REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee on the parliamentary restaurant.-Mr. Speaker.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of Interior):: I beg to lay on the table two
copies of the agreement, respecting the return of the natural resources, between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government of Canada, and to say that copies of the agreement will be available in the distribution office for any hon. members who desire them.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Yesterday the hon. leader
of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) inquired when the annual report of the Canadian National Railways would be available. I find that the auditors have completed their work. The report is now in the hands of the printers, and I expect to lay it on the table of the house before the Easter adjournment.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Quebec-harbours and rivers generally- repairs and improvements, $100,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: How much was spent under this head last year?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: The amount spent last year was

Item agreed to.
lie Perrot-dredging, $8,000.


George Halsey Perley: Where is He
Perrot, and is this work that has to be done every year, or is this a contract for some specific work?


John Campbell Elliott: lie Perrot is a post village in Vaudreuil county, about six miles from Ste. Anne de Bellevue, on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. This is a revote, which is required to complete the contract which was entered into last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lake St. Louis-dredging, $47,000.
George Halsey Perley: Does this department do all the dredging in lake St. Louis, or is some of it done by the Marine and Fisheries department?


John Campbell Elliott: That department does no dredging above Montreal.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will this amount complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: It will complete the contract that has been entered into. Of course, this is a place where dredging has to be done pretty constantly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Montreal river-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $14,000.
George Halsey Perley: I notice that the cost is divided with the provincial government. Why is that?


John Campbell Elliott: A contract was awarded in December, 1928, to G. Lorrain by the county of Napierville, amounting to $30,487, upon the understanding that the Dominion government and provincial government would each pay half the cost of each progress estimate up to a total of $30,000, the supervision to be made by the federal engineer's office. Order in council, dated February 6, 1929, gave authority to -confirm the above arrangement, and for the Dominion government to pay one-half of the progress estimates to be submitted, such payments to be made as the work proceeded, and not to exceed the amount of the contribution voted, $15,000. Since that time, however, during the progress of the work, it was found that the material encountered was much harder than anticipated, and the contractor, after removing some of this at considerable

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
difficulty by blasting, had to discontinue the work on November 15, 1929. The contractor claims that he should be paid for this material at rock prices, $2.25 per yard, as contained in the contract, and the matter is being dealt with by negotiations between this department, the provincial Department of Agriculture, and the county. I might say that this is carrying out work which was started in 1928, but on account of delays, due to the different governments interested, we have only made such progress as I have stated.


George Halsey Perley: What differentiates this work from many other items where the provincial government is interested? Why does not the provincial government pay half of the other items?


John Campbell Elliott: It is one of those matters where it is claimed that the Dominion government should contribute. This is similar to Norton's creek and some other cases where both governments have been doing the work for a number of years.


George Halsey Perley: The reference to Norton's creek is rather unfortunate, as I understand that was really for the purpose of drainage. Is this item the same sort of thing; is it really a drainage scheme?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say that it is a drainage scheme, but it is not dissimilar to Norton's creek.


Robert Gardiner: What is the character of the work that is actually being done? The minister has not yet given a definite reply.


John Campbell Elliott: It is dredging in the Little Montreal river.


Robert Gardiner: Why are the two governments interested? It is rather unusual, is it not?


John Campbell Elliott: It is both a dredging and a drainage proposition, and each government claims it should be done by the other. So a compromise arrangement was arrived at under which each contributes to the cost.


Robert Gardiner: After the dredging is done will the channel be of any use for boats?


John Campbell Elliott: Only for very small boats.


Robert Gardiner: How large?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Row boats.


John Campbell Elliott: Much larger than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manicouagan river-wharf-one-third of cost to be contributed jointly by the Ontario Paper Co., Ltd., and the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Co., $275,000.
Mr. CANTLEY:: This appears to be an old acquaintance. Would the minister be good enough to give us some information in regard to it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. This amount is required to cover the government's share of the completion of the contract entered into in September, 1929, with Messrs. Farley & Grant and Cummins & Robinson for the construction of a wharf, 1,900 feet long, the first 1,000 feet to be formed of a stone embankment and the next 900 feet of cribwork. This wharf is being built in connection with the construction of pulp and paper mills and power development near the mouth of the Manicouagan river by the Ontario Paper Co. Ltd., and the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Co., these two companies having agreed to contribute one-third of the total cost of the work.


George Halsey Perley: One-third each, or one-third between them?


John Campbell Elliott: One-third between the two.


Mr. MANION:: What is the estimated total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: The chief engineer's estimate for the total work to be done was $417,450. The amount of the contract is $474,774.


Mr. LUCAS:: How much has been spent already?


John Campbell Elliott: About $75,000.


Robert James Manion: What constituency is it in?


John Campbell Elliott: Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Robert Gardiner: Will this remain the
property of the Dominion government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Will there be any charges for its use by the companies?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Will any person have the right to use the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is a public wharf; everybody will have the right to use it. These two companies are making large expenditures in the vicinity at the present time, and the reason they are contributing is that they will be more directly interested than the general public
1038	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Robert James Manion: Will the chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Casgrain) give us the particulars of this work? He will probably know more about it than the Minister of Public Works.


John Campbell Elliott: I doubt it very much.


Robert James Manion: I do not doubt it at all. I understand this is in the constituency of the chief Liberal whip. Perhaps he will be able to explain to the house fully what the expenditure is for.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: This is a development
similar to others that have been carried on in certain parts of Quebec and also in other provinces. Manicouagan is situated about 250 miles below the city of Quebec. The Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Company and the Ontario Paper Company, Limited, have obtained from the provincial government a lease of all the timber limits in the watershed east of the Manicouagan river, the largest timber limits in the province on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. The two companies have an agreement with the provincial government, a copy of which was deposited with the Department of Public Works, under which the companies covenant with the provincial government to establish pulp mills at Manicouagan and have them in operation by 1931. The provincial government is assisting the two companies to develop the town by providing a road from the site to the wharf. During the course of this summer or early next year the projected town will have, it is estimated, a population of 4,000 or 5,000 people. It is claimed that the new municipality will be a source of revenue both to the provincial and federal governments because the pulp mills will give employment to a large number of people living in the vicinity. I may say that the provincial government has also helped the Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Company to develop a place called Clark City on the north shore of the St. Lawrence very much along the same lines, and in that instance years ago, the federal government, under another administration, paid the whole cost of the wharf. The Ontario Paper Company, Limited, owns and operates timber limits at other places along the north shore, one in Shelter Bay and the other at Franklin. These two are the largest and most reliable companies engaged in the wood and paper industry in the province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: I congratulate the hon.
member on how much he knows with respect to this item. He has given us a great deal more information than the Minister of Public Works did.


John Campbell Elliott: He took longer.


Robert James Manion: Of course the minister was interested in taking a shorter time. Will the chief whip of the liberal party inform us if the Clarks interested in Clark City are the same gentlemen who run steam boats down the north shore of the St. Lawrence?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The man who founded
Clark City about twenty-five or thirty years ago was the uncle of the men who operate the steamship company and who own the Gidf of St. Lawrence Paper Company, Limited. The company at Clark City and the Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Company, I may say, are financed by English capital furnished by the Rothermere interests in England, who own one of the largest newspaper concerns in the old country.


Robert James Manion: Are the Clarks who run
the steamship line interested in this?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, it is a different
company.


Robert James Manion: But are they interested in this?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not think so.


Mr. POULIOT:: But both gave their name to the city and the steamship company. I think the chief whip has made a very good defence of the item for the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).


Robert James Manion: "Defence" is a good word.


George Halsey Perley: Are there any
operations going on there at present; are they making paper now?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: At the present time these people cannot start to operate and cannot fulfil their contract with the provincial government, and no work can be carried on in that district until this wharf is built. In the course of a few months or a year there will be a town located there, but at present it is a wilderness with rocks, cliffs, mountains, hills and forest. Last summer the townsite was cleared up and laid out by a company under the control of these two companies; much of that work has been done, and I remember being told by some of the officers of these two companies that during last summer between 300 and 400 people ware employed on this work.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Robert James Manion: How many men do they
expect to employ in the paper mill, and when do they expect to turn out paper?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I cannot very well give that information but it must be in the hands of the minister, because when these people applied for this work I think they deposited with the minister a copy of the contract with the provincial government. The provincial government called upon these companies to start work within a given period, and they will turn out the finished product in the province of Quebec.


George Halsey Perley: Taking into consideration the present condition of the paper trade does not my hon. friend think it would be just as well if this company did not start work too soon?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I believe that question
was discussed last year. Hon. members will recall that a few years ago, I think in 1927, an amount of $100,000 was placed in the estimates in order to start the work that year, but the following year that item was dropped because at that time there seemed to be some unsettlement in the pulp and paper business. Since then pressure has been brought to bear on these two companies to proceed with the work, and those interested in the pulp and paper industry are satisfied that work may be started now, because it is hoped that in the very near future the situation to which my hon. friend has referred will be adjusted.


Mr. SHORT:: It was only last year, I think, that a similar amount was in the estimates for another paper concern down in Anticosti, in this same constituency. This seems to be a pretty large amount for this government to be giving a private concern. We might build pulp mills all over the country if we could get the government to contribute $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 in order to start things going. It is almost impossible for us in the maritime provinces to get grants in order to carry on our general business and to repair the breakwaters and piers which we aleady have, but it is nothing for the province of Quebec to get S275,000 or S300.000 for the assistance of some pulp mill. If this pulp mill has received such wonderful concessions from the provincial government of Quebec, it seems to me it should be in a position to build its own wharf.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Will this be a company town, in the ordinary sense of the word?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, it is going to be a
public town and is to be called Taschereau. It will be built and operated under the act which regulates such townships and municipalities in the province of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now I have the secret of
the grants and concessions that have been made by the Quebec provincial government. These Americans came to the government and said, "We want this and that, and we will give the name of the Premier to the town we intend to build." So then the Premier said, "Carried; you may have it." I think these people showed great ability in securing what they requested; they were very keen and very astute in getting these privileges from the province of Quebec. I have not a word of criticism for the chief whip of the Liberal party, nor do I suggest that he should not get a substantial amount of money for these improvements.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not get it personally; my people will enjoy the privileges.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never thought my hon.
friend was to do the dredging himself, but I am sure it will be for the benefit of his constituents. I am not so narrow minded as to ask these people to change the name of the town, but that gives me the answer to the whole problem. I should not have spoken on this item at all if some mention had not been made of grants by the provincial government. I think we should be very careful, not in the amounts which are asked for by my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay, but in connection with these contracts which are entered into by the Quebec government with foreigners. It seems to me that when a foreigner comes to the Quebec government for a grant he has a greater chance of getting it than a native son of Canada would have. That is why I bring this matter to the attention of the committee. I am not criticizing the item; I think my hon. friend has done right in looking after his constituents and trying to improve conditions in his constituency, but I think in future the depai-tment should be very careful in any assistance it may give to companies having contracts with the Quebec government.


Mr. BOYS:: Am I correct in my understanding that the contract was completed in 1927?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


William Alves Boys: I thought the minister gave the date as 1927.


John Campbell Elliott: No, 1929.
1040	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


William Alves Boys: At page 36 of the estimates for 1929, I find the sum of SI00,000 for this purpose. Then I turn to the estimates for the following year and find that for some reason the item disappeared entirely. Then when I turn to the estimates for this year I find that the item reappears, together with a reference to a vote in 1929-30. I suppose that must have come out of the general appropriation. As far as I can tell from the estimates which I have here the vote first appeared at page 36 of the items for 1929.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think my hon. friend is wrong about the year. Last year would be 1929; we call these the 1930 estimates.


William Alves Boys: I may be wrong as to when it first appeared, but I think I am right with respect to the year I stated. I then find that in the following year this item is not in the estimates at all, but in the estimates for this year we find a revote of $50,000, which seems to indicate that they must have had some money from somewhere.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It was in the supplementary estimates of last year. It was in the estimates of 1927 but was dropped the following year, and was only placed in the supplementary estimates at the end of last session.


William Alves Boys: Do I understand that a contract was entered into between the Public Works department and some contractor and that, pursuant to the contract, contributions were to be made by these two companies, or was the contract between two other parties with contributions from the Department of Public Works? No matter how the contract was made I should like to find out from the minister to what exent the two companies in question have put up cash in connection with the work, up to the present time.


John Campbell Elliott: I think perhaps what
causes confusion is the practice of referring to the estimates of the year before last as the 1929 estimates. We usually refer to the estimates now under consideration as those for 1930; last year's estimates were for 1929 and those of the previous year were the 1928 estimates. The item appeared in the estimates of 1928.


William Alves Boys: In order to make it clear, I am merely taking the year which appears upon the estimates themselves. The estimates which I am calling the 1929 estimates are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929. Then we have the estimates for 1930', and I have already said that nothing appeared in the main estimates for that year.


