We might as well
tie up the whole trade of the country.


Arthur Meighen: Well, we are tying it
up fast as it is, when we start on an expenditure such as is foreshadowed, not only on this particular item but over the whole area. As to "Satan rebuking sin," I do not know what the pertinence of the interruption is. The hon. member is usually very pertinent.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not mean to imply
that the hon. gentleman has any relation to Satan, but I would say that when in power he did not stop to reflect on what this country was coming to; he did not stop to go into all these expenditures; he did not insist that we should have the greatest possible economy in public works of this kind. I do not know why he should rebuke this government when it is only carrying on the works he carried on himself.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member woke
up a little late; he missed entirely what I was saying. However, I do not intend to rebuke either Satan or sin when I extend a generous forgiveness. What I was talking about was the wisdom of bringing to a head the controversy over the Chicago canal, because this matter has a distinct relation to it. The question is, how long are we going to proceed along the path we are trying to travel now? I have no doubt that what the hon. member suggests is right; this $160,000 is a mere bagatelle, only a small instalment. But what is the expenditure going to be on the St. Lawrence, at the Sau'lt and at many other points in Canada, when we are .asked to repeat in multiplied form what we are doing now?


John W. Carruthers: I would refer the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) to the dock built in our town during his administration at a cost of between $50,000 and $60,000, and which was needed. It was finished some six years ago. The contract called for cement eighteen inches below the water line before any construction took place on the timbers, and at the present time the timbers below that expensive structure are exposed about a foot and a half. This means that within a very few years that expensive
Supply-Public Works

dock will crumble; the timbers will rot and the whole thing will be an entire loss.


Mr. MANION:: I am sure we all
sympathize with the feelings of my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) for his people in Nova Scotia, just as we all sympathize with the people on the Great Lakes who require expenditures to give them proper navigation facilities. I have been thinking very seriously that it is the duty of the government-and I am not specially criticizing this government, because, as was remarked by the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), all past governments have expended money on public works [DOT]-it is the duty of this government, or of the government that succeeds it, to cut out many millions of dollars that are now being expended on various kinds of public works. It may be retorted that a good deal of money has been spent at the head of the lakes, and I admit it.


John Warwick King: And more will
be required.


Robert James Manion: Yes; but it was spent
there of course for the benefit of the country generally. It would be a very good object lesson to our people in the practice of economy if every .possible curtailment of expenditure could be effected, even at the risk to a certain extent of injuring some of our public works already constructed. To-day Canada is suffering from a very heavy burden of taxation, and I believe we need a striking object lesson not only in regard to economy in Dominion expenditure but economy in provincial and municipal expenditure. Out through the western country in many cities, including my own, there has been a determined attempt not to incur further expenditure on public works of any kind for some years to come. As a consequence, in my city the tax rate has been cut down by several mills. I believe the tax rate of the country generally could also be cut down substantially if we made up our minds absolutely to refrain from embarking on new public works that are not absolutely needed, and I would include my own city in this respect, because while there is room for a larger development of the harbours at the head of the lakes, and in the years to come this development will have to be undertaken, yet for the present I believe that enough work has been done there for the public services to be carried on very satisfactorily for a considerable time. I believe the general rule laid down by the previous government has been lived uip to by this government in dealing with requests for new post office buildings, and I think this 
rule should be applied to all classes of public works except such as are absolutely necessary. With regard to new post office buildings, I have had requests for a couple in my riding, but I pointed out that post offices were not being built in other sections of the country, and as a result I got very /little complaint from my constituents, although of course they repeated their requests. I sympathize with this government as I did with its predecessors, who took the attitude that unnecessary expenditure of that kind should not be undertaken. I think it will be well worth while for the minister and the government to very seriously consider this proposition in the interest of the country generally. I am not offering my proposal for drastic economy in any spirit of criticism of the government, because I admit it is trying to live up to the rule laid down by the preceding administration, but our taxation has become so heavy and conditions generally are so depressed throughout the country that I believe it is the duty of every member to impress on the government the urgent necessity of drastic economy in public expenditures wherever this is possible without affecting service to the public.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman,
I think it is only fair to the department and to the government to call to the attention of the House and of the country the fact that since taking office we have refrained from starting any new. public works. It is true we found certain expenditures were contracted for by the late government, and it was neither wise nor possible for us to cancel those contracts. Generally speaking, this department has simply been trying to hold together our public works, keeping them in repair. This is borne out when I advise the 4 p.m. House in 1913-14 the late government appropriated $48,819,000 for public works; in 1914-15, the first year of the war, $47,154,000; in 1915-16, the second year of the war, $34,599,000; in 1916-17, the third year of the war, $30,828,000; and in 1917-18, the last year of the war, $20,914,000; in 192021, their last year of office, $22,680,000; and in 1921-22 their estimate was $20,609,000. The first year we came into office we appropriated for public works $16,784,000; and last year, 1923-24, $20,067,000, of which we expended $16,591,000. I think it may be fairly claimed that my hon. friend's argument has been fully met. It has been the policy of the department to curtail expenditures wherever possible. In studying the figures I have given it should be kept in mind that the value of

Supply-Public Works
the dollar in recent years is very much less than it was in 1914, and probably for the $16,000,000 we expended last year an equivalent amount of work could have been done for less than $12,000,000 in 1913, the cost of material and of wages having increased very largely since the war.
In regard to expenditure on public buildings, I do not take {'he gloomy view which to-day is so customary among hon. members opposite. I do not believe that Canada should board up her windows and cease expending money in the public interest. Considering the cry we hear from my hon. friends on the other side that the government should undertake relief works for the unemployed, I am not sure that it would not be a wise policy for us to expend some public money through the proper channels that would probably to some extent relieve unemployment. At any rate, that I believe is the course we should adopt rather than spend money on doles, as has been suggested.


William F. Carroll: Has the government
erected any new public buildings since they took office?


John Warwick King: Yes, a few have
been built and others are under construction.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did the
minis: er say he thought it good policy to keep on spending money on public works in order to help unemployment?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: One would
infer that from his remarks.


John Warwick King: No. I said if, as
some members have been suggesting, the government should spend public moneys to relieve unemoloyment, this would be the way- in constructing useful public works.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I was very careful to point out to the Minister that I was not specially criticizing the government, but apparently he reached the conclusion that I was doing so. I assure him I was not. I usually make it very clear when I am, but on this occasion I was not. I was condemning past government as well as the present government, and I would condemn future governments if they took the same course. While I admit there has been some cutting down in expenditures of this kind, the cutting down, to m.v mind at least, has not been to the extent that there should be. I know the pressure the minister is under; I doubt whether any minister of the government is under such great political and sectional pressure to get work
done as the Minister of Public Works. I know that very well because my own section has pressed very heavily at times, and sometimes has got what it has pressed for. But I say that as a general principle, in view of the heavy burden of taxation, we should carry out, so far as we can in this country, the same policy in regard to these public works as we have had in the last few years with regard to post offices.
With regard to boarding up the windows of Canada, there is a great tendency on the part of hon, gentlemen opposite, if any of us even suggest the conditions that exist, to retort that we are proposing to board up the windows of Canada. I do not take a back seat to the minister in my optimism regarding the ultimate destiny of this country, but I do in regard to the ultimate destiny of this country if this government goes on handling public affairs very much longer.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Better get used
to it.


Robert James Manion: I do not think I will have to be used to my hon. friend very much longer. In regard to Canada's future, I am as optimistic as any man in this House, but I think it is a strange kind of optimism that refuses to look in the face the conditions which are before every member of this House and everybody in this country, and I would advise the minister to go out into the highways and byways, as some of us not in the ministry have more time to do than he has, and ask the businessmen and the workmen how conditions are; and then if he can come back here and be as optimistic as he and some of his friends pretend they are, I shall be very much surprised.


Mr. MALCOLM:: It is quite true, as the
hon. member for East Algoma says, that the lake levels are down practically three and a half feet from the high point of eight years ago, but the assumption that the lowering of lake levels is entirely due to the diversion of water at Chicago is an incorrect assumption. The right hon. leader of the opposition makes a plea that we should call a halt, put the cards on the table and find out if this is going to go on. The fact is, and I want the House to realize this, that we have had almost as low water in the Great Lakes before, and the engineers on both sides of the line do not attribute over nine or ten inches of the lowering of the level of the Great Lakes to the Chicago diversion. The fact remains, however, that dredging that was sufficient two years ago is not sufficient today because there has been a lowering, and
Supply-Public Works

hon. members from the west must realize that if rates on grain from that very important district represented by my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) are to be satisfactory, we have to give one hundred per cent carriage to the vessels, which we have not got to-day. All the heavy carriers of grain went through the Soo locks last year loaded to only eighty per cent capacity. The lightship at Sarnia was moved a half mile further out last year, and still boats with a draught of twenty feet bumped at that. The minister is faced with a problem. A great many of my friends from the west wish to see their grain carried on the Great Lakes, as far as possible, but that can never be done if the channel does not permit of one hundred per cent capacity carriage.
Mr. hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River, in making allowances for the government, suggested that pressure was always heavy on the Minister of Public Works. As the representative of a riding with a continuous coast line and a lot of small harbours, where rail communication is not a factor, where the harbour is the only way out for the fisherman and the farmer, I want to say to this House that I know many members on this side have gone to the minister and asked him not to spend all the money that was recommended by the engineering staff. I think members of this House have assisted the Minister of Public Works in his desire not to have too great an expenditure this year. I know it was my pleasure to draw a pencil through two or three recommendations myself, and I think that condition is more general than hon. members from the west realize.
Public works in the Dominion of Canada, on the waterways are a good deal more important than some of us realize. First, there is the movement of our tonnage of grain eastward. Second, there is the moving of coal and general merchandise to the head of the lakes. If you remove, as one of my hon. friends has suggested, this water competition, I do not know what railway rates we are going to have, because water competition has governed railway rates to a very great extent.
There is another respect in which the Great Lakes are important, and it is one which I think should not be lost sight of. Our tourist trade in the central part of this country, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Hammdll) on different occasions, is becoming a very important trade, and it might be interesting to some of my friends to know that at one small point in my riding where we had to spend only eight hundred or a thousand dollars last year on dredgfMr. Malcolm. 1
ing, there are families who have come to occupy 500 cottages. A summer population of 3,000 has sprung up in this district on lake Huron, and a very considerable amount of American money is left at this point. One of the greatest assets we have to offset the money that Canadians spend in the United States is the asset we have in our Great Lakes and in our summer places, where some of that money is got back; and if the actual cash returns could be compiled from these small expenditures-which would foe very difficult-I think my hon. friends would not have very much criticism to make of these expenditures.


Arthur John Lewis: It may be true as stated by
the hon. member (Mr. Malcolm) that certain members on the other side of the House have been to the minister and have drawn a pencil through certain items of proposed expenditure, but the fact remains that if you compare the main vote this year with the main vote last year you will find there has been an increase of a hundred per cent. The supplementaries for this year are not yet down and, therefore, we do not know what the final result will be. How much greater it would have been if some hon. gentlemen opposite had not drawn a pencil through a few of the items, it is very difficult to know.
My hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) said that he could take me to hundreds of little villages that have been depleted as the result of the government not making proper provision to look after these people. All I wish to say in reply is that year by year we are asked to spend millions of dollars in Canada to look after certain interests of these people, and if there are hundreds of settlements still going out of business, what would be the total debt of this dominion if we looked after them all I Our debt in that case would be impossible to compute. If there are settlements in Canada that are depleted to-day as the result of this government not giving them proper facilities, I can show you, on the other hand, in western Canada certain districts that have been depleted as the result of this government spoonfeeding industries for the last fifty years, and if that kind of thing is to continue we will have settlements of this kind all over Canada. I believe the time must come when industries and people requiring the dredging of these streams and the building of wharves must learn to pay their own way, stand on their own feet. That is the only way, so far as I can see, in which we are ever going to get back to a sound business basis in Canada and make this countiy prosperous.

Supply-Public Works


James Malcolm: Does the hon. member advocate putting the railways on a cost basis in carrying traffic?


Arthur John Lewis: My hon. friend said a
moment ago-


James Malcolm: It cannot be done.


Arthur John Lewis: -that these little wharves
or the facilities he was speaking about had a direct reference to the transportation of grain by the Great Lakes. I cannot see for one moment that any one of the works mentioned here has any influence on the carriage of that grain or the freight rates. In a particular case here and there it may have special reference to the freight rate across the lakes; but the great majority of them have no reference whatever to that kind of service. As far as the railways are concerned I think it has been shown conclusively by our western representatives, and also by the counsel that argued the case, that the carriage of grain is a paying proposition; and the very fact that this year the deficit on the Canadian National Railways, as stated in this House, was due to the fact that the crop was not as large bears out the contention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Blind River-to replace warehouse, $2,100.
['-that these little wharves\nor the facilities he was speaking about had a direct reference to the transportation of grain by the Great Lakes. I cannot see for one moment that any one of the works mentioned here has any influence on the carriage of that grain or the freight rates. In a particular case here and there it may have special reference to the freight rate across the lakes; but the great majority of them have no reference whatever to that kind of service. As far as the railways are concerned I think it has been shown conclusively by our western representatives, and also by the counsel that argued the case, that the carriage of grain is a paying proposition; and the very fact that this year the deficit on the Canadian National Railways, as stated in this House, was due to the fact that the crop was not as large bears out the contention.']
Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the purpose of
this warehouse?


John W. Carruthers: Blind River is on
the steamboat course between Owen Sound and the Soo; it is a regular shipping place. The warehouse there was blown down and this vote is to replace the structure which is intended to protect the goods that are shipped in there until the merchants can take them away.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand, then, that
the government maintains this warehouse for the convenience of the people who are shipping goods?


John Warwick King: That is right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is any charge made for
its use?


John Warwick King: Not at this point, I think. The work is of a public character, and it is necessary to keep the wharf structure in proper shape in order to handle the traffic. That traffic consists of about 600 tons of general merchandise and 200 tons of fish. Before the war there was a much larger traffic at that point. As I said earlier in the discussion, at the larger points where considerable tonnage is being handled, the
wharves are administered by the Department of Marine and tolls are charged for their use. At this small, outlying place it would not pay to appoint a wharfinger to collect tolls; there would not be enough revenue collected to pay his salary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But wharves and warehouses are two different things. Why cannot the people who ship the goods provide the warehouse?


John Warwick King: They might, but
it has not been done.


Edward Joseph Garland: What has
been the total amount of money spent on warehouse construction at Blind River? The minister, I think, has already informed the House that this will be the third warehouse to be constructed by the government-at least the third; there may have been others that I do not know of.


John Warwick King: I stated before
that the original warehouse was built in 1905, and its dimensions were 40 by 70 feet. In 1908, due to heavy traffic originating from lumbering activities, it became necessary to make an addition of 70 feet, so that the dimensions of the building are now 40 by 140 feet. We are making good damage done by a storm some months ago that blew down a portion of the warehouse.


Edward Joseph Garland: I take it
then the minister is not in a position to give the total cost of warehouse construction at Blind River?


John Warwick King: I have not the
expenditure itemized or separated. I gave the total cost of construction at Blind River and the repairs made at this point from time to time. I have not the total cost of the warehouse itself, but the total cost for the construction of wharf and warehouse was $48,855.86.


Edward Joseph Garland: I just
wanted the cost of the construction of the warehouse.


John Warwick King: I have not got
that separated from the other I am sorry to say.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, really I think the minister might provide the committee with information of this kind.


John Warwick King: There is no objection to that but it would expand our notes tremendously if we had to have on hand details of expenditure from the beginning. I have given the total for repairs, $4,843 41
Supply-Public Works

These warehouses are not unduly expensive. Taking the estimate I have for this new structure of $2,100 I would imagine that the total expenditure for the years 1905 and 1908 would be in the vicinity of $1,200-probably not more than that when you compare present costs with what they were then.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not at all like the
practice that appears to have developed in the case of this warehouse, and I dare say there are others that are in the same position. I do not see why the taxpayers of Canada should be called upon to provide the money to build a warehouse at Blind River, or at any other point, that is solely for the benefit of private business interests in the locality. I know the customary thing is for wholesale houses, or shipping and business concerns, to provide their own warehouses, and I should like to have an expression of opinion from the minister as to the soundness of the policy involved.


John Warwick King: For the information of my hon. friend, and to corroborate what I said a few moments ago, may I state that at these smaller points it would cost more to collect the tolls than you would get in the way of revenue. Take the case of Amherstburg. In 1922 we collected only $2.25 and in 1923 but $7.50.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Was that from a wharf
or a warehouse?
Mr. K),NG (Kootenay):	From warehouse
and wharf.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not talking about
wharves.


John Warwick King: The practice is
not a new one; it has been observed, I think, since confederation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There were a good many
practices which developed after confederation in the matter of public expenditures that we would do well to reconsider to-day. Up until the war the revenues of Canada were pretty buoyant, and the voting of a few million dollars more or less annually by the House was not of very much consequence. I submit, however, that the situation is wholly different to-day. It is not too much to say that this country to-day is groaning under a burden of taxation and it behooves every member of this House to endeavour to curtail public expenditures in every way possible.
I submit again that the policy of taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada to build warehouses for the benefit of private business interests is an unsound policy.

If we do it in this case why not provide such a facility at every other point where it is desired? I submit that if the government does the dredging, or provides a wharf or docks, at Blind River, the people who benefit from that work ought surely to build the warehouse.


William F. Carroll: Would my hon. friend
suggest that the stations along lines of railway should be built by the people in the immediate locality? The principle is the same as in this case.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


William F. Carroll: It is the very same.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William F. Carroll: I understand from the
hon. member who represents the county that a line of boats runs from this point to the Soo and to other places, and the goods carried on these vessels consigned to so many different parties, are placed in this warehouse. My hon. friends cite the case of Vancouver where elevators for grain are being built to-day by the public funds of the country. That is ail right. The same thing exactly applies to a warehouse on a wharf and a station on a railway.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wholly wrong, and I will prove it to him in a moment. When a line of railway is built the transportation companies erect their warehouses and collect freight for the goods they hand'e; they use the warehouse and the other facilities in handling the goods.


William F. Carroll: Wliat about the elevators?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will come to that in a moment. If my hon. friend carried out his analogy in regard to the case we are considering he would see that the steamship companies that get the benefit of the warehouses and dredging should build the warehouses for the convenience of the people.


Mr. HAMMELL:: Who would give the
steamship companies the authority to build a warehouse on public property? I have in mind many cases in my own constituency where there is such a shelter as I presume this will be, where a small waiting room is built for the convenience of the public in stormy weather, and at the other end of the wharf a warehouse is built to store the perishable goods. How *would my hon. friend provide for private companies in a village or town erecting a warehouse on top of a publicly owned dock?

Supply-Public Works


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know whether the government owns the property where the wharf is built.


William James Hammell: They own it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then there would be no difficulty in the Department of Public Works making the arrangement with the steamship companies to build the facilities.


William James Hammell: It is not for the steamships primarily that these facilities are provided; it is for the people of the locality.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then I will put it the other way: why then should not the government build all the station houses on a railroad?


William F. Carroll: So they do, on government railways.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course they do on the government railways. The analogy cannot apply at all. I submit in all good faith that the principle is not a sound one, and if it can be invoked at Blind River or any other river or harbour in the manner provided here, the same thing can be made to apply all over the country.


John W. Carruthers: It has, from timi immemorial.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does the hon. gentleman say that all the warehouse facilities on docks are all provided by the government?


John W. Carruthers: Yes, they put warehouses upon them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Are any charges made in the warehouse?


John Warwick King: I explained that in the larger places there are charges, but the reports show that in Blind River there are 600 tons of incoming freight going over the dock. What would be a fair charge for storage? About ten cents a ton. You would collect about $60 a year. Who would collect it? If they have to collect that money for the government are they going to ask a percentage for the collection? To pay in wages would cost more than you would receive.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The government would not need to col'ect if they did not put up storage facilities.


