RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the House the report of the committee appointed to consider jointly with me the advisability of revising the rules of the House. This report will appear in the journals of the House, and as it is very voluminous, its reading by the clerk assistant might perhaps be dispensed with.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Dispense.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford) presented the third report of the special committee appointed to consider Copyright Bill No. 2.

Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) inquired as to what representations had been made to my department regarding the renting of certain premises in Toronto. In reply, I may say that the government has been approached by those interested in the construction of a new and modern office building in that city, it being suggested that accommodation could be supplied for the Department of Customs and Excise and also for the Taxation branch. The two departments of the government, that is, the Department of Public Works and the Customs department, have been in conference on this subject with the view, if possible, of providing better accommodation for these departments in the city of Toronto.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister kindly tell us who have approached the government in this matter?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I do not think that would be fair.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why not?


John Warwick King: I do not think their plans are yet matured.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Has the government
given any undertaking or option of any kind?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Has the Canadian National Railways?


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge as to that.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 152, from the Senate, for the relief of Kathleen Mary Ricketts.-Mr. Stansell.
Bill No. 153, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Alina Marguerite Peat.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 154, from the Senate, for the relief of Sadie Dennis.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 155, from the Senate, for the relief of Isabel Davidson.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 156, from the Senate, for the relief of Jacob Ross.-Mr. McMaster.
Bill No. 157, from the Senate, for the relief of John Delbert Boddy.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).
Bill No. 158, from the Senate, for the relief of Edward Hugh Reid.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 159, from the Senate, for the relief of Sidney Charles Simmons.-Mr. Clifford.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a question of privilege. Last night, or rather early this morning, we were discussing a certain resolution regarding the appropriation to the harbour commissioners of the port of Quebec. After the hon. member for Quebec County (Mr. Lavigueur) had spoken I rose in my place and put a question to the minister, and the chairman ruled that I could not put the question as he had called for yeas and nays before I rose. I wish to repeat what I said last night, Mr. Speaker, that I was on my feet when the question was put. If the chairman did not see me I do not see how that could be ruled as being my fault. I appeal to you, Sir, as I understand that you are responsible for the proper procedure being carried on in this House.
235*


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Any such question should have been brought before the committee when the committee was sitting and an appeal from the decision of the chairman taken there and then, not later.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT, 1923, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 46, to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers, Prince Edward Island-Georgetown-repairs to freight shed on C.N.R. wharf, $1,200.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: This is a
new item; perhaps we should have an explanation.


James Horace King: The Canadian National have a large shed on the wharf at Georgetown which is not being used by the railway authorities. It has been represented to the department that it could be made more useful for the storage of potatoes, and the Department of Public Works are taking it over and putting it in repair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: How much
was spent last year?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur Meighen: Where is this money
intended to be spent, and how much at each place?


John Warwick King: I am afraid I
cannot give that information, because this is a contingent fund to take care of unforeseen conditions that may arise during the year. This year only two notations are made for expenditure, one at Sturgeon, $600, and the other at Skinner's Pond, $400. This item is, of course, entirely for Prince Edward Island.


Arthur Meighen: Where was the money
spent last year?	.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: The following are
the places and amounts:
Charlottetown-repairs to scow	
$238	07McEachern-wharf repairs	
288	02Clifton-wharf	
59	17Grand River North-wharf repairs	
378	86Port Hill-wharf	
315	30Wood Island-south breakwater	
61	75* Annandale-wharf	
100	00Franklin Point-wharf	
391	88Gordon's Point-wharf repairs	
556	53St. Mary's Bay-wharf	
100	00Panmure Island-wharf	
124	83
West Point

wharf	
146	21Brudenelle-wharf	
40	95


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Higgin's Shore-wharf repairs, $2,300.
Arthur Meighen: Where is Higgin's Shore?


John Warwick King: In Prince county. The expenditure is for repairs. It is recommended by the district engineer. The wharf has been very useful as a shelter for a large number of boats engaged in lobster fishing on the eastern coast of Egmont bay, there being no other landing in that vicinity for this traffic. The wharf is in bad condition, no extensive repairs having been made on it for some years, and unless repairs are soon undertaken it will very soon be impassable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kier's Shore-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Mr. HANSON:: Was any money spent on this work last year?


John Warwick King: Yes, $5,567.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the size of the
pier?


John Warwick King: It is about 1,030
feet long. The wharf is an old structure whidh was badly damaged in the hurricane of 1923. It serves a rich agricultural district of several thousand people who have no near railway accommodation. It is the only wharf in the vicinity and it is important that it should be kept in good condition for shipping purposes, it is used by the local schooner trade.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In what county is it?


John Warwick King: Prince county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New London-harbour improvements, $20,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister ought to give some explanation of this item; this is too large an amount for an ordinary wharf.
TMr. Meighcn.]


John Warwick King: I have a memorandum which I shall read:
The entrance to the harbour from the gulf of St. Lawrence lies between a rocky headline on the west known as Sims Head and the low sand spit to the east, which is from 500 to 1,500 feet in width,
Works for the improvement of the entrance, which is obstructed by a shifting sand bar, were commenced by the department in 1878 and consisted first of constructing a breakwater 1,050 feet in length on the sand beach on the eastern side; this work being chiefly a round timber open face crib filled with brush and stone, which some years later was extended by a square timber head block 150 feet in length. A breakwater 460 feet in length was also built on the western side of the entrance, the inner 400 feet of which consisted of piles, brush and stone, while the outer portion 60 feet in length was a square timber block 40 feet wide and close piles.
These breakwaters were constructed with a view of confining the ebb current and directing it on to the bar outside, as well as to prevent the sea from washing the sand into the channel inside and running parallel with the eastern breakwater.
This structure is at the entrance of the harbour and the purpose is to prevent the silting of sand from the sea into the channel.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this the total amount required for the contract?


John Warwick King: No, it will take
$32,000 to complete the contract, but $20,000 is as much as we can spend this year.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What protected the
channel previously?


John Warwick King: An old cribwork
which this is to replace.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will this work be done by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, by tender.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister in every case advertise for public tenders, or does he send out a select list?


John Warwick King: We advertise
publicly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that rule followed in
every case? I have information that in the province of Nova Scotia tenders are not always called for but that a few selected persons are asked to tender.


John Warwick King: I do not know of anything of that kind; perhaps the hon. member will igive me the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for
Halifax (Mr. Black) has information to that effect but he is not here at present. However, I will adc him, when he comes, to give it to the minister.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: If that is the
case I shall be glad to make an explanation, which I am sure will be satisfactory to my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Whom is this vote intended to elect?	[DOT]


John Warwick King: It is primarily
for the good of the people of Prince Edward Island.


Arthur Meighen: Which of these people
in particular?


John Warwick King: If the hon. member would like to know, the district is in Queens county.


Arthur Meighen: I think the money will
be spent in vain.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the real justification for this vote? The minister says that the work is intended to prevent the sand from silting into the channel. But how did the people get along before this wharf was promised them?


John Warwick King: This is not a
new work; there was a structure there many years ago, indeed previous to confederation, but it needs to be replaced.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is all right.


Arthur Meighen: How many boats were
there last year?


John Warwick King: There were two
sea-going vessels and seven inland and coasting vessels.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does the minister
mean by sea-going vessels?


John Warwick King: I suppose they
would be vessels going to Cape Breton.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would call those
coasters.


Arthur Meighen: So that there were nine
vessels in all. About how many will this $20,000 bring-two more?


John Warwick King: The work will
make 'it possible for them to continue to use the haribour.


Arthur Meighen: The same nine?


John Warwick King: The same nine
[DOT]or other vessels, I do not know; the vessels do not travel on any schedule but simply come and !go as the demands of the district require.


Mr. FORKE:: Are there any fishermen
there?


John Warwick King: There are fishing vessels, ibut we have no record of any of the smaller boats. What I have given is taken from the returns of the Customs department.


Arthur Meighen: There were only nine
arrivals throughout the year?


John Warwick King: That is, arrivals
entered in the customs return, but we have no record of the 'smaller boats.


Arthur Meighen: But those are the only
vessels of any account that call?


John Warwick King: Oh no; there are
fishing vessels as well. The harbour is used by the local trade.


Arthur Meighen: There would be no record unless the vessels carried goods that entered the customs?


John Warwick King: Those are the
vessels of which we have any record.


Arthur Meighen: But there would be no
record of vessels going to Cape Breton?


John Warwick King: I said Cape
Breton, but they might go anywhere else. I want to be clear on that point. The customs returns show so many vessels having entered and cleared; but as I have said so often, there are local vessels coming and going of which no account is taken.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the total amount that has been spent on this wharf up to the present time?


John Warwick King: Up to March 31 of this year, $62,093.20.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nine Mile Creek-wharf repairs, $2,450.
John Warwick King: This is to repair
a wharf twenty feet by eighteen feet, the damage having been caused by ice pressure, and to reconstruct entirely the outer portion of the wharf. The surrounding country is rich in agricultural products, and contains several hundred persons, a number of whom are employed in fishing, there being two lobster factories located in the district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Souris-breakwater repairs, $36,500.
John Warwick King: This is a considerable sum. It is to keep in repair an important pier or breakwater which forms the harbour at Souris, which is an important harbour of refuge. It is used largely by the fish-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
ing fleets of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as well as other fishing vessels that go to the banks off there. The engineer reports;
Since the face of the outer block was damaged in the fall of 1915 nothing has been done to make it secure, and although it has withstood all heavy seas and storms up to the present time much better than anticipated, it is now beginning to show signs of weakness and very serious damage is liable to take place at any time unless the stone face is extended along the seaward face and front of this block. The breakwater is a commercial necessity beyond question, for without the protection it affords Souris as a shipping and fishing centre could not survive.
The work is one of some magnitude, the sum of $498,685.33 having been expended on it up to March 31, 1925.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the population of Souris?


John Warwick King: The town of
Souris has a population of 1,100. The industries consist of fishing, cold! storage plant, lobster factory, saw mill, and planing mill. I should like to emphasize the fact that this harbour is more than a local harbour for Souris. It is the eastern terminus of the Prince Edward Island railway, now operated by the Canadian National, and is largely used by the fishing fleets that ply off the coast of Nova Scotia. . -
Mr. CALDW'ELL: Is the railway to Souris a narrow gauge railway?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the government
ever considered widening the gauge so that this portion of the Prince Edward Island railway may be afforded more traffic?


John Warwick King: I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I understand it is under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: This is in the constituency of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) ?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I understood he was to be taken care of otherwise.


John Warwick King: We are taking
care of breakwaters now.


Mr. HUGHES:: That remark is worthy of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: Is it not true?


James Joseph Hughes: I know the local conditions here, and I wish to give some information to the committee. This is essentially a harbour of refuge, and is largely used for that purpose. I myself have counted between
IMr. J. H. King.]
sixty and seventy sail of vessels taking refuge there from a storm. That was before the war when the American fishing fleet operated in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Since the war the Americans do not come into the gulf of St. Lawrence to fish. But Souris is a very important fishing place for the Nova Scotia fleet, and I have frequently counted over thirty sail of vessels in Souris harbour during a storm. These vessels, with their equipment, are worth about $20,000 each, representing a probable total value of $900,000 at least. The average crew would number from eighteen to twenty men, so that the total number of all the fishing crews would be about 600 men. There is no harbour that will take care of that fleet on the north side of Prince Edward Island; this is on the south side near East Point. The fishing business could not be successfully operated in the gulf of St. Lawrence without harbours of refuge. Souris is the first harbour that the vessels could make after rounding East Point, and it is essential for the fishing business. As the minister has stated, Souris is the eastern terminus of the Prince Edward Island railway. The steamer plying between Pictou and the Magdalen islands calls there four times a week. There is also communication by auxiliary schooners propelled by steam power. In addition to that there is the ordinary local traffic. We have a fairly large schooner trade with the west and south coast of Newfoundland, and a reasonable traffic of the same kind with Nova Scotia. This breakwater was commenced before confederation. It was taken over at the time of confederation and has been extended until now it is sufficiently large to accommodate the immense fishing fleet that I have described. It is to be maintained for that purpose, and I say again it is hardly in keeping with the dignity of the leader of the opposition to insinuate that the member representing that part of the county had any unworthy object in recommending this work to the department. The district engineer has strongly recommended it. It is a work on Prince Edward Island that is of interprovincial importance; it is just as advantageous to the fishing fleet of Nova Scotia, and perhaps more, than to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island, although I suppose there would be thirty or forty local crews fishing out of that harbour. These are the facts in connection with this work, and I thought it advisable to give them to the committee.


Arthur Meighen: 
James Joseph Hughes: Then why .the insinuation?


Arthur Meighen: There was no insinuation; it was just the opposite. If the hon. member does not intend' to seek re-election of course he could not possibly have an unworthy object. The hon. member's reasoning has just lapsed for the moment, that is all. My purpose was two-fold. First, I was anxious to get the hon. member to his feet because I thought he would know something of the local circumstances, and as he has shown that he does we now understand the situation much better than if he had not risen.


James Joseph Hughes: Thank you.


Arthur Meighen: The minister, however,
is sadly lacking, and one never knows just how sadly lacking he is until just a few days afterwards when he begins to hear the facts from the various localities. I get some startling information from time to time after the words of the minister reach the country. My other object was to find out^perhaps it was an unworthy curiosity-if the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) would deny the aspiration, but I notice he was discreetly silent on that point. Therefore I will have to take it for granted that the suggestion was correct. While we on this side of the House regret to lose' him we certainly agree that in party service he has earned the promotion.


James Joseph Hughes: My right hon. friend's
imagination is very strong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understood the minister
to say that there had been no damage to this breakwater since 1915. Well, I happen to have visited Souris within the last two years, and walked over that breakwater. My observation then was that it was in a very good state of repair, and I am rather surprised io find now an item of this size in the estimates having regard to the appearance of the pier when I saw it. Of course appearances are deceptive; the structure might be undermined. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Kings has said. Souris is a very important harbour on the southeast coast of Prince Edward Island, and it is quite proper to keep the structure up. But I question very much if at this time this very large expenditure is required; it does not so appear to the casual observer.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend,
no doubt, would acquire a great deal of information from visiting Souris and walking over the breakwater, but he failed to observe
the damage that has taken place. The district engineer reports that serious damage was done to the breakwater in 1915, and he recommends very strongly that its face be protected from further action by the sea.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not very much faith in the report of the district engineers. They will report almost anything ycu want them to report.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend has that opinion of any district engineer, will he give me his name?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know who he is, but I happen to knew that in years gone by a district engineer could be induced to make almost any report.


An hon. MEMBER:: Belle River for instance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that is a case in point -a most outrageous case.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is discussing something he has no right to discuss. That matter is before the Public Accounts committee and there will be an opportunity to discuss it. And Belle River will be ail right when it comes up. I think it is most unfair of my hon. friend to attack the engineering staff in that way. It will not add to the confidence of the people who have faith in these men. If my hon. friend has in mind any particular engineer he should report him to the department and we will investigate.
' Mr. HANSON: I am much obliged for the castigation of the minister but I did give an instance, namely Belle River, where the facts disclosed show that the engineer's report was most exaggerated. He has doubled the population over and above the official statistics.


John Warwick King: We will wait for the evidence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have had the evidence.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has had some evidence, and is interpreting it for his own advantage.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil, Bcnaven-ture):: The proceedings before the Public
Accounts committee cannot be discussed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true and. I
bow to the chairman's decision, but the minister asked a question, I answered it. I think that this is surely an important point, and if the minister is bona fide of The belief that this breakwater requires further expenditure, I

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
am satisfied that it should be made, but I am net just satisfied with the bona tides of the demand. This pier is in the same condition as it was after the storm ten years ago, and the matter can very well stand.


John Warwick King: That is contrary
to the report of the engineer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Peter's Bay-breakwater and beach protection repairs and reconstruction, $2,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the traffic
through this port?


John Warwick King: This appropriation is urgently required to reconstruct and strengthen portions of a very old work which was damaged and partly carried away by a hurricane which swept over the province, October 1, 1923. The work is wholly of a public nature, affording the necessary landing and protection to several lobster factories and a large fleet of fishing boats.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much was spent of last year's vote?


John Warwick King: The expenditure
in 1924-25 was $3,038.65.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What was done for
that? Was it dredging or wharf repairs?


John Warwick King: Last year the vote was late, and the work was commenced at a late date and it was impossible to complete all the necessary repairs during 1924-25. Practically all the material required has now been delivered at site, and the beach protection work, 230 feet long, about completed, while sufficient repairs have been made on the balance of work to secure it until next year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My hon. friend speaks
of beach protection. What form does it take? Is it in the form of rip-rapping with stone.


John Warwick King: It is cribwork with stone.	*


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How long?


John Warwick King: It is 1,450 feet in length.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Speaking of beach
protection, does that mean to keep it from washing away the shore, or what is the object?


John Warwick King: It is the entrance, and this vote is to maintain the harbour.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it tc' keep the silt
from washing in? Or to keep it from wearing away the shore-line?
fMr. Hanson.]


John Warwick King: It is to keep the bank from going into the channel and blocking.


Mr. GARLAND (Bcw River):: Will the
amount provided this year complete the job?


John Warwick King: Yes, that is the
intention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said there
were a large number of lobster factories there. Will he tell us how many lobster factories there are, the amount of capital invested and the turnover? On visiting in the locality I was not very much impressed with it as a commercial centre.


John Warwick King: I have this
report:
There are three lobster factories nearby employing 75 hands during the fishing seasons, while some 50 fishermen depend wholly on the fishing industry as a means of livelihood.
St. Peter's harbour is the only one on an exposed coast for a distance of 30 miles available for vessels with any considerable draft after rounding East point, and is used quite extensively by vessels of this class during the fishing season besides supplying the necessary shelter for many large motor boats freighting and fishing between the different small harbours along the north coast of the island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Summerside-breakwater repairs, $2,000.
John Warwick King: The work proposed is the sheathing of the entire sloping face of the outer block, 130 feet long and 20 feet wide on top, with ten-inch hardwood timber. The district engineer states:
The repairs proposed are entirely of a public nature and considered absolutely necessary in order to maintain a valuable work that gives the necessary protection to the shipping trade of the port of Summerside. As the present plank sheathing has been badly damaged, there is great danger of the entire face of the outer block being carried away by running ice, unless the repairs and strengthening proposed are undertaken at a very early date.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is the pier faced with
hardwood lumber or boiler plate?


John Warwick King: Hardwood.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to. .
Tignish harbour-repairs to breakwater, $4,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent on
this?


John Warwick King: The amount spent was $133,073.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the nature of the
repairs this year?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: My memorandum reads:
To complete work commenced during 1924-25 consisting of repairs to top portion of seaward wall of north breakwater for an average depth of eight feet and length of 250 feet, also to reconstruct top portion of south breakwater 100 feet long to average depth of six feet. Both of these works are twenty feet wide.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister
explain to us-and possibly I am revealing my ignorance by asking the question-just what these last words mean?"-"Appropriations not required for 1925-26." In view of the fact that the whole vote for Prince Edward Island last year was $29,000, how does it come that the $73,000 was not required? I see such items appearing in many estimates.


John Warwick King: It is a statement
put in by the Finance department in making up their yearly estimates. These moneys have been expended and therefore they are not required.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Having been expended?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Expended last year.


Mr. MANION:: Where the items are not
mentioned in this year's estimates?


John Warwick King: Yes; they are off the slate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent in
Tignish the last year and the year before? It seems to me this has become a hardy annual.


John Warwick King: The amount
spent last year-$6,036.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the year before?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information, but I notice in the discussion last year $2,700 was mentioned as the expenditure the year before.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the minister
could ascertain from the deputy that the year before that there were several thousand more.


John Warwick King: No, I think not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the principal
reason why there is so much damage to the breakwater every year?


John Warwick King: These breakwaters are subject to the elements, and on an exposed coast there is bound to be damage.
If the breakwater is decaying or out of repair, the damage is greater. Work of this kind requires constant care if it is to be kept in a proper state of repair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can understand that
along the Northumberland strait where there is so much ice, but on the east side of the island, is the water frozen up every year?


John Warwick King: , It is right on the gulf of St. Lawrence. It is exposed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there ice damage on that side?


John Warwick King: I would think
so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Beaver harbour -wharf repairs, $3,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the department own this wharf? When was it built and what is the condition of the wharf now?


John Warwick King: The wharf was
built in 1909 by the Department of Public Works; it is owned by the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any revenue derived
from these public wharves?


John Warwick King: There would not be from this wharf.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the condition of
the structure now?


John Warwick King: The engineer
reports that sea worms have destroyed the lower portion of the piles in the section of the work near low water level. Close piling will strengthen the work and, in addition, from a sheltered area back of the pier heads where boats can lie in safety during easterly and southerly storms. The wharf is used by Connors Brothers in landing freight and passengers twice a week and it is used extensively by the fishermen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Black's harbour-reconstruction of wharf approach,
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a good deal of
money for a wharf approach at Black's harbour. Has a survey been made, and what is the nature of the approach?


John Warwick King: The engineer reports that the work has been damaged by ice and it is necessary to construct a block and span approach to the pier head of the wharf, 128 feet long and sixteen feet wide, made up of one shore block forty feet long, two blocks each twenty feet long and three spans each sixteen feet in length.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will $2,000 complete
that structure? It seems quite an extensive structure for that amount. Wihat is the height of the pier?