John Campbell Elliott: As has been explained by the hon. gentlemen who have spoken, this item first appeared in the estimates for 192728. Since there was a slowing up in the business the work was not proceeded with and the item was dropped from the main estimates of 1928-29, but an item was placed in the supplementary estimates. That was the item amounting to $100,000. The contract was only to be entered into by the Department of Public Works upon the assurance that the work which was contemplated, which was a very large work, would go on. When the department became satisfied of that fact, they took bonds from the companies which are to contribute as a guarantee of payment, and then let the contract for the work. In answer to the hon. member who asked with regard to the amount of freight which would be handled on this wharf, I think it would be interesting for the house to know that the incoming freight is estimated as follows:
Material for production of 19,000 tons sulphite and ground wood pulp, including sulphur, coal, limestone, stores, repairs, et cetera, to the value of 81,000,000.
Provisions, materials, tools, and equipment for cutting and preparing 300,000 cords of wood, to the value of $2,200,000.
Provisions and general supplies for a population estimated to be from 10,000 to 15,000' when operations have commenced, to the value of $1,250,000. That makes a total of $4,450,000 for the incoming freight.
The combined total of the incoming and outgoing freight is estimated to be valued at $9,080,000. It should be borne in mind that these estimates are made upon the present plans, but both companies have increased production in mind as soon as other plans have been consummated. Of course, the condition of the industry since this item was first inserted in the estimates has not been as favourable as present prospects indicate.


William Alves Boys: What cash contribution has
been made by these companies? These estimates are very interesting, and I do not want to be considered as criticizing this item-I do not know enough about it either to approve of or criticize it-but it is asked that a quarter of a million dollars be voted and we should have very complete information. I think the minister should give us some information as to what these companies are to do, and what they have done. His information as to the probable business is all very interesting and may be quite true, but I remember well some information which was given to us regarding Belle River. It was contended that wonderful

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
business would ensue at that point, but the whole thing has been discarded and the money was thrown away and wasted. I do not say that this vote will be wasted but perhaps we have been taught a lesson, and we should be a little careful after voting $130,000 in the other instance.


John Campbell Elliott: The reason I did not go
into the details which I have here, and which cover many pages, was because the whole matter had been discussed in the house when the estimate was first inserted. As my hon. friend has said, there is a contract, entered into with the Quebec government by which the companies agreed to make these expenditures and to employ a certain number of hands.


William Alves Boys: That is between the companies and the Quebec government?


John Campbell Elliott: Between the companies
' and the Quebec government. That contract has been deposited with the Dominion government and bonds have been taken from the companies to guarantee the construction of the wharf. The hon. member for Cumberland wondered why it was done in this way, but I may say that the same policy has been adopted before.


Harry Bernard Short: When was I shifted to
Cumberland?


John Campbell Elliott: I should have said the
hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short); it would be a bad thing for Digby to have my hon. friend shifted to any other part of the province. This same arrangement was made in the Brooklyn case, where the Mersey Paper Company is located and I think the same procedure was followed with the Thunder bay and the Powell river cases.


William Alves Boys: As I understand it, the contract referred to would be one between the companies and the province of Quebec and would have to do with the concessions the companies were getting from that province, the companies in turn having to do certain things. The contract we are dealing with is the one between the Department of Public Works and this company, and I would like to know something about what these companies have undertaken. If they have agreed to pay one-third of the cost, have they paid it? It is all very well to promise these things when prospects are bright, but apparently they have not been so good lately. I am prompted by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to ask the kind of bonds given by the company, are they guaranteed bonds or bonds
of the respective companies? I am very anxious to find out how much cash has been put up by these companies in connection with this contract, for which we are asked to vote such a large sum of money.


John Campbell Elliott: There has been no cash put up; they put up bonds of a guarantee company.


William Alves Boys: For the payment of their share of the costs?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Alves Boys: How much cash has the department paid out already on these contracts?


John Campbell Elliott: The total is $75,000.


William Alves Boys: If that is so, then we should have got $25,000 from the two companies. Why has that not been paid? What effort has been made by the. department to collect, and why have they not been successful?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot tell my hon. friend the amount which has been paid, but the practice is to render a bill every month for their respective shares. Where the security is so large as it is in the present case, we do not worry particularly as to whether it is paid right on the day.


William Alves Boys: If the income tax is not paid right on the day we incur an immediate penalty, and in this particular instance, if the department is entitled to it, I do not see why it should not try to get it. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many accounts have been sent out.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not those details here. In a contract of over a quarter of a million dollars, the question of $75,000 is a very small part of the contract.


William Alves Boys: It is much easier to pay when it is so small.


John Campbell Elliott: Much easier to pay, but a smaller risk when the security is so large.


Harry Bernard Short: Is the department receiving interest?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say that.


Harry Bernard Short: Why not? The interest on $25,000 is a respectable amount. I was amazed at the figures given by the minister in connection with the expected traffic. They remind me of the prospectuses which are got out by some companies when they are floating: these pulp mills, and I recall one in particular down in my own province.


John Campbell Elliott: That would be a good one,. I would think.
1042	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


Harry Bernard Short: The facts were just as rosy as those presented by the minister, but unfortunately the wheels in the mill never turned, and this case may prove to be similar. We had an expenditure in 192S of $300,000 at Ellis Bay, which is in the same constituency.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That was reduced to


Harry Bernard Short: In 1927-28 they spent $150,000, and $300,000 was spent in 1928-29. No wonder there are so many pulp mills in the province of Quebec. When they know they can come to this government and obtain grants such as this I can quite understand why so many mills are built in that province. I wonder when this sort of thing is going to stop. Probably there will be another one next year, because the hon. member who represents that constituency tells us that it is proposed to build two more towns down there.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The development work in those cases is being done by the companies themselves.


Thomas Cantley: This seems to be a rather remarkable wharf, because judging from the information given by the minister it will be about a third of a mile long. Has anything been done by the promoters referred to beyond putting out the prospectus, or has the whole thing floated in on the dew? How did they get any plant there if the deep water end of a wharf yet to be built is 1,900 feet iway from the shore?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand the work has seen proceeded with. There were 300 men working there all last year. The power development has been completed and the company has, I understand, made very substantial progress which makes it necessary that the wharf should be in shape for use this year.


Robert James Manion: Does that mean they will be producing paper this year?


John Campbell Elliott: No, but it is necessary to have the wharf because such an immense amount of shipping is required in connection with the construction. This is a $10,000,000 construction and they cannot get the materials, machinery and that sort of thing in there without a wharf.


Robert James Manion: Is any time limit set
when the mill will be completed and in operation?


John Campbell Elliott: I believe it is calculated it will be producing in 1932.


Thomas Cantley: Is there any railway communication with this point?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Thomas Cantley: Then I gather there cannot have been any machinery actually delivered on the site or on the plant. The wharf is not completed. There is no railway. The outer end of the wharf is 1,900 feet from the shore. It is quite evdent to any hon. member who considers the situation that there can be no machinery there. There has been no development except on paper. Is that not correct?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not wonder at my hon. friend coming to that conclusion because that is just what I have told him, namely, that they cannot get the machinery in until the wharf is constructed.


William Alves Boys: Has the minister made any inquiry as to the financial standing of the companies themselves? What cash has been put up? They first go and get a concession from the province of Quebec. The next thing is the flotation of the company and the sale of bonds. When was the first demand for their share of the cost made upon the companies and how many times has that demand been made since without anything being paid up to date?


John Campbell Elliott: These are two companies: the Ontario Paper Company Limited and the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Company.


William Alves Boys: That means nothing in itself


John Campbell Elliott: They already have large mills, one at Thorold and the other at Quebec. They are well known companies of high financial standing. I have the details as to the work the companies are doing at their different places.


William Alves Boys: To my mind the minister has just given us the most valuable information we have had so far in regard to this item. Assuming that to be correct, one is prompted to inquire, if they are strong companies with large assets, why in the world have they not paid the $25,000 apparently demanded more than once by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: It has only been very recently earned and I am not sure that it has not been paid. I am not aware of its having been.


William Alves Boys: I thought the minister said the practice was to send these accounts out once a month.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the practice.


William Alves Boys: I thought he was dealing with this item and I presumed the account had been rendered. Therefore I wondered, if they are strong companies, why the amount had not been paid.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: I was only saying it was the practice of the department to render the accounts once a month to any contributing company so that they would know, according to the engineers' estimate, what amount had been earned when they were checking up on the contract. I cannot tell my hon. friend whether or not they have paid. The work is really just well under way. Whether any part of their contribution of 825,000 has been paid,
I am not in a position to say, but I shall be glad to find out.


William Alves Boys: The minister has already told us, but the information may have been given without consulting the record1. He informed the committee that no portion had been received.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not.


William Alves Boys: Well, we will pass that up.
We ought to know that.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to get the information.


William Alves Boys: While these are probably substantial companies, this savours in some respects of Belle River. We have a wharf 1,900 feet long. What is the depth of water at the end of it? At Belle River we had to go out further to get five feet of water.


John Campbell Elliott: Twenty-five feet at low
water. Since the discussion started I have been informed that they have already paid $18,810.


William Alves Boys: If we had known that sooner, quite a lot of this discussion might have been avoided.


Thomas Cantley: Who are the contractors? Are they doctors or dentists?


Robert James Manion: Or lawyers?


John Campbell Elliott: The latter would probably be the best. They are Farley & Grant, and Cummins & Robinson, Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montebello wharf reconstruction, $10,000.
George Halsey Perley: This is the place where there is to be a large club which is in favour with the Canadian Pacific Railway and which has acquired a territory in and around Montebello for the purpose of developing the fishing and so on. Will the minister give us some of the facts regarding that project? I suppose this wharf is for the purpose of assisting in that development?


John Campbell Elliott: It has nothing whatever
to do with that development. It is to reconstruct the landing head 90 feet by 40 feet
in crib work construction from the low water line up, rebuild the wooden approach, raise the whole structure a height of two feet and construct a new two-storey freight shed.


Robert James Manion: In view of the fact that
there is going to be a sort of summer club at that point, and no doubt many United States visitors are to be invited to go there, might it not be possible to use the dock and freight shed when they are constructed, for storing wet goods?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to make
inquiry and if the facilities can be provided there-


Robert James Manion: We might go down there
together.


John Campbell Elliott: I would even consider that. To be quite serious about the matter, this is for the purpose of repairing an old structure damaged by an ice shove in the spring of 1928.


George Halsey Perley: Is it a wooden
wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Norton creek dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $3,000.
George Halsey Perley: I notice the amount is very much less than it was last year.


John Campbell Elliott: It is just finishing up the
work.


George Halsey Perley: I am glad to hear that. Can the minister undertake that no further money will be inserted in the estimates for the purpose of blasting the bed of this rocky creek in order that it may act as a drain for the surrounding country?


John Campbell Elliott: This finishes the work
presently contemplated. I would not like to undertake that this would be the final amount. This is an old story. It started away back in 1912-13, as my hon. friend1 knows, and it has been a bone of contention every once in a while. I quite agree with him that unless these works, as a general rule, can be connected up in some way with some work the Dominion government has done, we should be careful about entering upon them.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY': I know the minister agrees with me that an expenditure for this particular purpose ought not to be undertaken. The Dominion government should not spend money for local drainage purposes. This amount will finish the contract, I understand. The minister says that the government
1944	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
should be very careful about expenditures of this kind. I would go further and say that the government should not spend money for this purpose at all, and I would ask the minister to use his great influence with the government to see that it is not done any more.


John Campbell Elliott: After we have been doing it all these years, it is pretty difficult to say that we are going to stop the practice absolutely. Each case must be decided on its merits.


George Halsey Perley: Political merits?


John Campbell Elliott: No. This is something
for which the Dominion government, it is claimed, is responsible. That is the main ground of the claim.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Norway Bay-wharf reconstruction-to complete, $5,000.
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: May I ask the minister what has been done and what is required to be done in connection with this work?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete the
reconstruction of the wharf by rebuilding four cribs in the approach and one crib in the landing head. We spent last year 15,557, and it is estimated that $6,000 will complete the work. The report from the engineer is that part of the landing head of this wharf was built on piles, and considerable damage was done to a portion of the structure by ice. In order to prevent any further damage, a crib will have to be built next year to replace the pilework in the upstream part of the landing head.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Just what use is
made of this wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineers report contains this clause:
The above work is required to keep the wharf in a good state of repair for the accommodation of a very large tourist traffic during the summer months. The traffic between Norway Bay and Sand Point over the ferry is fairly heavy. There are two mails daily to and from Sand Point, Ontario, and the structure has to be kept in a safe condition.


Archibald M. Carmichael: This happens to be the only one item in almost three pages of expenditures for the province of Quebec with which I am acquainted. I have heard recently that there is a possibility of this summer resort being flooded by some power project that is under way and is likely to be proceeded with this summer. Has the minister any information on that point?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
as a result of the work at Chats falls, there will be flooding to some extent at Norway Bay, but, of course, that will have to be compensated for as part of the cost of the Chats falls project.


Archibald M. Carmichael: In view of that, it seems rather strange to be going on with this expenditure. In 1928-29 there was $5,000 in the estimates, in 1929-30, $6,000, and this year an additional $5,000 for a small wharf at a place where there is absolutely no business with the exception of four or five months in the summer, and that only by ferry to Sand Point. If this summer resort is going to be flooded this summer and the wharf made useless, why continue making this expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend is under the impression that it is only a small wharf, his information is incorrect. It is an extensive wharf about 700 feet long.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I have been up there several times.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not disputing that.
It is quite an extensive wharf and accommodates a very large tourist traffic. According to the engineer's report, some 1,500 automobiles and 8,000 passengers use this wharf annually, ferrying to and from the Ontario side of the Ottawa river.


Archibald M. Carmichael: That does not clear up the point with regard to flooding.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry I neglected
to answer that part of my hon. friend's question. I understand the flooding, whatever there will be from the Chats falls project, will not render unnecessary the keeping in repair of this wharf. It is not going to be put out of business.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the flooding make
the wharf inaccessible at times?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Petit Cap-breakwater, $31,000.
George Halsey Perley: Will this amount finish the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete the
contract with Charles A. Nadeau for the construction of the breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski - harbour improvements - The Foundation Maritime Ltd. to contribute one-third of the cost of pier extension, $75,000.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
Harry Bernard Short: Would the minister rive us
some information with respect to this item?
It is only one of a number of items where a private corporation contributes one-third of the cost.