John Warwick King: I do not quite
agree with that statement. Here the government expend $40,000 or $50,000 for the public convenience in order that the business of the country may go on. If it was necessary to build harbour works or a pier or a
wharf for the use of the public, then surely some form of shelter should be provided for storage and waiting-room purposes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If this warehouse is not provided by the government and the government strike out the vote what will happen? The people who are benefiting from the service-I take it probably the boat transportation companies-will make arrangements with the government for the building of the warehouse.


John Warwick King: Such an arrangement is impossible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) cited the case of the elevators erected by the government at Vancouver.


William F. Carroll: And the stations on the
Canadian National Railways.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Those stations are simply
a part of the service given by the government, from which it gets revenues.


William F. Carroll: It does not get revenues.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does it not collect revenues in freight and passenger charges?


William F. Carroll: But not for the building.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order, order. I wish
there would not be so many interruptions.


William F. Carroll: It is all part of the same service.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So is this.


William F. Carroll: No, because they get no revenue from the stations.


George Newcombe Gordon: I wish hon. members
would not make so many comments but would wait till the member addressing the Chair is through.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to put the hon.
member for Cape Breton South and Richmond right, because he wants to be right, and it is very rarely that he is wrong. A definite charge is made on the grain passing through the elevator for the service rendered. I submit that is a wholly sound principle to apply in governmental policy. But I do not think it is a sound principle to expend public money in Vancouver, or Blind River, or anywhere else, merely to benefit a few people who live in that locality. That is all I am saying. In the case of the expenditure in relation to the public elevators, every bushel of wheat that goes through these government elevators pays a tax or a charge to the government for the service rendered, which is absolutely sound
Supply-Public Works

also, and if my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond will look up the records, I think he will find that the revenue received by the Department of Trade and Commerce from the grain passing through elevators owned by the government, for the inspection and weighing service rendered in connection with the handling of the grain, exceeds by several hundred thousands of dollars a year the Moneys expended by the government to give he service.


William F. Carroll: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will look up the records he will find that that is correct.


William F. Carroll: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister tell me if this sum of S2,100 will absolutely complete the construction of the warehouse


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the
intention.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it to be constructed under contract or in what way?


John Warwick King: It will probably
be done by day labour. It is a small work; it will be supervised by competent foremen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burlington Channel-reconstruction of south pier, $40,000.
['It will probably\nbe done by day labour. It is a small work; it will be supervised by competent foremen.']
Robert James Manion: What is that vote for?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the reconstruction of the south pier at the entrance of Burlington channel, into the harbour at Hamilton. The work is an .important one. It is in a state of decay. I had an opportunity of seeing it myself last year, and the reconstruction is essential in order to maintain a channel into that harbour.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How much was spent on that last year-the total vote?


Edward Joseph Garland: When was the work of reconstruction of the south pier commenced; what is the total already expended on the reconstruction; and how much more money will be expended before the work is completed?


John Warwick King: Last year $45,526 was expended. The expenditure on channel piers at that point prior to confederation amounted to $432,648.40.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister misunderstands me. I asked him for the total amount expended for reconstruction of the south pier.


John Warwick King: In 1920-21, there was a reconstruction of 200 lineal feet at a cost of $31,417. In 1923-24, there was a reconstruction of 489 lineal feet at a cost of $44,920. The contract for 1924-25 was $45,908.


Edward Joseph Garland: In addition to that we have the vote of this year, $40,000.	This will make a total about
$160,000. How much more will be expended to complete the reconstruction?


John Warwick King: This will complete the reconstruction of the south pier.
M:r. GARLAND (Bow River):	No further
votes?


John Warwick King: That is the intention.
Mr. GARjLAND (Bow River):	Has any
work been undertaken on the north pier?


John Warwick King: In 1924-25,
$13,373.14 was expended. There is nothing this year for the north pier.


Edward Joseph Garland: It will come as a great relief to the taxpayers of this country to know this work is to be completed this year for $40,000 additional. This seems pretty expensive, but I have no doubt the work can be justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Byng Inlet-dredging, $38,000.
['It will come as a great relief to the taxpayers of this country to know this work is to be completed this year for $40,000 additional. This seems pretty expensive, but I have no doubt the work can be justified.']
John Warwick King: Of this amount,
$30,000 is a revote. The money is required to complete the contract with W. L. Forrest of Goderich, to provide a clear channel for six and one-half miles from Georgian bay to Byng Inlet coal dock for steamboat navigation of 10,000 tons burden to a clear depth of twenty-one feet and a width of 150 feet. The amount of the contract is $46,341; inspection and contingencies, $1,659.


Thomas Edward Simpson: What quantity of coal
goes in there every year?


John Warwick King: In 1918, the
quantity was 509,172 tons; in 1923, 277,515 tons.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Does the Canadian Pacific get coal through there?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Is there much saving
on the coal coming in through this particular channel, and if so, what will be the saving?


John Warwick King: There is the
saving that water haulage will give over rail transportation. I have not the information, but there will be a considerable saving.

Supply-Public Works


James Malcolm: Coal at Byng Inlet
costs about 75 cents from lake Erie; it varies, sometimes it is 50 or 60 cents. By rail it would be about $2.75.


Arthur John Lewis: The name Byng Inlet does
not appear in the general estimates of last year. Was a supplementary estimate brought in?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: "Will this
complete the work?


John Warwick King: We are taking
care of the more urgent portions of the work. There will be more work at that point.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister any estimate of the total amount required?


John Warwick King: No. There will
not be anything more required there immediately, but from time to time there will be additional work. This will take care of the present work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chatham-repairs to revetment wall, $5,850.
['No. There will\nnot be anything more required there immediately, but from time to time there will be additional work. This will take care of the present work.']
John Warwick King: This is repair
work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cobourg-reconstruction of harbour works, $12,000.
['This is repair\nwork.']
Edward Joseph Garland: What is the total amount that has been expended on this work; in what year was it commenced; and how much money will be expended before it is completed?


John Warwick King: Cobourg is an
important point. The expenditures prior to March 31, 1925 are as follows:
Prior to confederation	 $ 62,010 70
1874 to 1900	
192,892	57Repairs since	1900	
126,469	18Dredging since	1900	
168,984	31Construction since 1900	
308,091	76


Robert Gardiner: Was the total vote of
$70,000 last year spent?


John Warwick King: No; $54,587 was
expended. *


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has not told us how long this work is expected to continue, and what will be the total expenditure.


John Warwick King: This contract will be completed by the present vote. Further work will come up for consideration from time to time as required.


Edward Joseph Garland: I frankly
admit my lack of information regarding this place and I am going to try to get some information from the minister. What does "reconstruction of harbour works" mean? Are these going to be completed at any date?


John Warwick King: This is a long
work extending out from the lake shore. One might undertake all the work at one time and complete it, but it has been found possible, in fact economical, to undertake certain sections and get them into repair. We have been doing that largely through the lake country. Where old works are in decay, we have been renewing them with permanent structures, taking section after section from year to year, and the work is being properly done. I think the plan that is followed is a safe one. I have here a diagram of the work; if the hon. member wishes, I will send it to him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think the minister indicated that there were additional pieces constructed. Is that correct?


John Warwick King: There has been
reconstruction, but there have been no additions.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is called "reconstruction" in the vote, but I think the minister indicated that it was by way of adding a piece.


John Warwick King: No, certainly not; the hon. member will see it in the middle of the diagram, marked in red.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why has it been necessary to reconstruct that piece?


John Warwick King: Because it is in
decay.


Edward Joseph Garland: What sort
of pier is it-wood, stone or concrete?


John Warwick King: It is a wood
structure filled with stone ballast. The work we are doing there now will make it more or less permanent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cumberland-wharf reconstruction, $10,500.
['It is a wood\nstructure filled with stone ballast. The work we are doing there now will make it more or less permanent.']
John Warwick King: Cumberland is in the county of Russell. This is a bit of reconstruction we are doing on the water line.


Robert James Manion: New work?


John Warwick King: No, reconstruction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Goderich-harbour repairs and improvements, $150,000.
['No, reconstruction.']
William Alves Boys: Why is it that such expensive improvements are being made here while nothing is being done in other lake ports of equal or greater importance? I am not suggesting that the money is not needed or that it is being improperly expended; but it is strange, at least so far as my knowledge goes, that some lake ports of greater importance, and which have been longer in need of improvements, are unable to get any money, or get very little, while an abundance seems to flow into others. The hon. member (Mr. Malcolm) pointed out a short time ago the care with which he scrutinized certain estimates, striking his pen through them. I thought it rather strange. Glancing back over a few years, I find how seldom he struck his pen through expenditures at Kincardine. For instance, in 1923 the expenditure there was $24,000; in 1924, $22,000 and in 1925, $20,000, while for 1926 it is $25,000. In fact, ever since my hon. friend has been a member Kincardine has been well looked after. No doubt it deserved it all, but it is surprising that he should point out how careful he has been to strike out estimates needed elsewhere, which he thought should not be voted, while in his own riding he takes all he can get. Now, I know that Goderich is an important harbour, and the expenditures there are probably more important than those at Kincardine. But this is a large sum of money, and bearing in mind certain things that have occurred to me, and to which I may refer later, I think the committee is entitled to a fairly extensive explanation as to what it is intended to do here.


John Warwick King: The expenditures under this vote will be made up as follows:
This amount of $150,000 is required to continue the development of Goderich harbour commenced in 192223. The work proposed for 1925-26 is as follows:
(1)	General repairs to existing piers	 $ 11,500
(2)	Reconstruction in reinforced concrete of
additional 600 feet	of river breakwater..	30.000
(3)	Three new mooring cribs across west end
of inner harbour	 33,500
(4)	Towards dredging inner harbour and entrance channel to 23 feet (estimated to
cost $155,304)	 75,000
Total amount required for 1925-26.. .. $150,000
The improvements that are to be made will be taken advantage of by the farmers in that section as well as by others. This is not a new work, having been in existence for many years; we are merely keeping it in shape. It would not be the part of wisdom to let it deteriorate, for the harbour is important not only to the local people but to the 
grain trade as well. A considerable activity [DOT]is taking place there.


William Alves Boys: Is there any record of the
number of vessels entering and departing from the harbour, and the tonnage?


John Warwick King: In 1922 there were fifteen steamers with a wheat capacity of 2.520,000 bushels; in 1924 there were twenty-four steamers with a wheat capacity of 3,683,000 bushels. While we were able in late December and early January of last winter to lighter some of the winter storge cargoes, and then place them in every available safe location in the harbour, we have been confronted with a much more difficult condition this fall, in that domestic millers and exporters are not able to move forward sufficient grain to permit these storage boats to be lightered to a draft which will enable all of them to be stored within the harbour proper. It is therefore compulsory that several of them be moored, under full load and at draft of nineteen feet or over, out between the piers. This is a prohibitive area under the mooring rules of the American Bureau of Shipping, representing the hull and cargo underwriters, as there are no approved mooring facilities and the hazard through inevitable surging and resultant damage therefrom is very great. This vote will give improved facilities and allow a larger number of steamers to enter at that point. The work will be of distinct advantage to the shippers of grain.


William Alves Boys: The minister has given a certain number of ships carrying grain. Are we to understand that there were none others?


John Warwick King: There are others, blit the steamers are very largely those that handle grain of all kinds. For the year 1920 the following cargoes were handled:
Bushels
Wheat	 6,518,078
Oats	 2.932,693
Barley	 761,318
Flax	 422,937
Corn	 112,475


William Alves Boys: What is the policy of the department regarding harbour improvements? Is the money spent with a view to improving
the most important harbours?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I suppose that consideration is given to any immediate demand for repairs; but am I right in assuming that the main consideration is the spending of it where there will be the most traffic, from the standpoint of transportation and commercial interests?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: These are not new expenditures; they are practically for reconstruction and for the general maintenance and improvement of harbour work. This vote is important not only to Goderich but to the Dominion at large. There is no doubt that the policy that guides the department in these estimates is the improvement of the harbours; and this is one of the important harbours.


William Alves Boys: To what extent is this improvement and to what extent is it reconstruction? The minister evidently thinks that I am suggesting that Goderich is not important and is not entitled to the expenditure. I want to put him right on that. Having said -that, I should be glad to get any information the minister oan give on the question I have just asked.


John Warwick King: The hon. member will find that I have already given the details.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the government derive any revenue from this harbour in the way of fees?


John Warwick King: We managed to collect $35 in 1922 and 1923. The tonnage going through is practically -all grain and it passes through the elevator, which I think is privately owned. There may be a railway elevator as well.


William Alves Boys: We find various places in
Ontario referred to in this general item, and there is also in item 155 provision for dredging in Ontario and Quebec to the extent of $562,500. Will any of the money to be spent under item 155 be spent also in any of the work set out in item 149?


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: All absolutely separate?


Mr. KELLNER:: Will grain going through Goderich be handled at this harbour?


John Warwick King: Yes the harbour is absolutely essential to the handling of grain.


Mr. WARD:: What is the total cost of the harbour to date?


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, I happen to know about the cost of the elevator works in the town of Goderich. Last year a private enterprise expended $455,000 on them. I want to tell my western friends that Goderich harbour is just as essential to them as it is to us, and that last year, as the minister stated, we unloaded 23,000,000 bushels of grain there. That grain supplied the farmers of western and southwestern Ontario, and practically all of it came from the west. So that Goderich is not a local it is a national
undertaking, and we would not like to see anything interfere with the proper development of the harbour. The reason for this large vote is that the wooden breakwater between the Maitland river and the harbour being in a very decayed condition, it is necessary to rebuild it in concrete, and unless this work is done immediately it will take fifty dollars to do what one dollar will effect now. So I repeat to hon. members that the farmers of western and southwestern Ontario are altogether dependent on this harbour for their feed grain; and I would also inform them that both the Canadian National- Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway have lines connecting the harbour with the rest of Ontario.


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, I hasten to assure the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. King) that I for one was not objecting to this item. I have visited Goderich and I appreciate very much its being a strategical point on lake Huron. However, I think we are entitled to information in respect to these matters.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I inform my hon. friend through you, Mr. Chairman, that he is not going to help the minister with these estimates with its everlasting reiteration of "carried" while a member is on his feet asking questions? I would suggest that the minister would make better progress if his friend kept silent.


William F. Carroll: To whom is the hon. gentleman referring?


Edward Joseph Garland: To the hon.
member who is calling "carried". Is it the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond?


William F. Carroll: No, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not think it was.


William F. Carroll: That is the reason for my asking to whom the hon. gentleman is referring. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if he has anything to say of an hon. member on this side he should name him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I will name him, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) has been shouting "carried" for about five minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think it is the member for Sherbrooke. However, Mr. Supply-Public Works

Chairman, the information which I think one member asked on this item was, what was the total cost to date, and the estimated total cost before completion.


John Warwick King: The total cost to March 31, 1924, was 32,162,326. The estimated cost of our scheme of reconstruction is $576,872.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $50,000.
['The total cost to March 31, 1924, was 32,162,326. The estimated cost of our scheme of reconstruction is $576,872.']
Edward Joseph Garland: What does
this refer to, Mr. Chairman?


John Warwick King: This money is required for general repairs to harbours and rivers within the province of
5 p.m. Ontario which are under the control of the department, and is to meet unforeseen conditions that may arise during the year. Last year of the amount appropriated we expended $24,459.99. The amount varies from year to year.


William Alves Boys: Can any of those repairs be designated?


John Warwick King: Yes. Barrie, repairs to pile work. $500; Big Bay Point, removal of old crib and repairs to approach, $500, and so on. I suppose there are twenty items for the coming year.


William Alves Boys: Do any of those exceed $1,000?


John Warwick King: The largest would be $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honey Harbour-dredging, $15,800.
['The largest would be $1,000.']
Edward Joseph Garland: What was
the total cost last year?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the contract for $23,612. There was only some $3,000 expended last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where is this place?


William James Hammell: In Muskoka.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has there
been much money spent on this prior to this date?


John Warwick King: This is the first
expenditure on dredging at that point.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was nothing voted last year?


John Warwick King: Yes, $22,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will this
complete the dredging necessary?


John Warwick King: It will complete
the present contract.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
mean that, but will it be necessary to continue dredging work up there?


John Warwick King: This will complete the present section of the channel, but the channel is rather extensive and from time to time there will be points where further work will have to be done. It is estimated that the whole scheme of improvement will amount to $88,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why is the work necessary? Is it a pleasure resort?


William James Hammell: This is only another instance where the lowering of the levels of lake Huron has made work of this kind necessary. Honey Harbour is a village on the shores of Georgian bay, with a summer population of approximately 2,200 people. There are six or seven fairly large hotels there, and the present harbour is served by the Georgian Bay Tourist Company and the Honey Harbour Navigation Company. The former operates the steamer, City of Midland, carrying 500 passengers. This steamer travels from Midland up the coast of Georgian bay, following what is known as the inside channel. Until recently, the City of Midland and the City of Dover could go up the inside channel without any obstruction, but the constant lowering of the level of lake Huron has made this dredging necessary, because it is not safe for the boats to go up that inside channel now. These people have no railway line whatever, and are absolutely dependent on the steamer sarvice.


Mr. LEADER:: What is the nature of the
traffic these boats carry?


William James Hammell: They are catering to the tourist traffic, which is very considerable.


Harry Leader: What is the population
of this village in winter?


William James Hammell: The population in winter is seventy-five families.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would judge this is
purely a summer resort., from what the hon. member for Muskoka says.


William James Hammell: I have just stated that
there were seventy-five families engaged in agriculture living along the shores of the Georgian bay near this point and who are served by no other line of transportation; they have no railway, and not even a good road.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I was about to remark
that in my opinion this is largely for the pur-

Supply-Public Works
pose of catering to the summer tourists who visit that section of the country. I do not think it is the policy of this government to provide facilities for that purpose in other sections of the country.


William James Hammell: The other sections of
the country benefit largely from this tourist traffic, probably just as much as tdiis particular section.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I was discussing the
policy of the government as I see it. I always thought they considered it their duty to aid navigation for the advancement of trade, but I do not think there is a section of the country where they spend money to aid navigation purely for summer tourist trade or for pleasure purposes. I have a very distinct remembrance of the government refusing me a similar application for a small amount of work in my constituency, so I am sure that if they do that work they must play favorites, because there are some sec; ions of the country that do not get it.


William James Hammell: While the summer traffic
is very considerable, there are seventy-five families who have been located there for a great many years. The lowering of the level of the lake has made it necessary to deepen the channel for these boats which have been running there for years and years.


Robert James Manion: I would suggest that if
my hon. friend (Mr. Kellner) would follow the example of m.v hon. friend (Mr .Hammell), he might get what he wants.


William James Hammell: I would suggest he might follow the example of my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The honours are even.


Robert James Manion: I did not change after I
was elected.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I would be entirely
ruined if I followed all these examples. Could the minister give the committee the volume of traffic at that point, other than tourist traffic, of which the hon. member for Muskoka says there is considerable.


John Warwick King: This is in the
Muskoka district where there is a large and very important tourist traffic. Both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific lines of railway serve the district, and the traffic derived from the tourists is of great importance to the Canadian National.
The steamer service through the district is primarily in daylight, due to the difficulties of navigating the island channels, but every
Friday night throughout the tourist season two steamers run from Midland, and one steamer from Port McNiehol to Honey Harbour. The round trip from Midland to Parry Sound is 114 miles approximately, and the largest steamer, City of Midland, makes the round trip daily throughout the tourist season, connecting with the Canadian National Railways' special tourist trains at Midland. This steamer cannot spare the time for calling at the various private wharves, and even though this could be done, very few of the channels are navigable for other than small craft.
The Canadian National Railways supplies fast tourist trains from Toronto to Midland, daily, including week-end pullman service. Beginning the season 1924, the City of Dover will make regular trips from Port McNiehol to Honey Harbour, connecting with Canadian Pacific Railway tourist trains daily.
The present steamboat service is supplied by the Georgian Bay Tourist Company, Limited, and the Honey Harbour Navigation Company. The former company operates the steamer "Midland City" which has accommodation for 500 passengers, and is equipped with staterooms and dining room for fifty people. The latter company operates the City of Dover, which accommodates 400 passengers. In addition to the above, there are the freight and passenghr boats, Tenno, Waterbus, Imperial and two more now under construction at the Midland Boat Works. These steamers all transfer passengers and freight to and from the settlers' and tourists' homes. The general service would be much improved if these smaller boats could operate from a public headquarters.
I have not the figures as to the number of tourists.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I think the minister has
got away from the question I asked him. I asked him the number of tons of freight passing through that harbour.