John Warwick King: I have not the
height of the pier.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the substructure
of the pier be eribwork and stone?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the traffic at
Black's harbour?.


John Warwick King: All export and
import at Black's harbour are made by water, the nearest rail point being nine miles distant. The steamer Connors Bros, carries freight and passengers to this place for St. John and St. Andrews, and the public wharf is used extensively by other power boats. Black's harbour is the location of the extensive packing plant of Connors Brothers, Ltd. and has a population during the greater part of the year of 500. The annual pack is estimated at $500,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Connors Brothers have
their own pier?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This wharf is for the
convenience of the fishermen and the public?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The steamboat is owned
by the same concern. I understand she uses their own private pier.


John Warwick King: They would land at our pier.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister sure about that? I think he is wrong.


John Warwick King: The engineer
states that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I presume they use this pier -for the general traffic and their own pier for their own private work.


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Burn's (Belle Isle bay)-wharf improvements, $4,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is this point?


John Warwick King: In the county of Royal. At the head of Long reach on the St. John river, I think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would it be in Kings or in Queens county-because there is no . "county" of Royal?


John Warwick King: Kings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Burnt Church-wharf repairs, $2,500.
John Warwick King: This is to put creosoted sheeting on the pierhead, replacing the present wornout covering and cap with concrete.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will this vote complete the work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Campbellton-repairs to market wharf and to deep water wharf, $1,800.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the nature of this?


John Warwick King: The work will consist of replacing the stringers which support the rails across the outer span, continuing filling of the western extension, making minor repairs to deep water wharf and resurfacing the entire surface of the market wharf with broken rock and gravel. This will provide a serviceable covering for several years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this used for shipments of lumber as well as fish?


John Warwick King: Largely lumber and fish.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think there must be something wrong with that information, because lumber from Campbellton is either lightered out from wharves owned by the lumbermen or loaded over private wharves. I do not think they ship the lumber over this wharf. I think it is used for the steamboat service.
: Mr. KING (Kootenay): There are many shipments over this deep water wharf, which is in continual use by steamers and sailing vessels. It is a divisional point on the Canadian National Railways. It is an important point, as I think my hon. friend will agree.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Campbellton and Bathurst are to-day the largest shipping ports of lumber in New Brunswick. There is no doubt that Campbellton as regards shipments of lumber is away ahead even of the port of St. John. This small item is neces-
4 p.m. sary to improve the accommodation.
In addition to lumber we are shipping fish to a certain extent, but not a large quantity, by rail and water. We certainly need this accommodation because we have in the harbour at the present time steamers from across the ocean trying to load up a large quantity of lumber which has been in the yards of the lumbermen throughout the winter. This wharf, I am informed, is necessary for the approach of cars and other means

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
of transportation such as smalLbottom boats that come in between the two wharves, the market wharf and the deep water wharf. The engineer was sent there at the request of the citizens of Campbellton for the purpose of having the facilities improved for the transportation of our products.
Mr. HANSCffc: Do tramp steamers loading lumber at Campbellton use this wharf, or do they anchor in the stream and have the lumber lightered out to them?


Pius Michaud: I know steamers load their cargoes 'at the wharf. I have seen them do so in previous years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cape Bald-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I imagine the name ought to be changed. I do not think the place can be regarded as any longer "bald" after the votes of the last three years. I find that a total of 114,700 has been voted, if not expended. How much has been spent in the last three years on this particular breakwater, and what is the total amount voted to date?


John Warwick King: If my bon. friend had an opportunity of visiting the locality he would understand that it is well named cape Bald; it is a bleak, open spot on the coast. In all there has been spent 873,979. Last year we spent $2,544 of the appropriation voted.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much will be needed to finish this work?


John Warwick King: This will complete the repairs we have in hand at the present time.


Edward Joseph Garland: What has the minister in mind to then occupy the attention of the people down there?


John Warwick King: There may be
another storm-they come up pretty regularly.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the department any further plans for cape Bald?


John Warwick King: Nothing more
than maintenance work.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope the minister will be fortified against any further demands.


John Warwick King: This is for maintenance work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cole's point-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Mr. SPENCER:: This amount is increased over last year. What is the explanation?


John Warwick King: We spent only
$870 last year. This is to renew the upper tier of cross-ties, stringers, covering and cap timber on a section of the approach, 166 feet long by 30 feet wide, and on the pierhead, 60 feet by 30 feet. It is reported upon by the engineer as necessary to maintain the work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Cole's point?


John Warwick King: In Westmorland
county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any traffic there? This is quite a large sum for a little wharf.


John Warwick King: It is practically for the ferry service across the bay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Years ago there used to be some lumber shipments also.


Mr. COPP:: There are some yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very few. Will this be
done by the department?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who will appoint the foreman?


John Warwick King: The district engineer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A little bit of patronage?


John Warwick King: I would not say
that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dipper harbour-^breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is quite an important breakwater, and the minister might tell us something about it.


John Warwick King: This is in the constituency of St. John and Albert. The work will consist of removing the old face of the piles along the outer edge of the breakwater for a distance of 65 feet and close-piling this area with squared timber ten inches thick, renewing the stringers, covering the cap on two sections of the inshore portion of the work, and re-topping 46 fenders. The district engineer states that the outer face of the breakwater is loose and gradually breaking away at the point where these repairs are required, and if the damage goes further, as it might at any time a storm blows up, the whole end of the breakwater is liable to be destroyed.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I notice there is no
item for St. John.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will find an item for St. John under capital appropriations.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister propose to build the Negro point breakwater this year? It is one of the very important works required in New Brunswick.


John Warwick King: No provision has
been made in the main estimates.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Enough money has been spent in St. John to have all the facilities necessary and a good many million dollars left over. The money has 'been spent on a part of the harbour that has never been used except for the dry dock. It may be that when we have a hundred million people we will need the Courtenay bay works, but in the meantime I think the government should consider the development of facilities where they are actually needed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will this Dipper harbour
work be done 'by contract or by day labour?


John Warwick King: By day labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister should give
us some declaration of principle. My impression is that most of the money is wasted when the work is done by day labour, and that a very much better return would be made to the country if the contract system was adopted. The fact of the matter is that a good many of these works are undertaken in small localities just before an election with the view of enticing innocent voters to support certain candidates.


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That never was thought
of 'by this government in 1923 in Nova Scotia just before a by-election! But, seriously, I believe it would 'be more economical to adopt the contract system. I am not questioning the necessity of work at Dipper harbour breakwater. It is an important harbour along the bay of Fundy, and anyone who knows the bay is aware that these structures deteriorate very rapidly, one big storm undoing the work of years. The minister, I assume, is following the practice of the department? I think it is all wrong and that one hundred cents' value is not received for every dollar expended; that is my observation.


John Warwick King: It is very difficult to estimate the expenditure on repair work, and men do not like to contract for it. If they do contract, they add a sufficient margin to their price to safeguard them against what may occur as they strip and expose the work. We have a well arranged engineering staff with a resident engineer in each district, and there is no reason why this repair work, under the proper supervision of the staff, cannot be done cheaper than by contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the repairs were done
by men working for a private individual it no doubt would be done economically, but when done for a government it never is.


John Warwick King: I think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister ever
tried out the contract system? If so, where and with what success?


John Warwick King: It has been tried
and found unsatisfactory.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Having had some
experience in matters of this kind I realize that it is difficult to give a contract for repair work, especially on a wharf, 'because until you dismantle the old wharf it is hard to tell just what work is needed. I would like, however, to back up the hon. member (Mr. Hanson) in the view that for new construction it should be the policy to call for tenders in every case.


John Warwick King: That is the
practice.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Of course where the
repairs are carried out by day's work it should be properly supervised. Possibly the hon. member for York-Sunbury has been keeping bad company and that makes him a little more suspicious than I am in regard to these matters; at the same time I hope his remarks will be taken seriously so far as they relate to the letting of contracts for new work.


Mr. SPENCE:: Is there ever to be any
permanent work on these docks, wharves and breakwaters? Last year we spent $4,000 on this work, the year before $3,000, and this year we are voting $5,000. I will guarantee the whole job could be done for much less than that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did the
hon. member not hear the minister say that, he was hoping for another storm?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


David Spence: For years this has been
going on-breakwater after breakwater on the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coast, money being simply handed out to people who are doing nothing for it.	[DOT]


Mr. DUFF:: How do you know?


Mr. CARROLL:: In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we have a tremendous coast line, while in Ontario there is no coast line at all, but more money has been spent in Ontario this year than in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick put together.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact I
think we have more coast line in Ontario than there is in Nova Scotia. There is a very considerable coast line around the lakes, and we do more business from some of those ports than is done from any port in Nova Scotia.


Mr. SNOWBALL:: It is to be noted that
on the lake shores such works are not subject to the attacks of the teredo worm as they are on the Atlantic coast. These old works that were put down some years ago and have been kept in repair were constructed of non-creosoted timber. I understand that at present creosoted timber is being used in any new work that is done. In repairing an. old work it would not pay to tear it all up and start with creosoted timber at the bottom and work up again. As to the remarks of the hon. member for York^Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) with regard to the way this work is done, I feel that he has not been on some of these wharves and seen the difficulties that those who are carrying out repairs have had to contend with. Upon tearing up what they were ordered to work on by the engineer they may find further deterioration, so that the contractor would certainly have to make some provision for the unforeseen in that connection. In any work I have seen carried on- and I have had considerable to do with day's work and contract work-I have found that the work done by the government engineers and by the foremen in charge has been carried out in the same manner as if it had been done by a private concern or contractor. I have in mind at the moment some wharf repair work that was done a couple of years ago. It had been thought necessary to take off three or four feet, but when the engineer removed this he discovered that deterioration had taken place below and it cost a good deal more than originally estimated to carry out the job properly. It would be useless to
put the top in good condition and leave the rest as it was. So that the only way this work can be carried on is by day's- work. I am fully in accord with what was said by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), that all new work should be done by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Escuminac-harbour improvements, $50,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the minister ought to tell us something about Escuminac. This is the price paid for the election of the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Snowball).


William F. Carroll: He is worth it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Time only will tell. I
am not making any disparaging remarks about the hon. member, but in any event he came pretty high.


John Warwick King: This is a large
and important work in the county of Northumberland. It is proposed to construct a crib-work breakwater 1,420 feet long which will give shelter to the boats of the fishing industry, which is an important industry at that point. The work is not a new one that is, its consideration is not new in the department. Parliament has at different times voted money for it, but up to the present the work has not been undertaken. There was a vote in 1910-11 and again in 1913. The district engineer reports as follows:
The work is required for protection of the many fishing boats in the locality, and as a landing place for the Miramichi Steam Navigation Company's boat, which makes three trips per week. During, the season of 1924 the salmon fisheries amounted to $90,000, employing forty to fifty boats having a draft of three and a half feet. There are employed in the other fisheries, -lobsters, herring, and so forth some seventy boats drawing three and a half feet, and fifty dories. Six lobster factories are located in this district, four of which are at Escuminac point, and two at bay St. Anne. Boats from both places would take shelter during storms, and it is certain factories would be established at the breakwater, were sheltered harbour provided. The approximate annual value of the lobster industry amounts to $100,000; annual value of the herring fisheries approximately $10,000. Cod and mackerel are in abundance, but lack of shelter prevents any extensive prosecution of this part of the fishing industry. Two hundred and forty men are actually employed in fishing, and three hundred hands are employed in the factories. The capital invested in boats, nets, rope, traps, and so forth, is estimated at $160,000 and the capital invested in factories, plants, etc., $75,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are there any boats
using this harbour which have a draft of more than three and a half feet of water?


John Warwick King: No, they are
mostly fishing boats.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is quite a large sum for the development of a harbour for the use of boats of that draft.


John Warwick King: It is a shelter for the fishing industry on the coast. It is a large industry, capable of great development.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What have they done
heretofore for shelter?


John Warwick King: They have been
getting it at some other point, miles away from this locality.


David Spence: How far away is the nearest point where they can get shelter?


John Warwick King: The hon. member for Northumberland, N.B., would have the local knowledge that I do not have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let him tell all about it.


Mr. WARNER:: I live where we do not
have any harbours, and we do not know very much about them. Does the minister's department ever make harbours where there is not one near enough, in order to use some money for harbours?


John Warwick King: Not for that purpose.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what the minister is trying to do now-to make a harbour where there is no harbour.


John Warwick King: That is quite true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not questioning the necessity for it, but I think we have not had enough information to justify an expenditure of $50,000, with more to come next year. How much is it going to cost to get the whole job done?


John Warwick King: To complete the whole scheme would cost $200,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That expenditure would
not be justified at Eseuminac.


John Warwick King: We do not propose to spend that much at this time.


Mr. KELLNER:: Is creosoted timber to be used in this new work?


John Warwick King: It should be creosoted timber.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: But is it?


John Warwick King: My notes do not say that it will be used, but I imagine it is the practice down there to use creosoted timber.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: I suggest also that if you build a harbour at this point and take the trade away from another harbour which previously had it, the result may be to ruin that other harbour.


John Warwick King: Oh, no.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That is altogether
different from the argument that was advanced last night in connection with another matter.
I would suggest that the department be inspired to devise some means of building permanent 'harbours, at least sometimes. Here we have page after page of estimates for the repairs of harbours, and I think the time 'has about arrived when we should construct permanent works in our harbours. It would relieve the drain on the country materially. Surely the intelligence of the department in that line is not entirely exhausted. If the process of creosoting the timber will tend to preserve these works it must be a simple matter to have this done. The department might have been following that idea for some time now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Possibly there is one
point that escapes our friends from the interior; and we are not blaming them for it. The hon. member speaks of building "permanent harbours." Did he ever hear of building a "permanent" railway? Fortunately we do not have to put through votes in this House to keep up the repairs of railways; if we did, one would! soon wonder whether there was any method of building permanent railways. With regard to this particular vote, it strikes me that the expenditure of $200,000 on this harbour is rather an elaborate under- , taking at the present time especially in view of the fact that the people concerned have got along without it until now. This is a critical time in our history and we should be very careful of every dollar we spend. I would urge the minister to make sure that this expenditure is absolutely necessary before he asks us to vote the money. Only recently have the people of this country become really seized of the necessity for economy in public and private matters alike, and until we in parliament begin to practise to some extent what we have been advocating in this regard we are only more or less like tinkling cymbals to the people. I have said repeatedly that in my opinion any government was to blame for spending a dollar which was not imperatively needed. I think that our estimates should all be pared to the bone and that no work should be carried on which could be got along without. This expenditure happens

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to be in New Brunswick, and I am interested in the development of the harbours of that province, although I do not live on the coast, my home being in the interior. At the same time, I do think that the minister should , be pretty careful how he authorizes the expenditure of the public money. A public work was asked for by the people in my own riding during this very session, and after the report had been submitted upon the matter the minister decided not to go ahead with the work. I told him I had no fault to find with that decision if he carried out the same policy throughout his whole programme. Of course, when economy touches your own riding you are apt to be sensitive.
I feel much as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Hopkins) recently expressed himself-it is not necessary for any one of us to get votes, but it is necessary that economy should be practised in the country. Speaking in this way may not get a man any votes, but it is my opinion that all these expenditures should be carefully scrutinized and criticized.
I should like the hon. member representing the riding to give us some more facts than have so far been placed before us. I should be reluctant to out out a vote if it were absolutely needed, but I certainly do think that we should have some information that would really justify us in voting such an expenditure as this.


Arthur Meighen: I have only just come
in, but I assume from_ the size of the vote that there was a by-election in this riding. Am I correct?


John Warwick King: There is no byelection there.


Arthur Meighen: But there was one lately, and this is part of the harvest?


John Warwick King: That by-election
is over.	*


Arthur Meighen: But it is not all paid for yet.


John Warwick King: This vote has no relation to it.


Arthur Meighen: The minister told us the other day that the vote for Trenton had no relation to a by-election in that part of the country; but some citizen of that town noticed the report in Hansard and wrote me a letter stating that on every platform that vote was promised if the government candidate was elected.


John Warwick King: I had no knowledge of it.


Arthur Meighen: And he said it had
been personally promised him several times. He reviewed all the promises the minister had made, sending a most complete disproof of every one of them; he established beyond question that it was nothing more nor less than a payment out of the public treasury for votes in the by-election. If the minister would like to have some of the contents of that letter read I shall be glad to oblige him. But I do not think he would like it.


John Warwick King: The vote for
Trenton was passed some days ago, but I have no objection to the right hon. gentleman reading all the correspondence he has from his friends in Trenton. I know that he and they feel somewhat peeved about Trenton and the district of Hastings, but so far as the department is concerned there were no promises made to anyone.


Arthur Meighen: I know that the deputy minister did not go there and make any promises. But I invite the minister's request now that I read the correspondence which I have referring to his statements in this House. I know the vote was passed, but it was passed on statements of the minister that were not true.


John Warwick King: I take exception to that.


Arthur Meighen: I will support it.


John Warwick King: The hon. member has no right to make any statements of that kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What has the minister to say about this vote and about the whole scheme? How much is it proposed to spend?


John Warwick King: I have already informed the committee that it is not proposed to complete the whole undertaking at the present time, but by building portions of the work we shall provide the necessary accommodation. They will have the needed shelter for the boats to enable them to carry on their fishing business.


Robert James Manion: How many people are
concerned?


John Warwick King: There is a population of approximately 1,780 engaged in fishing and farming.


Robert James Manion: What proportion of them would be engaged in fishing?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: There are forty
or fifty boats engaged in salmon fishing and other fisheries; there are seventy boats in the lobster and herring industry; there are six lobster factories located in the district.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be the whole parish. Surely there are not six lobster factories located where this particular harbour is.


John Warwick King: Four of the six are at that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister seriously suggest that there are 1,780 people in the immediate vicinity of the harbour? There are not 1,780 in the whole parish which is sparsely populated.


William Bunting Snowball: Possibly I can give a little more information in connection with this vote than some of the other members. The remarks made by the leader of' the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and by my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) were no doubt intended to cut me, but I am not influenced at all in what I have to say by any statements they may have made. It is true there was a byelection last fall in the county of Northumberland, and I had the privilege of winning by a majority of 670 votes; andi my majority in this particular locality was less than fifty, my opponent having got a large share of the vote there. This would show that the breakwater, if it was mentioned, did not " cut any ice Although I spoke in that locality, the breakwater was not mentioned except for a reference to what my predecessor at one time, Mr. W. S. Loggie, had done in trying ito get the structure built there in 1910 and 1911. At that time he felt that a breakwater was a necessity. I do not think there is any man who has represented the county of Northumberland, or any county in New Brunswick, who holds so much the respect of both sides of this House as does Mr. W. S. Loggie. He felt at that time that a breakwater was essential in the interests of the fisheries of the Miramichi, and he did all he could to have a breakwater built. A survey was made, and tenders were called for. But for some reason-I think it was on account of some little dispute as to the exact locality; at any rate some local bickering-the breakwater was not built at that time. As far back as 1882 the necessity of a breakwater at this point was considered. Since then, the fishing of all kinds in the Miramichi and the straits of Northumberland has materially increased so that to-day-and I think it has been the

case for the last three or four years-drifters go out for salmon at night, leaving at sun down and coming in at daylight. They go out not only from that point but from other . points on the north shore of Miramichi as far up as Burnt Church, and1 drift for salmon in the straits of Northumberland. They go out fishing as far as three miles from land, and if a storm occurs there is no harbour in which they can take refuge or no protection for them at that point. I remember that one time last year, early in August, we had a great deal of fear as to what would be the result of a storm that had occurred. We felt a great deal of trepidation as we watched for the boats to return, as we knew the danger and we feared that there might have been a disaster on account of the storm that had come up so suddenly and with such severity during the night. Fortunately - there was no disaster, the explanation being that the storm did not last long enough to swamp the -boats. Had the storm lasted, however, there would have been a disaster, so I was informed by one of the fishermen who was out at the time, as there were seventy or eighty -boats fishing in those waters. If this breakwater is provided the fishery can be very materially increased. At present with no breakwater provided, these hardy fishermen undergo considerable risk going out night after night. I have a letter written by one of the largest shippers in the fishing industry in the district and he informs me that the value of the salmon, lobsters and mackerel caught in the Miramichi bay and Escuminac district last year was $400,000. This can be materially increased if there is adequate protection for the fishermen and the fishing fleet; if there is a harbour that they can run into in case of danger. Not every man, even although he is a seaman, is prepared to take risks and go out -into those waters at night, staying there all night without any place to run into in case of danger. I received a teleigram within the last few days from Father Paquin, of this district, who says that a storm came up the other night and the fishermen ran into Maclean's Gully or French Bay and took refuge. Fortunately they were able to run their boats in towards the shore, and by jumping out and pulling their craft over the sand bar, were able to reach a place of safety. I do not think that any industry which results in a product of the value of $400,000 being taken out of the deep should be curtailed, or that any community should continue to be placed at such a disadvantage as these people have found themselves ir

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
for so many years. I feel that if we can increase the wealth we are taking from the Atlantic, or from the straits of Northumberland or Miramichi bay, we are performing a service equal to that rendered by increasing the yield of wheat in the west, or by adapting any measure to improve the harbours or public works in the province of Ontario or any other part of Canada. The people in that section of New Brunswick have no railway communication, which is a serious handicap. I may say that I hold a letter written on behalf of the former member for Northumberland. He was ill of pneumonia at the time the letter was written, in fact he is still laid up, and his son in his behalf writes as follows:
Regarding the public works at Escuminac and Hard-wicke which we understand are in this years estimate. Father has made the following notations: "You can say it passed in the estimates of 1910. Tenders were called for and contract ready to be executed. It is more important now than ever, before, owing to the increase in the number of salmon drifting boats." The above are father's remarks. Now I would add that when the vote was originally passed for the breakwater in 1910 there was not any salmon drifting. Salmon drifting has become an industry since that date, which as father states makes the necessity for the breakwater being erected greater than ever previously.
In view of this statement by a man of Mr. Loggie's experience, who knows the necessities of the province of New Brunswick and the county of Northumberland even better than I do, and whose honesty will not be challenged, I think no member would feel that he was justified in voting against this estimate to protect the hardy fishermen who go out and risk their lives from sundown to sunrise to bring in the products of the deep, and who do succeed in bringing in fish to the amount of $400,000 and some say this can be increased to a million dollars. I would therefore ask hon. members to favourably consider this appropriation and not take the risk of having the responsibility for a possible disaster in the Escuminac district placed upon their shoulders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At the risk of assuming
some responsibility I should like to say that these hardy fishermen-and they are a hardy race-have survived without disaster for many years along that coast in the absence of this work, and at this time in the financial history of the country I am satisfied that if the matter was properly put before them they would be willing to make. the necessary sacrifice to assist the country at this particular time in its history. I must confess that I am not impressed with the statement made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, 236
that the appearance of this item in the estimates synchronizes in no way with the byelection that took place in the constituency last September. If my information is correct this is one of the reasons why the hon. gentleman received the majority which he did in that particular locality. As to salmon drifting being a new industry that is certainly news to me. It is not a new industry in the bay of Fundy by any means, and I venture to say it did not start last year in Miramichi bay.