William Alves Boys: I see the member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) is here to explain it.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required towards improvement to the wharf at Ri-mouski to provide facilities for the development of this harbour as the base of operations for the salvage and construction of vessels engaged in the gulf and river St. Lawrence by the Foundation Maritime Ltd. This company has purchased property here and is proceeding to install plant and equipment at an immediate cost of $200,000. They will centre at Rimouski floating plant having a value of $300,000, and will undertake repair work on plants on the north shore or vessels trading up and down the St. Lawrence at a considerable saving in time to vessels or plant needing repair, which would otherwise have to ship parts to Quebec.
This undertaking will give employment to about 100 men to commence with, and more later, and will promote and increase the welfare of a considerable region around Rimouski.


William Alves Boys: When was the company incorporated?


John Campbell Elliott: It as an old company, I understand.


Harry Bernard Short: Is it the policy of this government to contribute two-thirds of the cost to any private corporation that comes along and is doing a salvage business or any other kind of marine or plup business? There are salvage companies in the St. Lawrence which are heavily subsidized every year. In our part of the country these companies get no subsidies at all. They have to find their own plant and equipment. Why does this government contribute $75,000 to a corporation like the Foundation Maritime Ltd., which is a large corporation? They get contracts down in our part of the country. Perhaps the hon. member for Rimouski may be more familiar with the situation than the minister and maybe able to throw some light on it.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I have no hesitation whatever in explaining to my hon. friend the real object of this vote. The Shipping Federation of Canada, four or five years ago, approached the chamber of commerce and town council of Rimouski, asking if they would in any way- help to establish in the lower St. Lawrence a wrecking plant in order to undertake salvage work and assist the shipping that is carried on between Quebec and the lower St. Lawrence. The company took the trouble to examine sites. They went as far down as Matane, then finally decided on Rimouski as the best location. I might add that the vote asked for at the present time is not for the wrecking corporation, but for an extension to the wharf at Rimouski in order to complete the inner harbour and provide shelter on the west side of the harbour. This work has been asked for, during the last four years, in the public interest. This amount is required to complete the work that was undertaken a few years ago. The Foundation Maritime Ltd. are being asked to contribute part of the cost of the construction of the wharf in order to compensate the public for the space that they will occupy, and I think that is only just.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: How many public wharves are there in Rimouski? Here is one item of $75,000, and the next item is for $10,000 for wharf repairs at Rimouski. How many public wharves are there in Rimouski -half a dozen?


Eugène Fiset: There is only one. The $10,000 is required for ordinary repairs. This wharf is a mile and a quarter long. It has to be repaired yearly. The $75,000 is for additional work to complete a wing on the west side in order to give protection to vessels that come on that side of the wharf.


William Anderson Black: In my judgment
there is no more necessity or justification for this expenditure than there would be for putting a pier out into the river behind this building.


Eugène Fiset: That may be your
opinion.


William Anderson Black: It is not in the
public interest at all. What is the minister s policy in regard to these wrecking and similar companies? Down in our province, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) has said, we do that kind of work according to business principles: the company is organized and secures its plant, Although we applied to this parliament for assistance a short time ago we were turned down, and yet you can subsidize wrecking companies in the St. Lawrence-as many as come along and ask for assistance. What is the policy of the government in regard to these companies? Why are not similar companies in the maritime provinces subsidized in the same way ?


John Campbell Elliott: I am rather surprised to
hear my hon. friend's statement in view of
1W6	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
what was done in Sheet Harbour, right in his own riding, to assist the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Company. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that we did the dredging there and the company received the benefit. I thought I had made it clear to my other hon. friend that this was an improvement to the wharf at Rimouski, and the contribution is being made to us. My hon. friend spoke of it as a contribution made by us to these people to build the wharf.


Robert James Manion: Not a political contribution?


Harry Bernard Short: If it is a public wharf wholly in the public interest, why accept a third of the cost from a private company?


Eugène Fiset: I would be quite
willing to strike it off if the minister would consent.


Harry Bernard Short: They must be greatly interested in it in some way.


John Campbell Elliott: No, they are doing a big
business there, which is of considerable benefit to the shipping interests.


Harry Bernard Short: And they are getting well
subsidized for it.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
would subside for a moment. They are anxious to have facilities at the wharf and are willing to contribute towards the cost. It seems to me an excellent agreement.


William Alves Boys: This is a yearly friend. It appears in 1929 for $14,200, in 1930 for $11,000 and again this year for $10,000 more. I may now be referring to the item which immediately follows the $75,000 item. Why in the world is this annual expenditure necessary? It seems to be an expensive wharf to appear every year. Is there some special reason for it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, if my hon. friend
knows Rimouski at all he must be aware that the wharf is just half a mile long, and that different governments in the past have spent over $1,600,000 on it. Some part of it will in all probability require repairs every year.


Thomas Cantley: I do not think there is
any justification at all for this vote. Why should we subsidize this concern? We have already subsidized a wrecking company up the St. Lawrence river. As to maintaining the wharf at Rimouski, which the minister states is about half a mile in length or more, if he went down the coast to Bic, a little below-


John Campbell Elliott: And abandon this wharf?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: After spending more than
$1,600,000 on it?


Thomas Cantley: Yes, certainly. Has he
considered the annual expenditure which he has referred to? Has he considered that phase of the question?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Thomas Cantley: Why does he tie up this salvage company with this wharf? If they want a wharf for their purpose let them build one themselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know a wharf below
Quebec at a point called Trois Saumons that has been abandoned. It was not a public wharf, it was built by the Price Company. It is the only wharf that has been abandoned in eastern Quebec so far as I know.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I quite agree with you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. [DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Cantley: No, we are not going to
carry it for a while yet. I know the wharf in question, I have embarked and disembarked at it half a dozen times or more. A large vessel cannot get within a very considerable distance of the wharf now, and never could.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid my hon. friend is not aware that within the last three years a channel seventeen feet at low tide and twenty-two feet at high tide has been dredged.


Thomas Cantley: Did any Atlantic liner
ever moor at the wharf or venture to do so?


Eugène Fiset: Can any Atlantic
liner moor at any port on the lower St. Lawrence on the south shore? Name me one.


Thomas Cantley: We have been maintaining an expensive tender service there for the last thirty years simply because the wharf is in the wrong place.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid that
again my hon. friend is wrong. The tender operated at Father Point is operated for three departments of the government, the defence, customs and post office, and the only shelter they have in a northeast gale is the Rimouski wharf. Ask any department of the crown to abandon the Rimouski wharf and see what answer you will get.


William Anderson Black: Has the hon. gentleman had any negotiation with the minister with regard to the dredging after they get

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, Quebec.
this wharf built? If I understand rightly, even vessels of reasonable size cannot approach the wharf and there will be another vote next year for dredging.


Eugène Fiset: This is for completion of the work, $75,000.


Thomas Cantley: The fact of the matter
is that no further money should be spent on this wharf. The work of disembarking passengers and mails should be done down at Bic. In proof of that statement I would say that four-fifths of the vessels going down discharge their pilots at Bic rather than at Rimouski.


Eugène Fiset: Again my hon.
friend is mistaken. Bic was abandoned over fifteen years ago.


Thomas Cantley: You do not know anything about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rimouski

wharf repairs, $10,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Is this the same wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: The Foundation Maritime
Co. do not contribute anything, they do not use this section of it?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Harry Bernard Short: I see.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere au Tonnerre-wharf, $110,000.
Robert James Manion: What is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required to complete the contract with Joseph Gagnon for the construction of a wharf composed of an approach of the pier and bridge type 675 feet in length by 16 feet in width and an open faced cribwork headlook 425 feet in length by 30 feet in width and having a height at the outer end of 35 feet with 20 feet of water at low tide.


Robert James Manion: What is the total of the
contract?


John Campbell Elliott: The total is $127,132.


Robert James Manion: Is this to complete the
wharf, or will there be further expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete it.


Robert James Manion: This is a new wharf, is
it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: What constituency is this in, Mr. Chairman?


John Campbell Elliott: This is in Charlevoix-
Saguenay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere au Renard-wharf extension and repairs, $49,500.
Robert James Manion: What constituency is this in?


John Campbell Elliott: Gaspe.


Robert James Manion: I just wondered whether
it was in Charlevoix-Saguenay.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I cannot control them
all.


Robert James Manion: That is too bad.


Harry Bernard Short: You must be anticipating
difficulty in the next election in your constituency.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, the constituency is
growing owing to the great prosperity there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Riviere des Prairies-improvements, $73,000. Sir GEORGE PERLEY:	The minister
might give us some explanation of this item. Is it for navigation or what?
John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to complete the contract for deepening the channel in this river. These improvements are required* towards the restoration of navigation in Riviere des Prairies by providing a twelve-foot channel from Bout de File to the village of Riviere des Prairies and the construction of a wharf at the village.


George Halsey Perley: What is the business that will be done when this channel is completed?


John Campbell Elliott: This will give access by
water to the largest stone quarries in the district and will result in a saving of over one dollar per ton on the stone used in the Montreal district and along the south shore of the St. Lawrence. Approximately 400,000 tons of stone are shipped to Montreal, and 100,000 tons outside of Montreal. It is expected that new quarries will open up and that private wharves will be constructed on both sides of this river. It will be possible to bring coal to this district by water at a saving of 70 cents per ton, and a substantial saving will be effected on other commodities. Eventually this river will provide means of transportation for all the goods, agricultural and industrial, coming from the counties of Maisonneuve, Laval, Two Mountains and Terrebonne to Montreal.
1048	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Quebec


George Halsey Perley: I take it these
quarries are privately owned?


John Campbell Elliott: I think so.


George Halsey Perley: Do you know
who owns the quarries?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I do not.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any
guarantee that this one dollar per ton will not be absorbed by the owners of the quarries, who may sell their stone at the same price? Is there any guarantee that the public will get any benefit from these expenditures of money?


John Campbell Elliott: The statement indicates
that this amount will be saved.


George Halsey Perley: To the owners
of the quarry or to the public?


John Campbell Elliott: To the public; to the
users of stone.


George Halsey Perley: Has the minister any report which would warrant him in stating to this house that the public will save one dollar per ton on this stone?


John Campbell Elliott: Well, the cheaper you
make transportation the less the user of the commodity will have to pay.


George Halsey Perley: I presume the
city of Montreal brings stone from a great many places, and that there are several firms who compete for the market. If this stone costs one dollar less to get into Montreal I cannot see why, unless there is some agreement or arrangement, they cannot continue to get the same price and absorb the dollar saving themselves. The minister has not yet made any case showing that this is for the public benefit.


John Campbell Elliott: If the stone now costs a certain amount in Montreal, and if a dollar a ton can be saved by water transportation I should think it fairly evident that the cost to the user of the stone will be less.


George Halsey Perley: I suppose these people do not supply all the stone that goes into Montreal. The price of the stone in Montreal must be made by the competitors who ship from various places. I take it this is only one of the sources of supply, and we have been told many times that the price of wheat is set in Liverpool for different parts of the world. If the price of stone in Montreal stays where it is now these people must be more than human if they sell their stone for less than they are getting at present.


John Campbell Elliott: In view of my hon. friend's wide business experience, and in view of the 
fact that he has already suggested that there are other competitors in the stone market of Montreal, does it not suggest itself that if these men can now compete there after paying railway freight, with the cost of transportation reduced one dollar a ton naturally they will lower their price in order to sell more stone. It should bring all the prices down.


George Halsey Perley: I am not prepared to admit that at all. I should like to know what companies in this district produce stone; how much stone they send to Montreal from that particular section, and the names of the Companies.


John Campbell Elliott: I doubt very much if I
have the names of the companies, but I have the statement that these are the largest stone quarries in that district.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: What are the names of the companies? The minister says he cannot give the full personnel but surely he knows some of them.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I do not.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the minister say
he does not know the name of a single individual interested in these quarries?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I do not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Anne des Monts-wharf repairs, $35,000.
Robert James Manion: In what constituency is
this?


John Campbell Elliott: Gaspe.


Harry Bernard Short: Will this complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
for the construction of a crib along the west side of the present wharf from the outer end in towards shore, for a length of 300 feet. The district engineer reported on November 8, 1929, that this wharf was considerably damaged near the outer end by storms and that the damage was due to the action of worms which had eaten the lower timbers at the outer end of the crib, weakening the timbers and allowing the storms and heavy seas to loosen and carry them away. The traffic over this structure is quite heavy and amounts to some $600,000 annually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Anne de Sorel-reconstruction of icebreakers, $10,000.
Robert James Manion: Is this item for icebreakers in the form of ships?


John Campbell Elliott: No, these are piers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
St. Antoine de Tilly-dredging, $57,000.
George Halsey Perley: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is in Lotbiniere.


George Halsey Perley: Will this amount complete the work or, if not, how much will it cost?


John Campbell Elliott: This completes both the
contracts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ste. Petronille-wharf repairs and improvements, $14,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister give us an explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the contract with Ludger Lemieux, Limited, for repairs and improvements to the wharf at Ste. Petronille. This work was requested by the district engineer in his annual estimates and is required to complete the reconstruction of this wharf which was commenced in 1928-29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Simeon de Bonaventure-rebuilding protection work, $1,500.
Robert James Manion: What constituency is that in?