John Warwick King: This work is being done, not in the harbour, but in the channel through which these boats ply back and forth.


William Alves Boys: I do not suppose it is any part of my duty to be unduly anxious to assist in the passing of the estimates for my Liberal friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Chew), but being more or less familiar with this particular part of the county, it may be in order for me to say a word or two. It is not in the riding I represent but is within about forty miles of the town in which I live, and knowing the
Supply-Public Works

district exceedingly well I do not hesitate to say that it is an important summer resort-I think that is the main business without any doubt- and is becoming very popular as the years go by. If the port were not kept open the boats would, perhaps, be put out of business, a very considerable investment of capital in cottages and hotels would be rendered more or less useless, and the people would have to look elsewhere for their summer outing. Those people come from many parts of Ontario; they are chiefly people from Toronto and from points to the south. They go there in numbers and a considerable investment of capital has been made. These boat routes have now been established, and I do not quite see how you can possibly let a port like that be left without consideration. Dredging is without doubt necessary owing to the lowering of the lake. The amount involved here is not overly large, and for that reason and because of the importance of the place I would not hesitate to support the item.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I suppose it is the policy of the government to give aid to such places as these that are concerned almost wholly [DOT] with the summer tourist trade? They are willing to declare that it is their policy to assist enterprises of this kind.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) My hon. friend should not be mistaken. This is an important part of Canada. It draws a great many thousand people to this country, and it is necessary to facilitate navigation in that section in order that these people may come and go, as well as to provide the local residents with the opportunity to live. Such being the case the government has no hesitation in recommending this expenditure to parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jeanette's Creek-wharf repairs, $1,000.
['I suppose it is the policy of the government to give aid to such places as these that are concerned almost wholly [DOT] with the summer tourist trade? They are willing to declare that it is their policy to assist enterprises of this kind.\nMr. KING (Kootenay) My hon. friend should not be mistaken. This is an important part of Canada. It draws a great many thousand people to this country, and it is necessary to facilitate navigation in that section in order that these people may come and go, as well as to provide the local residents with the opportunity to live. Such being the case the government has no hesitation in recommending this expenditure to parliament.']
Edward Joseph Garland: How much
of last year's vote was spent?
Mr. KING (Kootenay); The sum of $1,000 was expended last year, and we are voting another thousand this year.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Where is Jeanette's Creek?


John Warwick King: It is in the county of Kent. This is to renew ninety lineal feet of sheet piling at an estimated cost of $1,000. The engineer reports these repairs are necessary to maintain the existing structure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
TMr. Boys.]
Kincardine-repairs to piers, $25,000.
['It is in the county of Kent. This is to renew ninety lineal feet of sheet piling at an estimated cost of $1,000. The engineer reports these repairs are necessary to maintain the existing structure.']
Edward Joseph Garland: I should
like an explanation of this vote. I noticed that last year and the year before quite a sum of money was spent on this work.


John Warwick King: This amount of
$25,000 is required for the following purposes: First, to provide for balance owing William Hunter in connection with his contract for the reconstruction of the west, south and east revetment walls for a length of 660 feet- $2,000; second, to continue the reconstruction in concrete of the revetment wall and wharfage in the inner harbour, commenced in 1922-23. In 1922-23-24 a distance of 376 lineal feet was reconstructed under contract with Messrs. Keys Bros. In 1924-25 a further section of 660 lineal feet was rebuilt under contract with William Hunter of Kincardine. The final section of the inner harbour, 400 lineal feet, is estimated to cost $10,800. In the third place it is proposed to continue the reconstruction in concrete of the super-structure of the south pier for a distance of 200 lineal feet. The first section was completed in 1923 under contract with Messrs. Keys Bros. The estimated cost is $13,000. Finally, there will be general repairs in timber to the north pier, at a cost of $1,200, making a total of $27,000.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister inform the
committee as to the number of vessels that entered Kincardine harbour last year?


John Warwick King: The number was
not as great as we had hoped; our dredging was delayed too late for the vessels that had intended going in. I think the following shipments were made into the port of the season of 1922, 300 cords of slabs at $10 a cord; 10,000 posts at 22 cents; 125,000 feet of lumber at $30 per thousand. Then the Valley Camp Coal Company, it is anticipated, will bring in annually about 30,000 tons of coal. They did not bring in the amount of coal they expected last year owing to the lateness of the dredging.


William Alves Boys: The minister has not answered my question; perhaps he has not the figures. I wanted to find out the number of vessels that entered the port of Kincardine.


John Warwick King: I do not happen
to have that information.


William Alves Boys: That is a fairly important
factor, I should think, in connection with the maintenance of these ports. I should imagine it would be one of the first things we would want to know.

Supply-Public Works


James Malcolm: The harbour work at
the port of Kincardine was all timber construction, and nothing had been expended on it for a great many years. During the period of the war the policy adopted by the late government, and I think it was a very wise one, was not to spend money on those harbours where there was no particular traffic. The purchase and reconstruction by the Valley Camp Coal Company of the Kincardine Salt Works has been an important factor in connection with the development of the port. The company has spent over $200,000, I think actually $250,000 of its own money on this plant, and to-day is operating one of the finest salt industries in Canada. The company also proposes to handle coal by vessel into Kincardine and by the National railway out. That will justify the reconstruction of the south portion of the harbour where the coal is landed. It was my recommendation that there should not be an excessive amount of money spent on any one piece of work at a time, but that the cribwork should be restored gradually where the repairs were the worst needed. The vote this year is to complete repairs on the south side of the harbour where the coal is being landed. With respect to the hon. member's question as to the number of vessels entering Kincardine last year, there were only some vessels carrying lumber, cordwood, and posts that entered; but we expect there will in future be a large amount of coal carried. In fact there would have been several cargoes of coal last year but the dredging was delayed to such an extent that when' the Glenelg came in with her last cargo the weather was so stormy that she experienced a good deal of difficulty at the mouth of the harbour. The total tonnage in Kincardine will be largely coal tonnage, and the traffic, I think, will amply justify the expenditure.


Miss MACPHAIL:: When the contemplated work is completed will it be possible for the fishermen of Kincardine to use the port?


James Malcolm: Yes.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend the member
for North Bruce pointed out a short time ago the cost of the transportation of coal by water as contrasted with that of carriage by rail, and I think the difference was some $2 per ton. But with facilities for loading and unloading it will not cost nearly as much to place the coal at its point of destination when handled by railway as it will when handled by boat and without such facilities. As a rule these boats are very small, and 220
cannot carry large cargoes. Furthermore they do not have the necessary unloading facilities, and I think it is admitted by everybody that in such cases it costs more to handle coal on such boats.


James Malcolm: The Valley Camp boats will have the necessary facilities for unloading coal. The company is constructing, at considerable expense, an underground carrier to load and take coal from the boats to the cars.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: When was this work
first undertaken?


John Warwick King: In pre-confederation times. From confederation down to 1912 there had been expended $236,000 odd. Since 1912 the amount expended was $142,000; repairs to works since 1912 $43,000, dredging $45,000.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What would it cost to finish this work?


John Warwick King: I think I gave
the total as $27,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the minister seriously contend that the vote of $27,000 will complete the works to be put in at that place?


John Warwick King: The work we have now in hand will cost $27,000 to complete. Of course the work in any one of these harbours is never completed, and something will always require to be done. The matter can only be dealt with as it comes up.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister stated that he was just renewing certain sections of it. If that is the case, then the estimates should include all the sections that are not completed by the present time.


John Warwick King: I read the four items to the House a few minutes ago.


Harry Leader: The minister speaks of
coal being imported. Where is the coal purchased?


John Warwick King: American coal.


James Malcolm: Referring to another
matter; salt is a free commodity and eighty per cent of the cost of manufacturing the salt is the cost of the fuel used to evaporate the brine. Unless these salt mills get their fuel at the very lowest cost they cannot continue to operate without a very high protective tariff, the mills at points like Sarnia and Goderich and Kincardine are manufacturing salt from brine by evapora-

Supply-Public Works

tion, and it would mean a complete cessation from operations in a plant where the owners have invested a quarter of a million of capital if coal were not brought by water to Kincardine.


Harry Leader: Is it the fact that American coal can be imported and laid down there at a less cost than our Canadian coal?


James Malcolm: West Virginia slack coal can be delivered by water at a cost of $4.96 per ton.


William Alves Boys: It might be appropriate to ask the minister whether or not any portion of the general item of $562,500, which is for dredging Ontario and Quebec, is assigned to the harbour of Collingwood.


John Warwick King: I will come to
that a little later.


William Alves Boys: Could the minister not tell me if any portion of that item is assigned to Collingwood?


John Warwick King: I am not able offhand at the present time to say.


William Alves Boys: Very insistent demands have been made of the minister on behalf of Collingwood, which is a town quite close to my own and in my county, although not a part of my riding. The reason I asked some questions regarding Goderich and Kincardine was not to criticize what was being proposed for these ports.	Hon. members talk of
eighteen and twenty-two vessels calling at Goderich and one or two calling at Kincardine in a year; let me say that in 1923 229 vessels called at Collingwood, and the port handled 2,498,000 bushels of grain. Its e'evator perhaps is not as big as it should be, and I hope the day is not far distant when the Canadian National Railways will realize that fact and increase the capacity of the elevator. It .has a capacity of 160,000 bushels. There is a good harbour there now, but it requires improvement. The people of that locality have been clamouring for a little more money. It was pointed out that the $231,800 had been spent at the port of Goderich in the last four years. It is a port of some importance, and I am saying nothing against it, but it cannot be mentioned in the same breath with Collingwood. Not only is Collingwood an important lake port, but it has been a very important point for years where both passenger and freight boats have been calling, and doing an immense business. They have the finest shipbui'ding plant in [Mr. Malcolm.!
the whole of Canada. Breakwater improvements were commenced there under the government of Sir Robert Borden, and one-third of a much needed eastern breakwater was constructed. I am glad to say the present government constructed the second third of that breakwater in 1922; but that work has been standing ever since, although the port has been clamouring for a share of the money that has been lavishly devoted elsewhere. The port is not local in its character in any sense whatever, and we know that passengers from all parts of Ontario and the United States pass through there in connection with the boats which sail further up the lakes, and I think the government shou'd spend some of the money of the country to help build up that port. They require this money for deepening the channel, but do not get their fair share for some reason. I think perhaps something might be done for Collingwood in connection with the general item to which I have referred. I can only express the hope that something will be done. The three important things they are asking for are the completion of the breakwater now two-thirds finished, the removal of certain obstacles in the inside of the harbour which have been brought to the minister's attention-


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: At page 41 of the Estimates there is an item.


William Alves Boys: That is statutory and refers
to the dry dock, not for dredging and harbour improvements at all. The third improvement they are asking for is a turning basin, so that large vessels may use this harbour, as they cannot do at present. I understand the largest vessel sailing on the lakes is the Grant Morden, 604 feet long, and that vessel cannot enter the harbour. As the minister has not definitely stated that nothing is to be devoted to Collingwood out of this general item, No. 155, of the estimates and as that has still to come up, perhaps I need not say much more at the present time, except to add that in investigating the expenditure of money at Belle River the other day, one realizes what an absolutely unjustifiable waste of public funds it is to spend money on a sand bar such as you have at that place, and to leave a national port like Collingwood without the needed improvements.


Mr. KYTE:: The Belle River expenditure is now under consideration and investigation before the Public Accounts committee. I , submit this is not the proper time to discuss it.

Supply-Public Works


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend is in error. I
am not discussing as to whether it is advisable to spend more money at Belle River. I am happy to be able to say that I do not see any item in the estimates in regard to Belle River, and I trust the minister has come to the conclusion that what he has spent at that place is wasted and has made up his mind not to spend any more.


George William Kyte: Order. The question whether the money spent at Belle River has been wasted is under investigation by the Public Accounts committee, and when the report of that committee is before parliament it will be time enough to criticize it.


William Alves Boys: I can understand my hon.
friend's anxiety in trying to avoid a discussion, of the expenditure at Belle River, because if there is anything that should be criticized it is that outrageous squandering of public money, where a harbour can never be established. I am not seeking to discuss Belle River at any length, but I am absolutely in order, when discussing these estimates, to refer to such items as that and to say that it would be much better for the people of this country if the money was spent on a harbour like Collingwood rather than at a place like Belle River. I may have more to say regarding Belle River when we come to the general item to which I have referred. Possibly when we come to this item, we may, although I hope we shall not, find something more for Belle River. In view of that and the minister's failure to tell me whether or not any portion of the general item is to be devoted to Collingwood, I will not continue my remarks now except to ask him again in all sincerity to take into his sympathetic and active consideration the claim of the town of Collingwood for further needed harbour improvements. Every dollar that is spent there will do good, not only to Collingwood, but to the people of the whole of Canada. The grain that is brought in there by the boats is taken from there to Montreal. I am told the haul from there is exactly the same as it is from Midland. There is a certain amount of congestion at Midland, and it is just as well to use the line of railway from Collingwood through Allandale to Toronto. It would be a good thing for the Canadian National, if they would increase their facilities there, and, in consequence, a good thing for the people of Canada.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has hardly been fair in the matter. We have been conversant with the needs and requirements of Collingwood. Last year we voted 2201
some $20,000 for breakwater construction and $30,000 for dredging at that point. Because I have not my notes dealing with the general dredging vote and do not care to make a statement without being sure of my notes, we are led to believe that Collingwood is being neglected. It is not being neglected. We have carried on that programme that we have been advised is the proper one at Collingwood and we are prepared to carry it on. When that vote comes up, I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend states correctly that there were the two items totalling $50,000. What in the world is that from 1921 to the present time for a harbour of the importance of Collingwood? I have just dealt with Goderich. I am not finding fault with that I am going to assume that the money is properly spent. But where can there be justification for spending $231,800 at Goderich and $91,000 in four years at Kincardine, one place serving one vessel a year and the other serving eighteen in one year and twenty-two another, whereas at Collingwood you have over 200 vessels entering Collingwood each year and in addition have the shipbuilding plant there. You also have a prosperous town of 7,500 established and known throughout Canada for half a century as a lake port of consequence. One has only to stop and reflect in order to realize that this is not fair and that Collingwood is being neglected, or if Collingwood is not being neglected, the other two ports are getting much more than they should having regard to their relative importance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingston, Royal Military College-wharf repairs and protection work, $1,800.
['My hon. friend states correctly that there were the two items totalling $50,000. What in the world is that from 1921 to the present time for a harbour of the importance of Collingwood? I have just dealt with Goderich. I am not finding fault with that I am going to assume that the money is properly spent. But where can there be justification for spending $231,800 at Goderich and $91,000 in four years at Kincardine, one place serving one vessel a year and the other serving eighteen in one year and twenty-two another, whereas at Collingwood you have over 200 vessels entering Collingwood each year and in addition have the shipbuilding plant there. You also have a prosperous town of 7,500 established and known throughout Canada for half a century as a lake port of consequence. One has only to stop and reflect in order to realize that this is not fair and that Collingwood is being neglected, or if Collingwood is not being neglected, the other two ports are getting much more than they should having regard to their relative importance.']
John Warwick King: This item is to
repair the face of the pier back of the main boiat house, to replace some of the flooring over the wharf in front of the gymnasium, and to build 150 lineal feet of concrete retaining wall, opposite the entrance to the Royal Military College.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What does the Royal
Military College need a wharf for?


John Warwick King: For the use of
the cadets for school purposes we keep this pier and dock in repair.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In 1923-24, we spent
$1,300; in 1924-25, $900, and this year the government are asking for $1,800. Have the votes of the last two years been spent?
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: This is to renew
the old revetment wall and the floor of the wharf near the gymnasium. The work is being done in sections.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is it customary for
schools to have wharves for the pleasure of students who go to those schools?


John Warwick King: This is a
Dominion government school, the Royal Military College, a school of some importance to the people of Canada. It is being maintained by the Dominion government. It is the only military school that is maintained. This is merely taking care of our own property.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Are any peace schools
maintained by the Dominion government, or do they teach just one line of national policy?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Leamington-breakwater, $10,000.
['Are any peace schools\nmaintained by the Dominion government, or do they teach just one line of national policy?']
John Warwick King: This is required
for the construction of a rubble mound breakwater for harbour protection purposes. The harbour of Leamington is of some importance. The traffic between Pelee island and Leamington is quite extensive, being largely the movement of agricultural produce. There is also a considerable amount of shipping in and out of the lakes, the lake steamers stopping at Leamington.


Edward Joseph Garland: The work
this year is for a breakwater. Last year the work was for repairs to pier. It is the same work?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: How long
will the work have to go on? What will it cost? Will this complete the total work required for the breakwater?


John Warwick King: It will not complete it. This is the commencement of work of construction to protect the harbour. We have a vote of S10,000. This vote has been m the estimates in previous years, and it was passed by parliament. I think, in the years 1914-15, 1915-16 and 1916-17. The work when finally completed for the protection of the harbour, the breakwater, will cost about $138,000.


George Perry Graham: This happens to be in my constituency. According to the census the population of Leamington is approximately
3.000.	The municipality claims that it is over
4.000.	Perhaps, without boasting, I may say that it is in the heart of one of the most productive agricultural sections in the Dominion of Canada. It is devoted among other pro-

ducts to tobacco raising which gives a greater return per acre than any other form of agriculture. It is also devoted to the raising of vegetables, small fruits, market gardening, with small farms almost entirely. Tobacco raising is just beginning in Canada. All along lake Erie the quality of tobacco produced is equal to that of the Virginia leaf. This harbour could be utilised for shipping out agricultural products to great advantage if the harbour were such that boats of any magnitude could enter it. Lake Erie is a shallow lake and it does not take much wind to make it almost impossible to land at some of these docks. I think the depth of water in that harfoour is only about from ten to eleven feet. The revenue derived from tobacco already produced in that vicinity, including Pelee island, will pay for all these works many times over. But the significance of endeavouring at the present time to get better shipping facilities in that vicinity, at both Leamington and Kingsville, lies in this, At the Economic conference some two years ago in London the ministry of the day had it in their programme to give a material preference to Canadian tobacco, among other things. That preference, when the succeeding government came in, was not conceded, but it is in the new programme of the Baldwin administration. If that section of the country is ever to take advantage of the preference to be given to Canadian tobacco it aught to have all the facilities possible with which to court that trade. There are of course the other farm products to be considered, for this vicinity is very productive. One boat now runs between Pelee island, Leamington, Kingsville and Sandusky, Ohio. The tobacco production of Pelee island itself would pay a large part of the amount that will be spent on Leamington harbour, but it is for a wider object than that, I think that the money will be expended; the harbour improvements that are to be carried out at Leamington will make for the general development of that portion of Ontario. The expenditure of $134,000 eventually is on a larger scale than would satisfy the present needs. Leamington has very many facilities for large passenger and for excursion traffic, and people have been coming regularly from the lake ports and from Detroit. Under present conditions however they have ceased to go there and it is necessary that something should be done to improve conditions in the port. This necessity has been evidenced by parliament during three successive sessions. An amount was first voted some years ago to begin the work, and if parliament approves this item, as I hope it will, this will be the

Supply-Public Works
fourth time it has done so. The advantages that will accrue to this section of the country through improved shipping facilities by water will well repay a reasonable expenditure. Imagine towns surrounded by a country which is a veritable garden, and situated on lake Erie, not being able to ship their goods by boat owing to a lack of proper facilities. Yet that is the situation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Midland-wharf, $15,000.
['This happens to be in my constituency. According to the census the population of Leamington is approximately\n3.000.\tThe municipality claims that it is over\n4.000.\tPerhaps, without boasting, I may say that it is in the heart of one of the most productive agricultural sections in the Dominion of Canada. It is devoted among other pro-\n\nducts to tobacco raising which gives a greater return per acre than any other form of agriculture. It is also devoted to the raising of vegetables, small fruits, market gardening, with small farms almost entirely. Tobacco raising is just beginning in Canada. All along lake Erie the quality of tobacco produced is equal to that of the Virginia leaf. This harbour could be utilised for shipping out agricultural products to great advantage if the harbour were such that boats of any magnitude could enter it. Lake Erie is a shallow lake and it does not take much wind to make it almost impossible to land at some of these docks. I think the depth of water in that harfoour is only about from ten to eleven feet. The revenue derived from tobacco already produced in that vicinity, including Pelee island, will pay for all these works many times over. But the significance of endeavouring at the present time to get better shipping facilities in that vicinity, at both Leamington and Kingsville, lies in this, At the Economic conference some two years ago in London the ministry of the day had it in their programme to give a material preference to Canadian tobacco, among other things. That preference, when the succeeding government came in, was not conceded, but it is in the new programme of the Baldwin administration. If that section of the country is ever to take advantage of the preference to be given to Canadian tobacco it aught to have all the facilities possible with which to court that trade. There are of course the other farm products to be considered, for this vicinity is very productive. One boat now runs between Pelee island, Leamington, Kingsville and Sandusky, Ohio. The tobacco production of Pelee island itself would pay a large part of the amount that will be spent on Leamington harbour, but it is for a wider object than that, I think that the money will be expended; the harbour improvements that are to be carried out at Leamington will make for the general development of that portion of Ontario. The expenditure of $134,000 eventually is on a larger scale than would satisfy the present needs. Leamington has very many facilities for large passenger and for excursion traffic, and people have been coming regularly from the lake ports and from Detroit. Under present conditions however they have ceased to go there and it is necessary that something should be done to improve conditions in the port. This necessity has been evidenced by parliament during three successive sessions. An amount was first voted some years ago to begin the work, and if parliament approves this item, as I hope it will, this will be the\n\nSupply-Public Works\nfourth time it has done so. The advantages that will accrue to this section of the country through improved shipping facilities by water will well repay a reasonable expenditure. Imagine towns surrounded by a country which is a veritable garden, and situated on lake Erie, not being able to ship their goods by boat owing to a lack of proper facilities. Yet that is the situation.']
Edward Joseph Garland: Is this a revote?