William Bunting Snowball: It is not over four years since salmon drifting started in Northumberland straits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they fished in some other way before they started drifting. The salmon fishing industry was carried on in boats in the Miramichi bay before I was born and before the hon. gentleman was bom either.


William Bunting Snowball: The hon. member knows, if he has any knowledge at all of the matter, that he is not stating a fact. It is only within the last few years that salmon drifting has become a business of importance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose then the fishermen swam out to their nets if they did not go in boats. Of course they have always had boats in the salmon fishing industry. However, I am not so much questioning the desirability of this public work, but I am questioning the size of it. An item that will grow into $200,000 is too much to spend in that particular locality at the present time. The minister says he does not intend to spend that much, but he will find that the very strong pressure that induced him to put $50,000 in the estimates this year, will result next year in another vote of $50,000, and so on until the whole scheme is fulfilled. My own experience is-and I will put myself in the judgment of hon. gentlemen here-that the minute you commit yourself to the principle ot an expenditure of this kind you have got to go on with it. Therefore the minister will find himself in the position that next year he will be asked to put in the estimates $50,000 more, and so on, and so on. I venture to assert that there are not 1,780 people who would be served by this harbour, not one-third of that number, and yet statements are put forward to induce hon. members to believe that there is a very large industry in the district. There is an important industry there, but it has been magnified to justify this vote.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Robert James Manion: I wish once again to offer
a protest against expenditures of this kind. Naturally I do not know much about this particular harbour down in New Brunswick, but I believe we are spending far to large amounts of money on unnecessary works at the present time. In Canada to-day we are going through a very, very serious time for every class of business and occupation. The people are being pressed down under a burden of taxation such as they have never had before. I admit that to a large extent it is due to the war, but nevertheless this is a time when we must, endeavour to lessen that burden of taxation by cutting down our unnecessary expenditures. I do not deny that probably those fishermen down in that neighbourhood are happy to get the protection from the storms of the Atlantic coast. At the same time it seems to me that we might well let them wait a little longer, since they have waited so long, and we might let many other people wait a little longer for some of these works which we are voting money to build. This is a time in Canada when serious men are thinking seriously of the future of their country and are groping to find some solution of the problems of Canada, and yet we are spending millions-not thousands but millions-on all kinds of work which could very well wait for a few years. I do not say that all these works are not necessary, but a great many of them are not necessary at the present time. Never in the history of our country have we had such talk in reference to going into the arms of the United States as we hear to-day, when the country is suffering from the burden of very high taxation. But we hear this talk at present all over the country. We hear it in the smoking cars and we hear it from people on the streets, from men who would never have thought of such a thing ten years ago. And why? It is because of the depressed condition of all lines of business and the high taxation in our country. While I admit that the high taxation is mainly due to war expenditures, the continuance of that high taxation I say is due to unnecessary expenditures such as we are just now passing. I do not say that these expenditures are unnecessary for all time, but they are unnecessary at the present time, because we can wait a few years as we have waited in thej past before making such expenditures. The only people who do not seem to realize that the people of Canada are demanding the cutting down of taxation is the government themselves. They seem to be 
quite oblivious of the fact that the people are demanding a cutting down of the absolutely careless expenditure and free giving of money.
I am going to put on Hansard a list of largely useless expenditures we have voted in the last few weeks in this House. This has a bearing on this item, inasmuch as I am giving reasons why this item and others like it should not be passed. I am going to give a list of expenditures, many of which, if not all, could have been avoided altogether. Last night we passed a vote for the Quebec Harbour Commission, $5,000,000. I do not say that the expenditure of all of that money could have been avoided, but certainly, judging from the discussion in the House last night, much of it was not required. Then we have the Prince Rupert elevator, a scandalous expenditure, $1,350,000, which was voted in this House the other day. This elevator is two hundred miles farther from Edmonton than the elevator at Vancouver. This $1,350,000 which is to be spent on the Prince Rupert elevator is just about as useful as a fifth wheel on a wagon.
Then we have the "Canada is coming through" advertisements, which cost, according to the reply given to myself, $2,893. Then we have the various royal commissions, the cost of which amounted in all to labout $1,000,000. Some of the commissions may have been needed, but many of them were not needed. The Pulpwood Commission cost $75,672, and the Grain Inquiry Commission, cost $160,707. Altogether, to pay for these different commissions meant an expenditure by the government of about $1,000,000. Then we had an increase in the salary of the Auditor General from, $6,000 to $15,000 an annual increase of $9,000. These are small items but they point the direction the government is going, and show how absolutely careless this government is in regard to expenditures and how indifferent to the demands of the people that taxation be cut down; how absolutely careless they are in regard to the unemployment situation and the exodus of our people.
Then we have the matter of the discredited W. T. R. Preston, and the amount paid him was $11,217. He is still on the payroll. We have the trip to Wembley, which the chief government whip (Mr. Kyte) defended so strenuously in the House. I was surprised to see him defending with so much ability the ex-whip of the Progressive party (Mr. Johnston). If he had only risen in this House to defend the coal miners of Nova Scotia with

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the same force probably he would not be so much in fear of his future election as he now is.
Then we have the purchase of the Union club in London, $2,000,000, which was absolutely unnecessary-it was no more necessary to spend $2,000,000 in the purchase of the Union club in London than it would be to spend money to purchase an aeroplane to fly to Mars. We have got along fairly well for thirty or forty years with the offices we have on Victoria street, but now we come along and purchase the Union club at a large figure. I have put it down at $2,000,000. It will probably cost three or four millions by the time it is completed with its furnishings which will be necessary for Mr. Larkin and his entourage.
We have the expenditure on the Canadian National Railways, and this is the worst of them all. The minister said that the government had no control and that they were leaving it to Sir Henry Thornton. Last year they added to the debt of the Canadian National Railways to the extent of $118,000,000. That appears in Hansard, at page 1151 where there is recorded the government's reply to a question by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton):	In that amount is included such expenditures as the following:
Radio, capital and upkeep	 $181,292
Golf links, Jasper park	 124,290
Golf links, Manaki park	 94,632
Last year-and not included in the $118.-000.000-was the expenditure of $2,000,000 on the Scribe hotel. I understand they have got out of that, and have received back their two million by some fluke.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. leader knows mere about it than I do, and he says, that they have not got their money back. It was published in the press that they had. Then we have the fire insurance premiums paid on harbour commission property, Vancouver, $30,895, which was absolutely unnecessary, because in other cases they do not have fire insurance at all on government works.


John Warwick King: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: I am told they do not.


John Warwick King: The harbour commissioners would be remiss in their duties if they did not have fire insurance.


Robert James Manion: 
Mr. HOEY:: I was not shaking my head
seriously.


Robert James Manion: I am glad he makes the
explanation.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is the hon. gentleman speaking from experience?


Robert James Manion: No, I never had much experience in elections except in a small way. I would not however claim that all crimes of that kind are committed by one party. But I am speaking of the present.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Did the Liberal party
raise campaign funds in the way the hon. member suggests?
Mr, MANION: I have no doubt they did. I did not get any of them. I was not a candidate in those days, and I do not know anything about that. There is no criticism of campaign funds. In England, where my hon. friend comes from, they publish campaign funds and boast of the amount they raise. So my hon. friend need not assume the injured air he does. The crime comes in if
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

you raise them at the expense of the people of Canada. I find myself wondering, as I look over all these big expenditures, if this is an attempt to raise campaign funds or if it is merely pure blindness on the part of this government as to the needs of the country?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What conclusions has the hon. member come to?


Robert James Manion: I do not care to tell them. I might be arrested if I told them all. This item of $50,000 is a new item, and nearly all these new items are for places in which there were by-elections lately, where my hon. friends over there got elected. One notices all these things coming out after the election is over, and this makes me wonder if they are not being used for that purpose.
This govemmenet is a prodigal government. It has been prodigal in promises, prodigal in breaking them, prodigal in spending the people's money, and prodigal in everything in which serious men are economical. I want to warn the government that if they go on- and, in fact, whether they go on or not, the same result is going to happen-ignoring the demands for economy and reduction of taxation as they are doing, they are going to receive the same penalty, to have the same result happen to them as that which happened to Mr. Drury with his crowd in Toronto recently.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: What about the government of which my hon. friend was a member?


Robert James Manion: What about it?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: What did it
get?


Robert James Manion: We were too economical. That was the trouble. We refused all these public works that my hon. friends are spending money on now. I want to warn this government that it is the opinion of all thinking men in the country that the government has no conception whatever of the method of cutting down these expenditures or of reducing taxation and, as I said on another occasion, no conception of the government's own impotence on occasions of this kind.


Arthur Bliss Copp: More money was appropriated in 1921 than to-day.


John Warwick King: I do not wish to *continue the discussion at any length, but my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) repeated a .speech which he made a few days ago.


Robert James Manion: No, it is an elaboration.


John Warwick King: At that time I pointed out to the House that the expenditures during the regime of the late government of which he was a member were much greater than the expenditures during the regime of the present government, and that the total vote this year is nearly $2,000,000 less than it was last year. As my hon. friend was so anxious to get his remarks on Hansard that he thought it was necessary to repeat that statement, I think I had probably better repeat the comparative statement which I gave the other day. In 1909-10, the government of that day saw fit to vote for public works $13,058,912. In 1911-12, that amount jumped to $24,301,000.


David Spence: There was some business
then.


John Warwick King: There was good business in Canada prior to 1911. Things were going on well.


David Spence: After that they were.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member tell the committee that that year we paid off $25,000,000 of the public debt?


John Warwick King: That would not be much of a feat at that time.


Arthur Meighen: It is the greatest feat that has 'been performed in Canada. No larger amount was ever paid off in our history.


John Warwick King: In 1912-13 the
government of that day voted $31,671,000 for public works. In 1913-14, the first year of the war, the government of that day voted $48,819,000 for public works.


Arthur Meighen: That was not during war time at all.


John Warwick King: That was the first year of the war.


Arthur Meighen: The appropriations were
all passed before war broke out-


John Warwick King: I said so.


Arthur Meighen: -when hon. gentlemen opposite were assuring us there was no possibility of war at all.


John Warwick King: All right. I
am going to give the committee the figures for 1914-15, which was a war year. The government of that day voted $47,154,000 for public works.


Arthur Meighen: What was that for? It was absolutely essential for war purposes.

Supply-Harbours and. Rivers


John Warwick King: The year 1915-16, was the year in which the government should have gone to the country.


Arthur Meighen: Was it? Some of us
thought so, but every hon. member of the Liberal party at that time declared that it would be a crime to go to the country.


John Warwick King: But that was the year when the right hon. member thought they Should go to the country.


Arthur Meighen: But every Liberal paper
in the country was shrieking with rage for fear we would.


John Warwick King: Oh no. In the
year 1915-16, we find $34,599,000 for public works.


Arthur Meighen: Let the minister tell us
what they were for.


John Warwick King: For public works.


Arthur Meighen: I know what they were
for. They were not for breakwaters.


John Warwick King: These were not
for war purposes at all-ocean terminals and so on. They had their Halifax terminals being constructed at that time.


Arthur Meighen: It is too bad they were
not completed.


John Warwick King: It is too bad they were undertaken at all; they spoiled a good harbour. The year 1919-20, was a lean year, the amount appropriated for public works being $22,479,000. In 1920-21, the last full year of office of the late government, $22,680,000 was appropriated for public works. In 1922-23, the first full year that this government was in power, our total appropriation was $16,784,000 and the vote for this year is $17,157,000.


Arthur Meighen: The amount during the
war period was high and necessarily so. The great bulk of the expenditure was for essential purposes incidental to the time, not for ordinary public works expenditures at all. The ordinary public works expenditure was more than cut in two immediately that time was over, but the rate of reduction suddenly ceased when my hon. friends took office. It went down, it is true, but very little. Now it is starting to rise on the eve of an election.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The right hon.
gentleman is condemned by his own argument. The very fact, as he says, that this was not spent for public works-


Arthur Meighen: It was, but what were
the public works? What caused them?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We know that
the money was spent in large measure on unnecessary works such as the 5 p.m. Halifax terminals, and my right hon. friend cannot deny that. The very fact of his contention makes it necessary that the public works of this country be attended to. In my county, when this government came into power every public work right along the coast line was falling into decay. It was absolutely necessary that money should be expended to provide facilities for the fishermen of that vicinity. The very fact that our good friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) at this moment raises the cry of economy makes me-wish that he had been as sincere in that regard when he was a member of the preceding government. I think if he had been, and had carried out the policy which he is asking to have followed at the present time, this country would not be in the condition that it is to-day. Our hon. friends opposite cannot deny that even before the war they increased the total debt of this country at a rate that has never been paralleled in its history.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman know what he is talking about?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Well, will he-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking a question
Will he give us the year before the war in which we increased the expenditure, and the amount?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes; from 1911
to 1914.


Arthur Meighen: Let us have the figures
now.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: They increased
the expenditure at a rate never before paralleled in the history of this country. Of course, during the war we know what happened. The deficits that they rolled up every year they were in power have never been equalled in our history, and I hope they never will be, the total reaching the tremendous sum of over $674,000,000 in their last year in office. When our friends opposite read us a lecture to-day on economy in public expenditure, I think it is time for some hon. member on this side of the House to rise and call attention to their past record. I know that in my province the public works were neglected by the former government, and when this government came into office it was absolutely

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
necessary that that neglect should 'be attended to. In regard to this particular vote, I do not know whether it is necessary or not, but I know in our own province there are places where it is urgently necessary that the fishermen should receive some assistance; 'and certainly if any portion of our community deserves something at the hands of the nation it is our hardy fishermen. I have been asking for small amounts to be expended in my own county, but I am sorry to say so far I have been refused. I know-


Robert James Manion: You have no by-election
pending.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know these
people should have some consideration, and I sincerely trust that they will not be overlooked. I have a case in my own constituency where the fishermen are on an absolutely unprotected coast, and they have to beach their boats by hand to a point of safety every night. They have asked for assistance; it has been refused by every government. Last year they asked for an engine and a wire cable to assist them in handling their boats; but this too has been refused. This year they have asked for a small vote, they to provide the equipment, but up to the present the government has refused their request. I am only pointing this out to show the difficulties those men labour under. I think if hon. gentlemen could realize the difficulties which these fishermen are labouring under they would not refuse them assistance at a great many points.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not
wish to prolong the discussion on this item, but the remarks of my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean) call for a reply. He and some of his friends have stated that I have confined my criticism to the acts of this government. I have criticized wherever I felt criticism was necessary, and I did not spare my own party; on one occasion I had the courage to vote against it, which is something that my hon. friend has never been able to bring himself to do. I repeat, I was not afraid to criticise my party nor to vote against it. But supposing the facts are correct as stated by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), that we spent too much money in our time, is not that all the more reason for my argument being correct to-day? Certainly it is all the more reason why we should be more careful of our public expenditure at the present time. If we committed sins- which I do not admit-are they going to copy us on all occasions? That is always their retort: You did pretty much what we 
are doing. But that is no argument. Our expenditures were mainly due to the war. I submit that to-day conditions are bad throughout the country, there is great depression in business and an exodus of our people across the line, and high taxation is largely the cause, and therefore it is all the more important that at this time we cut out every unnecessary expenditure. No matter what was done years ago, it is the duty of the government to act for the present. I submit once more, that it is time in all departments of government to call a halt in expenditure, and that will be our policy if we should get into power at the next election, as I know we will.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I am speaking with the
consent of my party-I dare the government to go to the country this fall.
Some hon. MEMBER'S:	Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends will laugh on the other side of their faces after the next election, for undoubtedly the electorate will then tell the government in unmistakable terms what they think of its ignoring their repeated protests against extravagant expenditures and burdensome taxation.


Mr. MURDOCK:: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has referred to this question on various occasions-


Robert James Manion: It is a serious question.


James Murdock: 
Mr. LADNER:: Does not the minister
consider this important fact, that to-day we have a debt of $2,400,000,000?


James Murdock: I do consider that fact,
and I know only too well who is largely responsible for the enormous debt, or many millions of it, that we have to-day.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Germans are mainly
responsible.


James Murdock: Worse than Germans at home were responsible for a large proportion of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I must congratulate you on your leniency so far in this discussion.


The CHAIRMAN:: You need not bother
with the compliment. What is the point of order?


Edward Joseph Garland: I suggest
to you, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion is entirely out of order, having nothing whatever to do with the vote now being dealt with.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I do not know that
the discussion is altogether out of order, although I agree with the hon. member that it is getting that way; but the question of governmental extravagance, based upon one particular vote, has been generally debated.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree with you as to that, Mr. Chairman. The only point I wish to suggest for your further consideration is that we are not now dealing with the question of general policy; the discussion is simply a rehash of the old stoiy of the other party being at fault.


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman. I agree
entirely with my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland), but I think it is a matter for regret that the point was not raised by him sooner. Surely, after this parade of language for campaign purposes, my hon. friend would not expect us to sit here as dumb as oysters and not say a word of correction in reply?


Robert James Manion: It would be a new experience for the minister.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree with the hon. minister, and I think that a straight and proper denial of the remarks, if they can be denied, is admissible. But for the hon. member to go away back into the past history of the party for generations is in my opinion a waste of time. I do not think either of the old parties is worth the time that has been wasted on them in this connection.


James Murdock: I think it would be
reasonably close to the discussion that has been going on to indicate that in the last eight years of the Liberal government's previous regime some $123,000,000 was spent on public works, while in the first four years after 1911 that these hungry gentlemen opposite were in office they spent more than $160,000,000 on public works. And now, when the vote for public works is about as low as any public works vote since they originally took office in 1911, my hon. friends talk about the ladk of economy. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) ought to stick more closely to facts and not undertake to fool the people of his constituency and other constituencies in Canada as he has attempted to do by a parade of figures that are not in accordance with the facts.


Arthur Meighen: One is always delighted,
even aside from whether there is any substance in it or not, to listen to the measured accents of the Minister of Labour. We never know just what the final verdict of an intelligent community is going to be-


James Murdock: We have it in West Hastings.


Arthur Meighen: -until we hear it pronounced.


James Murdock: And we are going to
have it in a few other places too.


Arthur Meighen: We have had a purchased verdict and we are now paying the purchase price. I was anxious a while ago to give the proof but the Minister of Public Works would not let me. This government is not only commencing extravagant expenditures under the conditions of to-day, but- and this is the worst feature-it is launching this year upon large commitments which are only represented in the estimates by relatively small amounts, in order to keep down the total and enable the Minister of Labour to expatiate throughout the country upon the total of this year. But the commitments this year run into fabulous figures. The vote now before us is only one quarter of the total commitment, and the same applies to scores of votes through the list. What is more, this government has abandoned the practice of having the estimates represent, its real com-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
mitments for the year. This government ran away from that three years ago and has kept away from it ever since. What about last night's expenditure? Is it in the estimates? Is it a .public work? No, i't is not in the estimates.


John Warwick King: Such appropriations have always been provided by separate bills, under the late government as well as this government.


Arthur Meighen: Very good; and this
government takes care to make its chief commitments there. What about all these railway expenditures? They were always in the estimates before, every one of them, but there is not one in the estimates this year. The government chooses another method to keep the figures down and allow this parade to go on, and all the while where is the debt going? The actual debt has gone up $262,000,000 since this government came in, and it is just because of this. But the worst feature is that they are tying the country's hands so that there will be no chance of any other government reducing. That is their main object.