John Campbell Elliott: Bonaventure.


Mr. PECK:: In connection with these small items which are provided for in the estimates, is the work to be done by contract er by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: We do as many as we can by contract, but many of the smaller ones are done by day labour.


Edward Armour Peck: Would those cases represent two-thirds of the items?


John Campbell Elliott: In number but not in amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-Harbours and rivers-Coibourg- harbour improvements, $100,900.
Robert James Manion: I think we should have some information about this item.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required towards the following harbour improvements: Reconstruction of north or esplanade dock which has been in a dilapidated condition for a number of years; the substructure to be cribwork and the superstructure to be five feet wide on top, total length 786 feet, $130,000, 2419-67	*i *
of which $40,000 is a revote from last year. Maintenance dredging between the outer ends of the entrance piers to a depth of 22 feet, 33,340 cubic yards at 48 cents scow measure,


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell us the nature of the business carried on at this point?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineer's report states:
This wharf has been previously reported on and as a result of an examination made a few days ago, I would state that the reconstruction of the superstructure is imperative if this section of the harbour is to be utilized by vessels.
The esplanade is owned by the town of Cobourg and when in good condition is extensively used by the passengers going to and returning from the car ferries. The number of passengers averages about 300 per day during the summer months.
In time of storm on lake Ontario, vessels in shelter in Cobourg harbour tie up to the esplanade wharf and the car ferries also make use of it as a tying up place when not in use.


Mr. MAYBEE:: Is it the intention to provide for a depth of 22 feet?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Is it expected that this amount will complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Have any contracts been let or tenders called for?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimated cost is about $146,000.


Milton Edgar Maybee: Have any contracts been let or tenders called for?


John Campbell Elliott: Tenders have been called for but no contract has been let.


Milton Edgar Maybee: When are they to be received?


John Campbell Elliott: The tenders are in.


Mr. GEARY:: How was the work done last year-by contract?


John Campbell Elliott: It was done by contract by Messrs. Hardy & Grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Collingwood-harbour improvements, $160,000.
Robert James Manion: Could we have some explanation of this item? I am anxious to know how the member representing that constituency got it in.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister like me to assist him in that connection?


John Campbell Elliott: This case was so meritorious that I hardly expect I will need even the assistance of my hon. friend, but I will be very glad to have it.

1050	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


William Alves Boys: We are now dealing with a harbour of national importance, and one which has been an outstanding harbour for at least half a century.


Eugène Fiset: Like Rimouski.


William Alves Boys: I have only one criticism to offer in connection with this item, and that is that it should be $300,000 instead of $160,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I think all expenditures when judged by the test of the opinion of the man who is on the ground will be considered as being too small. All the representations received by the department for these places, like Rimouski, are that a larger amount should be spent.


William Alves Boys: This is not one of those perennial items.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Footes Bay-wharf construction and enlargement, $13,000.
Hugh Guthrie: What constituency is this place in?


John Campbell Elliott: Muskoka-Ontario.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think this item should be criticized when we consider the meagre allotment made by the government to Muskoka, one of the greatest tourist countries in the world. I think we have been overlooked, especially when compared with Rimouski.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hoople creek-contribution to the municipality of the township of Osnabruck towards dredging Hoople creek, the provincial government and the municipality to share in the cost, $18,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Is this another creek to be dredged out?


John Campbell Elliott: This is similar to the other items.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us have the report on this item.


Harry Bernard Short: Where is it?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the county of Stormont. This item is to cover 20 per cent of the total estimated cost of the work, which is the basis of similar grants made by the Dominion government for work of this nature.


William Alves Boys: This item opens up a wide field for discussion, and I would like to ascertain the policy of the department in this connection. In my own county we have very serious trouble in connection with the Notta-wasaga river which drains practically the whole of the county of Simcoe. It would be very

desirable if some expenditure could be made there which would improve thousands of acres of land, and if there is any way in which we can obtain a little assistance from the public treasury we might think of going after it. Will the minister tell the committee what the policy of the department is in this connection?


John Campbell Elliott: Similar contributions have been made in connection with Norton creek and other cases to which reference has been made. This practice is resorted to only when the burden is so great that assistance seems to be justified.


William Alves Boys: This work is being done for the drainage of land, and that is all.


John Campbell Elliott: It will assist the drainage very materially.


William Alves Boys: It has nothing to do with navigation, not even for motor boats?


John Campbell Elliott: Not at the present time.


William Alves Boys: Supposing a deserving case is brought to the attention of the department where with the spring freshets there is constant flooding, is it the definite policy of the department to make a substantial grant?


John Campbell Elliott: To say that it obtains
throughout Canada is a rather broad statement. It has obtained for many years in a number of places. It dates back to shortly after confederation. The difficulty is that in the vicinity either some work is done which it is claimed has affected the drainage or some other work of a similar nature has been done to which the government has made a contribution in the past, and perhaps where the hardship is greater in the particular case than in almost any others, the contribution may be made. That, I think, is about the policy. Every case stands on its own footing.


William Alves Boys: I must confess I cannot gather any definite policy from that, and that is really what I should like to get. May I definitely state the situation which we have in Simcoe county and then perhaps the minister can tell me whether or not the department would be willing to consider an appropriation in that connection? The Nottawasaga river drains the whole county and a little more. It flows into Georgian bay. At one particular part which is locally known as "the neck of the bottle"-that is not at all significant-the banks are very high and the channel is narrow. When the spring freshets occur, the water is held back and floods the land to a depth of twelve to fourteen feet, causing considerable damage. It seems to be well

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
understood locally that if the channel could be widened, we would not have this trouble, but the cost is too great for the lands in the vicinity. Under the Drainage Act no drainage work could be undertaken which would afford the relief and which would not cost too much for the lands to bear. I have no doubt the provincial government would assist in the work and if it is the policy of the department to aid in work of that kind, I am of opinion that with the aid of the department and the provincial government, the lands in question bearing their fair share of the cost, the work might well be undertaken. Tremendous benefit would undoubtedly result from it. This is a concrete case I put to the minister. It is foreign to the item, it is true, but if in this particular case a grant is being made for work of that kind, it would encourage me as long as I represent any part of the county of Sim-coe to come to the department and ask for assistance in such a work which is of great magnitude and one of which would warrant the sympathetic consideration of the department if it is their policy to aid in work of that character.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course it is pretty hard to give even an intimation of what might take place until you know all the circumstances. What is the area?


William Alves Boys: Thousands of acres. I do not mean for a moment to leave the impression that it is all waste land. It is not. All I am saying is that the land floods and great damage is caused thereby, whereas if the channel were widened, that might be avoided, if not in toto, at all events in part. I am not asking the minister to tell me whether he will give the county of Simcoe a grant of
8100,000	or anything of that kind; I am not suggesting that. I am merely trying to find out whether it is the policy of the department to entertain such requests and if we assume the facts as I have outlined them are correct, whether the application could be made with some reasonable chances of success.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon.
friend very frankly that it is not the policy of the department to encourage applications of that kind; but if applications are made, and if the circumstances bring the matter reasonably in line with some of the other grants that have been made, or if, at any time a grant has been made on that particular work or assistance given by the Dominion government for it, that forms a pretty good precedent to go by and it is difficult to refuse it particularly if the hardship is so great that 2419-67^
the owners of those lands will have to leave them or a substantial portion of them useless unless they get some assistance. That is about the general policy which is followed.


William Alves Boys: That statement would hardly
apply to any drainage work. Take the works carried on under the provisions of the Drainage Acts in every province. There is no suggestion that if the work is not done the farmers will have to leave their lands. The point is that there is a flooded condition which interferes with the ploughing of the land, the cultivation of the soil, and so on, which condition could be improved by drainage. That is the proposition to which I am referring. If this is the policy of the department, we certainly might get the benefit of it just as well as the particular case we are dealing with, namely, Hoople creek, which for all I know is a very deserving case.


John Campbell Elliott: If brought within the rules of ordinary drainage, the lands can be drained and a fairly good margin left after the cost of drainage for the value of the land, I would not look upon the proposition with nearly as much favour as I would upon a case where several thousands of acres of land are so submerged by water that the ordinary cost of drainage, with the aid the province gives, is not sufficient to justify the owners of those lands embarking upon a drainage project. In that case they would have a great deal better chance than if the ordinary drainage rules applied. I cannot quite agree with what my hon. friend has said, namely, that no drainage scheme comes within that category. I have known many that have come within it. Drainage schemes are being undertaken now that years ago would not have been considered on account of the excess cost of the drainage scheme over what the lands would be worth afterwards. As land increases in value and local conditions change, frequently by a drani-age scheme land can be reclaimed that would not formerly have been worth it. I do not believe in many of the cases where aid has been granted, it would have been granted if they thought the matter just came within the ordinary drainage rules, but if it is a case where a few thousand dollars may be the means of making productive land that would otherwi.se be unproductive, I believe that is the policy that has actuated all the governments that have given assistance.


William Alves Boys: I am considerably encouraged by the minister's statement, and I may be prompted to communicate with him at some future date. Will he give the committee an outline of just what has prompted the de-
1052	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
partment to make the grant in regard to the item under consideration? Is it a case in which lands now useless are to be brought into a state of cultivation or lands now cultivated are to be improved, or what are the facts of this particular case?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a large area, about
25,000	acres, in a very similar situation to the desperate position in which the people in the Beaudette district, not so far from it, found themselves a few years ago, and towards which they were granted aid. I think that is what prompted these people to come and urge their claims which were urged for some time before they were granted. I believe this land will not be utilized unless some encouragement is given.


William Alves Boys: Is the land in question settled on now or is this to induce settlement?


John Campbell Elliott: I think portions of the
various farms are occupied.


William Alves Boys: Then this is just a case of
relief from the spring freshets that the country suffers from? Is that the situation?


John Campbell Elliott: It is more than spring
freshets; they are under flood a great deal of the time.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Has there been any
correspondence with the provincial government over this expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The municipality
represented that if we made this grant the provincial government would share in the cost and we are making the grant on that condition.	[DOT]


Robert Gardiner: What is the total cost of this project?


John Campbell Elliott: $90,000.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any
information in regard to the water levels?


John Campbell Elliott: Not under my hand.


Robert Gardiner: Is the water level pretty nearly as high as the land, or is this just a condition that occurs now and again?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Do I understand the
minister to say that this amount asked for is only one-fifth of the proposed cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It is just a contribution.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This amount will have to be asked for every year for five years?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no. This is just one contribution.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The whole cost is as stated in the vote.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. In reply to my hon. friend from Acadia, I have not the levels, but the engineer tells me from his information at the present time that the ordinary rainfall leaves a great portion of this land submerged a good deal of the time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kincardine-harbour repairs and improvements, $55,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this a new wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: It is an old one.


Robert Gardiner: Is this for repairs?


Robert James Manion: I see that the amount of this item is $55,000, and that $51,000 was spent last year. I would like to know 'how much has been spent in Kincardine in the last five years.


John Campbell Elliott: I can get that information for my hon. friend, but the best information I have here is that the total expenditure since confederation up to March 31, 1929, was $613,409.


Robert James Manion: What has been the expenditure for the last five years?


John Campbell Elliott: I can get that information.


Robert James Manion: I would like the item held over until after dinner or until I have that information.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to do that.
Item stands.
Kingston-dredging Cataraqui bay, $73,000.


Robert Gardiner: Will this amount complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. This is to complete the contract to dredge a slip on either side of the 2,500,000 bushel elevator under construction by the Canada Steamships.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingston R.M.C.-repairs and improvements,
Robert Gardiner: Is this for repairs to the Royal Military College?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingston (La Salle causeway)-reconstruction of guide piers, $13,300.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is this to replace the guide piers damaged by the storm? The minister will remember that I drew this matter to his attention last year.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: My note shows that this work was requested by district engineer, Mr. St. Laurent, in his annual estimates. It is required for the reconstruction of the guide piers at each end of the bascule span, which are decayed beyond repair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kingsville-repairs to piers, $30,000.
Robert James Manion: What constituency is this in?


John Campbell Elliott: South Essex.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lion's Head-wharf repairs, $4,200.
Harry Bernard Short: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in North Bruce.


Harry Bernard Short: Will this complete the work? I see that $4,000 was spent last year.


John Campbell Elliott: This is the estimated cost of completion.


Robert James Manion: There are four items as to which I should like the expenditure for the last five years. They are all in North Bruce. They are Kincardine, Lion's Head, Port Bruce, Port Elgin and Saugeen river. If the minister would not mind, I would like these items held over until after dinner, when perhaps the information will be available. With respect to Kincardine, the minister gave the amount that had been expended since confederation. As no doubt he has that information with respect to these other items, it might be interesting to have that too.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to get that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Current-dredging, $50,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain this item and say where Little Current is?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Algoma East, on Manitoulin island. This amount was requested by the district engineer to remove the loose rock from the bottom of the older portion of the improved channel and clean the latter up to the full project depth. At the present time the available depth is only l&j feet, whereas 20 feet below water level has been made in the several other items of dredging carried out from time to time at this place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meaford-harbour improvements, $50,000.
Robert James Manion: W ould the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required towards improvements to this harbour to provide sufficient depth and protection for grain vessels in connection with the proposed new two million bushel elevator to be constructed by the Canadian Terminal System Limited, of Toronto, at a cost of about $1,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miehipicoten-dredging, $50,000.
Robert James Manion: This is in East Algoma, is it not?