John Warwick King: This revote of $15,000 is required towards the construction of a wharf 250 feet long by 65 feet wide, having an approach 117 feet long and 500 lineal feet of railway extending from the outer end of the wharf to the limit of the Public Works department's property. The wharf will consist of a pile work substructure and reinforced concrete superstructure around the outsides, with earth filling in the centre, which will be obtained by dredging adjacent to the wharf to accommodate boats of 24-foot draft, and there will be a concrete or asphalt surface over the whole. This is a new structure, and it is endorsed by the district engineer as being essential to the business interests of the locality. The town is primarily a marine centre and the following is a list of its industries, which make it necessary to have further construction at that point:
1.	Grain elevators-five houses in operation having a total capacity of 8,500,000 bushels and a sixth house under construction, 1,500,000 bushels capacity.
2.	Saw mills-two saw mills, average joint annual cut 60,000.000 feet board measure.
3.	Flour mill-capacity, 1,200 barrels per day and m addition various other products.
4.	Coal docks-two.
5.	The Midland Shipbuilding Company, largest ship constructed to date 560 feet long, the Glenifer.
6.	The Georgian Bay Shipbuilding and Wrecking Company. The company operate a marine railway capable of taking the bow or stern of a canal sized freighter and a floating dry dock, capacity 500 gross tons, approximately.
7.	The International Fibre Board Company, Limited.
8.	The Midland Wood Products Company.
9.	The Midland Boat Works.
10.	Machine and foundry shops-three.
11.	Midland Steam Laundry.
12.	Midland Whitewear Factory.
13.	O'Hara Woollen Mill Company.
14.	Cabinet works-two.
15.	Dairies-three.
16.	Creamery-one.
17.	Terminal Shops Canadian National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: Will any of the money which is being voted in connection with all of these items under the heading of Ontario be spent on the Belle River enterprise?


John Warwick King: I have nothing in the estimates for Belle River.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is not under that name, but is the minister ceasing operations there?


John Warwick King: We are completing
the dredging operations.


Arthur Meighen: How will that work be done?


John Warwick King: Out of the dredging vote.


Arthur Meighen: That is more skilful than putting it under the proper head. How much of the general vote is to be spent there?


John Warwick King: It will be discussed under the general vote when it comes up.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not
anything in mind at the present time?


John Warwick King: I have no notes
regarding it.


Arthur Meighen: If there was anything,
I would think the minister would never forget it. I want to say a few words as to the general character of this vote. It is very difficult for the individual member to know anything about the merits of a particular case; that responsibility is on the minister. Where particular votes have been under review they have not been seen to have very much merit so far. But with a lowering lake level, due probably in a major degree to the Chicago drainage canal, and perhaps due to some extent to the decimation of our forests, but, however caused, veiry considerable and very serious, is it not' time the government rose to something like an appreciation of our present position, and ceased launching upon the responsibilities of opening new harbours and thus multiplying those for which we are already responsible-reopening those that have . for years ceased to be harbours, and that the minister knows have ceased to be harbours?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. What about Kincardine? Has the minister ever seen that?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does he pretend that
that is a harbour in use to-day, or that it has been in use for years? Why, it is only a joke to speak of it as having been in use for the past three years.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Certainly it has
been in use. It was allowed to get into disrepair by my right hon. friend's government.
Mr. MEI'GHEN:	I saw it last summer.
I was told that for a long number of years not a boat had come in there. Yet we are pitching in $50,000 to repair that "harbour." Of -course, with sufficient expenditure the place can no doubt be made fit for boats to call, but I do not know that they would do so even after the money is expended. I am not directing anything against Kincardine in particular, I am calling attention to the general policy of the government. With the increased cost piling up upon us 'because of the lowering lake level, is it sanity for us to be sinking thousands of dollars here and thousands of dollars there, starting upon responsibilities that we will 'be compelled to continue all over the country?

I mean this inland country that is affected by the lowering lake level. This lowering lake level is a very important consideration which does not seem to have dawned on the government. "Another consideration is our general financial condition. With $52,000,000 odd shown by the very last returns of this government of lost revenue-lost because business in Canada is not very good-the government is down with an appropriation considerably larger and of a character which of all appropriations could easiest he done without. This very substantial increase is all of course to be secured by borrowed money. At many of these points it means entering upon a struggle, that is, in so far as it is a commercial object at all- I think the object is mainly political-it is entering upon a struggle to follow the course Of nature downwards and keep on digging while the water sinks, involving increased responsibility every year, more harbours always to be dredged one year after the other. Would it not be wiser to select only those harbours that were absolutely essential to the general business of the country, keeping them in shape for that purpose? Is that what the government is doing?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows it is
not. Why, he is increasing them right along -for political purposes and nothing else at all.


John Warwick King: My right hon.
friend stated a moment ago that we are increasing our expenditure this year. That is not true.


Arthur Meighen: Look at the vote.


John Warwick King: There is a reduction of nearly $200,000 on public works. Last year we voted $18,789,000; this year we will vote $17,157,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Including supplementaries?


John Warwick King: No, that is the
main vote.


Arthur Meighen: I know. We are at the Ontario vote, land that is the province from where I get my support, so I do not think I am actuated by any animosity towards it. The vote this year is $1,215,875, against $1,008,450 last year, and of course there will be the supplementaries.


John Warwick King: I explained that in my opening remarks-proper explanation too.


Arthur Meighen: I heard it, but I did not have the same opinion of the explanation as the minister has. Then note what has been going on. For instance, $40,000 was voted last year and only $10,000 spent. What was the idea of putting $40,000 in the estimates? At another place there was a vote of $30,000 with only $15,000 apent, and at still another place a vote of $50,000 with only $16,000 spent.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Lillian Rebecca Mains.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Elizabeth Ruth Badgley Shaw.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Lilian Helena Caldwell.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Elizabeth Strachan Reid Harvey Strachan.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Esther Charlotte Ancel.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Birdie Cohen Gould.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Walter Roderick Wilson Robinson.-Mr.	Elliott
(Dundas).

Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Oshawa-harbour improvements, $100,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain this item, which is rather a large one?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required to carry on construction of new work that was before parliament last year. It is proposed to construct a breakwater and to have a harbour at Oshawa.


Mr. STEVENS:: What is the total cost?


John Warwick King: This amount of
$100,000 is required to complete the contract entered into with the Lumsden Engineering and Transport Company, Limited, for the construction of a breakwater 950 feet long and a return wing 70 feet long, the shore end, 450 feet, consisting of close piling and the balance rubblemound on a brush mattress, and towards further works in continuation of this development scheme. The work is estimated to cost $400,000 odd.


Robert James Manion: How much of that has
been spent already?


John Warwick King: We spent last
year out of the vote of $50,000, for harbour improvements $16,317.


Robert James Manion: That was the beginning of the work last year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: When was it started?


John Warwick King: Last year; the
contract was let last October.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the vital necessity for this work?


Arthur Meighen: I notice the minister is doing his best to mortgage the prospects of future governments in their struggle to pull the country out of debt. It is not the money that is being spent so much as the commitments that are being tied around the country's neck.


John Warwick King: There is no question but that Oshawa is one of the large manufacturing towns of Canada, and anyone who visits the place will be confirmed in that opinion. It is situated on the beautiful waterway known as lake Ontario; and one can readily see that there should be harbour works at that point and the people permitted to use the waterway which nature has given
them. The expenditure, or the commitment as my right hon. friend terms it, may be a large one; but parliament has been voting these appropriations for many years and in its day the government of my right hon. friend did the same thing. The improvements at Oshawa have been under consideration for years, and reports have been made on the development needed there. The matter has been carefully gone into by the engineering department, and it is suggested that this development can be carried out for the amount of money in question. In regard to the importance of the port one need only refer to the statistics available. The customs returns for 1912-13 showed a total of $270,000, and in 1917-18 the amount shown was $3,500,000. It is one of the largest manufacturing towns, possibly in Canada, and a very good business centre. Undoubtedly the people there should have access to the lake and to the accommodation that will be available by the construction of this harbour.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly would be the last to say anything against Oshawa. It is one of the finest and most progressive towns in the country, and a very large manufacturing centre. It owes its manufacturing importance though to the policy which my hon. friend has done his best to suppress, especially when out of office and-


John Warwick King: It is not being
suppressed though.


Arthur Meighen: -it will owe its industrial future to the same policy. No, it is not being suppressed very fast, I know that, especially in ridings where the members support the government. It will owe its future to that policy; it will not owe it to any pouring of public funds into the water or anywhere else. I do not know as to whether the natural physical conditions are there which would warrant a new harbour being dug out or not; that is something that would need examination to say. I certainly think that the existence of business is a justification for water facilities as well as for railway facilities. There is business in Oshawa all right, and we all would like to do everything within our power to advance the fortune of so splendid a place. All I draw the minister's attention to is this: These things are always started in a small way with not very much done. An eye kept open for the next election seems to be the minister's habit, and then just so much voted as he thinks will be necessary to elect the government candidate.
Supply-Public Works


Oliver Robert Gould: I would ask the right hon. gentleman if members can be elected in that manner?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think so. This government could not elect members in any manner now.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Is it expected that this harbour will be a revenue producer to any extent? Will there be port dues or harbour dues in connection with the use of the harbour?


John Warwick King: Oshawa should
be a great producer of trade and contribute to the development of commerce throughout Canada. To-day it shows a total tonnage of 321,500 tons, and it is estimated that 152,000 tons will be water borne. Hon. members can understand that in the case of a harbour producing such a heavy tonnage the development of trade will be an advantage not only to western Canada but to the whole country.


Alfred Speakman: That was hardly my
point. I have no doubt that if the expenditure is justified at all it will result in increasing business. My point was rather as to the necessity of adopting a policy, in the case of harbour construction of this magnitude, of charging dues or fees for the use of the harbour facilities after they are created?


John Warwick King: Generally speaking in the case of lake ports very little in the way of harbour dues is collected. But such dues are collected in ports like Montreal, St. John, Halifax and Vancouver. In certain of the larger inland ports also certain dues have been collected. If, after this port is established, the amount of business would indicate that harbour dues should be collected and officials appointed, the harbour will be turned over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries which will appoint the necessary officials and collect such dues as may be determined. But take the harbour of Goderich, where there is a very large tonnage in wheat going through, the collections, as I indicated this afternoon, are practically nil, and that is true largely of the lake ports. In the port of Toronto the harbour commission collects dues. At Port Arthur and Fort William, and other ports of that character the collections by the department are very small. Nevertheless the facilities at these ports give accommodation to the grain fleet and promote the movement of grain through the ports each year.


Alfred Speakman: That was my reason for asking the question. This afternoon the minister stated that at some ports, particularly at [Mr Meighen.]
the smaller points, the amount of business was not sufficient to make it worth while to keep a collector there. But in the case of a harbour serving such an important centre as Oshawa, and which it is admitted will cost anywhere in the vicinity of half a million dollars, I would suggest that it would be sound policy to apply the same rules as are carried out in the case of the ocean ports. I agree with what was said this afternoon in that respect ; that it is simply impossible to keep on adding to the harbour facilities in inland waters to the extent that we are doing today without charging a fee for the service. Frankly I cannot see the justice-and I did not mention it in connection with the small items because I saw the force of the minister's remark in those cases-of the country mortgaging its future to supply harbour accommodation on this scale for any town or any community without making it revenue producing in some respects. I cannot see why dues should be charged in ocean ports and not charged in inland ports of such magnitude as this. Therefore I suggest, if we intend to keep on providing such facilities and spending sums running up into the millions of dollars for the purpose, we will be obliged in self defence to make these harbours revenue producing, to the extent at least that they will carry a portion of the load.


John Warwick King: The discussion
in connection with harbours has been very interesting and very instructive. However, I doubt whether the application of the system followed in the case of ocean ports to ports in inland waters will bring about any great results. Much of the traffic developed' in the case of Oshawa will be local. At the same time ships crossing the lakes from United States ports will enter the harbour, as will also vessels passing up and down the lakes. Nevertheless, the tonnage entering the harbour will not be in the same category as tonnage passing in or out Atlantic or Pacific ports. And the dues collected in our ocean ports are largely in line with similar dues in other ports of the world. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) this afternoon indicated that a charge should be made for warehouses erected by the government. It was shown, however, that in the case of Goderich the tonnage amounted to 600 tons. At ten cents a ton for warehousing, which would be a fair charge, the revenue would only be S60 a year. But it 13 said "Why do the people interested not provide the accommodation themselves?" If the people were so organized that these facilities

Supply-Public Works
could be provided through the municipality it would be all right; but if you allow your wharf or other structure to be used by individual steamship lines they immediately take hold of it and make it useful for their own purposes.
If we should adopt the argument advanced by some hon. members on the other side of the House, then we would go back to the days of toll-gates on our roads and bridges, when the people who used those facilities had to pay. I do not think it is the desire of parliament to make a retrograde step of that kind. These harbours and the business that goes in and out of them is all a part of the commerce of the nation, and as far as a development of this character is concerned, if the tonnage is such as we hope it will be, I would be very glad to consider if some revenue could not come to the Dominion treasury from the expenditure made at this point. My right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, in criticizing the expenditure at Kincardine this afternoon, said that we should not reconstruct that harbour. It was a good harbour before confederation, when the people of Ontario expended large sums of money upon it, and that is true of other harbours. As far as this harbour is concerned, I think it would be a great mistake to allow the works there to go into disuse. There is an important Canadian industry there, producing a hundred tons of salt per day, and if the facilities in the harbour are not maintained that industry will go out of business. I do not think it is wise to suggest that this or any other government in Canada should cease development at the present time. Canada needs development and the introduction of new lines of industry. I think my hon. friend's remarks are quite in order, consideration will be given to them, and when this harbour is developed it will be for the government of that day to consider whether tolls should be properly charged.


William Findlay Maclean: When the ocean steamships are enabled to come up from Montreal through the waters of lake Ontario, it will follow as a consequence that the government will be called upon to make seaports of all these harbours now being created in our inland waters, and the minister ought to be preparing himself for such a contingency.


Alfred Speakman: I would hardly expect, if there is only thirteen feet of water in the vicinity of these harbours, that we would ever be called upon to make them seaports; and
I would suggest that if the available tonnage in any port warrants the expenditure of $400,000 or $500,000, a fair charge for the use of these facilities should be made. The comparison drawn by the minister between such ports and municipal undertakings such as bridges and roads is hardly a fair comparison, because as a matter of fact the bridges and roads are built and maintained to a very large extent at the expense of the municipalities. The minister suggests that these ports are largely for local use and paid for, not by the community, but by the country as a whole, and therefore the two situations are not comparable. I believe it would be wise for the government to inaugurate, now or in the near future, the policy that when the tonnage reaches a point which would warrant such large expenditure, it should be distinctly understood that a fair fee should be charged for the use of these facilities. It would have two good effects. In the first place it would be partially self-supporting, and in the second place the government would not receive applications from all kinds of places for large expenditures, if those communities knew that the expenditure would be partially paid for by themselves.


Robert James Manion: The minister spoke of the tolls at the head of the lakes. Could the minister tell me where I could get the figures of any collections made at those ports. I do not suppose the figures are very large, but I desire to point out to my hon. friend from Red Deer, that if we start charging at the lake ports we could hardly discriminate between one port and another; and if we charge heavy tolls or any tolls worth while, say for example at the head of the lakes, it makes another charge upon the grain, because my hon. friend knows that five-sixths of the grain from the prairie provinces passes through the head of the lakes, and possibly it would make too heavy a charge on the grain going to Europe. Can the minister tell me where I can get the figures as to the collections made from the harbours at the head of the Great Lakes?


John Warwick King: The Marine department would have that information, but I have a statement here that in 1922 there was collected at Port Arthur $143 and in 1923 $308.


Robert James Manion: At Port Arthur?


John Warwick King: Yes. I do not think I have the Fort William figures. Probably they are both included in this.
Supply-Public Works


Robert James Manion: I hope the minister has not employed an agent to collect these charges.


John Warwick King: No, I think it
is done through the Marine agent there. If we applied the same principle to the lake ports that we apply to Montreal and Quebec, then the tonnage coming in would be assessed and that would naturally have to come from the products coming through those ports. The discussion is interesting, and I think there is a good deal in it. A large expenditure of $400,000 or $500,000 probably should yield something to the treasury in the way of port charges or dues of some kind.


Alfred Speakman: The remarks of my
hon. friend in connection with the grain coming through the head of the lakes are appropriate; but the growers of grain, who will undoubtedly be called upon to pay a part of these charges, as far as I have been able to learn, are willing that the grain should pay its fair proportion of charges everywhere, provided all other industries in this country pay their fair proportion of charges.


Mr. LUCAS:: Could the minister state the amount of tonnage coming through this port at the present time?


John Warwick King: The present tonnage coming through the port is 321,500 tons.


William Thomas Lucas: Is that rail tonnage or ocean tonnage?


John Warwick King: It is rail tonnage. It is estimated that with the construction of the harbour 152,500 ions of water borne traffic will pass through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Owen Sound-dredging, $83,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: This is a new work. Will the minister explain the item?


John Warwick King: The sum of $83,000 is asked for dredging, of which $75,000 is a revote, having lapsed in 1923-24. This is required to dredge the approach to an elevator that is now being constructed under the auspices of the municipality of Owen Sound. Our treatment here is the same as is being given in other cases, and is in accordance with the policy pursued by the department for years in the matter of providing facilities for the elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William.


Arthur John Lewis: How does dredging come
under the Public Works department? We have other items of dredging scattered all
.
through the estimates. I think all these items should come under one head, and then we would know how much money we were spending on the dredging of lakes and rivers.