James Murdock: No other government
will be invited to do anything of the kind.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's noise would be more appropriate when he is on his feet; it is bad enough ait all times. While I am on my feet I want to give a summary of the knowledge of public affairs on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not do this in castigation of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) for I know he dutifully takes his politics from others, and perhaps thalt is the best thing for him to do.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Thank you very much for your courtesy.


Arthur Meighen: But I do it chiefly with reference to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who is the father of this canard about a large increase in the public debt of this country prior to the war by the late administration. I put before the House on a previous occasion a statement he was reported to have made in Edinonton. I read the report in which he was quoted as saying that we had increased the public debt 46 per cent before the outbreak of the war. I gave the figures then, taken from the public records, and I asked the Minister of the Interior to look it up and see if he made such a statement and if he did not, to rise on the orders of the day and put himself right. We have never heard from him since. The 
public records show-I have them before me -that the debt of Canada, ws increased in the year ending March 31, 1911-that was the last year of the Liberal government-by $3,773,506; that in the year ending March 31, 1912 the debt of Canada, taking in everything, was reduced by a small amount, some $122,591; that in the year ending March 31, 1913 the debt of Canada was reduced $25,647,836. These are the figures to which I referred when the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacLean) was on his feet and which at the moment he violently and vituperously denied. Will he deny them now?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes, I still deny them.


Arthur Meighen: I thought he would. It is the function of the hon. gentleman to deny the facts from the public records.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That does not
convey all the truth. These were receipts that were left in the treasury by the other government. Let him go on now and cite the record from that on.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman talks like a child. Do not let us have such infantile nonsense. If the government had receipts they would put them on the debt. The cash, as anybody knows, at the end of the year is deducted from the national debt for that year. Everybody knows that who has any license to foe out of his cradle. It was in each year of the Liberal government, as it ought to have been, and was in every year under every government. For the year ending March 31, 1914, the year in which we had to provide $15,000,000 for the precious Grand Trunk Pacific railway, the debt of Canada was increased $21,695,000, of which $15,000,000 was to provide for the Grand Trunk, then in decrepitude, left by hon. gentlemen opposite. But aside from the causes, all I want to point out is that the residue of the whole three years shows that instead of an increase right up to the outbreak of the war there was decrease in the public debt of Canada of approximately $4,000,000, a little more.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Will the right
hon. gentleman say that is in accordance with the balance shown in the revenue and expenditure?


Arthur Meighen: No, of course it is not.
Revenue and expenditure is consolidated revenue and consolidated expenditure. This takes in capital, every character of commitment, and gives the net result at the end of the year. That was the result to the outbreak of the war. I have stated this mainly that I

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
may bring it again to the attention of the Minister of the Interior, and I ask him once more to rise on the orders of the day, when he will have the right to do so, and let this House know whether the statement attributed to him in the Edmonton Bulletin is correct, and if it is not correct, to deny it. If he made an error I think he is man enough to stand in the House and correct that error. I direct my remarks chiefly to him because I know it is from men of his eminence that others have taken the cue and have fallen into this very gross and very manifest error, demonstrably so from the public records.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think it is only fair that my right hon. friend should give me credit for what I did say. I referred to the deficit when I was speaking.


Arthur Meighen: No, the hon. member
referred to the increase in the debt.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I referred to the deficits each year from 1912 on.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member referred to that he makes it worse still.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If the right hon. member will quote what I said he will be treating me fairly; otherwise he is not fair.


Arthur Meighen: But what has that to do with the matter?


Mr MacLEAN (Prince):: That is what I
was speaking about.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly the revenue
over expenditure in those years would be greater still because they would not take into account capital expenditure. This takes capital expenditure into account, so that, after all are included, the reduction in the debt was as I have stated.


William Bunting Snowball: There has been a nasty storm off Escuminac and it only demonstrates the need of a breakwater. But the storm that is taking place here would show a need for a breakwater in other places as well. The hon. member (Mr. Hanson) stated that salmon fishing to-day was being carried on under the same conditions as prevailed in the time of our forefathers, but I am surprised that he should have said such a thing. Salmon fishing on thp Miramichi one hundred and fifty years ago, or on the St. John, where my hon. friend belongs, was a different matter from what it is to-day. And even until within recent times the conditions were altogether different; the men did not go out in such boats as are used nowadays but they used canoes made of pine logs dug out. There was therefore no danger
whatever in connection with the industry at that time. This was the condition that prevailed around Burnt Church and the north shore of the Miramichi river and bay, as well as on the south shore up to Baie du Yin, and around Fox island and Portage island. The men used set nets that were comparatively close to the shores. But the business has materially changed since then; to-day they use boats propelled by motors and they stay out all night. They set a great line of nets three miles off the shore in the outer Miramichi bay and Northumberland straits and they have no protection at all. This matter has been overlooked by the hon. member; I am sure he could not have been aware of it or he would not have made the statement he did.
I should be sorry if the impression got abroad that salmon fishing to-day is the same as it was as carried on by our forefathers.
I was sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) spoke as he did with reference to the question of annexation or secession. There may be talk of this in his part of the country but I can assure him that in the part of New Brunswick from which I come, and of which I have fairly intimate knowledge, there is very little talk of that kind except on the part of those politicians on the Conservative side who are trying to create this feeling just as they fostered the flag-waving sentiment on a former occasion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the hon. member
say what Conservative politician in New Brunswick has talked secession, and where and when?


William Bunting Snowball: They do; but you do
not hear Liberals talking that way either in this House or outside. We have heard it however from the other side. The Liberals today are as loyal to Canada and to British institutions as they were in 1911 when in the interests of this country they wanted to secure trade relations with our friends to the south. At that time the flag was waved all over the country. I do not think it is wise that this talk about secession should get abroad; I do not believe that our people, if they are let alone and not agitated, will think of such a thing. I know that so far as New Brunswick is concerned the people who went to the United States a few years ago are now coming back on a large scale. And the same I have no doubt is true of other parts of Canada. The people will come back in larger numbers if we develop our natural resources in this country, as we are trying to do in the vote which is before parliament this afternoon.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. KYTE:: My hon. friend from Fort
William and Rainy River criticized the estimates of the Minister of Public Works so far as they relate to the Maritime provinces. I think it is recognized that the Maritime provinces call for a larger expenditure in this respect than any of the other provinces.


Robert James Manion: I was not criticizing the
expenditures in the Maritime provinces particularly; I was referring to what was being spent throughout the country.


George William Kyte: I am sorry if I have conveyed any impression that the hon. member was criticizing the Maritime provinces more than any other. He did think however that there were special circumstances and conditions that may have called for larger expenditures in certain constituencies than were usual in other times and he intimated that they were for political purposes. Now, I have here a letter dated December 28, 1912, which I shall read to the committee:
Ottawa, December 28, 1912.
My dear Sir,
Your letter of the 24th instant addressed to the Minister of Public Works received, and, in accordance with your request, I am enclosing you herewith a list of the items which have been placed in the supplementary estimates for Antigonish county for 1913-14.	-
Yours sincerely,
Georgs Buskard,
Minister's Secretary.
To Hon. E. L. Girroir, Senator,
Antigonish, N.S.
This gentleman was secretairy to the Minister of Public Works at '.hat time and that list of supplementary estimates for Antigonish amounted to $211,300, as much as the total vote provided in the estimates this afternoon for the province of New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no by-election.


George William Kyte: There was a local by-election in Antigonish. The member representing the constituency in the local House had been appointed to the Senate and a by-election was to be held in the montih of January 1913; and in preparation for that provincial by-election the Minister of Public Works, through his secretary, sent out a statement to the effect that the supplementary estimates-not the main estimates mind you, but supplementary estimates-provided for that county amounting to $211,300. Antigonish county, in point of population, is one of the smallest counties of Nova Scotia, and one of these items alone was the following:
Georgeville-new wharf, $90,000.
But there is not a vessel owned at that place and no person could possibly use the wharf; 
at any rate, there are not more than a dozen fishermen there.


Mr. DOUCET:: Was the wharf built?


George William Kyte: I do net know but the byelection was over, having been won on the promises held out.


Edward Joseph Garland: Ever since
I came here, I have taken an intense delight in watching the changing expressions on the countenances of hon. members of this House. Whenever one of my friends opposite rises and begins to proclaim the virtues of the Liberal party and the vices of the Conservatives, all other hon. gentlemen on the opposite side smile seraphically and cheer and applaud. But when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) or any other member on this side gets up, there are black looks and lowering frowns across the way.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is stretching.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member does not frown; his smooth and placid countenance would net be capable of a frown unless a divorce bill was up. I do not wish to discuss the merits or demerits of either party. I simply wish for the sake of the . public to summarize what has happened. In the for y-six years of national life up to the outbreak of the war tihis country under both governments had spent increasing amounts until the enormous total of $451,000,000 had been reached. That means that Canada spent more money than she raised in taxes, to the tune of $800,000 a month or $26,000 a day. No one can claim any great economy for either party at that time, nor am I going to argue that it was a good thing that there should have been particular economy, providing the expenditures were justified; because after all we were a growing nation in need of public works and other things. But since the war, what has happened on both sides? We have spent the following sums:
1919		 $697,000,000
1920		 785,000,000
1921		 528,000.000
1922		 466,000,000
1923		 434,000,000
That makes a grand total in the five pose-war years of some $2,909,298,000, or an amount sufficient to have purchased eight times over all the stock of all the banks of Canada, at that time sixteen chartered institutions. Today that sum of money would permit the purchase in cash of the entire Canadian Pacific holdings in equipment, rolling stock, and ocean vessels, and still leave enough over to buy all the chartered banks of Canada. It

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
is true that 57 cents out of every dollar of that money is the result of war itself, and if ever there was a bitter, biting indictment of militarism the results left on a nation of this size by war would demonstrate it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back again to this vote of $50,000 for Escu-minac. The only grounds for it that I have heard are two-fold. The first is that it was promised in 1911 and in 1882. The second is that the fishermen of the district need some protection from storms. Now, I would be the last person in this House to protest against any expenditure that would save a single fisherman's life. I would not object to expenditure in excess of this if it would result in the saving of even one life, but that has not yet been demonstrated. One hon. member pictured the dangers to which the fishermen are exposed, but another hon. member from the same province stated there has not been one life lost. I do not know which to believe, and that is the position I find myself in. If I can find justification for this item in the saving of life or in the' protection of the people immediately concerned, I am willing to vote for it. I am not willing to vote for it, however, if those interested do not need it; and in any ease expenditures of this kind should be justified1 to a greater degree by the minister who is proposing them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister, arising out of a remark he made that this whole scheme will cost $209,000, just what the government .proposes to do?


John Warwick King: The total scheme would require a crilnwork structure of 602,292 cubic feet, the estimated cost of which is 27 cents per cubic foot; 600 cubic yards of concrete, 5,010 pounds of reinforced iron, and 24,000 feet, board measure, of square timber. The cost of these materials would enter into the estimated amount of the work we are going to do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is for the breakwater?
Mr. KING (Kootenay); Yes. We are proposing to construct one section of the breakwater which when completed will give a very considerable amount of protection to the fishing boats. That is as far as we intend going at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How long will the unit
be that you are going to construct?


John Warwick King: It will be about
400 feet long.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the depth of the water there?


John Warwick King: I have the length and the width of the structure but not the depth of water at that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No dredging will be required?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there not some difference of opinion as to the location of this breakwater?


John Warwick King: I think there was some difference. However, the matter has been gone into very carefully by the engineers and the department and they have decided that this is the proper plan.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have the fishermen and
the lobster factories been consulted as to this location?


John Warwick King: The local people have been consulted. This work is recommended by Mr. Stead, our local engineer and the plans have been approved1 by the engineering staff here. I am informed that a board of engineers went into the whole matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much of the $200,000 is the government committed to?


John Warwick King: We are committed now to an expenditure of $50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is just an instalment? As I understand it this is an instalment that is intended to be spent this year, but when you start to build a structure you will have to complete it up to the extent of the unit.


John Warwick King: That will be the unit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One complete unit?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The discussion so far, as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) pointed out a little while ago, has revealed only one reason for the contraction of this breakwater, and that is the need for protecting the fishermen. The hon. member for the constituency advanced a very hearttouching plea in their behalf when he spoke a few minutes ago. However, I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that the department is just stretching out a little too much in discovering places in which to build wharves. Indeed, I think I might go so far as to suggest that within the department there are some descendants of
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

Christopher Columbus. In this capacity they display an ability for discovering places to build wharves which entitle them to considerable credit at least. Now, this vote has been objected to by practically all the members who have spoken so far on this side of the House, and it seems to be the opinion of the majority of them that it can very well stand over for the time being. I propose therefore, Mr. Chairman, to test their sincerity by moving a reduction of $50,000 in the vote.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is out of order, as that which the hon. gentleman has proposed is a complete negative. An amendment may be made to reduce the vote but not to wipe it completely out of existence.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is in order. We are considering vote No. 147 which is for a total of $228,300.


George Newcombe Gordon: No it is not. There was an agreement in committee that the resolution should be taken up item by item. Now an amendment has been moved to the item of $50,000 for Escuminac, and it is proposed to strike out the entire amount.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand, if I may say so, that the amendment is to reduce vote No. 147, which is for $228,300, by $50,000. However, Mr. Chairman, if you rule that the amendment is out of order because the committee agreed to take up the items separately I am quite sure that if you will give the hon. gentleman the necessary opportunity he will furnish another amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: It would be in order
when the last item is carried and the total vote submitted to move to reduce it by $50,000 or any other sum. But when we are taking up the vote item by item it would not be in order to do so.


David Spence: Would it not be in order
to move that the whole item of $50,000 be cut out?


George Newcombe Gordon: Such an amendment
would not be in order at this stage.


David Spence: Then how are we going
to stop the expenditure?


George Newcombe Gordon: I cannot tell you.
Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to correct
the impression contained in the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kellner) who has just

spoken. I have criticized this item and the plan of the government in regard to it, but I am not prepared to vote against this expenditure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hon. gentlemen can laugh, but I know some of the difficulties fishermen have to contend with. I am sincere about this, and while I do not think for a moment that this location justifies an expenditure of $200,000 I would not like to see this item of $50,000 struck out. I desire to see a different scheme adopted but I am quite prepared to support some vote in the interest of the fishermen of Escuminac. I was never there, and have no local interest in this matter, but I do know something of the circumstances under which the fishermen live and I do not intend to vote to strike the entire item out.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: , Seeing that you have ruled the other amendment out of order, Mr. Chairman, I now desire to move that the item be reduced by $49,500.


Mr. OOPP:: I regret very much indeed that a discussion of this nature should have taken place this afternoon on the New Brunswick item, and this, special item in particular. Possibly the extraneous matters that have been introduced are more or less responsible for the feeling which has been aroused in connection with this matter. I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that while I do not wish in any way to reflect on their particular knowledge in regard to any matters coming before the House, I am convinced that they do not completely understand the requirements and necessities of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the way of wharves and breakwaters. On the eastern and southern portion of the province of New Brunswick we have an exposed coast line with the exception of twelve miles; in a great many cases there is no railway accommodation whatever, and it is very necessary that there should be some facilities provided for water transportation in these localities. I am sure if hon. gentlemen will stop to consider the necessities of the fishermen living along these shores who have to go out on the water at night-time they will say that it was reasonable there should be some protection for them. Nearly every year we have very severe storms in that district; .property is sometimes lost and at times life is lost because of insufficient protection for the fishing boats. I have been in this particular place and realize the situation, although I have no personal interest there. The fishermen go ouit there to fish

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
and they have no protection in that particular port.


Mr. IRVINE:: What sort of protection does the minister think will be provided by this vote?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will come to that later.
This is a very open and exposed coast, and when fishermen are out in the straits or come in with their boats they are sometimes washed up on the shore, and there is no haven of rest to protect them from the sea. I am as anxious for economy as any hon. member in this House, and I can assure hon. members that before the estimates were brought down, instead of asking for large votes, I simply asked, as far as New Brunswick was concerned, for whatever was necessary to protect the fishermen and to provide for their wants.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. minister not think that the same facilities for protection which they have had for many years would not have sufficed for a few yeans until we started to reduce our debt?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I say that the fishermen are
subjected to the same conditions now as they have been in the past. In order to protect them we have to 'build wharves and breakwaters for them. My hon. friend speaks about $60,000 being spent on a wharf, and states that you might as well talk of building the whole wharf. Well you cannot build a wharf or a vessel to last forever. If a vessel goes down to the bottom you have to build or to 'buy a new one, and this happens on the shore in some cases. We had very severe storms in that district two years ago and during one of those storms the wharf at cape Bald was carried away. Something bad to be done to put the wharf into proper shape. The hon. member for East Calgary asks, how this is going to protect them. This breakwater will be a certain distance from the shore, so that when the waves come in from the straits the vessel will be behind the breakwater and will be protected. These vessels are only small boats.


William Irvine: Can the minister tell us
how many fishermen are employed in this particular locality?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister gave the number, I have not it in mind. I am sure that hon. members from the Maritime provinces, the hon. member for York-Sunbury and the hon. member for Kent, know the conditions down there and realize that the coast of Kent is exposed to the storms in the Northumberland straits. They know that we must have protection. I regret that my hon. friends from the west, for whom I have great esteem, who stood loyally by us in working in the interests of western Canada as well as other parts of Canada, took the stand they did this afternoon, because they have no knowledge of the conditions. These works are necessary to protect the interests of the fishermen on the shores of New Brunswick. These votes are not the result of promises I have made, and I say that in all cases I have urged economy as far as possible in regard to the requirements of the locality, and the estimates brought down are very small indeed. >
The estimates for New Brunswick only amount to about fifty cents a head for every man, woman and child in the province. I do not think my hon. friends realize the necessity for taking care of the situation in the province of New Brunswick as they should. We realize that for the last year or two conditions have not been good in these provinces. A number of our people are leaving there because the fishermen are not protected. People have left the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and gone to the United States for the reason I have stated. A great many of our men are engaged in this valuable industry, and I do hope that my hon. friend will think better of the amendment he has moved and allow this motion to pass.


Leon Johnson Ladner: As I view it, this amendment is a demand upon the hon. members of this House for a declaration for or against national economy. Many of us do not know much about the locality or about the protection of the fishermen; but in the discussion which we have listened to this afternoon hon. members on the government side have said, "Well, a number of years ago, before the wai and during the war, you spent so much and we spent so much, and therefore you should keep your mouths shut. You have nothing to say." I know, and every hon. member here must know, that from one end of Canada to the other the real issue in the public mind is, will the governments federally, provinciallv and municipally stop their extravagance and live within their revenue? This amendment is calling upon hon. members to act in their capacity as representatives of the people in a manner which will show whether they will be consistent to their declarations at election time or not. We have a debt of $2,400,000,000. As I mentioned last evening, we have greatly increasing taxation, business more or less paralyzed and people leaving the coun-
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. BELAND:: Question.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What is going to prevail? The minister says "question." He does not like to hear these things. He knows he has participated in this iniquity that is being practised on the country in spending the money of the people in the way in which it is being spent. Last evening we had an appropriation of $5,000,000. To-day we have an appropriation of $50,000 on some little place as a preliminary to a total expenditure of $200,000. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr.' Manion) read out a long list of items showing the expenditures which were going on. I put this question to hon. members: Where are we going to stop? On what basis are these expenditures being founded? Is it because of the actual necessity from the business point of view? Let us take the particular item in question. For years and years the people in that neighbourhood have been able to get along successfully without this expenditure. Why cannot they do so for three, four or five or even ten years until we handle questions of greater importance, such as reduction of taxation, our public debt and railway obligations, obligations which are driving capital out of this country? Those who are in touch with men contemplating investments know quite well that such is the case. I have in mind a large concern with an

expenditure of $2,000,000 in contemplation. That investment is being delayed and held up simply because they do not know where the limit will be as regards taxation on that industry. In one case which I mentioned a few days ago to hon. members, the calculation was made and it was found that there were thirty-three different taxes which one concern carrying on business throughout Canada had to pay.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Jacob Edward Thuna.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Dorothy Strathy.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Minnie Williams Goldberg.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Ruth Dorothy Rutenberg.-Mr. Baxter.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Charles Arthur Sara.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Frederick George Randall Lacey.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Mollie Weiner. Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Norma Evelyn Stevens Hammond.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Lillian Yaffe. -Mr. Hanson.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Charles William Dickinson.

Mr. Hanson.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Charles Murray Cramsie.-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Frederick William Mallyon.-Mr. Speakman.
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 136, for the relief of Lillian 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.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Walter Roderick Wilson Robinson.-Mr.	Elliott
(Dundas).
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: The item under discussion is No. 147, harbours and rivers, New Brunswick, Escuminac harbour improvements, $50,000.