John Campbell Elliott: No, West Algoma.


Robert James Manion: Is it not in the same riding as Little Current?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert James Manion: What is the amount asked for?


John Campbell Elliott: This work has been very strongly urged on behalf of the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, to provide sufficient depth of water in the approach to their new coal storage dock. This dock was constructed in 1929 by their nub-sidiary, the Algoma Central Terminals Limited, at an expenditure of $450,000, including a modern coal unloading bridge, and will be extended in the near future at a total expenditure of $960,000. The present dock handles
100.000	tons of coal annually, and is used to capacity, and the completed dock will handle
300.000	tons for use of this railway; pulp and paper mills at Kapuskasing and Smooth Rock falls; mines at Helen; and for the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway in that district, at a large saving in transportation costs. It is estimated that a saving of $100,000' annually will accrue from this development when completed, besides providing much needed revenue for the Algoma Central Railway Company. This wharf is also used by the public and this centre is increasing as a tourist resort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Midland-wharf extension, $40,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Will this complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The estimated cost is $72,000. This is just a start.


Harry Bernard Short: It is intended to complete it this year?


John Campbell Elliott: It is possible. It w/U all depend on when we can get started and on the progress the contractor makes.


Harry Bernard Short: This is just an extension, not a new work?
1054	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: It is an extension of an existing work. Perhaps I had better give the details. This work has been requested since 1927 and was very strongly urged on January 15, 1930, by a delegation consisting of the president of the chamber of commerce, Mr. Ross; Mr. Burke, representing the marine interests; Mr. Wagg, of the Georgian Bay Transit Company, and others. Very urgent letters have been received in January from the Burke Tawing and Salvage Company, the Georgian Bay Tourist Company, of Midland, the Georgian Bay Shipbuilding and Wrecking Company, the Dominion Sugar Company, and F. W. Grant of Midland.
It was represented that the present government wharf, 250' feet long, was insufficient for the business, and a request was made that an extension, 200 feet long and 65 feet wide, estimated to cost $72,000, be provided for in the estimates. The present tourist traffic calls at Midland, and there is very serious congestion with the existing public wharf facilities.
Midland has grown from a population of from six to seven thousand ten years ago, to eight thousand at the present time. In connection with business offering, mention was made of the possibility of shipping sugar for distribution from Midland; also, the Cleveland and Detroit Boat lines are considering the extension of their business to take in such points as Midland with a new line of boats. The old Canadian National Railway wharf alongside the public wharf is in such a state of disrepair that it cannot be used to any extent. Midland harbour has the advantage of not requiring much dredging owing to its natural adaptability for a harbour, and it was felt the town should have sufficient wharf facilities to handle the traffic.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Mr. Chairman, I quite
agree with everything the hon. minister has said with regard to the importance of Midland as a great national harbour. Midland is the Georgian-bay end of the tourist traffic amongst the Thirty Thousand islands, which islands are attracting tourists from all over the American continent, the scenery between Midland and Parry Sound being unsurpassed. I think the work done in the past has been altogether insufficient, and this vote might reasonably have been increased to the full amount asked for by the delegation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mitchell's bay-dredging, $14,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: In Kent county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Newcastle-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Mr. BOWEN:: What is the nature of the
repairs contemplated? This wharf has been going to pieces for years, and to-day it is in a very dilapidated condition. I had hoped there would have been a larger amount provided.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount is required for the reconstruction of a small section of the superstructure of the east pier, on the harbour side, covering a length of 132 feet with a width of 10 feet in order to permit of a landing place for small tourist craft. Owing to the decayed condition of the structures the summer tourists are under great hardship to find a landing place for their launches and boats.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
North bay-Conseeon-dredging, $7,200.
Harry Bernard Short: Where is North bay?


John Campbell Elliott: In Prince Edward-Lennox
county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Oakville-dredging, $13,000.
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Will this be done by contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: Were the
repairs last year done by contract or day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: They were done last year by day labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Oakville-reconstruction of pier, $30,500.
Robert King Anderson: Will this
work be done by contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Partly by contract and
partly by day labour.


Robert King Anderson: What proportion of it will be done by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: This work is urgently required to repair the damage done to the east pier by severe storms in November and December, 1927. In 1928 this work was postponed for a year by temporary repairs costing about $300, while the damage done to the west pier was being repaired. Further damage was done, however, by heavy seas since then, and in order to prevent the total destruction of the pier end and damage to the lighthouse, it should be attended to at once. A deputation to the minister on November 22, 1929, strongly urged the necessity for this work. These piers are extensively used by the tour-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
ist trade and Oakville is the only port of refuge between Toronto and Hamilton. The proposed work is to pay for emergent repairs authorized December 3, 1929, $6,600; and reconstruction of balance of superstructure of east pier (450 feet less 36 feet already authorized), $23,900 : a total of $30,500,
Mr, COOTE:	Has the minister any details
of the amount of traffic handled at that point?


John Campbell Elliott: I have already said it is
the only shelter or harbour between Toronto and Hamilton, and is used extensively by craft of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club and tugs. The piers are also extensively used by tourists at Oakville.


Robert King Anderson: The minister did not say how much of the $30,500 would be done by day labour, and how much by contract.


John Campbell Elliott: About $10,000 by day
labour and about $20,000 by contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $55,000.
Harry Bernard Short: I notice there was a vote of this amount last year. Was nothing expended at Owen Sound?


John Campbell Elliott: Practically nothing. This
is a revote of the full amount.


Harry Bernard Short: If you voted $55,000 last
year, surely it was needed. Why was not the money expended?


John Campbell Elliott: Before making the expenditure we had to get from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company title to certain properties which they own and upon which the work was to be done. There was a good deal of delay in this connection. The transfer of the property has recently been completed and we are now going on with the work.
Mr. 'CANTLEY:	It is being done for the
railway?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a public wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Bruce-repairs to piers, $4,300.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Is this to stand?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
Mr. ELLIOTT. That is not in the riding you spoke of.


Robert James Manion: I should like the figures on it also.
Item stands.
Port Credit-removal of wrecks, $3,000.


Mr. COOTE:: What is this vote for?


Robert King Anderson: Is this an
annual affair? There was a similar amount last year.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend is in error with regard to last year. This is a new vote and is for the purpose of removing wrecks of scows which have become an eyesore in the harbour.


George Gibson Coote: Is the harbour used at all
now? I thought a few moments ago the minister said Oakville was the only harbour between Toronto and Hamilton.


John Campbell Elliott: The only harbour of
refuge.


George Gibson Coote: I thought Oakville was the
only harbour we were keeping up in that district.


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is not so much for the utilization of the harbour as to remove some unsightly derelicts that have been lying there for a number of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Burwell-harbour repairs and improvements, $215,000.
Thomas Cantley: What is this expenditure for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
towards the following work:
(1)	To complete the three year contract with the Port Arthur Construction Co. for the construction of a rubble mound checkwater 200 feet long projecting westerly from the centre of the existing breakwater; for repairs to existing rubble mound wall between outer end of west pier and inner end of concrete breakwater; and for the construction of a rubble mound extension in four lengths of varying direction, having a total length of 1,800 feet-
Work done 1929-30 in excess of appropriation, $87,670.
Drawback owing on progress estimates, $31,370.
Work remaining to be done on contract, $60,850.-Total, $179,890.
(2)	To replace stone washed out of outer leg of rubble mound breakwater by storm in fall, 1929, $26,710.
(3)	To construct headblock at outer end of rubble mound breakwater 40 feet by 40 feet with timber substructure and concrete superstructure to suport lighthouse, $20,000.
(4)	Repairs and renewals to west pier, $5,200.
(5)	To pay further final estimate on the contract of Messrs. William Bermingham and Son in 1927 for reconstruction of the outer end of the east pier, this amount being recommended by the chief engineer due to the difficulty of driving piles through stones not indicated in original borings, $1,090.
The total estimated cost is $232,890.
1056	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


Mr. SPOTTON:: Will the minister tell us what trade passes through this port?


John Campbell Elliott: I have a statement of the total tonnage of freight carried by the Pennsylvania Ontario Transportation Company together with a statement of the customs and excise duties. For 1927-28 the total tonnage of freight amounted to 444,113 tons and the customs duties to $157,147.73, and in 1928-29 the customs duties amounted to $186,575.53. The total number of loaded cars and tonnage handled by the car ferry during the season of 1928, from January 1 to December 31, was as follows:
In	Out
Coal and Coke Miscellaneous Cars Tons 7,134 ears	818 cars
411,903 tons	26,283 tons	216	5,927


Thomas Cantley: It seems to me that the traffic through this port is almost all inward, with very little outward commerce of any kind. I take it this is all either coal or coke?


John Campbell Elliott: Coal and coke.


Thomas Cantley: Who are the users, the railways or the steel companies?


John Campbell Elliott: Largely the railways.


Thomas Cantley: The railways only?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I would not say only, but nearly so. I understand a number of manufacturing concerns get their coal through this port.


Thomas Cantley: What is the proposal with regard to the reconstruction; what class of work do you propose to put in there?


John Campbell Elliott: Rubble mound. I read the description; it is a rubble mound cheekwater.


Thomas Cantley: I understand that was the class of work that was destroyed. Are you going to put in exactly the same class of work that was carried away?


John Campbell Elliott: I will just read the description again for my hon. friend. This amount is required to complete the three-year contract with the Port Arthur Construction Company for the construction of a rubble mound check-water 200 feet long, projecting westerly from the centre of the existing concrete breakwater; for repairs to the existing rubble mound wall between the outer end of the western pier and the inner end of the concrete breakwater, and for the construction of a rubble mound extension in four lengths of varying direction, having a total length of 1,800 feet. This work is to cost $179,890. It is further required to replace the stone washed out of the outer leg of the rubble mound breakwater by a storm

in the fall of the year 1929, and this work is to cost $26,710. Then there are several other smaller amounts.


Thomas Cantley: I thank the minister for the information, but it seems to me, in view of the large area that was washed away by the storms, that this should be replaced by something more permanent.


John Campbell Elliott: This is the most permanent type of construction that we can get for the money.


Thomas Cantley: But that is not altogether the question.


John Campbell Elliott: It is one of the questions.


Thomas Cantley: Large sections of this work have been carried away, and I understand it is intended to use similar construction in replacements. Does not experience teach us anything? I understood it taught all classes of people except fools, and I am sure the minister is not one of those.


John Campbell Elliott: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Colborne-repairs to harbour works, $75,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain what this amount is for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the following work: first, to complete the contract with the C. S. Boone Dredging and Construction Company, Limited, for repairs to certain sections of the east and west breakwaters damaged by severe storms in 1927, which are estimated to cost $50,000. This amount is also required to repair the next most urgent section of the west breakwater, 290 feet long, which is estimated to cost $35,000. For this we are including the amount of $25,000, making a total of $75,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Dover-harbour repairs and improvements, $25,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister tell me what this expenditure is for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $25,000, of which $21,000 is a re vote from 1929-30, is required for the following work: first, to complete the contract with A. C. Stewart and Company for the construction of the new east pier, 1,000 feet long, 20 feet wide and 12 feet deep, with concrete superstructure; for the removal of the old pier, the dredging of a wider entrance channel and for enlarging the turning basin. This work is estimated to cost $21,000. This item is to provide also for the repair of the decking, stringers, face timbers

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
and cross ties of the west pier, estimated at $3,700, and for inspection which is estimated at $300, making a total of $25,000.


Robert James Manion: I see that last year there was an item of $135,000 in connection with Port Dover. Would the minister explain how that money was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. To February 28 the expenditure totalled $120,207.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister give us some idea of the traffic through this port?


Robert James Manion: And I wanted to know something about what the money was expended for last year.


John Campbell Elliott: There was a contract
awarded A. C. Stewart and Company for the reconstruction of the east pier, which was wrecked by a severe storm. This contract amounted to $130,857. During 1927-28, 504 vessels arrived with a tonnage of 100,611 tons; the number of vessels departing was 506, with a tonnage of 100,782 tons. The value of the fish catch during 1928 amounted to $213,243. A ferry system was operated during the 1929 season but it has been discontinued owing to a serious breakdown. During that year the inward passengers amounted to 5,597 and the outward passengers 9,168; automobiles inward numbered 1,703 and outward 1,515.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Hope-repairs to harbour works, $9,000.
Fred Wellington Bowen: Will this vote fully complete the work started last year?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to complete the contract which was started last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Maitland - harbour improvements, $80,000.
Mr. SENN:: Was this item prepared before the recent floods occurred which caused considerable damage in that district, and is the minister aware of the damage done at that time? Will this amount be sufficient to cover the cost of all the repairs needed in that harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: These estimates were prepared before the storm occurred to which my hon. friend refers. A report has been received and examinations are now being made. The report of acting district engineer Lamb, dated March 6, reads as follows:
As a result of ice jam between the two entrance piers and flood condition of the Grand river the bottom of the river was scoured causing serious subsidence of parts of both
piers. To strengthen the most seriously damaged section of the east pier 180 feet long will cost about $55,000, and to strengthen 80 feet of the west pier which should be attended to as early as possible, will cost $15,000.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister provide in
the supplementary estimates a sufficient amount to cover this work?


John Campbell Elliott: It is very hard to say
what will be placed in the supplementary estimates. We have the request here, and it will be considered.


Mark Cecil Senn: About $60,000 was expended
on the harbour last year, and I would like to know just what was done.