Arthur Meighen: You will never know.


John Warwick King: I think the Public Works department are in control and in charge of all the dredging in Canada, except that dredging which relates to the S'.. Lawrence ship channel and dredging in some railway operations or for canals and railway piers. Outside of that, the dredging is under the Public Works department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand the municipality of Owen Sound is constructing a very large elevator costing, I think, in the neighbourhood of a million dollars.


John Warwick King: It is costing $450,-
000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The total outlay by the municipality was, I think, about a million dollars. Will this dredging serve that elevator?


John Warwick King: Yes. The city of Owen Sound have passed a bylaw to raise $450,000, and they are constructing an elevator. It is to give entrance to this elevator that the money is being voted.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Will the $83,000 complete the work?


John Warwick King: It will complete the dredging. I find on recent representations that we shall require an additional vote in our supplementaries to put down piling to protect the channel. That matter will come up later. It will be about $15,000.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Is this a grain elevator?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Why is the municipality building this grain elevator there? Is it really a necessity for the movement of western grain or is it something that is local?


John Warwick King: There is undoubtedly a necessity for further grain handling facilities on the Great Lakes. The city of Owen Sound have apparently sufficient confidence in the grain movement and the importance of an elevator to that community to ask the ratepayers to endorse, as the city council has endorsed, an expenditure of $450,-

Supply-Public Works
000	for an elevator. This wiill not only serve the community by supplying grain and feed to farmers and local millers, but it will be a factor in the transhipment of grain from Port Arthur across the Atlantic.


William Alves Boys: The town of Collingwood is
contemplating something of the same kind, under a recent act passed by the Ontario legislature permitting municipalities to issue debentures for that purpose. The minister might think over that when he is considering the request of Collingwood for increased facilities.


William John Ward: I do not think the minister is serious when he contends that grain would be forwarded from Owen Sound across to any of the ocean ports, because we all know that it was stated that in days gone by elevators there were allowed to burn down because they were of no value. The Canadian Pacific, owing to the heavy grades that have to be surmounted in order to get out of the valley, found it impossible to 'haul grain from that port. Consequently, there has been no grain movement from Owen Sound for over twenty years. I was born and raised in that city and
1	know something about it. I am somewhat surprised to find these large votes. I was surprised at the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) making some references to the port of Collingwood this afternoon. Since coming to Ottawa I make a yearly visit to nearly all these ports, and I have no hesitation in saying that there is not fifty per cent of the trade in and out of Collingwood, Owen Sound or any other port on that side of Georgian bay following into lake Huron that there was thirty years ago. The hon. member spoke of the building of ships at Collingwood. There is not one ship built in that town today for every ten that were built twenty-five years ago.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend is entirely in error in his statement.


William John Ward: Not at all. When I was a boy I used to visit the port of Collingwood and ships were being built there all the time.


William Alves Boys: That is so long ago we do not know what was going on.


William John Ward: As regards these ports along the shores of Georgian bay, I am at a loss to know why expenditures are being made.


William Alves Boys: The Royalton, one of the finest boats sailing on the Great Lakes, was launched at Collingwood, last year and to-day there are three boats on the stocks.


William John Ward: How many ships have been built in Collingwood in the last ten years?
Mir. BOYS. How does my hon. friend expect me at the moment to answer a question like that? I do not live at Collingwood, but I know, with the exception of the last year or two, things have been extremely lively. Last year the Royalton was built, and at the present time there is work going on there. I regret to say there is nothing in sight at the moment after these three ships. Therefore, I want to urge upon the government to do something in the interest of shipbuilding at that wonderful plant at Collingwood and elsewhere. If the hon. member knows anything about Collingwood, he knows I am not exaggerating when I say it is a wonderful plant. Does the hon. member suggest for a moment there is not grain coming down the Great Lakes and going from Collingwood to Montreal?


William John Ward: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Does he know what quantity of grain was handled there last year and the year before?


William John Ward: The hon. member told us before dinner.


William Alves Boys: I certainly did. I do not
know whether the hon. member heard me or not, but if he did, he cannot have paid much attention to what I said.


George Newcombe Gordon: This vote is for Owen Sound, not Collingwood.


William John Ward: Quite true. This is a very large vote. I understand the elevator being built by the municipality of Owen Sound is being built purely for the purpose of handling feed grains, not wheat, with the exception of a small percentage of wheat that will be milled locally. It is being built by the municipality for the purpose of serving the country surrounding the city of Owen Sound. It is a sort of distributing centre for coarse grain. Many of the statements that have been made here are decidedly overdrawn. I can recall the days when I was a boy, when at least twice as much shipping was going in and out of any of those ports as there is to-day. I find, on looking over the estimates for years back, we have been spending a great deal of money on those ports, and I wonder sometimes what we have been spending it for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Pelee island-wharf extension, $28,000.
John Warwick King: This is to complete a contract entered into with Mr. Ed Conroy of Peterborough for the construction of a stone-filled timber cribwork extension with concrete superstructure to the existing west pier, 100 feet long by 40 feet wide. The amount of the contract is $32,757.50 and the allowance for inspection and contingencies, $1,000, making a total of $33,757.50. The amount spent in 1923-24 was $252.01, and the amount spent in 1924-25 was $5,705.12, miking a total of $5,957.13. The amount required to complete the contract is $28,000.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister not
think he is doing a good deal for his colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham)?


John Warwick King: Not too much.


Arthur Meighen: Would he enumerate
what he is doing for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) ? I am very much concerned about him. Why has the minister gone so slowly at the work? In two years only a little money has been spent, and now he wants just for one year five times as much as has been spent in two years. Can the minister not think of any reason?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The only reason the
minister can give is one that he does not like to express.


John Warwick King: Tenders were
called for in 1923 and the figures quoted were considered too high. But the contract was let at the end of 1924.


Arthur Meighen: And how much was
spent after that?


John Warwick King: The stun of


Arthur Meighen: Why the division of
$5,000 last year and $28,000 this year?


John Warwick King: We are completing the contract this year.


Arthur Meighen: But why such an uneven division? Is that the preference of the member who represents the riding?


John Warwick King: Every effort was
made to press the contractor to get the work completed last fall. The crib is completed and is afloat in the harbour but owing to the unfavourable condition of the weather it could not be towed over to Pelee island after it had been constructed; the contractor preferred not 
to take the risk of towing it. On that account the contract has been delayed, and that I think is a reasonable and good excuse.


William Alves Boys: On what date was the contract to be completed, according to the agreement?


John Warwick King: Completion was
called for in November last, but it was shown after the crib had been constructed that it was impossible to tow it to Pelee island. It was late in the fall and, as I have already stated, the contractor did not like taking the risk of towing it. The department therefore consented to allow it to remain until the spring.


William Alves Boys: The contract was let in May
and up to November we are to understand that only $5,000 had been earned on it.


John Warwick King: That is true.


William Alves Boys: It is evident therefore that
the contractor had not been very diligent.


George Perry Graham: That is what I said.


William Alves Boys: And the minister says that
the contract called for completion of the work in November.


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Most contractors want to
complete their work and get their cheques as soon as possible. This contract was let in May, the best time of year I can think of in which to rush the work so as to get it done in November, when the contractor must have felt he could finish it. Yet all that he earns up to November is $5,000. Was the department making any effort to expedite the contract?


John Warwick King: I have already
said that the department had pressed the contractor to get the work completed in the fall; but the crib, which was built at Kingsville some miles from Pelee island, was not in a position to be towed until late in October, when the contractor considered it would not be safe to take the risk. He asked for more time and as a matter of precaution we felt that he was entitled to it. We are merely asking for a vote to complete the contract.


William Alves Boys: What penalty did the contract
provide in case of failure to complete the work within the specified time?


John Warwick King: There was no
penalty exacted. In the judgment of the engineers and of the officials the time was extended, and the contract will be completed during the present season.

Supply-Public Works


William Alves Boys: The contractor was supposed
to start in May. When did he actually begin?


John Warwick King: I have not the
exact date. After orders in council are passed and contracts are drawn, there is always a lapse of time before the signing of the agreement.


Arthur Meighen: That is not a very good explanation for the work not having been completed within the stated time. The minister said that the contract was signed in May and the work was to be finished in November, and we find that by November there was a little less than one sixth of it done. Has the contractor towed the crib over to Pelee island yet?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Has he been afraid of
the warm weather this spring?


John Warwick King: The weather so
far really has not warranted its being towed.


Arthur Meighen: What sort of weather
is needed for the removal of the crib-election. weather?


John Warwick King: There must be
favourable conditions. My right hon. friend is not misleading anyone.


Arthur Meighen: No, he never was.


John Warwick King: He will move the crib when the weather is favourable, and I hope he will take every precaution to see that it arrives safely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pembroke-wharf replacement and dredging, $64,500.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Warwick King: This will complete the contract.


Arthur John Lewis: How much was spent last
year?


John Warwick King: We spent $39,500.


Robert Gardiner: What expenditures have there been in the last few years?


John Warwick King: In 1923-24 we
spent $19,955 and in 1924-25, $39,500. We are asking this year for $64,500, of which $10,500 will be a re-vote.


Robert Gardiner: What were the expenditures in 1921-22 and 1922-23?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: There has been an expenditure on construction of $45,197 and on repairs, of $43,329. A total of $88,526 up to March 31, 1924.
Mr. A1EIGHEN: For one year?


John Warwick King: No, for construction down to date.


Arthur Meighen: But was there nothing
for 1921-22?


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister mean to say that from confederation down to the present time the total expenditure has been only $88,000?


John Warwick King: To March 1924,
yes; that is from the early days of construction.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
last year?


John Warwick King: We spent $19,-
000 in 1923-24.


Arthur Meighen: And the year before?


John Warwick King: Nothing the year before.


Arthur John Lewis: Why have the expenditures
been so great during the last two or three years?


John Warwick King: The works are in a state of decay and a renewal of the old construction is needed.


Arthur John Lewis: This will complete the work?


John Warwick King: Yes. The engineer reports that the present structure, notwithstanding repeated repairs, must be replaced, as the traffic at this point necessitates wharfage accommodation of a permanent character. The steamboat Oiseau makes four return trips weekly, handling passengers and general freight. The ferry boat operating between Pembroke and Desjardins makes eight to twelve return trips daily, except Sundays, from about April 15 to November 30. The wharf also serves as headquarters for the boats of the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, engaged in log-driving operations, as well as a great many launches, and accommodates all the traffic of men and large quantities of supplies to these boats. A very large traffic of delivery vehicles and automobiles to the steamboats, ferry and launches is also provided for. A traffic count, while the wharf was undergoing repairs in June, indicated a weekly traffic of 408 motor cars, 241 single horse rigs and 288 double horse rigs, or 937 vehicles and 2,497 passengers.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this the first dredging to
be done in this particular area?


John Warwick King: Ye3, some dredging is included in this amount.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: What will it take to complete the contract?


John Warwick King: It will take $64,500.


William Alves Boys: What was the amount of the original contract?


John Warwick King: It was $116,718.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was that entered
into?


John Warwick King: In 1923 and 1924.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister states that this $64,500 will complete the contract. Is another project in contemplation?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: This will
finish all the work contemplated?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What a relief!


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Petawawa-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is
this vote for?


John Warwick King: To replace a truss bridge six feet wide by a truss bridge twenty feet wide.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is this wharf used for?


John Warwick King: A steamer service between Pembroke and this point. This is a military camp and also a summer resort.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is just a tourist wharf?


John Warwick King: No, there is a
very large government camp at Petawawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Point Edward-dredging, $30,000.
John Warwick King: It is proposed to construct an elevator at this point with a capacity of one million bushels adjacent to the site of the elevator that was destroyed by fire some years ago.


William Alves Boys: Where is it?


John Warwick King: In Lambton
county just above Sarnia. This is in line with the policy that is being followed at Owen Sound and Port Arthur-providing a slip for the use of the elevator in receiving and discharging cargo.


Arthur John Lewis: Is this to be dredged?


John Warwick King: If the elevator is
not constructed we will not do any dredging.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Who is building the elevator?


John Warwick King: C. S. Band, a large
grain merchant of Toronto and others.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This elevator
is going to be put up for commercial purposes?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is quite proper that you should look after the elevator.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it a municipal elevator?


John Warwick King: It is a private
elevator. It will cost us nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Burwell-reconstruction of and repairs to piers, $97,100.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the explanation
of this large sum?


John Warwick King: It is a revote:
(1)	To complete the contract with the Bou-rassa-Clifford Corporation, Ltd., for the reconstruction of 271 feet of the inner end of
the east pier, to be 24 feet wide	 $10,000
(2)	Reconstruction of superstructure and reinforcing substructure with piles along each face of an additional section of east pier 470 lineal feet 24 feet wide, to consist of concrete superstructure, present substructure reinforced at $175 per
lineal feet	 $82,250
Inspection	 750

 83,000
(3)	Reconstruction of superstructure of outer portion of west pier-replacing face timbers in 120 feet length near inner end of west pier; redecking 110 lineal feet of said pier; placing 4 new mooring posts; painting 18 mooring posts and renewing 200 lineal feet walling and sheet pile wall east side of harbour
37,000 feet B.M. timber at $100..	$3,700
4 new mooring posts-painting 18..	100
1,200 feet B.M. W. O. Wales at $150-1180; Inspection and incidentals $120	 300

 4,100
Total	 $97,100


William Alves Boys: What county is Port Burwell
in?


John Warwick King: East Elgin.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has been spent on this already, how much will be required to complete the work, and what then will be the total cost?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: This will complete the present contract. Last year we spent $32,121.70. This $97,000 will complete the work in hand now.


William John Ward: When was this work first
begun?


John Warwick King: I have not the
date. I think it is an old port dating back to confederation. Up to March 31, 1924, $1,022,000 had been expended. The revenue for the port to March 31, 1921, was $2211,908.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the total expenditure of $1,022,000 correct?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the
total expenditure on the port to date, exclusive of the vote we are asking for now.


William Alves Boys: That is a port through which
a large quantity of coal is brought in by the Canadian Pacific, I think.


John Warwick King: Yes.


William John Ward: Has the minister the total
tonnage of coal and fish that passes through this harbour?


John Warwick King: In the year 19221923 there were 224,446 tons of coal brought in, with a revenue of $103,457. The total number of cars of merchandise was as follows: August, 668 cars, 32,000 tons; September, 660 cars, 31,000 tons; October, 850, 41,000 tons.


William Alves Boys: Am I right, that coal is
brought in there almost entirely by the Canadian Pacific?


John Warwick King: Yes, practically.


William John Ward: Has the minister the figures
for fish at that port?


John Warwick King: No.


Mr. COOTE:: The minister mentioned
revenue collected at that port; is that customs revenue?


John Warwick King: Customs revenue.


George Gibson Coote: Anyone reading Hansard
might think it was revenue that was collected by the port.


John Warwick King: No, it is customs revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Coiborne-repairs to breakwater, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this part of a contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is to complete the contract.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this
hardy annual likely to bloom much longer?


John Warwick King: This is at the
entrance to the Welland canal, and I expect there will be expenditures from time to time at Port Colborne. But this will complete the present contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Maitland-repairs to piers, $195,000.
William Alves Boys: Where is Port Maitland?


John Warwick King: In Haldimand
county.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the explanation
of this vote?


John Warwick King: This will complete the reconstruction of the west pier at a cost of $2,500 and complete the contract with A. W. Roberston, Limited, for the reconstruction of the east pier at a cost of S189,460. Then there is $3,000 odd for inspection and contingencies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What will be the total
cost of the work?


John Warwick King: We spent last
year about $26,000, which, added to the amount here, would give the total for reconstruction at that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large sum. I
would like to know what there is at the port to justify this contract for $220,000 odd.


John Warwick King: This is a rather
important point. It is situated at the mouth of the Grand river on lake Erie five miles from the town of Dunnville, and the car ferry terminals and yards of the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company are situated at this point. There is a 600-foot turning basin in the inner harbour and a deep water channel extending a considerable distance up the river. There are two piers forming a lake channel 170 feet wide. The west pier is of concrete construction extending out into the lake 1,400 feet, and the east pier of wooden construction extending out 1,175 feet. There is a lighthouse on the outer end of the westerly pier and a fog signal at the inner end. These piers were constructed in 1878 by the Public Works department, and the east pier reconstructed in 1907 at an approximate expenditure of $63,000. Since 1918 the above-mentioned car ferry company and others have been urgently pressing to have these piers reconstructed owing to their dilapidated condition which, they stated, amounted to a state of decay and disintegration, forming a menace
Supply-Public Works

to navigation and allowing the harbour to become filled up by siltation.
In 1923 the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company handled 8,618 loaded cars on their ferry northbound into Port Maitland, a total of 470,296 tons, and southbound out of Port Maitland, 2,212 cars, a total of 58,761 tons.
This company has incurred a capital expenditure of $1,500,000, inaugurating its cross lake ferry service and terminals, and is giving fast and efficient service unequalled by any of the other ferry services on the lake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any revenue
derived from this port?


John Warwick King: The only revenue would be customs revenue, and I have not the figures for that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand that the Dominion parliament constructs the car ferry wharves for this car ferry company?


John Warwick King: We construct the piers and works that make up the harbour, but the car ferry company construct their own piers for the handling of their traffic.


Arthur John Lewis: What head did this come
under last year? I cannot find it in the main or supplementary estimates?


John Warwick King: It was shown in
the railway estimates last year, an item for $75,000.


Oliver Robert Gould: We are now right at the
eastern end of lake Erie, and before we go through the Welland canal or over Niagara falls, I should like to make an observation. Why hon. members representing constituencies in Ontario should worry about these expenditures I do not know, because I notice Ontario is receiving $207,425 more this year than last. Whatever significance there may be attached to that, whether it is because the government in the past two or three years has neglected these harbours and rivers and wharves and piers in Ontario, I do not know, but hon. members from Ontario should not worry, seeing that they are getting $207,425 more this year than last, and particularly when $63,765 of that $207,425 is made up by taking it from the three western provinces. There is $41,670 less for Manitoba this year than last, and $22,095 less for Saskatchewan and Alberta.


William Alves Boys: You deserve better treatment.


Oliver Robert Gould: We must not suggest that
these things are not distributed equitably. I do know that we have not as many harbours and rivers and lakes and wharves on

the prairies as they have in the eastern provinces, but in addition to this increased expenditure for the province of Ontario, I notice an increase also in the expenditure for Quebec and Nova Scotia.


Mr. DUFF:: Nova Scotia is half a million
less than last year.


Oliver Robert Gould: The supplementaries are not down yet. I have always noticed that in connection with Nova Scotia the supplementary estimates invariably speak with a very loud voice. However, what I wished to say was this: Seeing that we are at peace and passing these estimates in a very nice, mild manner, that the facts are as I have stated, that there is a wonderful increase here but a decrease in the case of the western provinces, I hope that we may reasonably expect; to have some consideration extended to us when the railway rate question comes up.


William Duff: We are building railways for you in the west.


Oliver Robert Gould: We are paying for all we get.


Edward Joseph Garland: What has been the total amount expended oh this port from the commencement?


Alfred Speakman: While the minister is looking up that information I should like to tell the hon. member for Lunenburg that his comparison between the construction of wharves in the eastern provinces and the construction of railways in the western provinces would be a perfectly sound one were the service offered on the same terms; in other words that no charge were made for the use of the railways in the western provinces, the service in this respect being in the same class with wharves and harbours in the eastern provinces.


William Duff: In the first place my hon. friend is out of order in not addressing me through the chair; and in the next place I wish to tell my hon. friend that we pay for the wharves in Nova Scotia.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister if any charge was made for the use of these wharves and he assured me there was not. I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Lunenburg that the minister was mistaken.


William Duff: If the minister builds wharves down there they are put under the charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and it collects the dues. Will that satisfy my hon. friend?

Supply-Public Works


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Will the minister tell me what amount of dues was collected in this harbour?