John Warwick King: Before six o'clock the discussion had got to a point somewhat wide of the mark, and I am not sure that the interests of the people whom we are trying to assist were all under consideration. This project is not a new one; it has'been before the department for some time, having been recommended by responsible members of parliament. As has been pointed out, Mr. Loggie, a former representative of the district, as well as Hon. Mr. Hazen, at one time Minister cf Marine, both advised it. It is all very well to say that these people got along without this accommodation for many years and that there is no need of it at the present time. I do not agree with that, and it is not the attitude of the public tc-day. It has been brought to the attention of this House during this session that in the Maritime provinces, where the government had failed to provide the necessary improvements or to enlarge present facilities, many of the people had found it necessary to go away. That sort of thing is not in the interests of the country. The people of the Maritime provinces along the coast are engaged very extensively in fishing, which is an important and profitable industry. It is a great source of wealth to them, and to strike out practically the whole of this vote, as is now recommended, would work a very great injury to the business by which they gain their livelihood. The amount may seem large but to-day I explained that there were something like 130 boats using the harbour besides about 50 dories; and that indicates what a considerable number of men are engaged in the business of fishing. If the committee will look over the votes that we have placed in the estimates this year they will find that almost in every case these items are for repairs or improvements; in very few instances have new items been inserted. As a matter of fact, as I stated this afternoon, the total estimates this year for the department are $1,700,000 less than they were last year. I would ask the hon. member (Mr. Kellner) to be good enough to reconsider his motion to reduce the vote. I am satisfied that the
expenditure is warranted, and if the work contemplated is not carried out it will mean a very serious hardship to the people in that locality. I am sure the hon. member must realize that the proposed reduction would be unsound policy; we must maintain our great public works in Canada to-day. If there is a community that can be helped by a reasonable expenditure such expenditure ought to be made. For these reasons I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister suggests
looking over the estimates; I presume that is an invitation to consider any of the estimates in his department. I wculd call his attention particularly to the expenditures in the western provinces. Take Manitoba; the vote there this year is $27,300 as compared with $68,970 for last year. Neither Saskatchewan nor Alberta had a sufficient expenditure to warrant its being put in a separate column and so the two are bunched together; and the combined expenditure in these two provinces this year is $24,800 as against $46,895 last year. In all the estimates of (the minister's department this is the only example we have of economy, and it affects the prairie provinces. In the discussion of these estimates to-day, member after member has got up and roundly criticized the government for not abstaining from making new expenditures. I think the motion to reduce the vote will test the sincerity of those who advocate economy. As to any hardship that would be suffered by the people concerned, I rather think that perhaps it might be a greater hardship to give them too many facilities. You must provide a market or they will not be justified in increasing their production. From the information I have regarding the district down there, there is either no market or not enough for the fish caught now.


William Bunting Snowball: Where did the hon.
member get that, information? I come from the locality and I can assure him that every fish caught there can be sold either in the United States or in upper Canada.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That remark seems to be enthusiastically received, but it is possible that the price is not high enough to make it worth while for the fishermen to catch more. At any rate I know that the farmers of western Canada increased the price of wheat this year by something like a dollar a bushel by the very simple expedient of growing less, and I doubt whether this will not apply to the fishermen of the Maritime provinces. Now, I have no desire to reduce this expenditure, but in view of the statements that have been made in the
Supply'-Harbours and Rivers

House this afternoon I think that the motion is advisable; as I have said, it will test the sincerity of those who are opposing the vote. We shall see whether they will vote against an item which they previously apposed and declared should not be in the estimates.


Mr. LOGAN:: I would ask tihe hon. member to withdraw the motion to strike out nearly the whole of the vote. We have in Canada both an east and a west. We have our problems in the Maritime provinces, which are very serious indeed, just as the western people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have their grave problems. But we cannot ever build up a united 'Canada if we are not going to assist each other. I do not desire to see any division between east and west; but-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: We realized this very
thing when the Hudson Bay railway debate was in progress.


Hance James Logan: And we realized it last
night too. I was in this House several years ago when we inaugurated a National Transcontinental railway scheme. Sir Wilfrid Laurier dreamed of a united Canada and desired that Canadian grain for export should go through Canadian ports. We spent a tremendous amount of money to bring the grain of the west to Quebec, and if Sir Wilfrid Laurier had lived after building the railway he would have spent a considerable sum no doubt in improving the facilities at Quebec. Because if we did not have facilities there what would be the use of the railway? What was the use of the bottle if the neck was not big enough for the trade to get out? Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government was defeated and another party came into power that had no love for the National Transcontinental. They showed it by their actions, and so very little was done to improve the facilities at Quebec during the years that the present opposition were in power in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the hon. member not
aware that nearly all the great expenditures in providing facilities at the port of Quebec were made by the harbour commission under the presidency of Senator Lesperance, and the money was supplied by the Conservative party in 1911?


Hance James Logan: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the money expended by the harbour commission under the supervision of Senator Lesperance did not provide facilities for transporting more than five or six million bushels 
out of a total of two or three hundred million bushels of grain.


George Newcombe Gordon: This discussion has
no reference to the construction of a breakwater in New Brunswick.


Hance James Logan: I quite appreciate that but
what I am contending is this:	While we in
the Maritime provinces had not any direct interest in Quebec nor in the shipment of western wheat, through that port when the National Transcontinental was put through, yet hundreds of millions of dollars were spent upon that road and not a single yard of the line was built in the province of Nova Scotia from which I come. But when Sir Wilfrid Laurier appealed to the people of Canada the electors of Nova Scotia sent back to this House a solid group of eighteen to support him in building this great road from the west.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the hon. member will tell us what advantage accrued to the west from the building of that road?


Hance James Logan: There has been some
advantage to the west, but the reason the advantages were not as great as Sir Wilfrid Laurier thought they would be was because the road was to a large extent destroyed by its enemies. The gradients and the curvatures of that line were increased.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hance James Logan: I am only answering a
question that was put to me.


George Newcombe Gordon: You are wandering
from the point.


Arthur Meighen: I ask the hon. member,
in all honesty, does he believe that?


Hance James Logan: Of course I believe it. If I did not believe it I would not make the statement. But, Mr. Chairman, the vote before the House is for a breakwater for the benefit of the fishermen on the coast of New Brunswick. All that is asked for here is a vote of $50,000. We are told by the member for the county that if this breakwater is built it will probably mean that there will be a million dollars worth of fish caught and brought into Canada. What is the hope of Canada? The hope of Canada lies in found money, whether we find it in the sea, in the soil, in the mine, or in the forest. That is the great hope of our country, and that is why we do not wish to travel the via dolorosa we hear talked about so much

Supply-Harbours and. Rivers
in the far corner of the House. We have faith in the future of Canada because we know the natural resources are here from which we can secure the riches that will ensure the prosperity of this country in the future. We have in eastern Canada great fisheries. Instead of having a production of eight or ten million dollars from the sea we should have a production of fifty or sixty million dollars from that source-found money for Canada. If fishermen go out and catch a million dollars worth of fish, and bring those fish to shore and sell them in a foreign market it means a million dollars added to the wealth of Canada. These fishermen are men who deserve our sincere sympathy. If my hon. friends who live on the golden prairie plains knew exactly what hardships these men suffer I think they would have more sympathy with them than they have to-night. I expect that in a few days-at any rate I hope before this session closes-there will be a proposition to provide railway facilities to open up the great Peace river country. It does not interest me directly, I come from away down by the sea where the fishermen live, but I will support the proposition because it means a better and a bigger Canada. I would ask hon. gentlemen to-night to take the same view that I take in reference to the Peace river, and not vote to reduce this amount for the building of what, after all, is a necessity to the fishermen who certainly earn their living by the sweat of their brow.
This afternoon we heard a very eloquent and rapid-fire speech from the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). According to him we may as well put up the shutters


Robert James Manion: I never suggested any
such thing.


Hance James Logan: There was never a "whisper of death" equal to what we heard this afternoon.


Robert James Manion: I never suggested any
such thing.


Hance James Logan: We are now discussing a vote included in the estimates which amounts to $228,300 for a whole province, and if my hon. friend is honest in this matter he will accept my challenge. I find here on page 31 of the estimates this item: "Port Arthur and Fort William harbour improvements, $120,000." Last year there was a vote for the same purpose of $550,000 or more than twice as much as the whole vote for the province of New Brunswick. As I have already said the 237
estimate! for these improvements amounts this year to $120,000. I challenge the hon. gentleman when we come to that vote to move to reduce it. That will show his sincerity.


Robert James Manion: The government is quite
free to reduce it as far as I am concerned. I accept my hon. friend's challenge. Let the government go ahead and reduce it.


Hance James Logan: It is your place to move
the reduction.


Mr. WARD:: One would imagine to hear
the hon. member for Cumberland that the only place in Canada where any fishing is done is on the Atlantic coast. It may surprise him to know that there is a greater coast line in the constituency which I represent than in any constituency in the Maritime provinces. I venture this further statement-that there is more fish produced in my constituency than in any constituency in the Maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hance James Logan: More fish produced?


William John Ward: Yes, more fish produced.


Hance James Logan: We produced last year between eight and ten million dollars' worth.


William John Ward: I say there is more fish
produced in my constituency than any constituency in the Maritime provinces. Yet in the entire history of that constituency only $9,700 has been spent on public wharves. There are some thirty or forty fishing depots in that constituency, and a number of small towns whose people live almost entirely by fishing, and they are not coming to this House and asking for votes of $50,000 or $100,000 to carry on their fishing. They build their own little wharves where they can dock their fishing boats, and so on. They are carrying on their business without government aid and producing fish by the hundreds of car loads. What is the matter with the Maritime provinces? I will tell you what the trouble is. It is traditional, it is hereditary with you people down there. Every man who is farming or fishing along the coast line imagines he should have a wharf at his back door. There is no question about that.


Hance James Logan: Do not insult us, please.


William John Ward: I must protest against this
vote. I shall not support it.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Just before the House rose at six o'clock the right hon. leader of the opposition challenged statements of



Supply-Harbours and Rivers
mine regarding the increase in expenditures during the years 1911, 1912 and 1913. I have not had very much time to look the matter up, but referring to the Public Accounts at page 47 I find that the increase in 1912 was $11,000,000; in 1913 it was $14,000,000; and in 1914 it was $15,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: What is that?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Then the controllable expenditure as disclosed by the Public Accounts amounted in 1911 to $65,000,000, and this represents a per capita expenditure of $9.09 under Liberal rule in that year, whereas the controllable expenditure in 1912 jumped to $74,000,000 and in 1913 to $85,000,000, and in 1914 it was $102,000,000, or an increase from $9.09 per capita average to $13.31. Those figures are taken from the Public Accounts and cannot be controverted. I give the figures in answer to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition as I caught his question. Further I may say that the total increase in the public debt has often been questioned, and the statement has been made that during the six years of the war the increase in the debt was $13,773,733 over and above war expenditures, or that the government of that day did not meet the ordinary running expenses of the country for those years by that much. That has never been controverted, and it can be shown in an itemized way that those figures are correct.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it would be
somewhat irrelevant to endeavour to answer where there was nothing to answer, but the hon. gentleman got into a subject altogether apart from that which formed the matter of controversy before dinner. All that was under controversy was the increase or decrease, as the facts might show, of the public debt in three years. There was nothing at all in controversy about the per capita expenditure either under one regime or the other. The figures I gave are from the public records and are exact to a dollar. The public records are affirmed as correct by this administration.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I want to clear
up this matter.


George Newcombe Gordon: The matter is cleared
up and I am going to rule that this debate has gone beyond the item that is under discussion.
Mr. MacLEAN (Prince); Will the Chairman allow me a moment to put some more figures on Hansard?


George Newcombe Gordon: I agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that this matter
IMr. A. E. MacLean.]
has gone beyond the point in controversy at six o'clock.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I shall bow to
the ruling of the Chairman, but I took down the words of the hon. gentleman and I will read them to the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to hear
the hon. member.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The right hon.
leader of the opposition asked me to give him the years in which the expenditures were increased, and I said in reply, "1911 to 1914." He asked me to give the figures, but I did not have them with me. Now my hon. friend says he was not referring to the expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: No, I said the debt, and the whole House knows it.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We will see it
in Hansard to-morrow.
Now we come to the question o.f the increase in the total public debt. The figures are as follows:	In 1912, the increase
amounted to $34,000,000 and in 1913, to $9,000,000. I refer to page 49 of the Public Accounts. This is a complete answer to my right hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: In regard to the remarks
of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) where he threw out a challenge with reference to the expenditure in Fort William and Port Arthur, I want to point out in the first place that it is rather an extraordinary thing to compare a little fishing village, where there are only 1,500 people in the entire neighbourhood and probably half of them fishermen, with a port such as we find at the head of the lakes, where they handle seven-eighths or perhaps nine-tenths of all the grain grown in the prairie provinces. Probably nine-tenths of the grain grown in the prairie provinces goes through the elevators at the head of the lakes. No expenditure made at the head of the lakes has ever been made for the people at the head of the lakes. The port up there is just as much a national port as Montreal or Quebec in Canada or Duluth, Chicago or New York in the United States; so that there is no comparison. I wish to say this-and I put it on Hansard the other night and showed my sincerity by my remark on that occasion-that I am sincere in believing that we should cut down unnecessary taxation and expenditure. I am perfectly willing that Fort William and Port Arthur should receive the same treatment as the other ports of the Dominion, and that we should cut out

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
all unnecessary expenditure from one end of Canada to the other. I repeat that I think there has already 'been sufficient money spent at the head of the lakes to satisfy them for some time. I think we have enough harbour development there now for all the purposes for which that harbour has been developed. There has been a large amount of money spent in that district, but the harbour there has been developed for the handling of grain. I am perfectly agreeable that they should receive the same treatment up there as is accorded to other places, and I will submit to the House after the next election-I do not care who is in power, although I believe it will be the Conservatives [DOT]-that it is high time that all expenditure, whether at 'Halifax, Fort William, Port Arthur, Vancouver, or any other place, shall be curtailed in the interest of economy in this country.


Hance James Logan: While Escuminac may not be a very important p'ace, it is on a coast where there are millions of fish that can be caught if facilities are provided, and if they are caught and sold it adds to the wealth of the country. I think if the hon. member wishes to be consistent, when we come to the vote for Fort William, he will move that the item of $120,000 be reduced by at least $100,000.
I desire to place on Hansard a statement showing what has been spent at the head of the lakes, which we in the Maritime provinces have helped to pay. The expenditure by the government of this country at Fort William and Port Arthur up to March 31, 1925, has amounted to $14,627,750, and it has been made to provide for transporting the grain from the west.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: If I may be permitted to bring the discussion back to Escuminac, I wish to say that I could easily accept the challenge of the hon. member to vote against any public works in my own constituency because that constituency is blessed1 this year with an expenditure of $1,800, while it has the largest coast line of almost any county in the Maritime provinces.


Hance James Logan: The hon. member boasted last year that he got more than anybody else.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Last year when the estimates of the Minister of Public Works were being considered on the 26th May and 18th July, I asked the minister for a small vote to accommodate 76 fishing boats, 7 canning factories, in a large territory, and 22,7 h
yet the minister said that owing to the necessity for practical economy the department or the government could not see their way clear to make the expenditure. He promised, however, to take the matter into consideration and give it serious thought for this year. The estimates for this year show nothing for that important fishing settlement. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to oppose this vote, because after all I think the members of this committee have taken it too seriously all afternoon. I for one do not believe that the expenditure will be made. I think the minister would be well advised if he would consider the advisability of having surveys made of the neighbouring fishing village of Baie Ste-Anne where to my mind, from the report which I have received, there would be better accommodation and better protection for the fishermen of that section. It is true that you can give protection at Escuminac whilst the boats are inside, but when the boats are on the fishing ground, in the event of a storm arising, I am told by reliable authorities that the fishing boats cannot make Escuminac, but have to take refuge outside. Be that as it may, I believe before this government or the Department of Public Works undertake the expenditure of $200,000 in that section, and before contracts are let, a very careful survey should be made as to the port most appropriate to give the necessary protection to that industry. I propose to vote for the main motion and against the motion to amend the item, because I believe the fishing industry of the Maritime provinces should be fostered. It is an industry that can stand a large amount of development. I believe we can find a market for all the products of the fisheries, and those fishermen, those rugged seamen on the shores of the Northumberland strait who have to eke out an existence in those waters following that industry, are just as much entitled to protection as the people in any other section of this Dominion. For this reason I intend to vote for the main motion that $50,000 be spent, but I give the minister the suggestion that he take the necessary steps to have the money expended at the proper place, and I am sure he will find that Baie Ste. Anne is the proper place rather than Escuminac.


John Warwick King: I am very glad
to hear from the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet). He has personal knowledge of conditions in the Maritime provinces.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
As regards his suggestion as to a further inquiry, I shall be glad to make it, but I shall be surprised if the situation has not been thoroughly canvassed by the engineers of the department. I am going, however, to suggest to the committee that we allow this item to stand now so that we may proceed and pass other items that are not contentious.
Item stands.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $45,000.


John Warwick King: .From last year's vote there was expended $34,049.72, the items varying from $40 odd up	to $2,000. There
are noted for expenditures this year some five or six places, the expenditures running from $500 to $750.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the names of
those places?


John Warwick King: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister come to
any decision as regards the petition handed to him not long since by a deputation from the city of Fredericton with respect- to taking over the wharves owned by that municipality? He will remember that a large and influential delegation waited upon him and he consented to consider the matter.


John Warwick King: The matter is
having the consideration of the department and it will receive the attention of the government very shortly.


Arthur Meighen: It would not seem to
be necessary that the proportion of the expenditure should be so large in the general item. An amount of $45,000 out of a vote amounting to $228,000 is over one-fifth of the whole amount. There are a number of items in this vote of $S00 and $900. Why could the minister not give most of this $45,000 in detail? Perhaps the reason is that by putting it altogether, he keeps out of trouble with those hon. members who are not going to get anything because they do not know just who the other fellows are that are going to get something.


John Warwick King: This vote is an
important one. It is for unforeseen expendi-

tures, and it varies from year to	year, as
follows:	
1912-13		$18,000
	25,000
	26,000
	8,000
	11,000
	20,000
	34,000


Arthur Meighen: This is very	large as
compared with those years.


John Warwick King: It is the same as
last year.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us
some of the larger repairs and improvements he intends to take up this year?


John Warwick King: I have just mentioned them.


Arthur Meighen: How can unforeseen
items be foreseen?


John Warwick King: These are foreseen now. Since the estimates were made up, they have been coming into the department and are being set aside in my notes as being suggested.


Arthur Meighen: What counties are they
in?


James Horace King: (Kootenay):	Two in Royal,
one in Westmorland, one in Kent and one in Northumberland.


Arthur Meighen: What is the one in the
county of Kent?


John Warwick King: Cocagne Cape
wharf.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Hew much is the amount?


John Warwick King: It is $500.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Is that for repairs to the
new wharf built last year?


John Warwick King: I have not the
explanation.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: The only public wharf at
Cocagne Cape was constructed last year under contract. I think the expenditure is justified because I was told before I left the constituency that last fall storms had severely damaged the upper portion of the 9 p m. wharf. Has the minister seriously considered the protective wharf at Maillet Gully to take care of the population using seventy-six fishing boats and a place where there are seven canning establishments? I have listened carefully to the explanations

Supply-Harbours and Hirers
given by tlhe minister in justification of some public works in Ontario. By the way, all these public works are not constructed in the Maritime provinces. In Ontario and Nova Scotia for places with ten fishing beats there have been items amounting to $35,000 and $40,000. We had this afternoon under consideration the beginning of a commitment of $200,000 for the purpose of accommodation anid protection to fishermen using six canning factories divided amongst two fishing villages. To that vote I did not offer any opposition. This protective work at Maillet Gully in Buc-touohe bay in the county of Kent would require an expenditure of less than $20,000. This was estimated at less than $20,000 three years ago at peak prices. It was certainly recommended by the district engineer, it was recommended and insisted upon by my predecessor in this House, it was favourably considered by the minister himself, and I thought I had convinced him on two occasions last session that a wharf should be proceeded with at this point; but notwithstanding the fact that the whole coast line of Kent county this year is only looked after in these estimates by a vote of $1,800, yet the minister, possibly to repay some favours asked during the recess, can undertake commitments on a much larger scale, representing entirely new work, for fishing villages of less importance and with a lesser number of boats and canning factories. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister whether he cannot reconsider this locality and place something in the supplementary estimates so as to enable the fishermen there to carry on their work. Every second or third year, owing to severe storms in the early portion of October, serious damage is done to the fishing gear of the fishermen, for they cannot find a harbour of refuge, and it is impracticable for them to haul their big boats 'high and dry whenever a storm threatens, with the result that a large number of their craft are seriously damaged, until ultimately those engaged in the arduous task of fishing are compelled, much against their will, to abandon the industry and seek a livelihood elsewhere.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman,
I assure my hon. friend (Mr. Doucet) that I have great sympathy with his plea, but it is only one of the very many instances where, owing to our desire to economize and keep the estimates within bounds, we have been compelled1 to refuse what are probably much needed improvements. There are many requests before the department to-day just as urgent, if not more so, than that of the hon. gentleman that we have had to refuse. However, I shall be very glad to give the matter further consideration.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: Why single out that county and treat it so harshly?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Last year the minister
spent $20,000 on dredging the Gaspereau river.


John Warwick King: It has not been
expended.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister would be well advised not to expend it this year, for it is not needed now, nor was it last year.


John Warwick King: I do not agree
with my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps the minister is
better informed than I am?