John Campbell Elliott: There were two contracts completed in 1929. One amounted to $18,058.50; date of contract, November 10, 1928; date for completion, July 24, 1929. This contract covered the reconstruction in concrete of superstructure and strengthening superstructure by placing steel sheetpiling around old work, tying said piling together across the old structure, replacing certain face timbers along the balance of structure. The total cost was $24,582.65, which included inspection. Another contract amounted to $22,05921 and covered a wooden sheetpile wall, strengthened by round piles in front and pile anchors in rear, to be constructed inside and parallel to the harbour headline for a length of 700 feet northerly from the inner end of the west pier.


Mark Cecil Senn: What work was accomplished
proved to be very useful, because the water was scouring out the shore and in another year or two it would have undermined the dwellings situated along the bank of the harbour. Is it the intention of the department to extend that breakwater any further up the river? At the present time a certain amount of scouring is going on along the river above the breakwater and something should be done, otherwise should another storm occur the consequences might be serious.


John Campbell Elliott: A request has been made for the extension of that breakwater, but nothing definite has been decided upon as to what will be done. It was considered that the repairs we have referred to should be attended to first.


Mark Cecil Senn: I would urge upon the minister the necessity of this case. Should another storm occur like we had last fall it is hard to say what might happen to a number of dwellings and business houses situated on the bank of the stream. Two or three years ago the east pier was completed, the one which has broken down, and the entrance to the harbour was washed to a considerable extent
1058	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
and it is harder to enter the harbour when a storm is occurring. The scouring which took place, and which necessitated the building of the wall, occurred during one storm which took place since the completion of the widening of the harbour entrance, and another storm might work serious havoc there. I urge upon the minister that the work be completed as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Stanley-harbour repairs and improvements, $150,000.
Robert James Manion: Could we have some information on this item, because I notice a good deal of money is being spent upon this harbour. I am not complaining, because I do not know much about it, but I notice that $105,000 was spent last year and $150,000 is being asked for this year.


John Campbell Elliott: Unfortunately we spent
last year only $47,263.


Peter McGibbon: That is unfortunate.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but it was inevitable also. The London and Port Stanley railway are directly interested in the traffic coming through this port, and negotiations with them and with the town of Port Stanley occupied a good deal of the year, and we were only able to complete work to the extent of $47,263. Of the $150,000 being asked for, $55,000 is a revote. The proposed work consists of the following:
1.	Minor repairs to west pier, west breakwater and departmental pile driver, $2,000.
2.	Extension of shore protection work at Orchard Beach just east of this harbour, commenced in 1928 to prevent erosion to public and private properties partially due to the government harbour works, $6,000.
3.	To construct a new concrete warehouse 220 feet by 40 feet, estimated cost, $56,250.
As a result of the negotiations which were carried on it was found that a much larger warehouse than was contemplated would be necessary due to the increase in business. The next item is:
4.	Reconstruction of three sections of west pier, 100 feet at north end of concrete section; 45 feet at south end of timber section, and 405 feet at the inner end: estimated cost, $62 011.
5.	Sheetpile wall 930 feet long, along east side of inner harbour, to prevent erosion caused partly by widening entrance channel, $37,200.
6.	Inspection, surveys and incidentals, say, $2,539.-Total estimated cost, $166,000.


Thomas Cantley: What are the principal
imports arriving at Port Stanley?


William Alves Boys: And the exports?


Peter McGibbon: Probably the hon. member for that constituency could help the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that he would be a very valuable assistant if I should need one. The traffic for 1925 amounted to 174,382 tons; for 1926, 137,000 tons; for 1927, 68,975 tons; for 1928, 271,314 tons; and for 1929, 251,069 tons. The Marquette and Bessemer Dock and Navigation Company have operated a car ferry for the past number of years, which ferry has a capacity of 30 cars of 100,000 pounds capacity each. They carry on a service between Port Stanley and Conneaut, Ohio.


Thomas Cantley: Carrying what?


John Campbell Elliott: The principal cargo is coal, with some coke, a small amount of steel and general merchandise. There has been a considerable increase during the last few years in the tonnage of coal handled, as well as some increase in the tonnage of coke.


William Alves Boys: Is there an export dock there?


Thomas Cantley: Three of the largest
items we have before us, namely, those for Hamilton, for Port Burwell and for Port Stanley, cover expenditures to be made mainly in the interests of our American friends in order to enable them to bring American coal into this country. This coal which comes into Port Stanley is imported with a 99 per cent rebate in duty. Not only do we give our American friends a rebate of 99 per cent of the duty, but we spend large sums of money to help them out. I will tell the minister quite frankly, that I do not at all like such i situation.


Mark Cecil Senn: Rumour has it that a coking plant is to be established at Port Stanley in the near future. Have any representations been made to that effect to the government to induce them to place this amount in the estimates in order to improve the harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: For some time representations have been made with regard to a coking plant at Port Stanley. I have no doubt some company will set up a plant there, probably in the near future, but the expenditure that is being provided for in these estimates will be required in all probability altogether apart from the requirements of the coking plant. I would say to the hon. member for Pictou that the coal they utilize there is being used in Canadian industries. Does he think that we should supply facilities for landing this coal? I may not have been listening as attentively as I should, but while I tried to get his point I could not do so and I am not able to agree with him at all.


Thomas Cantley: My point is this: a large quantity of coal is coming into this country

Private Bills
for iron and steel making. Practically the full amount of the duty paid on that coal- 99 per cent-is rebated. That is unfair as compared with the situation of the iron and steel industries in the maritime provinces. In effect it means that our coal miners are compelled to work without protection of any kind. Not only is that the case, but these iron and steel works so favoured, are situated in the great consuming centres of the Dominion and can deliver their products to the buyers and consumers at very little freight cost; whereas in order to reach Montreal, the eastern margin of the consuming district in Canada, we have to send our heavy material of a low tonnage value over 1,000 miles of railway. You are spending on these three points very large amounts of money mainly for the purpose of enabling the Americans to deliver their coal duty free, and that I think is unfair. We are asking for no such expenditures on public works to enable us to ship our coal. Our coal shipping docks are built by the companies who operate the colleries, as also the docks of the steel companies of Nova Scotia. We have never asked or received a dollar of public money towards the construction or maintenance of those docks.


Mr. HEPBURN:: Port Stanley is more or less a distributing centre for western Ontario. The imports are not confined to coal alone. The big warehouse is taxed to capacity and We have to make provision for increased shipping facilities. There is a daily boat service between Port Stanley and Cleveland during the summer months, and before the item is passed, perhaps the minister will give the figures relating to the traffic between Cleveland and Port Stanley. Most of the coal is dutiable. The coal that is subject to a drawback is the coal shipped to the Hamilton Byproduct Coke Ovens Limited. I am sure the hon. member who is complaining will not want to impose a tax on coal when we are trying to establish coking plants throughout southern Ontario. We find that where coking plants are established, industries are set up to take advantage of the cheap coke those plants afford. If the members from Hamilton were present I am sure they would not object to spending money on a port that acts as a distributing centre practically from Windsor through to Hamilton.


Robert James Manion: I did not understand my hon. friend to assume the attitude that the money should not be spent. He took the attitude that the money should not be spent on bringing United States coal into this country.


Thomas Cantley: I have known of the
great expectations and the development of

Port Stanley over many years. The hon. member need not worry as to any misapprehensions on my part. I knew the port-before he was bom. I object to expenditures of money made largely in the interest of United States producers of coal.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Does the hon. member think it feasible for industries in southern Ontario to utilize anything but United States coal for industrial purposes?
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. 27, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (division of capital stock). -Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company.-Mr. Black (Halifax).
Bill No. 30, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (branch lines).-Mr. Power.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 29, to incorporate the Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association-Mr. Luchkovich-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-powers.
The CHAIRMAN:: In committee, an amendment was made to paragraph (d), substituting the word "fraternal" for the word "national" in the second line.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-control of society.


John Frederick Johnston: This section was amended by striking out all the words after "shall" in the first line to the end of the section and substituting therefor the words "admit as members only persons of Ukrainian origin and of the Greek-Catholic faith."
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-general convention to govern.


John Frederick Johnston: This section has been amended by striking out all the words after the word "Society" in the third line to the end of the section.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Private Bills

On section 17-society may acquire rights and property of provincial society.


John Frederick Johnston: This section has been amended by substituting for the words "Superintendent of Insurance" in subsection 2 the words "treasury board"; and in the following line the word "Superintendent" has been struck cut and the word "board" substituted therefor.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



ESTATE TRUST COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 23, to incorporate Executor Trust Company (and recommending that the title be changed to "An Act to incorporate Estate Trust Company")-Mr. Jacobs-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-incorporation.
John Frederick Johnston: This section has been amended by substituting for the word "executor" in line 13 the word "estate".
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.


John Frederick Johnston: The title has been
changed to read "An Act to Incorporate Estate Trust Company."


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 45, to amend the act to incorporate the Imperial Trusts Company of Canada-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. K. A. BLATCHFORD (Edmonton East) moved the second reading of Bill No. 44, respecting a certain patent of Edgar D. Crump.
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. BLATCHFORD:: The patent covers
equipment used by doctors in hospitals. Its purpose is to stop the flow of blood by means of a bandage and a pump.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is this for blue blooded
or red blooded Canadians?
[The Chairman.]


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: Blue blooded.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth for the second reading of Bill No. 20, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McMillan.
Mr. W. A. HALL (South Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to say anything about the causes or necessity of divorce, which I know we all aibhor, nor about the principle of divorce and its results, which I know we all deplore. This house has heard many times of its attendant evils, the depraved, or as the case may be, the brokenhearted individual, the broken marriage vows, the broken family circle and the ruined home, and so forth. But rather I want to prove to the house that divorce courts as already established in six of the provinces have increased divorces in Canada because in every case they have facilitated the obtaining of it by a cheaper and easier method.
Before proceeding with the arguments to establish this, may I be pardoned if I make a digression and refer to what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said a few days ago? You will remember he said what we had to deal with was the procedure, not the principle of divorce, that the principle had been settled many years ago. He said we may proceed in one of three ways:
(1)	By action of the federal parliament, as at present or modified;
(2)	By establishing a provincial divorce court, as the bill now before the house proposes;
(3)	By the federal parliament refusing to deal with the petitions.
Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the Prime Minister, I think there are other ways. One is by the establishment of a court of conciliation and separation, to be presided over by a judge of the supreme court, assisted by one or more experts in social service work. This court, as its name implies, has a dual function. Briefly, its main object would be to effect a reconciliation between husband and wife, thus preserving the unity and sanctity of the home and everything else that that implies. Doubtless this would be quite possible in many cases. Why?
(1)	The sin of adultery, the sole cause of divorce, is no more heinous than many other sins that are forgiven, if not forgotten, by husband or wife, as the case may be.

Divorce Court jor Ontario
(2)	And, in cases where there are children, I venture to say that reconciliation could be and would be effected in almost every case.
(3)	And knowing that separation would preclude remarriage, this would be the strongest incentive to reconciliation.
Failing reconciliation, the court whose establishment I propose would issue a decree of separation, making proper provision for the custody of children, if any, and adequate provision for alimony for the deserving wife.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must not make this digression too long. I may add, however, that this plan would automatically abolish divorce; that is, it would do away with the need for it, as well as prevent remarriage, as remarriage in these cases would constitute bigamy. This scheme could be made to apply to the whole of Canada as well as to Ontario; it would be better, indeed, if applied to the whole of Canada because that would prevent migration from Ontario to other provinces. Doubtless, however, it would drive some people to seek divorce in the American courts, and in the event of a person thus securing divorce, remarrying and establishing a domicile in Canada, he or she could be and should be prosecuted for bigamy. At present I need not elaborate this further, except to say that no one can, be in doubt as to the results of such legislation. I need scarcely say that I hope a provision for such a court as I have briefly outlined, when submitted to this house for consideration, may meet with the approval and support of most of its hon. members.
At present neither Ontario nor Quebec has a divorce court, so that anyone in either of these provinces seeking divorce has to obtain it by a special act of the federal parliament. This, necessarily, is much more expensive and difficult to procure. Here let me say that the province of Prince Edward Island has always had a divorce court, but apparently it has never functioned and only one citizen of Prince Edward Island has been granted a
divorce by the federal parliament. This was in 1913. Other citizens who sought divorce went to the neighbouring American republic or elsewhere. I need scarcely say that each state in that republic has a state divorce court, which, I understand, is overworked, there being one divorced person for every six married persons in the United States. Surely we do not want to bring about this state of affairs in Canada, although we seem to be fast approaching it. Last year-1929-there were 816 divorces granted in this country and 1,368 Canadian marriage contracts were annulled by divorce courts in the United States, making altogether 2,184 annulments. This figures out to one divorced person for every thirty-two persons married in that year.
What must be done to cope with this problem? Before answering that question may I say that for a long time after confederation there were few divorces granted in Canada. In 18813, 13 divorces were granted; in 1903 there were 21; in 1909, 51; in 1913, the year before the war, 60 divorces were granted; in
1918,	the year the war ended, 114; and in
1919,	the year after the war ended, 376 divorces were granted. This represents an alarming increase, and it still continues although somewhat abated. The reasons for the increase are:
(1)	The effects of the war.
(2)	The establishment of a divorce court in 1919, owing to a decision of the privy council, in each of the three prairie provinces.
The war had a psychological effect which unsettled the minds of the people, and also there was a long separation of the men in active service from their wives, as well as something else which is better imagined than here stated.
But to return to what I wish to establish, namely, that provincial divorce courts have increased divorce in Canada; this can best be done by referring to statistics. The following figures are informative:
Number of divorces granted
Province	1918	1919	Proportion of IncreaseAlberta	
2	36	18 times as manySaskatchewan	
1	26	26 times as manyManitoba	
9	88	88 more than one	million times as manyOntario	
10	49	Almost 5 times as	manyQuebec	
2	4	Twice as manyNew Brunswick	10	13	One-third moreNova Scotia	
24	36	One-half moreBritish Columbia	
65	147 More than twice as many
It will be noticed that there were great in- three prairie provinces where divorce courts creases in all the provinces, especially in the had been established and had just begun to
Divorce Court for Ontario

function-Alberta with an increase of 18 times, Saskatchewan with an increase of 26 times and Manitoba with 88 more than one million times the number of divorces in 1918.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Have you any figures as to Prince Edward Island?