John Warwick King: I am sorry I have not the information as to the early expenditures that were made on this harbour. Formerly it was under the Department of Railways and Canals, but la3t year it was transferred to the Department of Public WTorks.


Edward Joseph Garland: With reference to the ferry traffic to which the minister referred, I take it that is a subsidiary ferry to the Canadian Pacific, is it?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Indeed the most of this work is done in the interest of the Canadian Pacific. Would the minister state any work done that is not to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific at that place?


John Warwick King: Oh, yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is it?


John Warwick King: There is a large tonnage that comes in there consisting of coa'l, steel, brick, sand, chemicals, oil and miscellaneous articles.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is all Canadian Pacific freight.


John Warwick King: They are commodities that the people use, and in that way are an advantage to them.


Edward Joseph Garland: What
wharfage charge is made to the Canadian Pacific for the use of the wharves?


John Warwick King: They have their
own loading equipment; they provide their own facilities. We are dealing here with the piers that go to protect the harbour.


Edward Joseph Garland: Have the government any wharves there at all?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Therefore the government would not be in a position to charge any dues.


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Stanley-harbour improvements and repairs, $90,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give an explanation of this item?


John Warwick King: This amount of
$90,000 is required to provide for urgent repairs and renewals to existing works and to continue 221
the harbour improvement scheme commenced in 1923. For urgent repairs and renewals to existing works the sum of $3,250 will be required In the case of a new contract to be let for a 700 foot extension to the east breakwater, two 50 foot checkwaters of rubble mound, removal of old east pier and deepening entrance channel, the total estimated cost is $181,000, and the allotment for 1925-26 is $86,750, making a total of $90,000.


Robert Gardiner: What amount has been expended on this particular work from the commencement?


John Warwick King: The sum of $958,660 has been spent up to March 31, 1924, in construction, repairs and dredging at this point.


George Gibson Coote: What tonnage is handled
through this port, and what are the principal commodities?


John Warwick King: The bulk of the tonnage is shipped in bond to inland ports. In 1923 there was a total tonnage of 329,000 tons.


William Alves Boys: Is not that brought in from Cleveland by water?


John Warwick King: Yes. There is considerable coal and steel tonnage brought in.


George Gibson Coote: What railway brings the coal in, the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific?


John Warwick King: It comes by car ferry to that point, I think via the Pere Marquette.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister advise us whether any tolls or dues were collected at this harbour?


John Warwick King: Yes, we collected the sum of $14 in 1922, and the sum of $21 in 1923.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: An increase of 50 per cent.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Would the minister send that information to the member for Lunenburg. I think he ought to have it.


Robert Gardiner: The minister stated that up to March 31, 1924, the total expenditure amounted to $958,000. When was that work first commenced?


John Warwick King: It goes back pretty well to the time of confederation or before that date. It is an old harbour.


Edward Joseph Garland: I simply wish to call the minister's attention, as quietly as I can, to the fact that he has been able to give

Supply-Public Works

us, and I congratulate him upon it, a good deal of information this afternoon. That information he gave very courteously. In many cases he was able to give us the total expenditure, but in one or two instances he failed to do so. In many cases he was also unable to tell us what year the work was commenced. I wonder if there can be any explanation of that. Possibly the people were a little more careless in the early days.


John Warwick King: Of course there ought to be uniformity with respect to any information presented to the House, as to the date of the original expenditures, and so on. But in the case of work which started even before confederation to give details of this work from year to year, or even to ascertain the date of commencement, would involve a good deal of trouble and would serve no useful purpose.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh yes, it would serve a very useful purpose.


John Warwick King: To give the original date of construction?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, it would show the unwisdom of some former governments and we might profit therefrom to-day. I would suggest the minister might have that matter looked into.


John Warwick King: I would be very glad to.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Providence Bay-wharf repairs, $2,100.
George Gibson Coote: Where is Providence Bay?


John Warwick King: Algoma East.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think one item should be taken up until the preceding item is carried. This Providence Bay seems to be in the same place as Blind River. This is a new item, not in last year's estimates at all. What pressure was brought to bear to get this item put in the estimates?
Mr. KING (Kootenay); The details of this item are:
Repairs and renewals to an existing structure. District engineer reports:
These repairs are required to keep the structure in safe condition for use. The yearly traffic consists of 150 tons dairy produce. Fish and so forth and 600 head live stock exported, and 600 tons general merchandise imported. Total value is $125,000. Therefore the commercial necessity is undoubted.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any railway
into the place?


John Warwick King: No, I think not.
It is on an island.


John W. Carruthers: It is the only lake
port on the south shore of Manitoulin island. There is a line of boats running from Bruce peninsula to that point, and it is also a harbour of refuge. Unfortunately it is in rather an exposed position, not a very good harbour, and in the winter time, and also in the spring of the year on account of the movement of the ice, it gets out of repair. I do not know of any wharf that requires repairs more than this. There is no railway within fifty miles of it. The harbour is the only way they have of getting their produce out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rainy River-wharf repairs, $2,800.
John Warwick King: This is in Fort
William and Rainy River. The wharf requires repairs in places and some of the timbers are apparently in a decayed condition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rondeau-repairs to piers, $7,000.
John Warwick King: This is required
for urgent repairs and renewals to the decking, face timbers and cross ties of the east and west piers and to repair existing shore protection for a length of 150 lineal feet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is that?


John Warwick King: In the county
of Kent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who represents that
county?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Sault Ste. Marie-wharf repairs, $4,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Any explanation of this?


John Warwick King: General minor repairs to walling and roadway approach of wharf, $1,000; repairs to old warehouse, replacing roof, $3,000, total $4,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saugeen river-repairs to harbour works, $5,000.
Oliver Robert Gould: It. is very interesting when
we look at the long list of increased expenditures to recollect that we have a vast hinterland, each electoral district for instance on the prairie paying one and a quarter million, for which it gets nothing in return, only providing money to be spent on harbours and rivers. I like equity and I do not like things inequitably distributed. I would like on behalf of our province, to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see that these moneys are more equitably distributed. For instance, on the Saskatchewan river the municipalities or communities have to build their wharves half way across the river themselves, and here we have a much reduced vote this year. Before the money is voted, I wish to call the attention of the government to the very inequitable manner in which they are distributing money raised from the taxation of this country. This is just a fair word of warning to the government. The people will not forget this. The government is going to hear about it. I have protested time and again in this chamber, and I ask the government whether these expenditures are justified at the present time. If the government is going to be fair it will distribute the money equitably. I have requested time and again that a little bit of the money be expended in my district.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member forgets that this is a government of economy.


Oliver Robert Gould: They are not economizing in the taxation they collect in my electoral district, but they spend every cent of it in some other place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Southampton-repairs to wharf and breakwaters, $5,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the minister tell us if this money to be spent in Southampton is to be spent on the long pier on Fisherman dock? Because I happen to know that the long pier is of no use at all.


John Warwick King: In reply to my hon. friend, the vote which has just been 221i
passed, Saugeen river, $5,000, is the expenditure that will take care of the fishermen in that vicinity. At Southampton the expenditure is as follows:
East breakwater, general repairs to face timbers
and decking	 $ 250
Commercial	wharf, repairs	 200
West breakwater, renewal of 300 lineal feet superstructure	 4,500
Incidentals	 50
Total	 $5,000


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister stated a minute ago that the previous vote for Saugeen river, $5,000 would take care of the fishermen.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The item
says, " Repairs to harbour works ". Just to what works does that apply?


John Warwick King: I do not know whether my hon. friend is familiar with the locality, but the Saugeen works were constructed many years ago. This is the mouth of the river which gives a very good shelter to the fishermen, and the fishing industry is a very considerable one in that district. It is proposed to reconstruct some of the piers or wharves there in order that they may be of use. There is a hope that some day we will be able to combine the two harbours, or make Southampton the imain harbour for both the fishermen and the commerce of that country. But to provide for the fishermen would require a very considerable sum of money. At the present time we are making some improvements to the old works on the Saugeen, and keeping the main work at Southampton in repair.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I know a good many of the fishermen who live in Southampton, and they certainly need a place to which they can bring their boats and leave them- in safety. The old Fishermen's dock is a rotten old thing, you could hardly tie a horse to it, let alone a boat. Then in regard to the long pier for which this $5,COO is being spent, all the inhabitants in Southampton to whom I have spoken about it say that it is absolutely of no use except for people to go walking some nice evening or on Sunday. No boats can get into the long pier. Some wealthy American might come in once in a summer, but it does not seem quite right that we should spend these vast sums of money in order to let them have a pleasant landing. They could go further on and land at Kincardine quite as well. As there is a real fish-
Supply-Public Works

ing industry there, and the only water service that is needed is required for the fishermen at Southampton, while this is not my riding, I would be most happy to see more money spent on docks for the fishermen to make things better for them than to have money spent on the long pier because every cent spent on it is simply money thrown away.


Arthur Meighen: How much is going into this long pier? How long is the minister going to make it?


John Warwick King: It was constructed some years ago. A very large sum of money has been spent at Southampton in the construction of a pier and breakwaters. As regards the pier, wre are spending $250 on the east breakwater and $250 on the commercial wharf, that is the long pier. On the western breakwater, which is the protecting breakwater of the harbour, it is proposed to expend $4,500.


Arthur John Lewis: Nothing for the fishermen at all?


John Warwick King: The fishermen
have been taken care of in the previous vote, Saugeen river. I had an opportunity of meeting the fishermen there last year, and from my observations I felt that we should continue to provide aocommodatiion where they are now located, where they have their establishments, at least until the breakwater which protects the mouth of the river is possibly destroyed. Then it may be necessary to move them to the main harbour, although that will not be kindly received by the fishermen. In fact, the locality they are in now is one that suits their industry and requirements.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has pointed out that the long pier is to cost quite a substantial sum this year.


John Warwick King: 


Edward Joseph Garland: He also
states that this is a matter of long standing, and that is apparently the only justification he has given for this vote. Has the minister any real reason for continuing it? The mere existence of a thing does not justify keeping ft in repair,, unless there is some real merit in it. The minister has not given us any reason yet.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend had local knowledge of the district surrounding Southampton and the moneys that have been spent there in constructing breakwaters and piers, he would not suggest for a moment that the government should abandon those

works and let them go into disrepair. There will have to be annual expenditures to keep these works in repair.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister really think the fishermen of Southampton would ever use the long pier? All their homes, the whole fishing industry, their fishing houses and everything connected with the industry are at the mouth of the river. They are a mile or more apart. The fishermen cannot afford to build new icehouses, fish houses and homes. I do not think there is any question of moving the fishermen's facilities from the mouth of the river to the long pier. They will all have to stay at the mouth of the river, or the fishermen will have to go to other grounds. I still protest against spending $250 for the long pier. Do more than two ships come into Southampton all summer long?


John Warwick King: I quite agree with my hon. friend as regards the fishermen and providing quarters there for them. I think I have explained the matter and provision has been made for them. As regards the pier, years ago large quantities of cordwood and timber came down and the harbour facilities there were used to take cam of this. The structures there are large and they have cost a great deal of money. It is also a harbour of refuge and I do not think it should be allowed to go into disrepair.


Arthur Meighen: Refuge for what?


John Warwick King: Steamers.


Arthur Meighen: How many came in last year?


John Warwick King: I have not the
record. In case of storm vessels will run into that port.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of my personal knowledge, but I know ithe -minister has voted money not far away just to keep up a tradition, and ithat appears to be the only object he has in this case. He says that there once wias a time in the great by and by when a lot of lumber went into that port, and inasmuch as there is a long pier, he thinks he had better put some money into it.


John Warwick King: Does the right
hon. member think the work should be abandoned? '


Arthur Meighen: Yes, unless the minister
can give a better reason than he has given yet. There may be most excellent reasons for maintaining the work, but we have not had them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Stokes bay-repairs to pier, $4,000.
John Warwick King: This is for renewal of stringers, corbels and the top course of face timbers of all cribs, with 70 per cent of decking.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is Stokes bay?


John Warwick King: In Bruce county
north.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this another harbour of refuge?


John Warwick King: No. It is a local harbour.


William Alves Boys: I thought the hem. member
for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) put his pen through many of these items.


Arthur Meighen: The minister seems to
have made him the pet of the whole Liberal family.


John Warwick King: I think not.


William Thomas Lucas: When was any money spent
at this point before?


John Warwick King: The pier was built between 1904 and 1906. It cost $8,978. The last repairs made to it were attended to in 1913-14, bringing the total cost of this structure to date to $10,314.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Williams-repairs to pier, $2,250.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Norfolk county. This is for renewal of the outer end of landing pier including driving of sheet piling around present pier and filling with stone, repairing seven concrete piers between outer end and shore, and renewal of wale and decking in approach.


Arthur Meighen: Does the government own this pier?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thames river-repairs to lighthouse wharf, $1,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this wharf?


John Warwick King: In Kent county.


Arthur Meighen: Is this at the mouth of
the river?


John Warwick King: The work is requested by the district engineer as being urgent. It is renewal of a lighthouse wharf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any traffic?


John Warwick King: This is to protect the lighthouse wharf. There * is traffic on the river.


Arthur Meighen: What is the lighthouse
for? Does the minister seriously contend that there is traffic on the Thames river? If so, how far up does it go?


Mr. MURDOCK:: The traffic runs up to
Chatham on the Thames.


Arthur Meighen: What kind of traffic?


James Murdock: Excursion traffic from
Detroit. The chief traffic however consists of sand and gravel barges.


William Alves Boys: Is this in conjunction with
Belle River?


James Murdock: No. Belle River is
about twenty-five miles further west.


William Alves Boys: We were told in the committee the other day of the large amount of traffic that was to move from Belle River up the Thames to Chatham. I presume this lighthouse is to light the way.


John Warwick King: There has been a lighthouse there for many years; it is not a new thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thessalon-to complete breakwater extension, $16,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In East Algoma. This is a re-vote which is required to complete a contract for the extension of the existing breakwater which consists of rubble stone capped 'by large blocks. The amount of the contract was some $39,000. The expenditure in 1923-24 was $14,000 and in 1924-25, $9,000, bringing the total expenditure to date up to $23,000.


Arthur Meighen: How much more is required?


John Warwick King: To complete the
contract, $16,000.


Arthur Meighen: Is this a new extension
the government is starting? What is the length of it?


John Warwick King: Four hundred
and fifty feet.


Arthur Meighen: It is'all in East Algoma I notice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thorah island-harbour improvements, $1,050.
John Warwick King: This is to complete the contract entered into last year.


Arthur Meighen: What for?
Supply-Pub lie Works


John Warwick King: For the construction of crib-work to retain the wall, which is five feet wide and of a total length of three hundred and eighty feet.


Arthur Meighen: This is an island?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Thornbury-wharf repairs, $6,200.
John Warwick King: This is in the north of Grey county. The vote is to take care of necessary repair work to the entrance of the pier.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trenton-to take over from municipality Bywater dock, $13,100.
Arthur Meighen: Was this promised in the by-dlection?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: What does the minister
know about it? It certainly was.


John Warwick King: It was promised many years before, I think.


Arthur Meighen: This vote is to take over the structure from the municipality, who own the dock. Have they operated it lately? A bill was put through some time ago with relation to this matter, was it not?


John Warwick King: No bill has been
passed by this parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Well, some action was
taken two or. three years ago, and I think it was in the form of a statute.


John Warwick King: No. The Ontario government gave, certain rights to Mr. A. E. By water of Trenton whereby he acquired a patent of the water lot adjoining Lot N, South Dundas street, Trenton. This property is adjacent to the government Trent canal bridge. It has been used as a fire dock and as a general public dock for many years, and it is a property which is of great importance to the public at large. Representations were made years ago that the Dominion government should secure it but no action was taken. Later on however the government of Ontario gave to Mr. Bywater the water lot in question, and the council of Trenton considered the matter of such importance to the municipality that they expropriated the property, paying the sum of $12,100.


Arthur Meighen: To Colonel Bywater?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: When did he get it from the Ontario government?


John Warwick King: In 1921.


Arthur Meighen: What did he pay for it?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information. There was an arbitration, as between the municipality and him, and the municipality paid $12,100 for the lot, in addition to the cost of arbitration amounting to $966.58.


Arthur Meighen: When did the municipality take it over from him?


John Warwick King: In December 1921.


Arthur Meighen: Immediately after he had got it from the Ontario government.


John Warwick King: Yes, shortly after he secured it. The property had been used by the public for many years and they have been contending that adequate warehousing facilities should be established in connection with it. The municipal council had taken expropriation proceedings under the Ontario Municipal Act, but in the meantime the provincial government had granted the property to Colonel Bywater, with reservations to the rights of the government of Canada. This matter was set forth in a petition drawn up by the municipal council, whose position was strongly supported. In a report on the mlatter the district engineer states:
The department did some dredging in front of the wharf during the period November 16, 1912, December 16, 1913, covering an area of 105 feet by 500 feet; 6,138 cubic yards of solid rock was excavated to a grade depth of 14 feet below zero.
Practically all freight and passenger traffic going in and out of the town by water is handled at the wharf in question, which is now called "Polly's wharf." Trenton ds the terminus of the Trent valley canal, and is served by the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian National Railways. It is a port of call for all regular liners. Large quantities of coal are imported and unloaded. Apples and cheese are shipped in large quantities. Canadian Iron Mines operate a concentrating plant at this place. Trenton is an important commercial and manufacturing centre. Customs receipts amount from year to year to about $40,000 to $45,000. In 3913, the population was reported to be 4,300.
M,r. MEIGHEN:	Does the government
intend to spend much more money on this?


John Warwick King: Not at the
present' time.


Arthur Meighen: When does the government intend to start?


John Warwick King: It will depend
on necessities.

Supply

Public Works


Arthur Meighen: Political?


John Warwick King: No, fortunately
not.


Arthur Meighen: What is the idea of this vote now?


John Warwick King: The government
will acquire the property with this vote, and in view of the information I have just given I do not think there is any reason why it should not do so in order to give the people of Trenton the service that is given other places. We are not asking for money _ for further expenditures; we simply want to acquire this property to bring it within the control of the Dominion government for public use.


Arthur Meighen: There will be nothing
in the [DOT] supplementaries?


John Warwick King: I do not think
so.


Mr. EVANS:: In this vote we have passed
many items such as this one which in my opinion should not properly come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion government at all. Many of these items, it seems to me, should come under the control of the municipality or the province and it is unjust to the taxpayers throughout the Dominion for them to ibe called upon to provide these local facilities for certain points on the Great Lakes and around the east coast and in Quebec. The Dominion might as well be justified in providing roads through the municipalities as in providing some of these facilities for which we have voted money to-day, this one among the rest. The provinces might just as reasonably ask to be relieved of the work of building bridges, and put it on the Dominion government.


John Warwick King: Under the British North America Act the responsibility for roads and bridges is on the provinces, while wharves and aids to navigation come within the federal jurisdiction.


John Evans: It would be a sound principle to adopt that only waterways of a national character should be looked after by the Dominion; the provinces should look after all others. This would be more equitable to the taxpayers throughout the country, and the work would be done more economically.


William Alves Boys: This is the only wharf at
Trenton?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: And the idea is that because
other places have wharves which are paid for by the Dominion government, the people of Trenton feel that they should have this wharf provided in the same way; and they have asked the government to take it over.


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That is only reasonable, and
I do not know why anyone should think that certain towns should get wharves at the expense of the Dominion government while the people of Trenton should pay for their own.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wendover-wharf repairs, $6,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this to complete the
work?


John Warwick King: This vote is for
repair work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Avonport-rebuilding part of wharf, $7,200.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister ought
to give us a resume of these new items as we proceed.


John Warwick King: Yes. They are
mostly repairs or renewals and improvements to harbours. It is proposed to rebuild a portion of this wharf which was damaged by a storm last year. The wharf serves a population that is engaged largely in the manufacture of brick and fishing. Five thousand barrels of apples, 700 cords of wood, barrel staves, pulpwood and other shipments were made last year. Up to March 31, 1925, there had been expended 810,426.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bay St. Lawrence-breakwater extension, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: Who gets this?