John Warwick King: I visited the district last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Kent county ought to have some sympathy from the government and from the minister himself. As I understand, the dredging of the Gaspereau river is for the benefit of one private individual.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is altogether misinformed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is the information I have. Only $1,800 is being spent in Kent county, where there is a considerable population, while $4,500 is being spent on wharf improvements at Oromocto. I think the work is needed there as the wharf has been damaged by ice, but the minister is certainly not doing the people of Kent county justice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Humphrey's-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In the county of Royal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is the minister giving so much attention to this noble county? Nearly half the items in the estimates appear to be for works there.


John Warwick King: I think, Mr. Chairman, the explanation is very evident to my hon. friend. The Dominion government has recently taken over the wharves on the Grand lake and1 the St. John river which were formerly owned and controlled by the provincial government. These items are for repairs and renewals.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, the provincial government has unloaded some very dark horses on the Department of Public W orks.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: In, those sections, Mr. Chairman, where wharves have already been provided) by the provincial government, this government is prepared to disburse treasury funds to repair the facilities, although they eannot see their way clear to make a small expenditure to give absolutely necessary protection to a very important fishing section of my constituency.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loggieville-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is also a by-election vote? What is the history of this wharf?


John Warwick King: It is renewal
work and will consist of removing the plank covering on the outer end of the wharf, filling the interior with brush and stone, covering this and the outer seventy-five feet of the remainder of the wharf with gravel to the level of the present plank covering, closing a small span by sheet piling driven along the easterly side, renewing one broken stringer under the railway siding and 30 lineal feet of cap, and repairing the plank sidewalk leading to the wharf. The business over the wharf amounts to $350,000, consisting of fish and general merchandise. The lumber cut at this place is about five million feet annually.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an important
wharf.


John Warwick King: The vote is for
general repairs to a structure that has been in existence a good many years. To date there has been spent on it about $75,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
McDonald's point-wharf improvements, $2,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this another of the provincial government's wharves?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Royal.


Arthur Meighen: What is the work for?


John Warwick King: For converting a low water wharf into a graded wharf by means of gravel fill supported on either side by cribwork. The chief exports are farm products, and the chief imports general merchandise.


Arthur Meighen: How long ha3 the wharf been in use?


John Warwick King: It is one of the
old works on the river. It must have been there for at least fifty years-I can remember it as a boy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mill's Point-wharf enlargement and repairs, $25,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very large expenditure, and apparently a new work. Nobody seems to know where Mill's Point is; I must confess I do not. Can the minister give us any explanation?


John Warwick King: The work will
consist of rebuilding the superstructure of the wharf, replacing covering, stringers, and guard with creosoted timber, with the exception of the first six blodks and spans, where solid fill is proposed by blocking the spans with the bekt of the discarded stringers and filling with earth, stone, and so forth, and surfacing with gravel. The district engineer reports that the old top is very much worn and decayed, and is unsafe for the very heavy traffic over this structure during the whole season of open navigation. This wharf provides a landing place for the river steamer and for the many boats engaged in fishing. The steamer Miramichi makes three calls per week. The imports consist of general supplies for the public and for four stores, with a total business valued at about $55,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What county?


John Warwick King: Northumberland.


Arthur Meighen: I thought so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What parish?


John Warwick King: Hardwicke.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have lived in New Brunswick for a long time and I never heard of Mill's Point, and I have been in every important village in Northumberland county. It must be so small a place that one never hears about it in the ordinary course of business. I do not see how the minister can justify the expenditure of this large sum on a wharf there.


John Warwick King: Does my hon.
friend suggest that this work should be allowed to go into disrepair and be abandoned?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not say anything of
the sort.


John Warwick King: That is what it
means.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it does not.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: In what part of the parish
of Hardwieke is Mill's Point?


John Warwick King: The wharf is on
the south shore of Miramichi bay, twenty-two miles from the nearest railway connection at Loggieville. It will serve two-thirds of the parish of Hardwieke, with a population of 1,800.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no such number of people at Mill's Point as 1,800, and I challenge anybody to produce statistics to prove it.


John Warwick King: That refers to the district round about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, that would be the
whole parish, an area, I suppose of 100 square miles.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: We were told this afternoon that the proposed improvement at Escuminac would serve a population of 1,800, and now we are told that the proposed wharf improvements at Mill's Point will serve the same population, in the same parish, and a very sparsely settled one at that. This is a very large amount to expend on the repair of a wharf. I believe that public wharves should be kept in repair, and I would not oppose any vote to provide such necessary repairs in any part of the country. But in these days, when the minister has on two occasions stated his inability to provide accommodation for those who are following deep-sea fishing, involving a much smaller expenditure than this, to ask us to vote $25,000 to enlarge a public wharf at iMilt's Point really looks a little too much like the pork barrel system.


Arthur Meighen: We have a vote for
New Brunswick of $228,000, New Brunswick is a province of eleven constituencies and fifteen counties. Of that $228,000, $45,000 is general and may be spent in any county, we do not know where. But aside from the $45,000 I have counted already $78,500 in the by-election county of Northumberland. Now, does the minister look this committee in the face and say that that $78,500 is anything more or less than the redemption of pledges made to win that election? This committee knows it is.


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge of it at all.


Arthur Meighen: No other conclusion is
possible. The minister is just asking the committee to be made his tool in order to redeem by-election promises in the county of Northumberland at points that nobody ever heard of.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I have sat quietly
all this afternoon listening to the discussion of these items. I would have voted against the last item of $50,000 which was the subject of so much comment, and it will give me a great deal of pleasure to vote against this. I have 'lost faith in any report that the minister brings or will back up by his word. I listened last year to his defence of the Prince Rupert elevator. I went out there this year and found not a word of truth in it.


John Warwick King: I absolutely take
exception to my hon. friend's statement. I am a responsible member of this House and my word is supposed to be taken in this House.


Arthur Meighen: What word? What is
the word given?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has said that my statement was absolutely untrue.


Mr. STEVENS:: He did not say that.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that is not what he
said. I submit that if there is going to be a question of order, let us have the point of order properly stated so that we may know what it is.


William F. Carroll: There is no point of order before me, as I understand it.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not wish to
speak about the Prince Rupert elevator-it slipped out. I want to keep that for another time. We have had a proposal for the expenditure of $50,000 at another harbour to accommodate boats drawing three and a half feet of water-motor boats. We have listened to the excuses put up for these votes to accommodate fishermen, yet in all these great inland lakes we have just as many fishermen and1 we are not preparing harbours for them at a cost of $50,000 each.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I beg the minister's pardon; there are no harbours to which these boats will run, to begin with, on the Great Lakes. Even the $13,000 purchase at Trenton harbour will not accommodate any of the
371S

Supply-FI arbours and Rivers
fishermen. It is about time we came to realize in this House just what we are facing in regard to these votes. We are piling up aew works by the millions, and I would ask the committee to consider this when they are asked to vote $50,000 and $25,000 under the circumstances connected with these appropriations. We have to face an $8,000,000 compensation to the Home Bank depositors. We have $5,000,000 to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, which in time will run into $25,000,000, if we are to judge by comparison of the original Belle River expenditure and the estimate now put forward. We have the $3,000,000 for the Scribe hotel, which, it is stated, will very shortly amount to $4,000,000. We have the Petersen contracts of $13,500,000. We have the $7,000,000 Montreal bridge, which, we are also told, will cost $15,000,000 before it is finished. We have the Prince Rupert elevator, $1,300,000, and when it is completed there will be a demand for another railroad to bring the grain to that elevator. There is the Hudson Bay railway, $2,000,000, and when it is completed there will be an immediate demand for harbour improvements there. When we add all this up we must ask ourselves whether we are sincere in this talk of economy. We have enunciated a new policy now in the purchase of a municipal wharf at Trenton for $13,000. That will immediately be followed by demands to purchase many other wharves which are municipal burdens.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a fine wharf to
give to the department. They would not be asked to pay a cent for it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Almost any part
of the country would give the department a wharf. This thing is going a little too far. I cannot support a vote of $50,000 to make a motor boat harbour and then on top of that $25,000 to make another motor boat harbour, when in the*city of Kingston we have been denied a few hundred dollars for the repair of a wharf which could provide a large amount of traffic for the National Railways. This wharf, which is leased by the National Railways, is in such condition that it is not safe to walk over it, yet the small amount which would be necessary to repair it cannot be provided. Now we are asked to provide $25,000, or rather $50,000, for motor boat accommodation in this locality. This is a little too much, and things have reached the point where one must express his opinion and declare himself against expenditures of this kind. I am going to vote against this item unless we can get some better explanation than that it is to provide accommodation for (Mr. A. E. Ross.]
the fishing population. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that the House has adopted a motion to the effect that the Hudson Bay railway must be completed before any new work is started.


John Warwick King: But this is not
a new work; it is reconstruction.


Arthur Edward Ross: Some of these
things are new, and as a matter of fact no one seems to know where this particular place is. So far as we can tell it might be absolutely new work. It may be that this is only for repairs, but the very fact that men living in the province cannot tell us where it is would seem to indicate that it cannot be a place of very great importance.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell
us now of any other expenditures in the county of Northumberland than those I have named: Burnt Church, wharf repairs, $2,500; Escuminac, harbour improvements, $50,000; Loggieville, wharf repairs, $1,000; Mill's Point, wharf enlargement and repairs, $25,000, or over one-third of the whole vote for the province of New Brunswick. In addition to these, can the minister tell us what this county will get out of the general vote? What is there under dredging and other votes in this book of estimates for the year 1926 that will go to pay the government's election debts in the county of Northumberland?


John Warwick King: My right hon.
friend takes some pleasure in talking about election debts. These are not election debts; they are votes for important public matters. The county of Northumberland is one of the large lumbering districts of New Brunswick. The Miramichi river is one of the great lumber waterways of the province, for there is no river in New Brunswick where there is such a large development in the lumber business at the present time. These works are' of great importance to the district, and repairs are badly needed. This being the case, there is no reason why the minister should not come and place the case clearly before parliament. And that is what we are doing. The work at Mill's Point is important, the wharf structures there having been in existence for many years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the size of the
Wharf?


John Warwick King: It is 1.338 feet
long by 20 feet wide except for the outer 95 feet of the length, which is 30 feet wide.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the original cost?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: It cost $21,000
when built.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was that?


John Warwick King: In 1908-1909.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister does not
suggest that this is a lumber wharf. It is 25 miles down the river on the south shore and I do not think there is a mill on that side of the river below Chatham. There may be one at Loggieville but it would be a small one. So that there is no lumber shipped over this wharf, and the minister would seem to leave that inference.


John Warwick King: I am merely
meeting the argument of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) with regard to the great amount of money being spent in Northumberland, and I am showing that the county is an important one with a great waterway, and that there is a large production of lumber in the district, other industries being fishing and so on.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What actual tonnage went over the wharf last year?


John Warwick King: The exports are
largely fish, salmon and herring. There were shipped over the wharf 5,000 barrels of oysters,
2,000	barrels of potatoes, and blueberries valued at $1,000; and there are ten large fishing boats and fifty smaller boats owned in the vicinity.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has been
charged with devoting a great portion of the expenditure under "Harbours and rivers, New Brunswick" to this one by-election county. So far we have got a total of $78,500 entirely outside of the general vote, that is to say, out of a total of only $228,000. The minister says in reply that this is an important county; it has a great water front; it is an exceptional part of the province; and for that reason it is only natural that it should get the big end of the vote. He says also that it has nothing to do with the by-election. The by-election was held last year and that is when the promises were made. I have before me the estimates for 1924, and how much do hon. members think was voted for the county of Northumberland, this important county with its large waterway, its extensive area, in that year? The total was one item, "Portage river, $600." The sum of $600 i3 voted when there is no by-election and $78,500 when. there is.


John Warwick King: The by-election
is over.


Arthur Meighen: But the pledges were
made then and the hon. member has to make good or he could not go home. In 1925, before the late lamented hon. member for Northumberland had died, all that the minister thought fit to give the county of Northumberland was a small vote for Bay du Vin, $1,600 for wharf repairs; in other words, $1,600 in the last two years, with no byelection to pay for.


James Murdock: That last item should
have been $1,600.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, $1,600; I do not see clearly. But that is worth pointing out too; $1,600 and $600.


James Murdock: It is well to check up
my right hon. friend's inaccuracies once in a while.


Arthur Meighen: 
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: A moment ago the minister said that there were large lumber interests in the county of Northumberland and that its waterways were important. I do not begrudge any development work that may be done in that county; but when the minister insists on trying to lead the public to believe that it is the only important county in the province-


John Warwick King: The minister did not say that.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I certainly take exception to the statement. We have a vote for harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick this year of $228,300. Of that amount $45,000 will be spent for harbours and rivers generally. The greater portion of it may go to Northumberland, or any other county where the government may choose to bring on a by-election. Of the balance

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
of $183,300 the sum of $78,500 is being spent in the county of Northumberland and1 none in the neighbouring county, and yet I have been striving for the last two years to get some email works done for the purpose of protecting the fishery industry on the seaboard of Kent, which is just as important as the fishery industry in the county of Northumberland. As a matter of fact there is more shelter in Miramichi bay than there is in the straits of Northumberland on the seaboard of Kent county. But I have not been able to get my hon. friends to agree to make those disbursements. The present vote is nothing more than the fulfilment of pre-election pledges. The Postmaster General-who I am sorry is not in his seat-made a promise on the eve of the election to the enterprising town of Nelson that he would see that his colleague gave them a nice public building; I would ask whether the provision for such a building has been made this year. The minister does not answer. Possibly he has decided that he would look after the breakwater this year, and provide the public building next year or at some time when another by-election will be on.
I understand that the present member for Northumberland (Mr. Snowball) also promised in the by-election campaign that he would develop the port of Neguac. That may be taken care of under the general vote for dredging. It would be interesting for us to learn whether the dredging promised to be done at Neguac will be provided for in the general vote. Let me point out that the rest of the province of New Brunswick, irrespective of whether there are by-elections or not, is entitled to its share of public expenditure for the purpose of giving protection to industries that are just as important as are those on the river Miramichi. As the representative of the county of Kent I shall insist again and again, if another session of the present parliament is held, that a little better care be taken in providing for the needs of the remaining constituencies of the province instead of limiting expenditures to "pork barrel votes" for the county of Northumberland.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask the minister a question. I notice that these items -Burnt Church, Escuminac, Loggieville and Mill's Point-are all repairs to wharves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At Escuminac there is a new breakwater.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, it is in the nature of wharf repairs or construction. Will the minister tell me if there are any items in this

vote of $45,000 which provide for dredging in the vicinity of any of these places to which I have referred in the county of Northumberland?


John Warwick King: Our dredging vote will be discussed later, but I believe there will be. As a matter of fact more or less dredging work is done annually in the county of Northumberland, in the harbour of Miramichi and on the Miramichi river.


Henry Herbert Stevens: More or less is good.


John Warwick King: I will be able to give information as to the dredging work later.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to say to my hon.
friend (Mr. Doucet) on behalf of my colleague (Mr. Murphy), who is not present, that he was down in the county of Northumberland and addressed three meetings. At two of the mieetings-one at Chatham ,and thje other at Newcastle-I was present with him and it is unfair for my hon. friend to say that the Postmaster General made any promise that a public 'building would be built at Nelson. I was present with the Postmaster General when he was driving through Nelson. He stopped and saw the building, and I may inform my hon. friend that he recognized that the question of erecting a new building should be given every consideration because such a building should be constructed1.
Just prior to the election of my hon. friend (Mr. Doucet) considerable money was being .expended in the county of Kent. A wharf was under construction at that time representing, I think, an'expenditure of fourteen or fifteen thousand dollars. I think that wharf has been completed since my hon. friend has been representing the county. I have not gone through the estimates to know just how much has been provided in the case of my hon. friend's county, but I am informed that there is to be work done at Buctouche. My hon. friend is not fair in claiming that that particular county is being overlooked because he represents the constituency as an opponent of the government. The Minister of Public Works, I believe, has always been very willing to give every consideration to representations made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The right hon. leader of the opposition has been complaining because a wharf was built in the constituency of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones).


Arthur Meighen: When did I say that?


Albert James Smith Copp: To-night. My right hon.
friend was questioning the expenditure.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: I will not allow the hon.
member to put words in my mouth. I saw him listening when I was speaking and I cannot understand how he could make such an error. I made no comment whatever. I merely asked questions to assure myself of the nature of the work.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I thought my hon. friend was
insinuating it was an extravagant piece of work-


Arthur Meighen: You did not think that
at all-


Arthur Bliss Copp: -and a case of providing for that constituency for election purposes as he has been charging was done in other constituencies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I be allowed to correct my hon. friend? I expressed surprise that so much money was being expended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to suggest to the
minister-he has intimated there are some other expenditures for dredging in connection with the work referred to-that this is a very large and very important item and I think it would be advisable to let it stand, keeping company with the previous one of $50,000 which is also standing. I would, like the minister to give me his attention while I am speaking. I am simply suggesting that this contentious item should stand, and that he should bring down for the committee information regarding the dredging so that we may have it fully before us and be properly seized of the whole question.


John Warwick King: I should like to
meet the desire of my hon. friend but I can see no good reason why we should not proceed. We have already had a lengthy discussion on this item. It is not a new work, it is the reconstruction of a work that has been in existence since 1908 or 1909. It requires renewal at this period, the vote is a proper one and the committee should decide as to their action in regard to it. I should like to get on. I have set aside the other item on account of it being an item for new work and have let it stand, so that hon. members might have time to consider the stand they would take, whether they would fight it or move to have it reduced; but this is an item for renewals and repairs for a wharf which has been in existence for many years, and I think we should proceed with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to suggest to the
minister that it is not wise, in discussing
these items, to take an attitude of forcing things through. The minister must recognize that a number of items have been passed today, and we are quite prepared to pass others, but here is a very important one and we desire certain information in regard to it. He tells us he has not that information. I am not criticizing him for not having the information, but simply suggesting that this additional information should be given to the committee, and in justice to the committee we are entitled to receive that information before the item is passed. I suggest that this item stand and1 that we proceed with the less important items at the bottom of the page. The minister will find that it will not hamper him in the passing of his estimates to meet a courteous request with similar courtesy.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend misunderstands. In regard to this $50,000 item, hon. members will have ample opportunity of discussing it on any other item if they wish. My only desire is to facilitate the work of the committee. If this item passes we will proceed with the next. If it is the wish of the committee to say to the government, "You can pass only this item" or "You can pass only that other item" it makes it very difficult. My hon. friend will have an opportunity of discussing this item under other items. It seems to me that is reasonable and fair. As far as dredging at this point is concerned, my information is that there will be no further dredging at that point, but that there will be some dredging in that vicinity, and we will be glad to give the committee that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister also
bring down the estimates of the dredging that will be required for the Eseuminac improvements? If my information is correct very little dredging will require to be done.


Arthur Meighen: All that my hon. friend
is asking for is that the Northumberland item stand. Surely it is reasonable that before we start to pay this note we should know what the face of the note is. It is all right to say that we can discuss it under another item; but if ever a country with a body of groaning taxpayers was entitled' to know just what it had to pay to elect these government candidates, surely it is now. We have part of the note in the county of Essex, and we already have part of the note in West Hastings, and now to the extent of $78,500- although that is only a small fraction of what Essex cost us-we have it in Northumberland. I venture to suggest to the committee that this is only a fraction of what the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
treasury of Canada has to pay for the success of the government so much boasted of by the Prime Minister and his lieutenants in the county of Northumberland.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the .minister let
the item stand?


John Warwick King: Yes, if the hon.
member seriously asks it.
Item stands.	*
Me Alpine's-wharf repairs, $1,200.


Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In the county
of Royal, known as McAlpine's wharf.


Arthur Meighen: How long has this been
there?


John Warwick King: Many, many
years.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing new about
this?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Oromocto-wharf improvements, $4,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What are the repairs
there?


John Warwick King: This is in the
county of York-Sunbury. The work will consist of building a concrete face across the front and lower side, 5 feet high; protecting 50 feet of the upper face with a concrete slab 1.5 feet thick; placing a concrete covering on the main portion of the wharf, 74 feet by 35 feet; building two concrete comer piers and a concrete roadway approach 200 feet long by 10 feet wide. This is on the river St. John.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will this be done by
tender.


John Warwick King: No, day labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think this is a job which could very well be done by tender, and probably save the department a considerable sum of money. It simply means a concrete face to that wall. That is practically the whole work. Plans of the work can be drawn, and I would advise the minister to have it done by tender rather than by days' work. He may not please a few of the boys round there, but it will save the country some money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pointe du Chene-repairs to breakwater, $2,100.
Arthur Meighen: What is the nature of
this work?


John Warwick King: This is in Westmorland county. The work will consist of placing large stone blocks on the old breakwater where the Stringers and covering have been washed off. It is recommended by the district engineer in order to save the structure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port-Elgin-dredging in Gaspereau river, $20,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we should have
some explanation of this item. This was voted last year, the work was not proceeded with, and it is a revote. My information is that this is not necessary in the public interest.


John Warwick King: This is a revote.
Last year we asked for tenders, but failed to get any bid for the work, if I remember rightly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the reason was
that the quantities were so small.


John Warwick King: Or they were too
high, and the contract was not gone on with. It is proposed to dredge a channel in the Gaspereau river to the village of Port Elgin one and a half miles. There are 60,000 cubic yards in place to remove. Years ago the department undertook this work and it has never been completed, with the result that the previous expenditure, which was a considerable sum, has been of no real advantage to the community. This will mean a completion of the work which was commenced many years ago and the dredging practically done. Port Elgin is a small community having a population of 1,000-'


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know all about it.