Walter Allan Hall: No, because they do not use
a divorce court.


William Garland McQuarrie: They have one there, though.


Walter Allan Hall: Yes, but they do not use it.
Let me also compare the number of divorces in Ontario in 1918 with the numbers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In 1918 Ontario without a divorce court had ten divorces; New Brunswick with a divorce court had 10 divorces, and with the same population as Ontario would have 76. Nova Scotia with a divorce court had 24 divorces and with the same population as Ontario would have 135. As the years went by the number of divorces kept steadily increasing until 1929 there were 816. In the last year for which we have figures, 1928, the number of divorces for each province was:
Divorces
Alberta	 168
Sackatehewan	 65
Manitoba	 78
Ontario	 213
Quebec	 25
New Brunswick	 14
Nova Scotia	 28
British Columbia	 203
Computing these on the basis of Ontario's population, the result is as follows:
Divorces
Alberta	 1,008
Saskatchewan	 220
Manitoba	 395
Ontario	  213
Quebec	 30
New Brunswick	 110
Nova Scotia	 160
British Columbia	 1,218
Permit me to make another comparison, leaving Quebec and Prince Edward Island out of the picture, to be fair. Ontario in 1928 had 213 divorces. The six provinces having divorce courts, with about the same combined population as Ontario, had 547 divorces, or more than two and a half times the number of divorces in Ontario. It will be noticed that the provinces having divorce courts have a much larger percentage of divorces than is the case with the other provinces. That having been established beyond contradiction, we again ask what must be done. The answer is: Defeat the bill and clear the way for the 
introduction of legislation providing for a conciliation and separation court along the lines I have suggested.
In conclusion I might suggest that if this bill to establish a divorce court in Ontario should pass the house, some hon. member may place on the order paper next session a resolution something to this effect:
Whereas divorce has so greatly increased since the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario;
And whereas the number of divorces in Canada soon will be on a parity with the number in the neighbouring republic;
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house companionate marriage should be legalized in order to reduce the number of divorces in Canada.


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to accord the bill now before the house the same support which I gave to a similar measure introduced last year by the same hon. member. The matter has been so thoroughly debated that it seems to me some important points in connection with this legislation have been virtually settled. Particularly is that the case with regard to the question whether or not the adoption of the bill establishing a divorce court would tend in any way to impair the sanctity of the home.
However, there is one thing of which I spoke in discussing the bill last year, which I considered of very great importance and which I have not heard answered either during that debate or during the debate on the bill now under consideration. That is the point that just so long as divorces are granted by the parliament of Canada, just so long shall we be deciding matters of great importance to the people of this country on the most unfair basis possible, that of according justice to people of moderate means or of wealth while absolutely denying it to the poor. I cannot reconcile my conscience to the idea of allowing such a condition as that to continue longer than can be helped.
It has been pointed out, sir, that it is possible for those who desire to obtain decrees of divorce to go before the Senate committee and obtain a remission of the usual fees in order that they may not be put to expense which they can ill afford. As a citizen of this country I resent the suggestion that any man or woman should be called upon to proclaim his or her poverty in order to obtain justice. So far as I am aware there is no regularly constituted court of justice in any province where a citizen is told at the outset, "Because you are poor you need not come to this court looking for justice on any claim which you may have to present." There is

Divorce Court for Ontario
not a man in this house familiar with the procedure in courts of justice in Canada but knows perfectly well that the poor man or woman who comes before our regularly constituted courts of justice can do so without being put in the position of paying fees which he or she can ill afford. No lawyer of standing whom I know or with whom I have come in contact will refuse to take a case which represents itself to him as being just. In fact, the members of the Ontario bar-and I presume the same condition applies in the other provinces-take an oath when they are admitted to practice that they will refuse no just cause. However, a lawyer who is approached in connection with a divorce case by a man or a woman of small or very moderate means has to ask the preliminary question, before he even considers the justice or injustice of the cause: " Have you so much money, not for me, but for the parliament of Canada, which demands so much before you can hope to get any justice regardless of what your evidence may be?" I challenge truthful denial of the statement that the result of this condition has been that anyone who comes to a lawyer with a divorce case must state, as a preliminary, that he or she has upwards of $1,000 to put down in order to obtain that justice.
Surely, sir, that condition reflects most shamefully upon our laws and regulations with regard to the administration of justice. It was said only a few moments ago, by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that the establishment of these courts would largely increase the number of divorces, and my hon. friend quoted figures, as he is entitled to do and which figures are deserving of some consideration, in an endeavour to show the house that if these courts were established such would be the case. But, sir, no consideration of these figures or of any figures which can be brought forward has any value unless we are able to include in them the number of persons, which reasonable and moderate estimates place at from 1,200 to 1,500 annually, who go across the line to get the justice which is denied them in this Dominion of Canada. That again, sir, is something which reflects upon us in a way that does this Dominion and its administration of justice no credit.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The number of divorces granted by parliament has increased also.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: And the number of divorces here has increased, as my hon. friend points out.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask a question? Could you not achieve your end just as well if the fees were reduced by this parliament?


Leslie Gordon Bell: The obvious answer to that question, I think, is that there has been no suggestion made and no disposition shown, so far as I have ever heard, to reduce the fees. Those who are opposing this bill are not suggesting, so far as I have been able to gather, an alternative measure looking to the reduction of the cost; they simply say the bill should be defeated absolutely. I am very glad my hon. friend, with his usual fairness, brought up that question, because it draws attention once more to another aspect of the situation which in my view is most important. Under the procedure of the only divorce tribunal which we have, the Senate of Canada, all such cases must be brought to Ottawa. That in itself makes the whole thing prohibitive to people of small means or people who are poor. In connection with no other court of justice or any other judicial tribunal is it necessary to journey to the capital of the nation, together with all witnesses, paying railway fares, hotel bills and the hundred and one other incidentals which so vastly increase the cost of the application which is presented. If it were necessary or imperative that a man having a claim to present before a court of justice should bring that claim to Ottawa and transport all his witnesses to Ottawa, what a cry would go out! The people would say, "You are making justice in this country prohibitive; establish courts in every province so that the poor man may have an opportunity of reaching them with the convenience offered to the rich." Apart altogether from the cost of the divorce legislation under the present system, apart altogether from the cost of the necessary agency work which has to be done, we have this almost unsurmountable obstacle presented in a great number of cases, in that witnesses must be brought to Ottawa and the expenses incident to that procedure are piled upon the applicant. If he has not the money to afford taking that course, what does he do? He crosses the Detroit river and goes into the state of Michigan or some other adjacent state in order to get his decree.
During the course of this debate some hon. gentlemen have said that the province of Ontario has not asked for this bill. I dare say that it is now within the knowledge of all hon. gentlemen that the premier of Ontario has specifically pointed out that it does not lie upon that province to ask for legislation from this parliament, but that on the contrary it is the obligation of every hon. member of this house, whether from the province of Ontario or otherwise, to take upon himself the responsibility of dealing with this question. Mr. Speaker, looking at it from that viewpoint, looking at it from the viewpoint of
Divorce Court jor Ontario

one who wants to see every man who has just cause receive justice in this matter, as in all other matters where a person appears before any judicial forum as a seeker after justice, I ask this house to pass this bill and do away with the inequality which has become, in my humble opinion, a disgrace to Canada.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain this hon. house unnecessarily, but I think in justice to my constituents and myself I should explain why I intend to vote against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
I represent in this house a constituency which is seventy per cent French-Canadian Catholics. They are opposed to making divorce easier; in fact they are opposed to the granting of divorces in any form, and, therefore, as their representative I intend to vote against the motion. The remaining thirty per cent of the population of my constituency are English-speaking Protestants, and I believe that the great majority of that minority are against making divorces easier, and therefore as their representative I intend to vote against this motion.
My third reason is a personal one. Having gone over the figures presented to the house by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) who sits on the other side-figures which showed conclusively that in those provinces having their own divorce courts the number of decrees had increased considerably since jurisdiction had been granted to the provinces, I am forced to take my stand against the motion.


Mr. J. GORDON ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I object as a member of the House of Commons to having to deal with divorce in this house. I do not think the present method is the proper one to be pursued; my opinion is that this is not the proper place to deal with the matter. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) has stated he is convinced, because of the figures brought down by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), that the number of divorces has increased in those provinces having their own divorce courts. The figures presented by the hon. member for Parry Sound will be found on page 722 of Hansard, and they show that in 1922 Ontario had 90 divorces, which had increased to 208 for the year 1929. The hon. member claimed that the increase in Ontario and Quebec was smaller than in any other province, but his figures show that the increase has been smaller in the provinces having divorce courts than it is in Ontario 
and Quebec, which provinces are forced to bring their applications for divorces to parliament. The increase in the number of divorces granted in the province of Ontario between the years 1921 and 1929 is 105 per cent; for the same period Quebec shows an increase of 400 per cent, having only six divorces in 1922 and 25 in 1929; Alberta shows an increase of 75 per cent; Saskatchewan, an increase of 38 per cent; Manitiba, decrease of 26 per cent; Nova Scotia, a decrease of 26 per cent; New Brunswick, an increase of 60 per cent; and British Columbia, an increase of 73 per cent. That comparison is based upon the figures brought down by the hon. member for Parry Sound, at which time he said that there was a larger increase in the number of divorces granted by the provinces which had divorce courts than there was in the provinces which had no jurisdiction in that matter.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. member is juggling with figures.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend
needs only to read his own figures and do his own computing. Another hon. member has mentioned that the number of divorces granted to residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta was smaller before those provinces had divorce courts than it is at the present time. That is only natural because it involved a tremendous expense to those people to come to Ottawa, and in a great many cases they crossed the line and made up part of that 1,500 mentioned by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). At the present time hundreds of divorces are brought to parliament from Ontario and, according to the figures which have been circulated among the members of this house, which I think are quite accurate, at least twelve Ontario couples per week are divorced in the city of Detroit alone. That would add 600 more to the figures given by my hon. friend.


Peter McGibbon: Could the hon. member give us -any authority for that statement?


John Gordon Ross: The synod of
the Church of England.


Peter McGibbon: That is not an authority.


John Gordon Ross: I am willing to
take that as an authority on this occasion. The present system is that divorces are brought before a committee of the Senate, evidence is taken-, which evidence is printed and distributed among the members of this house. I do not suppose that more than one out of a

Divorce Court jor Ontario
hundred members of this house have ever read the evidence in al cases; in faict I do not believe any member has done so.


Thomas Cantley: I hope not.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend
would not like to do that, nor would I.


Thomas Cantley: Certainly not.


John Gordon Ross: These cases come into the commons without hon. members having any knowledge of what has happened, yet we pass judgment on these divorce bills.
The question is not a new one; the same problem was faced in England many years ago. In the year 1S53 a committee of the British House of Commons was formed to look into the matter of divorce, which was then handled by parliament. In 1857, after four yeai-s' consideration, that committee reported to the House of Commons of Great Britain and it was decided to give the courts jurisdiction in divorce matters, and the question has since been handled in that manner. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said the other evening, we have in the divorce committee of the Senate some five lawyers and ten laymen. This is probably the only court in the world in which laymen give judgment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Gordon Ross: Every divorce
application that comes to this parliament is dealt with ultimately in the form of a bill, and naturally anyone presenting that bill has a right to lobby the members of the house and of the Senate in an endeavour to force the bill through. It is an act of parliament and they have a right to do that. And we know, it is done; but no judge would ever allow anyone to discuss with him a question that came before his court. Before the Senate committee there are no recorded decisions, no precedents set up, as in a court, for the presiding officer to be guided by. In ordinary cases, in every court, there are reports, decisions, to guide the judges in dealing with cases which come before them, but in the high court of parliament a chairman in one committee may be giving a decision to-day and at the same time another chairman in another part of the building may be giving a diametrically opposite decision. If these cases were heard before a court, the people asking for relief, would have a right, should the court find against their plea, to go before another court and appeal. That is not possible in this case. This is an act of parliament; it is a statute once it is passed and there is no appeal.
As regards divorce cases, there are no set decisions, no set rules. Divorce may be granted through the houses of parliament for any cause whatsoever that the chairman of the divorce committee happens to think fit. There are no definite rules set up. It does not have to be any one thing or another. The chairman makes his own ruling and a bill of this parliament is passed.
The question of publicity is very important. In a province which has a divorce court there is no publicity to the proceedings. You never see in our papers any report of a divorce case; only the decisions are given. But in parliament some 400 copies of the evidence are printed and distributed. Every member of the house, every senator receives a copy. These are broadcast and the evidence is placed in concrete form so that any person, even a child, may read it.