John Warwick King: This is in Cape
Breton North and Victoria county. The work is mainly to improve the shelter for fishing boats. The value of the catch at this point is about $50,000 each season. At present the fishermen are operating at a great disadvantage owing to the lack of landing facilities. The proposed improvement would also facilitate the landing of freight and passengers from the subsidized steamboat. During an average year about 200 passengers pass through this port, and the steamboat company collects about $1,000 in freight charges on imports and exports.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public TForfcs
[Stage Direction]
Black Point-breakwater repairs, $5,800.
Edward Joseph Garland: What is the explanation?


John Warwick King: This is to reconstruct the outer end of the breakwater, 114 feet long by 24 feet wide, with native timber crib work. The old work was destroyed by ice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cariboo-repairs, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this point?


John Warwick King: Pictou county.


Arthur Meighen: What are the repairs?


John Warwick King: Reconstructing a portion of the breakwater with crib work. This is to give protection to the harbour, and is rendered necessary by damage to the breakwater during storms last winter. The people of the island also use the breakwater as a mean of access to the mainland in summer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chebogue-harbour protection, $2,600.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Yarmouth
county.


Arthur Meighen: What protection is going in there?


John Warwick King: It is to extend
the existing beach protection a further length of 70 feet. The breakwater acts as a protection to the fisherman.


Arthur Meighen: How could it be a breakwater? You could not extend a breakwater seventy feet for $2,600.


John Warwick King: This w'ork is along a sandbar and will give the desired protection.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the form of
construction?


John Warwick King: Crib work costing $2,520.


Arthur Meighen: It is really shore crib
work.


John Warwick King: It is breakwater
protection off shore. If my right hon. friend has visited Toronto island he will recollect that similar work has been done there.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but the minister
said 70 feet of that kind of work was to be done for $2,600. It could not be done for the money.	.


John Warwick King: There is 21,000
cubic feet of crib work at 12 cents, making $2,520.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cheverie-wharf repairs, $3,200.
John Warwick King: This vote is required to renew the plank, stringers and guard over an area of 8,000 square feet, and is the estimated cost. These repairs are required to make the wharf serviceable for shipping purposes. Farming, fishing and plaster mining are the local industries. The annual shipment of gypsum is 30,000 tons, lumber 1,000,000 feet, and laths and barrels are also exported to a large extent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dartmouth-pier, $5,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a very large
expenditure last year.


John Warwick King: This vote is required to complete payments due the contractors for the construction of this pier. The contract was entered into in 1924, having been awarded to the lowest tenderers, the Halifax Dredging Company Limited and the Standard Construction Company limited. The total amount was $135,659. The work is finished.
Digby-repairs and renewals to pier, $2,000.


John Warwick King: This is an annual charge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there no end to it?


John Warwick King: No, it is a very large pier. There is a tremendous traffic there,
and repairs and renewals are required every year.


Arthur Meighen: Tremendous traffic?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisherman's Harbour-wharf, $5,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this a continuous one, too?


John Warwick King: This is to construct a wharf, 248 feet in length consisting of a stone and gravel approach 90 feet long and 16 feet wide on top; a block and span approach 108 feet long and 16 feet wide; a pile trestle approach 30 feet long and 16 feet wide, and a pile pierhead 20 feet long and 40 feet wide along the outer face. This amount is required to complete the contract entered into last year with the Russell Construction Company.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the total amount?


John Warwick King: For the contractor, $4,420; inspection and contingencies, $579; total, $5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Great Village-wharf replacement, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What about this?


John Warwick King: This is to replace the present wharf by a new structure at a site SOO feet farther down the river. It will consist of a pi'ework pier 90 feet in length by 40 feet in width, with an ell 70 by 30 feet at the outer end. The old structure, which was in a dilapidated condition, was entirely wrecked by a severe storm early in October, 1923.


Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In the county of Colchester.


Arthur Meighen: A little bit for everybody, here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there an existing contract?


John Warwick King: No, it is being
done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the engineer's report?


John Warwick King: The engineer
recommends that the work be done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does he say?


John Warwick King: He reports that it can be more efficiently and economically done by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What reasons
does he give? It is over $5,000.


John Warwick King: The contract is for $4,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a vote here for $5,500, so it looks as if it were playing with it to say it is under $5,000. It is all very well to say it is better to do it by day labour, but what is the concrete recommendation of the engineer? What are his grounds?


John Warwick King: The price for the work is $4,500; wharf site and right of way
$300; road construction and contingencies $700; making a total of $5,500. The engineer recommends that the work can be done more efficiently and economically by day labour.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he give
any grounds?


John Warwick King: I think those are sufficient grounds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is no
ground at all. He makes a recommendation, but on what grounds does he make it?


John Warwick King: On what grounds would he make it?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know whether he has any grounds, or whether he thinks it is a good thing to have the handling of the money. I do not know whether he is doing it on grounds or on a whim. That is what I am trying to find out. If he has done it on grounds, those grounds should be shown.


John Warwick King: The grounds are shown.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are they?


John Warwick King: Economy and
efficiency.


Arthur Meighen: Why day labour here
and not elsewhere?


John Warwick King: Day labour is
done in many cases.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Whenever the
department feels like it.


Arthur Meighen: In view of recent reports, may I ask if this is all that is going to be done for the member for Colchester?


Mr. PUTNAM:: Perhaps for Hon. F. B. McCurdy, the man who turned Liberal.


Arthur Meighen: If anything is to be done for him I would be glad to hear it, too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grand Etang-repairs to piers, 85,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This ought to be an
opportunity for the hon. member for Inverness to give us a little dissertation.


John Warwick King: The district engineer reports that Grand Etang harbour is dependent for its existence on the maintenance of the entrance piers. The proposed repairs are required to prevent continuous deterioration of the walls.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure the member for Inverness can give us some real reasons why this should be done. I think in fairness to the minister and the House we should be given some real reason why this new expenditure is to be made this year by this government of professed economy. We have not had one reason given why the work should be done. Will not the faon. member give it to us?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The hon. member is
always prepared to give reasons, and good reasons. These repairs are required for the pier on account of the neglect of the government of which my hon. friend was a minister. This is one of our inheritances from the late government. This work should have been done five years ago.


Mr. CLARK:: Then why wait so long?


Alexander William Chisholm: We are economizing as much as possible, and it is only urgent need that forces us to spend money. We have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair works that hon. members opposite failed to look after when they were in power.


Robert James Manion: I hope the hon. member
will see that it is spent this year. That would be good politics.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do not worry. It will be spent.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought we
would get something from the hon. gentleman. I wonder if the minister will kindly read the report of the engineer on which he is acting in starting this new work.


John Warwick King: I have already
done so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I did not hear
any report read.


John Warwick King: The district engineer reports that Grand Etang harbour is dependent for its existence on the maintenance of the entrance piers. The proposed repairs ' are required to prevent continuous deterioration of the walls. The annual value of the fisheries is $100,000. Four subsidized steamers call at this place from two to six times weekly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the first report we have had or was a similar report made last year? I just want to see how near right the hon. member for Inverness is in his facts.


Alexander William Chisholm: No, the explanation
is simply this:	The pier, which forms the
entrance to the harbour, has taken a slant.

The pier was built by the government in 18951896, so it has stood very well so far. The object of this expenditure is to correct the slant in order to protect the entrance to the harbour.


Arthur Meighen: When did it get the
slant?


Alexander William Chisholm: Since it was first built.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When did it get it bad?


Alexander William Chisholm: Last year, but it has
been getting worse continually.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Would not the hon. member in justice to himself like to correct his former remarks, because they are now found to be absolutely incorrect, and I do not like to see him left in that position? The fact is that, instead of this being an inheritance, it is something that just happened last year and is now being looked after. The story now is, not that the wicked former government was neglectful, but that nature was more kind when we were in office and the pier stood straight, but last year the pier took a slant of five degrees, or so.


Alexander William Chisholm: It began to get bad
years ago, but it got very bad last year.


Arthur Meighen: Last year the government took a slant, too.


William Duff: That was in 1921.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gulliver's Cove-breakwater, $15,000.
Robert James Manion: Has this anything to do
with Gulliver's Travels?


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Where is it?


John Warwick King: In the county of Digby and Annapolis. This amount is required to construct a cribwork breakwater 240 feet long and from 20 to 30 feet wide, for the protection of the fishing fleet and the development of that district. There is an excellent fishing station here capable of great development.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a new work?	*


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the business carried on at this point?


John Warwick King: Principally fishing.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In what
volume?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: There are ten
gasoline boats, fourteen other boats, two weirs, 1.500 lobster traps and ten fishing houses at that point.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
present facilities?


John Warwick King: I think the conditions are very difficult for the fishermen at the present time.


Mr. LOVETT:: Perhaps I can answer the
hon. gentleman with greater exactness. This place has never had a wharf, breakwater nor slip of any kind. The fishing grounds are valuable and the proposed conveniences will render them very productive. The wharf will furnish these fishermen with a harbour which does not exist at the present time. I wish to tell the committee that the present lack of facilities renders the lot of the fishermen very hard. When they go out to fish they have to haul their boats down to the shore with oxen. On their return they have to haul their boats up from low water, which adds very greatly to the expense. The place is from fifteen to twenty miles from the railway and labours under a great handicap in that, respect. If ever an item in the estimates was justified this one certainly is. On previous occasions candidates of all parties have promised the people wharf facilities, with the-exception of myself. I told them I would not make any promise, and I did not do so, but that I would look after their interests in every way. However, I am glad to have this item in the estimates; it will certainly be a great help to the people of that section who stand so much in need of these facilities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this
place, in the bay of Fundy?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: In the bay of Fundy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Whereabouts?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: About twenty miles down
from Digby neck, on the bay of Fundy side.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is on the
sea side of the gut?


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: Yes. Having no harbour
whatever one can readily understand the difficulties under which the fishermen labour. There is no harbour or shelter of any kind; the fishermen simply have to get their boats in and out the best way they can.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
people are there in the settlement.


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: About 700 people. The
cons.ruction of this wharf will bring a greater number of people there because the fishing grounds are good.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister read the
engineer's report on this?


John Warwick King: The engineer says the breakwater is required for the protection of the fishing fleet and the development of the fishing industry. He adds that it is an excellent fishing station and capable of great development.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbourville-breakwater repairs, $2,500.
John Warwick King: The work here
is taking down and rebuilding in crib work a portion of the west breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvement, $55,000.
Arthur John Lewis: What amount was expended
last year?


Robert James Manion: What are the largest items under this heading?


John Warwick King: Last year $55,-
017.50 was expended. The details vary from $16 up to $1,000, and in one case, I think, $2,000. '


Robert James Manion: Where was the $2,000 expended?


John Warwick King: At West Bay
wharf.


Robert James Manion: Is there any limit in connection with the expenditure of this particular open vote of $55,000?


John Warwick King: This vote is to
take care of unforeseen repairs that may be necessary during the year. The expenditure is usually kept down within the $1,000 mark. Occasionally the damage is such that it will require a larger expenditure. If it should involve over $5,000 the department would submit the matter to council.


Robert James Manion: The minister could spend
up to $5,000 under this vote?


John Warwick King: Yes, he could,
but it is not the practice to do so.


Robert James Manion: Is the list of expenditures very lengthy? If not I should like the minister to read it.


John Warwick King: There are three
pages of details.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: There would not be many items over $1,000.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the
items over that amount?


John Warwick King: Burlington Centre; Gabarous; Halifax office maintenance; Little Anse breakwater; McNair's Cove; Pleasant Bay; West Bay; West Chezzetcook.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Horton Landing-repairs to wharf, $2,100.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the
engineer's report say in the case of this vote?


John Warwick King: The report says
that the proposed work is general repairs to wharf, consisting of the renewal of stringers fenders, piling and so on, and the raising of the outer end of the wharf. The District Engineer reports:
This wharf is used by the community for landing coal and wood, and for shipping farm produce and apples. One cargo of pulp, 775 tons, was shipped from here during 1924. If this wharf is repaired, the pulp company expect to ship large quantities of pulp next year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is that
pulp company?


Mr. ROBINSON:: I might give some details in connection with the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. member will tell us all about it.


Clifford William Robinson: I do not know that I
can give the name of the pulp company, but they are looking for a good place to ship from. This wharf has not been used, perhaps, for two or three years and the top is in a state of disrepair; teams cannot be driven over it. Last year shipments of pulp commenced over the wharf, and the complaint was made that the structure was in such a condition that teams could not be placed on it. The engineer estimates that $2,100 will put the wharf in a state of repair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I wonder if the hon. gentleman could tell us where that pulp goes?


Clifford William Robinson: I think it must go to
the United States. It is partially manufactured and shipped in bales. There is a pulp mill back of Wolfville and Gaspereau where they manufacture up to a certain stage, and in that condition the commodity is shipped away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Hunt's Point-rebuilding landing wharf, $2,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is that
place?


John Warwick King: In Shelburne and
Queens.


William Duff: In Queens county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the
engineer's report say?


John Warwick King: It says:
This landing block is located immediately inside the breakwater and is a public convenience to the fishermen. I am convinced that our maintaining this landing means increased accommodation and naturally increased earnings to these men. There are twenty motor boats carrying 30 to 40 fishermen who fish from this place. The annual value of the fisheries is about $55,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joggins-breakwater reconstruction and repairs, $8,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Cumberland
county.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this all about?


John Warwick King: The work is of a public nature, and the breakwater serves as a protection to the coal loading pier from which coal mined in the town is shipped. It is also used as a wharf over which local freight from St. John and other points is handled. A considerable quantity of lumber is also shipped from this breakwater. During 1923, 800,000 feet, board measure, of lumber and 800 tons of coal were shipped over the breakwater at Joggins. During 1924 the shipments were not quite so large, and 500,000 board measure feet of lumber which has been cut, was not shipped owing to depression of the market.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What coal company ships at that point?


John Warwick King: The Joggins Coal Company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that cover the whole cost?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a contract as to that?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Day 'labour.


John Warwick King: Yes, in all probability. It is rebuilding an old structure; it is very difficult to estimate and make a contract for it.

Supply-Public Works
Sir HENRY' DRAYTON: It seems to me the department is getting loose about the work done by day labour and not following the rules closely; all they say is that it is difficult to let a contract. If they want to be on safe ground they should advertise for contracts, and if they find they are all too high, then do it by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L'Archeveque-dredging, $10,300.
John Warwick King: This is to complete work started in 1924, which consists of dredging a mooring basin 400 feet long and 180 feet wide and entrance channel 1,580 feet long and 80 feet wide. The channel will be dredged to a depth of 7 feet at sub-grade. The inlet at this place is a most suitable site for a fishery harbour between Fourchu, 18 miles towards the east and L'Ardoise, 11 miles towards the west. It is advanced with reason that this place is the nearest station to what is perhaps the best fishing ground in the southern coast of Cape Breton; and if this place v^ere improved it would also serve as a harbour of refuge for bdats-about 80 in number-from Petit de Grat and Arichat during the winter fisheries. The principal industries are fishing and farming.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
tells us that the work was already undertaken in 1924.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much was spent on this work last year?


John Warwick King: We operated our own plant last year at a cost of $24,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many yards were taken out?


John Warwick King: The number of
yards was 14,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At a cost of
what?


John Warwick King: The cost was $24,-
000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a pretty heavy rate, is it not?


John Warwick King: Yes, it is very expensive dredging, not only on account of the material, but also on account of the exposed position and the loss of time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where did the money come from?


John Warwick King: The amount of the dredging vote for the Maritimes, page 40.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It came out of that vote last year and you are now dealing with it directly this year. What pliant did you use?


John Warwick King: The departmental plant No. 11.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
months did it work?


John Warwick King: It was there a considerable time. There was great loss of time on account of weather conditions, and the work cost more than was anticipated.


Robert James Manion: In whose constituency was that?


John Warwick King: Cape Breton South and Richmond.


Robert James Manion: Who is the member for that constituency?


George William Kyte: I have the honour to represent that riding.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the hon. member will give us information regarding it.


George William Kyte: The minister gave all necessary information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the hon. member can tell us how it came to cost so much.


George William Kyte: I am not in as good a position as the hon. minister to give the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
boats are there?


George William Kyte: A great number.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it to be done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope the minister will get a good deal cheaper rate than he got by day labour on the other contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not
called for tenders yet?


John Warwick King: They have been called for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Have you opened them yet? -


John Warwick King: No.
Mr. MAiNION: Will this complete the work?


John Warwick King: It is a question as to whether it will or not. Tenders were called for some time ago and there have been
Supply-Public Works

no responses yet. The cost to the department last year was about $1.45 a yard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a very heavy cost.


John Warwick King: It depends on the location and the material.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How far would the material have to be carried?


John Warwick King: I do not know the distance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is one of the items of expense. Does the engineer's report not say how far it has to be carried?


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


Henry Lumley Drayton: In the form of tender that is issued, what is asked for, and what are the stipulations? How far has the stuff to be carried, and to what depth has the dredging to be done?


John Warwick King: The material that is dredged is deposited at the direction of the district engineer. I have not the information as to where they dumped the material last year, but that will be worked out with the contractor, if we make a contract. The depth of the channel is seven feet at low water sub-grade.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
present depth?


John Warwick King: It varies from a
depth now of one to three or four feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there no place where there is more water, where we could accommodate the people?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the other
hand, could we not get some shallower place where there would be a little more dredging at $1.45 per yard?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We can neither make it more expensive nor cheaper?


John Warwick King: It is a very difficult place. It is very exposed. They did not accomplish last year what we hoped they would.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What business is carried on to warrant the expenditure?


John Warwick King: Fishing and farming.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the quantity of goods shipped out and brought in each year?


John Warwick King: The district engineer says:
The inlet at this place is the most suitable site tor a fishery harbour between Fourchu, 18 miles towards the east and L'Ardoise 11 miles towards the west. It is advanced with reason that this place is the nearest station to what is perhaps the best fishing ground in the southern coast of Cape Breton; and if this place were improved it would also serve as a harbour of refuge for boats (about 80 in number) from Petit de Grat and Arichat during the winter fisheries. The principal industries are fishing and farming. There are 18 resident fishermen and the,export value of the fish marketed is $12,600 a year.
Mr. MANTO'N:	Eighty votes or eighty
boats?


John Warwick King: There are eighteen resident fishermen.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And last year the minister spent $24,000, and now he intends to spend $10,000 more. How much was spent the year before?


John Warwick King: Nothing. There was an expenditure in 1913 and again in 1916. I have not the amount here. It was not a large amount.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has the minister the previous expenditure?


John Warwick King: Not here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is it
possible for fishermen to carry on business with a channel which varies from one, two, three to four feet in depth?


John Warwick King: They are having
great difficulty. They can go over the bar only in high water. The purpose is to dredge this bar so that they can come in at low water with a depth of seven feet.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
character of the soil?


John Warwick King: Gravel and
boulders.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Any hard pan?


John Warwick King: It is fairly hard
material. There are a number of boulders.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much do
the engineers say it will require to keep this channel from silting up again?


John Warwick King: It is problematical. It varies in different localities.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What do the engineers say the whole thing will cost to make it so that it will stay?


John Warwick King: We were hopeful
that we would get through last year with an

Supply-Public Works
expenditure of $24,000. We did not succeed. The material was very difficult and the position was much exposed. The cost overran our estimate entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How many yards does the minister expect to move under this contract?


John Warwick King: 10,301 cubic yards.