John Warwick King: -and in the district there are some 5,000 people. It is a manufacturing point and there is considerable lumber in the district. The figures given me were:
Lumber 3,500,000 feet, board measure.
Laths 2,500,000
A large proportion of the lumbeT is at present shipped by rail, and could more economically be transported by waer. There are six fish packing establishments a Port Elgin, packing herring largely imported from the Magdalen islands. The value of the industries at Port Elgin is given as follows:
Lumber	 $105,000
Laths	 20,000
Woollen imports	 40,000
Fish	 150,000
Farm produce	 40,000
Total	 $355,000

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister say
any of that lumber will be shipped by water?


John Warwick King: It is not being
shipped at the present time by water.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it will be?


John Warwick King: Possibly it will
be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rexton-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am asking the committee not to delay this vote. It is $1,000 out of $1,800.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shediac-wharf repairs, $17,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: Westmorland
county.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an important vote, and since the car ferry began to run between Cape Tormentine and Borden, Prince Edward Island there has been no steamship service at Shediac, I understand. What is the use of keeping up the big pier at Point du Chene? No steamers call there as in former days. Is any lumber being shipped there now?


John Warwick King: This work will
consist of rebuilding the top of the wharf, replacing covering, stringers and guard with creosoted timber, with the exception of the first four blocks and spans, where solid fill is proposed by blocking the spans with the best of the discarded stringers, and filling with, earth, stone et cetera, surfaced with gravel. Creosoted timber is to be used for the renewal of the superstructure, and creosoted hardwood for the flooring. The district is an important one. There are shipments of lumber. The wharf is also used as a landing by fishermen and farmers from the mainland surrounding Shediac bay and Shediac island. Ten thousand to fifteen thousand barrels of potatoes, four thousand barrels of oysters and five thousand bushels of clams pass over the wharf annually, together with quantities of fish products and general merchandise. The structure is one that I do not think should be allowed to go into disrepair.


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


John Warwick King: The cost of construction was $32,086.96 and the repairs amounted to $1,609.84.


Arthur Meighen: When was the wharf
originally constructed?


John Warwick King: I have not the
date.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It has been there for a long
time.


Arthur Meighen: Has there been any
storm lately causing damage that requires repairs amounting to more than one-half the cost?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Two years ago there was a
very severe storm there and the wharf was materially damaged. There were some temporary repairs last year, and this is to complete the repairs.
Mr. MEIGiHEN:	Why were the full
repairs not done last year?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There were temporary repairs
last year to keep the wharf intact until there was an opportunity of repairing it.


Arthur Meighen: Why was the complete
work not done last year so as to avoid temporary repairs?


Arthur Bliss Copp: What was done last year was
not wasted by any means.


Arthur Meighen: Why was the complete
work not done last year?


John Warwick King: There are many
works that have to stand over and that are standing over to-day.


Arthur Meighen: I do not speak about
that. My point is this: If work is to be repaired practically immediately on an important wharf-and I think Shediac is a place of some size-it is far better to do it than to make temporary repairs one year and then next year make permanent repairs. It seems to me as if the government thought this would pay better this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shippigan Gully-breakwater repairs, $4,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an old friend.
How much has been spent on Shippigan Gully breakwater in .the last twenty years?


John Warwick King: On construction,
$156,000, on repairs, $31,000. This work consists of repairing a section 237 feet long on the west breakwater, with a close pile face fastened to wales supported by rear piles at five-foot intervals, and all connected to the present breakwater with cross-ties extending to the inner rear piles. The engineer reports that the face of the breakwater along the section to be repaired is in bad condition and is apt to break through in a storm. As the breakwaters at Shippigan Gully perform an important work in keeping the channel

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
deepened for the numerous shipping boats, it is necessary to keep them in good repair. The fishing fleet consisting of over 100 boats use this passage to and from the fishing grounds each week. The value of the fisheries benefited is about $700,000 annually.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a very important
work, but I never can understand why this breakwater gets out of repair every year. I think the minister will find that his department has spent money there every year for the last five years. While this work has to be kept up, I think the engineering department should devise ways and means to stop this large annual expenditure. Whether there is faulty construction or defective plans, I do not know, but there is a big charge and a heavy upkeep as the work is being carried on now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Andrews-wharf improvements and repairs, $3,200.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the public wharf in the centre of the town?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Charlotte.


Mr MEIGHEN:: Why was nothing done last year?


John Warwick King: Last year we had voted some $3,000 for the construction of a shed. This was deferred until the winter season owing to scarcity of labour during the summer. It was found impossible to complete the work during 1924-25, an expenditure of $340 having been reported to March 31, 1925. This revote is, therefore, asked for this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was on that wharf several times last season and the surface was not in any too good shape. I think some of this money might be used to better advantage in looking after the structure than in building a superstructure.


John Warwick King: The engineer reports that the shed is a necessity there. I have no doubt if the wharf structure required urgent repairs, he would so report. Apparently he is not asking a very large sum for repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Young's Cove-rebuilding wharf, $6,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Before we finally exhaust these repairs in New Brunswick, I should like

to know if the minister has had any requests for anything from the island of Grand Manan.
I cannot see a single dollar for 10 p.m. that island. As the minister knows, that island is away out in the middle of the bay of Fundy. There are no hardy fishermen like them along the Atlantic coast. They are the people who are in need of protection from the elements more than those of any other place I know of in the Maritime provinces. I do not think there is in the fishing industry any other post of danger equal to that which the fishermen of Grand Manan occupy. Apparently, however, there is nothing in the estimates this year for them. I would point out to the minister that the majority of the people of Grand Manan have voted faithfully in season and out of season for the Liberal party, and yet this is the kind of reward that is being meted out to them! I shall have great pleasure in going to Grand Manan and telling the people of Grand Manan-where at some elections they voted four to one in favour of the Liberal candidate-that there is not a single dollar for Grand Manan in the estimates this year.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is another kind
of song.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Anse a Giles-wharf repairs, $1,300.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this?


John Warwick King: This is just for
repairs to renew the spans between cribs and fill two passes between cribs with cri'bwork. There has been a total expenditure at this point of $8,316. It is situated on the south shore of the St. Lawrence about forty-six miles below Quebec. It forms part of the parish of Cap St. Ignace and the population of 1,000 is engaged in farming principally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Anse St. Jean-wharf repairs, $1,570.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this?


John Warwick King: It is recommended by the district engineer for repairs required to maintain the structure in good condition. The steamers of Canada Steamship Lines Limited are scheduled to call there four times weekly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this work part of a
contract? I notice $3,300 was spent last year and $1,570 is asked for this year; these two amounts would come pretty well up to your

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
$5,000 limit. I raised this point last year. Is it becoming the practice of the department to undertake works beyond the $5,000 mark by day labour instead of calling for tenders? This work apparently has cost about $5,000, and should be done by contract.


John Warwick King: We had a vote
last year of $3,300, of which we expended $3,256 This is to complete the repairs. I think the practice of doing these works by day labour or by contract has been discussed very fully.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was last year, and we may have to discuss it again this year.


John Warwick King: Yes. New work
that can be done by contract is advertised and tenders are called for. But repairs, especially repairs to old wharves, are the most difficult to get tenders on. As I stated this afternoon, a contractor going to an old structure of that kind finds the risks are so great that he will not give a close figure on the job. The result is the department does much of this repair work by day labour under the direction of its district engineers.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I appreciate that. I do
not want the minister to misunderstand me. I think it is his duty to the committee to make clear that wherever possible tenders are called for, and personally I am insistent that that should be the practice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bagotville (St. Alphonse)-wharf extension and repairs, $22,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a large item.


John Warwick King: This vote is required to widen the approach by twenty-one feet for a length of 291 feet, the outer wall to be cribwork backfilled with earth and stone and covered with a macadam surface. Requests were received for widening the wharf to accommodate the tracks of the Roberval-Saguenay Railway Company. The district engineer states these repairs are required for the maintenance of the structure in good condition to accommodate a very heavy traffic. Last year their exports amounted to $850,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: OveT this wharf?


John Warwick King: Yes; and the
imports, consisting of general merchandise, amounted to $750,000. The passenger traffic was: inbound, 4,939; outbound, 4,894. The freight traffic consisted of: inbound, 637 tons; outbound, 386 tons. The wharf is an important structure in a flourishing district. It
is a deep water terminal and the railway runs to the wharf.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here we have a typical case. Two years ago there was a vote of $8,500-apparently all expended; last year a vote of $1,850-all expended; this year we have a vote of $22,000. Has any of the work covered by these votes been done by contract, or has it been all carried out by day labour?


John Warwick King: There will be a contract called for the enlargement of the approach, which is estimated to cost $19,450. The minor repairs, amounting to $2,550, will probably be done by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baie St. Paul

bank protection, $25,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: How is it that this item does not show the expenditure of last year?


John Warwick King: There was none under that head last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; Baie St. Paul, $12,500 last year, and another vote the year before.


John Warwick King: Not under this
head.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is under the same wharf.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have it here right
alongside, $9,700. Has any of this work been done by contract?


John Warwick King: That was a contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the vote this year is to complete the contract?


John Warwick King: No, this is a new item entirely.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean the other one.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this bank protection?


John Warwick King: It is to protect works to be constructed along the banks of the river Gouffre. Last year in the fall heavy floods caused tremendous destruction along the river, and representations were made to the government to assist the municipality, in co-operation with the provincial government, by doing certain works there. These works will not only protect the town of Baie St. Paul, but also certain local works which the government own and control.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is- the population
and the business?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: About six thousand.


Mr. CRERAR:: What are the municipality and the provincial government putting up?


John Warwick King: The Quebec government through the Quebec Streams Commission have been investigating with a view to carrying on certain portions of this work. I have not a definite statement from them as to the amount they will spend, but they are taking one portion of the river, the municipality another and we another. Their contribution, as I understand it, will be very considerable.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Representations have been
made to the minister several times on behalf of certain people living along the Red river in connection with damage by flood. In fact I think a couple of houses at Gonor, Manitoba, were almost swept away, but the minister has refused to consider their claims. I am afraid he is opening the door here to very wide expense if the government is committed to a policy of this kind.


John Warwick King: The question of
expenditure on river bank protection is a pretty large one. Personally I am opposed to the Dominion government accepting the whole burden. First, the person whose property is destroyed should consider his own case and see what he can do for himself. Then the municipality should follow; from there it should go to the provincial government, and if it is too large then, there can be co-operation between the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments. If that course is followed I do not think we will be led into very serious difficulties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This would appear to be one of those cases that the Minister of Labour would like to have measured by the British North America Act. What river is this on?


John Warwick King: River du Gouffre.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This work is in navigable waters?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baie St. Paul-wharf repairs, $9,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Two years ago we had a
vote of $15,000 for this work. About one-fifth of that was expended. Then we had a vote last year of 112,000, which seems to have been all expended. Now we have another vote for $9,700. This work is done by day labour?


John Warwick King: No, contract.
The work was practically completed last year when these tremendous floods came down and destroyed part of what had been done. That is why we are asking for additional money now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Barachois de Malbaie-breakwater repairs, $800.
John Warwick King: This is a repair
work, requiring the driving of seventy-eight sheathing piles along the northerly face of the breakwater. It is recommended by the district engineer. The harbour is used largely for fishing. The yearly amount of business carried on at this place is $275,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In the district of
Gaspe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bic-wharf reconstruction, $5,500.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister explain this?


John Warwick King: This is to rebuild 3 blocks 12 feet in height, 21 feet in width and 30 feet in length each, at a cost of $3,000; to level and rebuild the outer end of wharf upon a length of 60 feet by 21 feet in width, at a cost of $500; to drive 100 protection piles 35 feet in length along the eastern face of the outer portion of the wharf, $2,000. It is recommended by the district engineer. The yearly shipping at that point amounts to $100,000. All sorts of produce are exported to the north shore and Quebec. The imports consist of goods, merchandise and provisions for local consumption.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bonaventure-harbour improvements, $9,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This shows a vote for
1924-25 of $20,000, but I do not see it in last year's estimates.


John Warwick King: It was in the
supplementaries of last year. It is to complete the contract.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much has been paid out on the contract?


John Warwick King: $6,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The estimates show a
vote of $20,000 last year and a revote this year of $9,000. That would mean that $11,000 of last year's appropriation was expended. How was that expended?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: There was $6,000 expended and $5,000 lapsed. The contract was for some $14,000. We require a revote this year of $9,000 to complete.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the $20,000 vote
was too large?


John Warwick King: Larger than we
needed, yes.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Why was this vote in
the supplementary estimates instead of in the general estimates last year? I think this question is pertinent inasmuch as we are really continuing last year's work now.


John Warwick King: The supplementary estimate brought down last year originated the work. Now we are continuing the work and the vote is brought down in the main estimates.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That is merely a statement of fact which I knew before. What I want to know is why a large vote like that should not come naturally in the general estimates.


John Warwick King: I think the proper procedure has been followed in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cacouna-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the third year that parliament has been asked to vote this item. It seems to be another one of the continuous performances which we have been witnessing.


John Warwick King: This vote is required for annual repairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is this jilaee?


John Warwick King: This is in Temiscouata constituency. The work will consist in laying a two-inch flooring six hundred feet long by thirty feet wide to permit the safe circulation of traffic on the wharf. As is well known, this is an important point on the Saguenay river and there is considerable traffic there. A great many tourists visit the place and there is a considerable amount of produce handled. It is estimated that some
30,000	bushels of potatoes were shipped to Quebec last fall. The wharf was built in 1890. There will also be renewed twenty pieces of six-inch sheathing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap de la Madeleine-freight shed on wharf, $9,000.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is this shed similar to one
at a fyace called Blind River which was discussed the other day?


John Warwick King: Yes. It is a
wooden freight shed 132 feet long by 60 feet wide. There has been a great deal of development in this vicinity in the last year and a considerable traffic will go over the wharf from now on. It is located near Three Rivers and a large pulp industry is being developed at this point. There will also be shipments of coal and sulphur going in and out and altogether the activities will warrant the structure. We shall get a revenue from the shed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How much?


John Warwick King: It will depend upon the tonnage, but the Marine department will collect a fair charge and it is expected that a considerable revenue will be derived.


Mr. LUCAS:: This is a new vote.


John Warwick King: Yes, we are putting up a new shed.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is the entire amount being
spent on the freight shed?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister guarantee a revenue of $100 a year?


John Warwick King: There will be a
fair revenue.


Arthur Meighen: From what?


John Warwick King: Well, there will
be 80,000 tons of general merchandise, 75,000 tons of newsprint, 20,000 tons of kraft paper, and some 5,000,000 feet of timber all being shipped over the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: What will be the charge?


John Warwick King: Up to the present time there has been little tonnage. Until recently no paper development has taken place there, but there will be considerable activity this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What company is turning
out the paper?


John Warwick King: The St. Maurice
Pulp and Paper Company.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is the shed being built
especially for their convenience?


John Warwick King: Not necessarily;
it is for the general use.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister said
that until the company came there was no other purpose for the shed.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: I did not say
that; I said that there was not much tonnage, but that there will be from now on. Through the activities of the pulp company the population has increased and there is every prospect that a very large tonnage will move over the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: The minister said there
was no revenue until now.


John Warwick King: I said there was no shed until now.


Arthur Meighen: It is the shed that will bring the revenue.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: And there will be a large revenue from a $9,000 shed.


John Warwick King: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not $9,000 that we are voting here?


John Warwick King: I said that there was likely to be a large tonnage moving over the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: But I understood the minister to say that the shed would bring the revenue.


John Warwick King: The shed and the storage will be a convenience which the people will pay for.


Arthur Meighen: What revenue will be got from the shed?


John Warwick King: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I think my guess was about right. Is it the practice to build sheds for concerns? I know it is the practice to keep up their wharves at select places, but I did not know that we built sheds too.


John Warwick King: I think it is better for the department, to build the shed at that point rather than that the company should *build their own shed for their own purposes. This shed will be used by the public generally as well as by the company.


Arthur Meighen: But the department could have a policy whereby sheds on public wharves would be open to the public at the usual fee and in that way the whole country would be relieved of a large expenditure, while the man that built the shed would be paid.


John Warwick King: I think this plan will work beter.


Arthur Meighen: I should like to know anything else of the minister's .that has worked out IMr. Meighen.]
better than this will. If the minister will look over the revenue he has derived from these expenditures he will find that he can put them all in the hollow of his hand.
Mr. OR.DRAIi: I desire again to protest as I did the other day in connection with a similar vote for a shed at a place called Blind River. The principle is a bad one and I trust the minister will see that his colleague of the .Marine department (Mr. Cardin) will collect at least sufficient revenue from this shed to payall expenses in connection with it including depreciation and interest on the investment.


John Warwick King: I think that will be done.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Perhaps I could throw a little light on this matter; I know something about wharves and sheds. The government, for instance, builds a wharf at some point in Nova Scotia, we will say. A subsidized steamer calls there and lands three or four boxes of sugar besides cement and other articles, late at night. What is to become of those things? Are they to lie on the wharf all night long even though there may be a rain storm? There must be some place in which to store them. Hon. members might say that the public should put up a building; but where would they put it-on government property? So far as I know anything about sheds in Nova Scotia, they are usually very small buildings; there is a small waiting room in the front and a store room at the back. Those that I have seen would not be bigger than forty by twenty feet; in fact, that would be a large one. People waiting on the wharf for a boat during a storm would be in a very bad way if they had nowhere to wait. I think that the present vote will serve a real need. Of course, I do not suggest that the government should enter on any tremendous expenditure, building warehouses for the benefit of the general public; but I do believe that there is a need in this regard, il have been in a great many places where I was glad to have some place in which to shelter while I was-waiting for a boat during a storm. I might explain it in this way: The necessity has come to be real. I do not think that where perishable goods are landing they should be left out on a wharf over night unsheltered. What would the hon. member suggest in a case of that kind?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would suggest that the district that benefits from the shed, o* the transportation company that is deriving revenue from the carriage of passengers and.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
freight should provide the shed. I quite appreciate, I think, the position that my hon. friend and his constituency are in, and probably a good many other constituencies where these sheds are necessary. But I do submit, in all honesty and sincerity, that it is not a sound principle that the general taxpayers of Canada should be taxed to provide facilities for any traffic of this character. The question involved is one of principle. For instance, in my own constituency there is a lake that is becoming in a very considerable measure a summer resort. I think I would be just as much justified in coming to this House and asking for a vote of money to build a shed on the wharf on that lake for the convenience of the passengers there, as the hon. member who represents this constituency is in asking for this vote. Still I do not think the principle is sound, and I wish to say that future expenditures of this kind should be carefully scrutinized.


Clifford William Robinson: Perhaps I may be allowed a word or twro further by way of explanation. We have in Nova Scotia warehouse companies that build warehouses for the convenience of people that are shipping apples and potatoes, or people that are receiving coal. They never use the government warehouse for purposes of that kind. In most places the government shed is a small structure that serves to shelter people in inclement weather, and allows perishable goods to be stored until whoever wants them can come and get them. I quite agree with my hon. friend. I do not believe this country should be taxed to build private warehouses. But I can see no reason when a steamer lands at a wharf why some kind of shelter should not be given to passengers waiting to board a boat, especially if the vessel is subsidized and running under government auspices.
Mr. STE\ENS: This is a different case. Here we have a large plant established m the locality, and the minister tells us there is now a very large movement of merchandise coal and sulphur inward; pulp and paper, and kraft paper outward-and the tonnage which he mentioned is very extensive. Consequently we are justified in coming to the conclusion that this shed is being built to especially accommodate the tonnage of this plant. I am not complaining about that, but what I do suggest is that where a shed or other accommodation is obviously placed at the public expense for a private concern there ought to be sufficient revenue coming from it to amortize the capital cost and pay a reasonable interest on the carrying charge.
238i


Clifford William Robinson: I agree with you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As regards my hon.friend's references to these more or less isolated services on the sea coasts-both coasts-I understand him quite thoroughly. They are a great convenience and in a great many cases are absolutely necessary. But this is a different thing. I want to say this to the minister: I remember last, year-I cannot recall exactly what case it was-a very large expenditure similar to this. Now in the case of all these expenditures- whether it is in the harbour of Quebec such as we were discussing last night, or the harbour of Vancouver, or any of the larger ports-the user of the facility ought to pay the cost to the country of the installation. There is a duty resting on this government or on parliament,. Where there are navigable waters it is the duty of the government to keep the channels open; but it is not the duty of parliament to supply capital to build sheds for private enterprises, and that is what we are doing here.


John Warwick King: I think my hon.
friend will find that the tolls charged and the revenue derived therefrom will take care of the sinking fund and interest.


Arthur Meighen: At this point?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Mr. MiEIGHEN: We got details the other night of one wdiere the minister assured us there would be some revenue.


John Warwick King: It is not in line
with this at all.


Arthur Meighen: And it was shown that
we got $16.


John Warwick King: It is not in line
with this at all.
Mr. MEIGHEiN:	Where is it out of line?


John Warwick King: It is entirely
different.	,


Arthur Meighen: A different province that is all.


John Warwick King: No, a different
development altogether, quite different.


William Thomas Lucas: Has the minister any estimate of the revenue that will be derived at that point?


John Warwick King: No, the tolls will
be charged by the Marine department. I cannot speak with any certainty but I imagine there will be a considerable sum realized.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to ask the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries-who is

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
sitting immediately behind the Minister of Public Works and will have this work directly under his control, and no doubt has already provided the necessary schedule of fees-what the fee per ton will be for "wharfage in this case?


Mr. CARDIN:: Unfortunately I have not
before me that information. I may say, however, the Cap de la Madeleine is a very important place. It is on the St. Lawrence near its junction with the St. Maurice river and has developed very considerably in the course of the past few years. Very large paper mills have been established at Cap de la Madeleine, and the population of the place is in the neighbourhood of 9,000 at the present time. It is very easy to understand that to serve such a community a wharf and a rfied are of great importance; they are necessary in order to handle the traffic coming from the paper mills, and also to meet the need of the merchants and traders of the locality. Cap de la Madeleine is practically a new place. Ten or fifteen years ago the population numbered only about 1,000; to-day it has grown to practically 9,000. Very great industries have been established in this locality, and the only facility they have on the St. Lawrence is this wharf. Considerable traffic will be developed on the wharf, and I am quite sure the revenue will be sufficient to meet the interest on the expenditure that is made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit
me this question? I am not objecting to the vote, I realize from what the Minister of Public Works has said that it is quite an important work, but I would like to get some idea of the method that is to be employed in raising this revenue. Will the tonnage charge be 10 cents or 15 cents, or 25 cents .a ton?
Mr. CAR.DIN:	I could not say exactly.
Ln the case of certain wharves we make a charge of so much a ton for their use, and we charge certain companies a fixed amount. For example at Chicoutimi we charge the Price Brothers Company, who use the wharf at that place, a sum of $5,000 a year. Probably we will have to fix a charge of that nature for the company using this wharf. It dgpends on the circumstances and the nature of the traffic that passes over the wharf; there is no fixed rate. I understand too, that in the case of this shed we will charge a certain amount on the goods that will be stored there-that is the understanding. Unfortunately I have not got the details as to which will be charged. As I say, there is no established tariff in regard to these wharves;

it depends upon the circumstances, the importance of the locality, and the extent of the traffic. In the present instance the venture is practically a new one necessitated by the development which has taken place at Cap de la Madeleine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the wharfinger be
appointed there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Caughnawaga-wharf reconstruction, $8,000.
Arthur Meighen: We spent $2,500 last
year to repair this wharf, and this year we are going to spend $8,000 to reconstruct it.


John Warwick King: This is another
section of the wharf. There is tremendous traffic passing across the river at that point, and boats are running hourly or oftener. Last year over 31,178 automobiles crossed at this point, 3,279 trucks and 2,233 other vehicles. It is estimated that the traffic will amount to about 45,000 vehicles.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hoiw much do they pay?


John Warwick King: It is a private
feny company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much does each
vehicle pay for landing on the wharf?


John Warwick King: Nothing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there a ferry across the river?


John Warwick King: 'Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: Will this complete the programme at this point?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this to be by contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, under contract.


Arthur Meighen: Is it under contract?


John Warwick King: We constructed a part of it last year. This is a new section which will be under contract this year.


Arthur Meighen: Not yet under contract?


John Warwick King: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chateau Richer-wharf repairs, $1,450.
Arthur Meighen: Where is this?


John Warwick King: In Charlevoix-
Montmorency.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: On. the St. Lawrence
river?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How long has that wharf been there?


John Warwick King: The wharf is 272
feet long and $34,000 has been expended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chicoutimi Basin-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Arthur Meighen: This is not Charlevoix?


John Warwick King: No, C'hicoutimi-
Saguenay.
Mr. STEVEN'S:	In 1923-24 there was an
item of $6,000 for this wharf, apparently all spent. In 1924-25 the amount was $4,800, and now we have an item of $1,500.


John Warwick King: This is a large
structure and there are some repairs practically every year. Last year, 1924-25 we spent $4,686. The wharf is a very large one, and 1,200 passengers passed over the wharf last year, 350 vehicles and 100 tons of freight weekly. It is one of the terminal wharves on the Saguenay river.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There have been certainly very heavy repairs. In 1921-22, $6,000, in 1923-24, $6,000 and 1924-25, $4,800 was spent on repairs. It averages about $5,000. What is the revenue from this wharf?


John Warwick King: The customs
revenue at that point?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the revenue from the wharf? Is there no wharfage at all?


John Warwick King: Well, it is not
very great, it is a small collection. In 1923 the collections were $240 and in 1922, $145. The customs revenue was $67,455. There were 23 sea-going vessels and 99 coasting inland vessels. The ocean tons amounted to 38,264 and the coasting inland tonnage 121,000, making 159,000 tons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does it not strike the
minister and the government as an extraordinary position? Here is a wharf described as a very important one, and I have no doubt it is. We have spent $5,000 per year in repairing it alone, and we get one year $240 and another year $145 in revenue. I really think we ought to face the question of obtaining revenue at these places that are capable of paying considerable sums for the accommodation given to them. Can the minister hold out any hope that there will be
revenue from this wharf in the future? It rather destroys confidence in the suggestion that there will be revenue in the future on these new commitments. That is the point I desire to make.


John Warwick King: The report we
had from the Marine department shows collections last year of some two hundred dollars odd, but I notice here that we have in 1921, 1922 and 1923 apparently collected revenues that are not shown on that sheet. In 1921 the figure is $4,928, in 1922, $5,638, and in 1923, $7,818. Those apparently are not customs collections.


Arthur Meighen: Who collected them?


John Warwick King: I think the Marine department.


Arthur Meighen: I think the minister gave us the Marine department figures.


John Warwick King: There seems to be some confusion, or else this is not a correct statement.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is in the chamber, and we would like to have these correct figures.


John Warwick King: I do not think he would have them in his mind. I will be glad to advise my hon. friend later as to the correctness of these figures.


Arthur Meighen: It would not be much good later, but it would be interesting.


John Warwick King: It is a very small item. I do not think my hon. friend wishes to hold up the annual repairs to a structure of this kind. That is not the intention I understand, and I will be glad to verify the figures which I have given and which I hope are correct.


Arthur Meighen: The next day the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is dealing with his estimates he might give the figures.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the minister ever had a census taken of the wharves in the eastern provinces? Does he know how many there are? I have been looking over the Auditor General's report and find page after page of wharves, and I think we should have a return of these wharves.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is an expensive thing to take a census.


John Warwick King: These wharves are visited by the departmental engineers each year.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Has the minister any
figures of the number of wharves in that province?


John Warwick King: I have not them before me. Many wharves are shown in the items before us to-day, but many others do not appear. There is a complete list of these works in the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contrecceur-wharf improvements, $1,100.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this item?


John Warwick King: This is to improve the flooring by Laying a six-inch concrete flooring on 115 feet long of the right of way to wharf 17.6 feet wide.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: When was it floored last?


Arthur Meighen: What county is it in?


John Warwick King: Chambly-Vercheres.


Arthur Meighen: Floored before the last general election.


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Did the right hon. member floor it for the last election?


Mr. ROBB:: It is a frank admission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Coteau Landing-improvement to wharf approach
11.000.
Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What county is that in?


John Warwick King: Vaudreuil county. This is required to complete the work let in 1024 and 1925 for repairing and improving the approach of this wharf. It consists of laying a concrete floor. Last year $1,739, was expended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cross Point-wharf extension, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: What county is this in?


John Warwick King: Bonaventure.
There is a revote of $3,600. This is to complete the contract at that point.


Arthur Meighen: Why was it all deferred to this year?


John Warwick King: We spent $2,800
last year. This is to complete the work.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister spent
$2,800 out of a vote of $3,600, how is there $3,600 left?


John Warwick King: We are asking
for $5,000 now. There was nothing spent at the time the estimates were made up.


Arthur Meighen: According to the estimates there was nothing spent last year. Now we are told that $2,800 is spent out of a vote of $3,600, the minister says that $3,600 still remains to be revoted.


John Warwick King: There was $2,837
spent. We are asking for $5,000 of which $3,600 is a revote.


Arthur Meighen: Either the minister is
twisted or the estimates are wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister take
that out of the general vote?


John Warwick King: When the estimates were .made up, we estimated that we would require $5,000 to complete the work. Since then the work proceeded and $2,837 was expended before March 31, 1925. We spent more than we thought we should, and therefore we shall not require the full estimate of $5,000. Of course these estimates were made up long before the 31st March.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says that
$2,837 was spent.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Before it was voted?


John Warwick King: No. Out of last year's vote.


Arthur Meighen: He cannot have spent it out oi last year's vote or his estimates are wrongly printed. I have made this statement several times and the minister does not seem to have got it yet. Last year's vote was $3,600. The .minister asks that of that $3,600, the whole of amount be revoted. He cannot have the whole amount if he has spent anything. So he cannot have spent any of last year's vote. Therefore, if he has spent $2,837, he has spent it out this year's vote before we have had the privilege of voting it.


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Meighen: What is the explanation?


John Warwick King: I thought I hau
made it plain that the $2,837 was spent out of last year's vote. My right hon. friend is confused. When our estimates were made up, we did not expect to expend any part of last year's appropriation and an estimate was made up of $5,000 to carry this expenditure. Of that amount, $3,600 would be a revote. In tne meantime, after the estimates had been made up and printed, the contractor went ahead and spent out of last year's vote some $2,837. We are not changing the vote. We will complete the contract and the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
balance that is unexpended will lapse. The thing is perfectly clear. .


Arthur Meighen: It is clear now, but
the minister did not make it clear before. The fact of the matter is that this revote is wrong. There is not $3,600 to be revoted.


John Warwick King: That is true.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Desjardins-wharf reconstruction, $16,000.
Arthur Meighen: Who gets this?


John Warwick King: This is in the
county of Pontiac. It is for reconstruction of the wharf from the water line.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What river is it on?


John Warwick King: The Ottawa river. The amount is required for the proper maintenance of this wharf in good repair, to accommodate a regular traffic, averaging 150 passengers, fifty rigs and fifteen automobiles daily. It is used by a number of farmers in the vicinity, and general supplies and merchandise pass over the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: When was this reconstructed last?


John Warwick King: I have not the date of the last reconstruction. Probably it was some years ago. There has been a total expenditure of $21,261 at this point.


Arthur Meighen: That is all that has ever been spent there?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How do the automobiles pass over?


John Warwick King: They cross back and forth on tne river.


Arthur Meighen: There is a ferry?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is the revenue from this wharf?


John Warwick King: We do not operate the ferry. There is no revenue from the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister hopeful that with the reconstruction there will be a revenue?


John Warwick King: Not at, that point.


Arthur Meighen: Why?


John Warwick King: Because of the character of the traffic, it would not probably be one of the points at which it is usuai to make a charge. I do not think the government has any desire to change its policy in that regard at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: Do automobiles cross at this point?


John Warwick King: They cross the river. They pay the charges for the ferry, but they do not pay for crossing the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: Does the ferry company pay nothing?


John Warwick King: They do not pay anything, to my knowledge.


Arthur Meighen: Who makes a contract with the ferry?


John Warwick King: We license them through the Public Works department. The fee is only a nominal one.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who operates the ferry?


John Warwick King: I have not the name of the individual operator. That would be available in the department if my hon. friend is interested.	.


Edward Joseph Garland: Some
private concern.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it customary to build these conveniences for private concerns for work of this kind without securing any work from them?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend can hardly say that. This is a public wharf and it is a great public convenience. It is true that the ferry uses this wharf as it will the wharf on the other side of the river at Pembroke, Ontario. As for making a charge at this point, I do not think it is worth while. You would have to put somebody there to make your collections, and the work would cost more than the revenue collected.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have in
mind the practice in some of the western provinces, where the provincial government installs the ferries and charges a fee after a certain hour at night. The people of the province pay for the service in that regard. Is it on a different 'basis in Ontario?


John Warwick King: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then why
does the federal government stjep, in and build the approaches? In Alberta the provincial government builds them. I have no doubt there is an explanation; what is it?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Warwick King: There is other traffic at this wharf.


Edward Joseph Garland: There i3
also other traffic besides automobile traffic over the ferries in Alberta; for instance, there is a very heavy grain traffic both in summer and part of the winter.


John Warwick King: Do you make a
charge for the use of the ferry?


Edward Joseph Garland: After a
certain hour for the use of the ferry, not for the wharf.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) The government does not want to enter into the ferry business. That would be "worse and more of it."


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister misunderstands me. In Alberta the government, though not in the ferry business, installs the ferries. In addition to that it builds the approaches and takes care of them. I want to find out what is the reason for the difference in Ontario in cases of this kind, where I find the federal government building the approaches for a private concern?


Charles A. Stewart: These are
not approaches, these are wharves where the steam ferries land.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do boats
come up there and unload cargoes of merchandise?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is a
sort of port?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a "national port."


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member will
just get the significance of this: he ought always to have a wharf where there is a ferry.


Charles A. Stewart: No, there
are ferries without -wharves on this river, just as in Alberta we land on the dirt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is too bad that the hon. member in whose riding this huge sum is being expended is not here to support it and to give us some information.


John Warwick King: What information would my hon. friend like?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We would like to know
why it is that a business operation can be carried on at a government wharf upon which $16,000 is being expended for repairs and reconstruction in one year without any revenue 
at all to justify it. It is really an aggravated case. We have been pointing out to the minister several instances where a few hundred dollars is collected and there is an expenditure of a thousand dollars every year. Here we have a large expenditure of $16,000, with a regular private business being carried on, and no revenue in return. I again suggest to the minister that the time has arrived when the federal authorities should secure revenue, because we are enlarging this liability. I admit it is a growth over a long period of years; but we discussed this last year, and this year we are met by exactly the same statements, indicating no serious thought whatever on the part of the government of either stopping the expenditure or getting some compensating revenue for it. Again I say, it -would be very much better if we could have hadi some support for this vote from the member in whose constituency the expenditure is being made, to show why these rather extravagant repairs should be made merely to accommodate a free ferry.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is not fair. This is a wharf on the Ottawa river handling general traffic. It is true that one of the conveniences the people have there is a ferry service between Pembroke, the adjoining town, and Desjardins. The people who are landed on the wharf use it from that ferry. Does my hon. friend for one moment suggest that we should appoint a wharfinger to exact toll from the passengers using that ferry? If that is the policy he would like this department to adopt, why did he not consider it when he was in office? But I do not think he would entertain it at all if he were in charge. The collection would be so small that the cost would be out of all proportion. There are larger centres where wharfingers are appointed, and proper collections made, but this is a country district, and I do not think it would be good policy to make a charge.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister puts up a straw man to knock down. I never suggested a wharfinger should be appointed to collect revenue. There -would be no difficulty whatever where a ferry is landing regularly to have a small fee collected, either from the concern that is running the ferry or from those who use the ferry and the wharf. It could be collected by the ferry man and turned over to the government. The minister takes my remarks in a wholly wrong spirit. I prefaced what I said a moment ago with the observation that I knew this was a growth over a long period of years, and I suggested it was time-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
I made the same suggestion last year-that we paused to consider either making these services revenue-producing and self-sustaining, or else stopping the expenditure. Now, it must be impressed upon the minds of all, and I am sure if the government can for one moment get away from the political aspect of it they must be impressed too, that tremendous pressure is being brought to bear for new wharves. Look at the wharves we discussed this afternoon-some of them utterly unnecessary. Again I cite what my right hon. leader stated-an expenditure of $78,000 in a con-stituensy where there has been nothing spent for some years, showing there was no need for an annual expenditure as indicated. And so it goes on in these dayi when everyone is anxious to curtail public undertakings. But when we come to the minister with a desire to discuss the matter fairly and non-politically, he comes back with a quasi-political speech. I again say to the minister that when out of public moneys we oan spend $16,000 on a wharf for a ferry to land at, it is time we collected some revenue to make that a selfsustaining service.


Mr. EVANS:: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that a wharf of this kind should be a provincial undertaking entirely. I cannot see any difference betweeen this and furnishing a ferry service, say, across some of the rivers in the prairie provinces which the municipalities and the provincial government have themselves to provide. For instance, there are places in my own constituency where the farmers cannot even market their grain until the rivers are frozen over. Pocketed in certain places as they'- are, they can get no help either from the government or the Canadian National Railways to build them a railway. But I cannot see why those people there should be taxed to construct works here, which are simply provincial and municipal in character, while they have to fight their own battles. When a short while ago the member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) asked the question, the minister took the ground that the municipalities in the case that the member brought forward should look after themselves. I submit that most of the votes we have passed to-night are for municipal or provincial undertakings, and these should not come under the care of the [DOT]Dominion government at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is the wharf built at the request of the ferry company, which I understand is a steamship company?


John Warwick King: No, the wharf is for general use. It so happens there is a service between Pembroke and Desjardins, the
former being the trading town of the people in this district.


Arthur Meighen: There is no business for the wharf except what the ferry brings.


John Warwick King: They transact
other business on the river.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what
it would be.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: Is it a floating wharf?


John Warwick King: No, it is a
permanent wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Doucet's Landing (Ste. Angele de Laval)-dredging, $25,000.
Arthur Meighen: Where is that?


John Warwick King: Nicolet county.


Arthur Meighen: Has there been dredging done in previous years?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How deep are they trying to make the water there?


John Warwick King: Twelve feet at
low water level.


William Thomas Lucas: Will this complete the programme?


John Warwick King: It will complete
the dredging programme, yes.


Arthur Meighen: St. Lawrence dredging
does not usually appear in these votes. This must be some localized dredging.


John Warwick King: This is just in
front of Three Rivers. It is the south end of the ferry between Three Rivers and the south shore. Dredging is done from time to time in order that the service may be carried on. With regard to dredging on the St. Lawrence, the Department of Public Works do a very considerable amount of dredging.


Arthur Meighen: Not under these separate votes.


John Warwick King: Yes, if they are
large enough they are put in a separate vote.


Arthur Meighen: Is any company especially to get the benefit of this?


Ernest Lapointe: Canadian National
Railways. There is a branch line from Arthabaska to this place, communicating with Three Rivers. It was a branch line of the old Grand Trunk. Doucet's Landing is on the south shore; Three Rivers is on the north shore.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent
there last year?


John Warwick King: Nothing last year.


Arthur Meighen: When was the dredging
done there before?


John Warwick King: Altogether $24,000 has been spent there in dredging.


Arthur Meighen: At a place where only
that amount has been spent since confederation, why is it -that we need $2S,000 this year?


John Warwick King: Dredging was
done some years ago and is now needed again. These places fill up and require dredging from time to time.


Arthur Meighen: Has the Canadian
National Railways asked for this, or is it the member for the riding thinks it would be a good thing?


John Warwick King: The Deputy Minister of Railways asked for it.


Arthur Meighen: But not the National
Railways?


John Warwick King: Yes, the National Railways.


Arthur Meighen: Who wrote on their
behalf?


John Warwick King: The Deputy Minister of Railway and Canals wrote in 1924 asking whether the department would consider taking over this wharf and enlarge and repair same; also some dredging. The engineer recommends the work. Estimated cost, $24,786 for dredging and $213 for inspection fees.


Arthur Meighen: There was no request
there by the National Railways to do dredging. There was a letter from the deputy minister wanting to know if the Department of Public Works would take over the wharf. That is not a request from the National Railways to do dredging.


John Warwick King: I imagine he
was acting on behalf of the railways. He is a director of the railways. All the requests from the Canadian National Railways come through that office.


Arthur Meighen: He is also Deputy Minister of Railways, and he may have been asking on their account. But anyway he did not ask for the dredging; what he asked for was the taking over of the wharf.


John Warwick King: Wharf and dredging.


Arthur Meighen: Who did the dredging
before?


John Warwick King: The Public Works department.


Arthur Meighen: Then you would not
take over the dredging. I did not catch any dredging in the letter.


John Warwick King: I did not read
any letter; I simply referred to the notes here. It is stated that the deputy minister in 1924 asked the department if they would consider taking over the wharf, repair same and provide for dredging. There is nothing unusual about that. It seems to me it would be the proper channel through which the request should come.


Arthur Meighen: I would not think that
would be the way at all. If the National Railways made a request for a certain expenditure they would probably make it through the Railway department, who would transmit the request to the Public AVorks department. What the minister has given us is merely a request from one department to take over a certain wharf, or the responsibility for it, and do some dredging for the other department, that is all.


John Warwick King: That is all.


Arthur Meighen: So then we have nothing in the way of a request from the National Railways.


John Warwick King: It is not essential that there should be.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say it was,
but I asked if there was, and the answer now is exactly opposite to that first given. It is really the member for the riding who thinks it would help out a little, I guess.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fauvel-repairs to breakwater-wharf, $1,000.
Mr. STEA'HNS:	It is nearly half past
eleven and we sat pretty late all -this week- until one o'clock last night. We have done a good deal to-day. I suggest that we pass this item and report progress.
John Warwick King: All right. This
is for repairs, new floors and stringers. It is in Bonaventure county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
James Alexander Robb: I should like, if there is no
objection, to move the House into committee of Supply in order to introduce an interim supply bill.

Copyright Act


Arthur Meighen: But the House cannot
go into committee of Supply again to-night, and the bill requires the usual introduction.


James Alexander Robb: Well, we will let it stand over until Monday.
On motion, of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Monday, June 1, 1925.