George William Kyte: This place is situated on the
south shore of the island of Cape Breton. We are very deficient in natural harbours along that coast. There is, between St. Peters and Louisburg, a distance of sixty miles, really no harbour into which a boat or vessel may enter with safety. The south shore of the island of Cape Breton is the famous fishing ground of haddock and codfish. This fishing is carried on in the months of December and January. Boats from Canso and Petit de Grat as well as L'Archeveque and the district of L'Ardoise use those waters for the purpose of fishing, more especially the ports of Canso and Petit de Grat that are fitted out for winter fishing. It is a very dangerous occupation, as hon. members who are familiar with the storms on the Atlantic coast may know. In addition to the advantage which the opening of this harbour will be for the local fishermen, it will afford a harbour of refuge for fishing boats engaged in fishing on the south shore. When a storm comes on they must make for either Louisburg or Canso. With favourable weather they may get along, but in winter when snow storms come up hurriedly the fishermen run very great risk of loss of life. As a matter of fact, had it not been for the circumstance that the Department of Marine and Fisheries maintains a steamer at Canso for the purpose of saving men who are threatened in these storms, very great loss would have resulted from time to time. With the opening of this harbour comparative safety will be guaranteed to all these fishermen. That is the justification for the expenditure in addition to the local advantage in the district.


Robert James Manion: I understand this is dredging of a sand bar?


George William Kyte: It is gravel, boulders.


Robert James Manion: There will not be much
chance of its refilling.


George William Kyte: No.


Robert James Manion: It will not have to be
dredged every year.


George William Kyte: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon.
friend really sure of that, because I have
seen gravel bars made by storms almost over night?


George William Kyte: Not in South Cape Breton.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know, but a great deal of repair work has to be done there from time to time, and apparently there is as much difficulty in maintaining work there as anywhere else as far as votes are concerned. What does the engineer say? I cannot believe we are cutting through a gravel bar which has been made by sea action and are going to leave it just to be filled up again by sea action. That is all that will happen and the minister knows that quite well. He said a moment ago it was problematical whether it would fill up or not. Let us have the facts.


John Warwick King: As regards the
river, the fact that we have a gravel bar there now would indicate that the currents and wash of the sea will again pile it up. But the engineer in considering this must feel justified in recommending the expenditure, believing that it will be some years before the refilling will take place. I have not his report. If it were to take place in the next year, I am satisfied the chief engineer would not report favourably on this work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He certainly
seems to be affected with a great deal of modesty when he takes it for granted it is not necessary to say anything about a subject as important as this. The minister goes no further than to say that it will not fill up next year. If it will fill up in two years, would he feel it necessary so to report on it?


John Warwick King: I would not contemplate doing the work if that were the case.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
minister would like to stretch that a little more. Would he or would he not report in favour of this work if he thought it would fill up in three years?


John Warwick King: It is problematical.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister
does not know on what basis is his engineer's report? I would suggest that in connection with these matters in the future, he sees that his engineers report on what will have to be done to maintain work that is done. It is idle to turn around and dig through a bar formed by the sea, which bar the minister himself says will again be formed by the sea, without at the same time providing some-
Supply-Public Works

thing to prevent that. We get started at one of these things and we immediately find we have to do something else that has not been discussed. The House ought to know sometimes what it is doing. I admit generally it does not. That is no reason why we should not know what we are doing, and we cannot know unless the minister brings down a report dealing with the subject.


George William Kyte: I have in mind a case where
dredging was done on the south shore of Cape Breton fifteen years ago. A cut was made through the bar and it was overcast. The material that was overcast was never removed, but the channel is still there. Even the material which was overcast was not swept back into the channel, and the channel is still as useful as it was when the overcasting was done.


Edward Joseph Garland: Surely the hon. member will admit that that is a rather rare occurrence.
Mr. IvYTE:	Not on the south shore of
Cape Breton.


Edward Joseph Garland: But,
generally speaking, it is a rare occurrence that sand will not silt in.


John Arthur Clark: How does the minister
account for the difference in the cost between dredging by contract and dredging with a government dredge? I understand with the government dredge it costs $1.45 a yard, and while I do not know whether a contract has actually been let, I understand the minister expects to let a contract for about a dollar a yard.


John Warwick King: That was anticipated. I am very doubtful whether we shall get a tender of that character. Our original estimate was on the basis of a dollar a yard. In checking our costs recently, we found they exceeded that amount by 45 cents a yard, and that was actual cost. It will depend largely on conditions that exist when the work is being done. It is exposed to the swell of the sea. If the contractor or operator has a favourable season with no storms, his cost will be that much less.


John Arthur Clark: On the basis of $1.45 a
yard the present estimate would not nearly complete the work.


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Judique Ponds-breakwater, wharf, $10,800.
John Warwick King: The engineer
reports that there were thirty-five boats using

this port during the past year. In previous years there were more boats but the number has gradually diminished owing to lack of accommodation for landing the catch. At the time the survey was made in October, 1924, some 8,000 lobster traps were piled along the shore, and further facilities are urgently required. Native timber is used in the structure, which is intended for the protection of the fishermen of the harbour.


John Arthur Clark: I see that the minister has
abandoned the item for repairs at Little Harbour.


John Warwick King: No, that item
was called and carried.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this
entirely new work at Little Judique?


John Warwick King: It is new work.
We require 72,000 feet of native timber crib-work, which is to be sheathed on the seaward side at a cost of 15 cents a cubic foot.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will this
vote complete the necessary breakwater or is it just the beginning of a heavy expenditure?


John Warwick King: It is estimated
that this will complete it.


Edward Joseph Garland: I suppose
the engineers have looked into this matter and have decided that a breakwater constructed in the way the minister describes will last for some time. I note however that in his explanation of previous items the minister stated that concrete structures were necessary because the old timber breakwaters with their fillings had not proved effective. Would it not have been just as well, if this work is to be permanent, to have made this a concrete structure from the start and so save future expenditures?


John Warwick King: One would hesitate before putting in concrete structures in smaller fishing localities. The native timber is usually conveniently to hand and in the end, although the structure may be renewed from time to time, it will prove cheaper than concrete, which in salt water is by no means permanent. It has been found that through the action of the salt water concrete disintegrates as soon as creosoted timber if not sooner.


Edward Joseph Garland: I made
the remark in view of the minister's previous statements to the effect that the timber was being replaced with cement or concrete in other works.


John Warwick King: That would be
more in the lake country.

Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: Were tenders
called for for this work?


John Warwick King: It will be all done by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lunentyurg-dredging, $60,000.
John Warwick King: This is to do further work in the harbour of Lunenburg, which is probably the largest fishing station in Canada, having a fleet of some 192 vessels at the present time. There is no accommodation for this fleet in winter under present conditions. The value of the catch for the year 1923 was S2.000,000 while the catch during 1918, when high prices prevailed, was S4,000,000. The catching, curing and shipping of fish are the chief industries, while shipbuilding, manufacturing and farming are also important Industries. The population dependent upon the proposed work is estimated at 7,000. The total catch of fish by the Lunenburg fleet in 1924 amounted to approximately 171,000 quintals, about 25.000 quintals less than the catch of the previous season. Average prices however have been very satisfactory, and it is estimated that the catch returns will exceed those of 1923 by a quarter of a million dollars. It is expected that there will be an increase in the fleet next year.


John Arthur Clark: Why do they not winter off
Boston?


John Warwick King: They are crowded in the harbour at present and adequate accommodation is needed. There is no doubt about the importance of this item.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the total amount spent on the harbour since the beginning of improvements there?


John Warwick King: Up to March 31,
1924, $39,808 had been spent.


Alfred Speakman: Will this be an annual expenditure to keep the harbour in proper condition?


John Warwick King: No.


Alfred Speakman: How much will it cost by the time the work is completed?


John Warwick King: This vote will conclude the programme at Lunenburg. The contract was $81,840 and this $60,000 will clean it up.


Alfred Speakman: I understood the
minister to say that other ports which he has mentioned were not revenue producing inas-222
much as they were inland. Is this one revenue producing?


John Warwick King: This port is used by the local fishermen and it is different from the port of Halifax for example, where large tramp and passenger steamers call on the trans-Atlantic trade. This port is for the fishing trade and is quite different from the larger ones.


Alfred Speakman: I appreciate the distinction but I understood the minister to say that the original distinction as between inland and salt water ports had reference to revenue. Is there any general traffic at this port, or is it purely local?


John Warwick King: There is the
schooner traffic, but the port is not of the same character as Halifax or St. John.


Alfred Speakman: I quite understand that it is a matter-of degrees. But does not any traffic from this port go to some of the United States ports?


John Warwick King: I suppose the fishing fleet goes to Gloucester occasionally.


Alfred Speakman: We always understood
that a certain amount of traffic was carried on between the port of Lunenburg and certain United States ports.


William Duff: That is a libel.


Alfred Speakman: Am I to understand
that no traffic is carried on between Lunenburg and the United States ports?


William Duff: None, except fish and lumber.


Alfred Speakman: I was not suggesting
what kind of traffic was carried on, I was only asking if there was any at all.


William Duff: I knew what my hon. friend
had in his mind.


Alfred Speakman: I meant exactly what
I said. I did not have any particular form of traffic in my mind; evidently the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) had.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Malagash-dredging, $22,700.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Mareil, Bonaven-ture):: I understand that the word "wharf"
is to be inserted, making the item read "Malagash wharf?"


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that work to be done by the government?


John Warwick King: It will be done
by tender.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
3EVISED EDITION
Supply-Public Works

Margaree-harbour improvements, $1,500.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this to complete the
work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Harris-wharf, $2,000.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, I move
that this item be struck out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What has happened, has the member fallen down there?


John Warwick King: When we made
up our estimates we did not anticipate we would be able to complete the work before the end of March, but it was completed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Evidently the
member was busy.
Item dropped.
North Ingonish (McLeod's)-reconstruction of breakwater and dredging, $28,700.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is not new, is it?


John Warwick King: It is under contract and is in the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria.


Robert James Manion: $6,000 was spent last year?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Parraboro-harbour improvements, $39,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is rather
big, Mr. Chairman. What is the reason of this spasm?


John Warwick King: Parrsboro is a
very important harbour. We have a contract for dredging and harbour improvements.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was the contract
let?


John Warwick King: December 10, 1924, to the Minas Basin Dredging Company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no vote shown here for last year.


John Warwick King: There was an
amount for dredging last year. This vote is to complete the dredging and for other harbour improvements.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But under what vote was that contract made? No vote is shown for last year.


John Warwick King: It is in the sup-plementaries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is no answer to say that it is in the supplementaries, because the vote last year ought to show everything.


John Warwick King: An order in
council was passed October 9, 1924, granting authority for the acceptance of the offer of the Minas Basin Dredging Company, the amount of the appropriation being $25,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So these estimates are wrongly prepared in that regard? As a matter of fact a vote of $25,000 ought to be shown in the figures for 1924-25.


John Warwick King: Apparently they
have not entered up the supplementary vote of last year. It should be shown.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly, otherwise it does not give the House proper information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Greville-breakwater reconstruction, $20,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who are the contractors and what is the price?


John Warwick King: In July tenders were called for and received, the Reid Construction Company being the lowest tenderer. Last year $16,000 was expended under the contract and this is to complete the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it a lump
sum contract?


John Warwick King: No, on unit
prices.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are they?


John Warwick King: The unit prices are not set forth here. The tender from the Reid Construction Company is for repairs to the breakwater at Port Greville at the unit prices quoted therein, totalling $31,627.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is one bit of interesting information we do not get.


John Warwick King: There were six tenders received the lowest being $31,627, and the highest $50,92$-a fairly wide range.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Portugese Cove-'breakwater, $11,700.
Henry Lumley Drayton: That is going on
this year?


John Warwick King: This is required
to complete the work under contract.

Supply-Public Works


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


John Warwick King: $15,203. We expended last year, $3,287.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheet Harbour-harbour improvements, $20,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: May we
learn something about this?


John Warwick King: At Sheet Harbour there is a large development taking place. The pulp industry has recently been established there, and there is very considerable activity at that point. The government are contributing towards the cost of a wharf $7,500, and this contribution by the government is conditional on the structure being vested in the crown, together with the right of way thereto, which would make practically a public wharf and warrant the proposed expenditure by the government. By extending the wharf we will save a considerable sum of money in what might otherwise have resulted in a very considerable amount of expensive dredging.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why is the amount of $2,000 voted last year not shown?


John Warwick King: There was no
amount last year. [DOT]


Edward Joseph Garland: There was an amount for Sheet Harbour west; perhaps that is another place?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: One is
West Sheet Harbour and the other Sheet Harbour?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister said that under an agreement with the pulp industry there he was to have what he called practically a right of way. Either you are going to have a right of way or you are not. Just what does he mean by practically a right of way?


John Warwick King: We have the right of way.


Edward Joseph Garland: There is no question about it, no strings to it.


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


John Warwick King: The American
Perforated Wrapper Pulp and Power Company. They are constructing their plant now.
222i
The industry will be an active one, and I am satisfied the arrangement here is in the interests of the district. It will mean the employment of a great many men and a large development in the pulp industry at that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Mary's river-dredging, $28,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: This is a big item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Are you dredging this yourself or is it under contract, or what?


John Warwick King: This is to complete the dredging of the St. Mary's river now under contract with . the Halifax dredging company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What rate per cubic yard?


John Warwick King: Fifty-six cents.
This will complete the whole work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Windsor-wharf extension, $24,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What about
this?


John Warwick King: This is to extend the wharf at Windsor. It is strongly recommended by the engineer, by the board of trade, and the member. The district engineer reports that this work is necessary on account of the increased shipping at this port. The shipping consists of five million feet of lumber and two hundred thousand tons of gypsum. For the past season 82 vessels, carrying 194,600 tons of gypsum cleared at the custom house, also a number of vessels with cargoes of lumber for the American market, consisting of five and a half million feet of lumber, one million staves, and six and a half million laths. A great deal of gypsum is shipped over privately-owned wharves.


Alfred Speakman: Is this a revenueproducing port?


John Warwick King: Not very much.


Alfred Speakman: Are there any dues
charged? This would hardly be classed as a local or shipping port.


John Warwick King: We got $153.52 in 1922 and $212 in 1923.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the
cost of salaries?


John Warwick King: Not given.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think they had better not be given.


Mr. HUGHES:: There are no salaries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is reassuring.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who appoints the officer at the port?


John Warwick King: The wharf is
under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They would appoint a wharfinger or somebody in control, and probably pay him a percentage of the receipts.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some local person?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: I have been trying to
find out. just what the policy is in regard to revenue. I understood at first a distinction was made between inland waters and ocean waters. Apparently also the nature of the traffic is a factor. In other words, no fees are charged where the traffic is local or such as fishing traffic. Does the real difference lie in the size and importance of the port, and is it only the larger and more important ports on salt water that are revenue-producing?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: That is the policy?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There are really very few of our ports that are revenue-producing, and those that do produce revenue do not count for very much when you take the expenditure into account.


John Warwick King: Except Montreal
and Vancouver.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Outside of those larger ports there would be practically no revenue at all. I notice that last year it was costing us $10,000 to do this work. What is the reason for the increase? We started on something that would cost us $10,000, and now we have to spend another $14,000 because we spent $10,000 last year.


John Warwick King: The vote last
year for $10,000 was for the purchase of property as follows: the Akins property for $6,500, the Curran property for $1,800, and the C. S. Smith wharf property for $3,000. These properties having been secured it is proposed to enlarge the structure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a contract


John Warwick King: There will be.
[Mr. J. H. King.)


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice that
we have the usual item here "Appropriations not required for 1925-26, $366,355." Perhaps we could get a statement showing what work has been finished so as to get an idea of the activities of the department in Nova Scotia for the year, and what work has been dropped. If it is a long list I should think the committee would like it taken as read and put on Hansard, and thus save the minister the trouble, of reading it.


John Warwick King: If the committee
will permit I will hand the statememit to Hansard.
List of Appropriations not required for 1925-26 Nova Scotia
Chargeable to income
Expend-Appro- iture to priation March 31,
Harbour and rivers	1924-25	1925
Anderson's Cove-pier and improvements	 $ 12,000 % 11,988 52
Apple River-breakwater repairs. ..	2,000	1,978 36Babin's Cove-wharf extension. ..	1,700	1,699 68
Barrington Cove (Sydney Mines)-
wharf repairs	 6,000	6,003	31
Bass River-improvements	 1,500	
Bayfield-breakwater repairs	6,000	5,912	17Bay St. Lawrence-breakwater repairs	
5,000	3,009	71
Broad Cove Marsh-replacement
breakwater wharf	
8,400	7,933	15Cariboo Island-breakwater reconstruction	
8,000	4,013	57Carr's Brook-breakwater repairs..	1,275	1,274	23
Chapel Cove (West L'Ardoise)-
breakwater extension	 10,000	9,038	99
Chester-to purchase, rebuild and
extend wharf	
5,400	4,774	20Chimney Corner-wharf reconstruction	
8,000	7,999	75Comeau's Cove-breakwater improvements	
4,900	Cow Bay-breakwater repairs..	..	5 500	5,499	99Culloden-breakwater extension. ..	10,600	9,827	89D'Escousse-wharf repairs	
1.420	1,419	92East Bay-wharf repairs	
1,600	1,600	66East River-repairs to lock	
3,000	2,283	36Eastern Harbour-improvements. ..	42,000	33,472	98Ecum Secum-wharf	
6,100	6,095	48French Village-rebuilding, wharf..	3,700	3,340	74Friar's Head-harbour improvements	
1,500	762	51Grand Narrows-wharf extension..	2,000	2,007	16Half Island Cove-rebuilding breakwater	
3,000	2,998	95Hantsport-wharf repairs	
3,250	3,249	71Indian Harbour-wharf repairs. ..	1,600	1,325	02Inverness-pier extension	
4,900	4,909	29Irish Cove-wharf repairs	
3,500	3,494	88Judique (Baxter's)-wharf repairs.	1,300	1,286	31
Kingsport-wharf renewals and
repairs	 18,000	17,673	31
Little Anse-breakwater repairs...	2,000	
Little Bass River-repairs to channel protection work	
1,200	1,294	91Marble Mountain-wharf repairs..	3,180	3,177	55McKay's Point-wharf repairs.. ..	2,700	2,699	59Merigomish-wharf repairs	
1,400	1,397	56Meteghan-wharf extension	
6,500	5,825	32
Deceased Member-Mr. Drummond
Nova Scotia-Concluded
Chargeable to income Expend-Appro- iture to priation March 31,
Harbours and rivers	1924-25	1925
Morden-breakwater renewals and
repairs	
1,500	1,499 81Newellton-wharf repairs	
1,500	1,500 01Noel-wharf repairs	
3,240	3,166	44
North East Point (Indian Brook
Flats) rebuilding wharf	 4,000	
North West Cove (Tancook)- breakwater wharf extension..	..	8,500	8,076	36Parrsboro-wharf repairs	
2,000	2,011	05Parrsboro-dredging	
25,000	4,304 34Pembroke-breakwater repairs..	..	1,750	1,942	33Port Hastings-wharf repairs..	..	2,300	2,307	76Port Hood-wharf repairs	
5,800	5,424	42Port Lome-breakwater extension.	8,000	7,997	70Port Medway-to purchase and extend wharf	
6,100	6,050	25Selma-wharf repairs	
1,300	1,260	18
Sheet Harbour West-rebuilding
wharf	
2,000	34	53Shelburne-wharf repairs	
1,500	1,267	47Ship Harbour-wharf	
4,100	4,026	35Skinner's Cove-rebuilding breakwaters and beach protection..	2,500	2,330	75South Bar (Sydney)-beach protection	
2,500	2,502	79South East Cove-breakwater repairs	
1,700	1,698	38Swim's Point-wharf repairs.... 2,500	1,903	46Tiverton-breakwater extension.	..	14,000	13,470	30
Toney River-repairs to channel
pier	
3,000	2,995	52Turner's Island-wharf repairs..	..	5,200	2,438	20Upper Port Latour-wharf repairs.	1,200	1,204	88Wedgepoint-breakwater extension.	11,340	9,337	66Western Shore-wharf repairs..	..	1,200	1,200	00
West Green Harbour-breakwater
and wharf	 2,500	
Yarmouth Bar-breakwater extension	
6,000	5.966	74Yarmouth Bar-beach protectionrepairs and improvements... 2,000	1,927	96Yarmouth Harbour-dredging..	..	22,000	22,010	57

Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Monday, May 25, 1925