George Spotton: When the hon. gentleman speaks of this evidence as being broadcast as printed literature, is he speaking only for himself? He is not speaking for me; I have never broadcast such literature. Let him speak for himself.


John Gordon Ross: I was not speaking of the hon. gentleman or of any other hon. member. I was simply saying that some 400 copies of the evidence taken in every divorce case are printed and distributed to at least some 400 people. They are in print to be brought up at some future time and thrown in the face of some child. That is entirely unnecessary In a divorce court the evidence is not made public in any form.
Under our present system of granting divorce, one, two or three parties may be named as respondents. They may not appear at all. They may be entirely innocent. There is no written decision of the chairman of the divorce committee exonerating them from blame or finding them innocent. Any evidence that may be given-and they may not be present to defend themselves and may not be represented by anyone to defend them-goes out in the printed record. This evidence is never refuted, and the chairman of the divorce committee does not give a decision holding them blameless in such a case. Thus other innocent people may be damaged by the present system of divorce as granted by parliament. In the divorce courts in the provinces which have such courts, there is, I believe, a representative of the crown who, acting as king's proctor, looks especially for collusion and may defend any respondent who does not happen to be present. In that way a fairer trial is secured and there is less chance of

1066	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
collusion. In the ordinary course of events in parliament a divorce case comes to the Senate and to the House of Commons and if you read the cases you will find that most of the evidence that is adduced is from an investigator or a detective; in fact, practically all the evidence that is presented is paid for by someone-that is, the person who gives the evidence is paid.


John Frederick Johnston: The hour for private and public bills having been exhausted, the house will now revert to committee of supply.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Campbell Elliott: Before the committee rose I was asked by my hon. friend from Fort William for some figures regarding certain places which are mentioned in the estimates. I have them now and shall be glad to send them across to him.


Robert James Manion: I should like to have them on Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: Did my hon. friend want them by years?


Robert James Manion: What I asked for was for the last five years in bulk. The minister mentioned that he had the figures from confederation until the present, and I suggested he might add that in bulk figures for both of them. That would give two sets of figures, one from confederation till to-day and the other for the last five years.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend will excuse me, but in the case of Kincardine I have given six years and I have them all added together. The figure for 1924-25 is $30,741 and the total is $170,808.


Robert James Manion: That is for the last six years in Kincardine?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, including 1924-25. For the last five years it will be $31,000 less than that, or about $139,000. The total since confederation is $638,879.33. For Lion's Head, the total for the last six years is $24,799.86, and the total since confederation $75,145. For Port Elgin the total for the last six years is $4,334, and the total since confederation, $147,790. For Saugeen river the total for the last six years is $69,055.91, and the total since confederation $160,364.23. For Port Bruce-


Robert James Manion: Is that in the same riding?
I Mr. J. G. Ross.]


John Campbell Elliott: Not the Port Bruce that is in the estimates.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the
totals of those two sets of figures?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


George Spotton: Does Saugeen river include Southampton? It is really the same thing. The Saugeen river enters the lake at Southampton. They are all within a few yards of each other.


John Campbell Elliott: They are not the same
works.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the total revenue from Kincardine, Lion's Head, Port Elgin and Saugeen river?


John Campbell Elliott: For Kincardine the import duties for 1927-28 were $44,804.98.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that by rail or water?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the total of everything.


Hugh Guthrie: It all comes by rail,
except a little coal, I am informed.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is quite
wrong. The excise taxes for 1927-28 were $41,314.08 and sundry collections $75, making a total revenue for 1927-28 of $86,194.06. For 1928-29, the import duties were $54,579.86, excise taxes $37,057.37, sundry collections $60, making a total of $91,69723.


Hugh Guthrie: How much of that
revenue comes from the port of Kincardine, excluding the railways?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not those figures
separated.


Hugh Guthrie: Can the minister tell me
how many vessels arrive at and depart from the port of Kincardine?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1928-29 the number of vessels arriving was 24, and the number departing 23.


Hugh Guthrie: That includes tugs and
everything?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the number of
vessels. In the 1929 season, up to November 5, there were twelve foreign vessels with a tonnage of 29,859, and 15 coastwise vessels entering the port with 4,434 tons of freight.


George Spotton: As I understand it, all
that comes in are a few small boats with soft coal for the salt works, not carrying even domestic coal for the use of the town, and once every two years a small scow of cord-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
wood comes in. I would like to know what cargoes these vessels which the minister mentioned brought into Kincardine, and what revenue the government received from them. I should like those figures separate from the railroad revenue. There are only a few fishing boats at this harbour. The expenditure at Lion's Head in. North Bruce may fairly be justified, but not the expenditures at Kincardine or Port Elgin, and at the private wharf of a fellow who owns a lumber mill.


John Campbell Elliott: The coal imported during 1929, up to September 30, by the Valley Camp Coal company was 27,199 tons.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Are those water shipments up to September 30?


John Campbell Elliott: That coal came in by
water. Coke was imported in 1929, to the amount of 700 tons, and salt to the amount of 275 tons. The freight rate on coal by rail is $1.90 per ton, and by water SI .25 per ton, from Lake Erie ports. The fishing catch for 1928 was 98 tons, with a value of $26,392.


Hugh Guthrie: The coal that comes in
there for the salt works comes in free of duty by act of this government, does it not?


John Campbell Elliott: I rather think it does.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
us the number of vessels arriving at and departing from the Saugeen river?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps we had better
finish with Kincardine while we are at it.


Peter McGibbon: What was the value of the imports at Kincardine?


John Campbell Elliott: I gave my hon. friend
the value of the fishing catch, $26,392. I have also given the tonnage of coal; I have not the value of that. I have a couple of letters from the Dominion Fuel Board dated April 4 and April 12, 1929, expressing the views of that board with regard to the value of this harbour, if my hon. friends would be interested in hearing them.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister tell us why they are on file?


John Campbell Elliott: I would think perhaps my hon. friend would understand why information in regard to these harbours is on file.


Peter McGibbon: I think I do.


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad to know that
First of all, it is information for the minister and the officials of the department to help them in arriving at the necessity for money to be provided in the estimates for these 2419-684
places, and afterwards it is for the committee to assist them in passing upon these items. This is the information:
During 1928 somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25,00-0 tons of water-borne coal was shipped into this port from Fairport, Ohio. The cost of moving this coal would come to approximately $2.40 to $2.50 per gross ton, made up as
follows:
Mines to lake port (including loading) .. $1 46
Water rate	 50
Unloading charges at piers	 50

I have no information as to the amount of coal hauled all-rail to this point, although I would imagine that the greater tonnage of coal used at Kincardine would be water-borne coal.


George Spotton: Oh, no.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
knows better than the experts, but I would not have thought so.
The rail haul from a lake port on the Canadian side to Kincardine could not compete with water-borne coal moving up the lake at 50 cents per gross ton. Although I have not checked an all-rail rate to Kincardine from such a point of origin. I cannot see how a combination rail and water route would get in less than $3.50 per net ton.
This point is not shown in the Bureau of Statistics report covering coal importations into Ontario, but surrounding territory such as Goderich, Collingwood, and Owen Sound, import from 120,000 to 130,000 tons of coal per annum. This includes both anthracite and bituminous.
This is just a general picture of the situation made rather hurriedly, but within the next few days, if you so wish, I will make every effort to amplify sariie if you feel it will be of any use.
*****
Further to my letter of the 4th instant to Mr. R. de B. Corriveau, and in reply to your letter to me of the 10th instant, with respect to coal importations into Kincardine, Ontario, I have now before me data showing fuels used for domestic consumption at that point for the year 1927. This, combined with the tonnage of industrial bituminous coal quoted in my letter of the 4th instant would appear to give a representative picture of the annual tonnage of coal handled. The summary is as follows:
1928	*
Industrial coal (imported from Fairport, Ohio, 25,000 net tons.
Domestic coal and coke Pennsylvania anthracite, 2.962; United States bituminous, 455; Coke, 2,000.-Total 5,417 net tons.
Or a total potential market of slightly over 30,000 tons per annum.
Domestic coal and coke would come in allrail via Black Rock or Bridge, the rate on bituminous coal being as follows:
Mines to Black Rock, $2.09; Black Rock to Kincardine, $1.70.-Total, $3.79 net.
Anthracite and coke would carry a still higher rate.
1068	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
All coal moving to Kincardine by rail last year came via Niagara Falls or Black Rock.


George Spotton: When I said no, I should like to explain I thought the writer was speaking of domestic, not industrial coal.


John Campbell Elliott: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon, I did not so understand him.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister give
out the names of the all-wisest who compose the fuel board and whose authority he quoted just a moment ago?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think anybody
but my hon. friend characterizes them as the "all-wisest," but it is not a bad term after all. Doctor Camsell is the head of the fuel board. I am not able to give my hon. friend the names of the other members, but I shall be very glad to get them for him.


Thomas Cantley: We should be glad to
have them, sir.


John Campbell Elliott: All right.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister state
what the $55,000 was spent upon? I do not know if that was given earlier in the day.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give
it again. It is required for the following work which the district engineer reported as necessary at this place:
(1)	To complete contract 15,862, Henry & Ross, rebuilding superstructure of north pier, in concrete, at two points for length of 300 feet strengthening one section with face piles and other section 100 feet long completely renewed pile substructure. (This contract commenced 1928.)-$12,000.
(2)	To complete contract 18,003, Henry & Ross, rebuilding superstructure of north pier, in concrete, for length of 200 feet (let in 1929). -$13,000.
(3)	Maintenance dredging in entrance channel to depth of 20 feet, total length approximately, $18,500.
(4)	Reconstruction of 60 feet of wall on south side adjacent to the Huron Terrace bridge, to be sheet pile with concrete superstructure, including removal of present wall, $8,000.
Minor repairs to piers, inspection and contingencies, say, $3,500.-Total, $55,000.


Robert James Manion: How muoh after this $55,000 will be required to finish the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This is alll that is contemplated at the present time. More work will have to foe donei. $24,469 was spent last year.


Robert James Manion: I suppose if the election is put off another year there will be a further $55,000 or so for this section.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think the dectruc-tion by storms is affected in any way by
[Mr. EUiott.l
elections, and the silting at Kincardine has been pretty uniform, no matter whether there was or was not an election pending.


Robert James Manion: Of -course the storm of an election is coming on. Bearing in mind the number of boats that go into Kincardine, I think -a good 'deal of the money has been spent for Election purposes. Only twenty-seven boats went into Kincardine last year. We have as many boats nearly every day at the head of the lakes. This looks to me very much like political expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course I am not of a suspicious mind like my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: You are not suspicious oi your own people.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I am not, and I doubt if I have much reason to be. suspicious of the people to whom my hon. friend is referring.


Robert James Manion: I would think the minister would have a good deal of suspicion in view of the immense sum of $268,000 having been spent in North Bruce in the last six years.


John Campbell Elliott: In order to dispel my hon friend's suspicions, which seem to come so readily to him, I may say that in 1927-28 we spent S33,844; in 1928-29, $43,189; and in 1929-30, getting much nearer an election we spent only about half of the 1928-29 figure This hardly bears out my hon. friend's suggestion.


Robert James Manion: But this year I notice you have doubled the expenditure again in Kincardine, and you are getting closer to the election.


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose we are getting nearer to it.


Harry Bernard Short: Is there any revenue collected from these wharves in the way of top wharfage and side wharfage?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to ask the Department of Marine with regard to that. I understand there is wharfage collected -by that department.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister cannot give us figures as to the revenue collected from that source ?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give figures collected by another department.


Harry Bernard Short: I understand it is about $8
a year.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not think that
that statement was exaggerated.


Peter McGibbon: How many boats visit
that harbour each month, and in what months?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid the best I
can do for my hon. friend is to give him the number of boats that came in in the season.


Peter McGibbon: Can the minister give
us the tonnage of those boats?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hardly.


John Campbell Elliott: No; I can give you the
tonnage they brought in.


Peter McGibbon: I must submit that the minister has made a very poor defence. I quite agree with the hon. member for Fort William that this is nothing but political expenditure. I must object to the money of this country being prostituted for such conditions as that.


John Campbell Elliott: All I can say to my hon. friend is that I am sorry his judgment is not more favourable, but I do not know what I can do to improve it.


Peter McGibbon: We all admire the minister's frankness in agreeing with us.


Thomas Cantley: The situation is worse
. than my friend suggests.	The minister
proposes to spend $55,000 for a wharf to enable 25,000 tons of coal to be brought in duty free in order to help out the friends of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He will remember that two years ago the matter was discussed in this house, and somebody wanted to know who had asked that the duty be reduced on coal for use in the evaporation of salt. Somebody was bold enough to say that no one had asked for it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce denied it, and said he had asked for it, though nobody had requested it. In other words the salt refiners had not asked for it, but the minister had. Put the loss of revenue plus your expenditure of $55,000 to the debit account of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Frederick Johnston: There were three items allowed to stand. The first was:
Lion's Head-wharf repairs, $4,200.


Robert James Manion: The minister gave me
figures for the last six years. He said $24,700 had been spent at Lion's Head. What was that for?


John Campbell Elliott: The present item is an
item of $4,200. This work was requested by the district engineer in his annual estimates, and is required to complete the repairs to this pier which had been seriously damaged by storms during 1928. The fishing catch at this place amounts to forty tons annually.
The engineer's report says that the proposed repairs are required to maintain the existing structure. This amount of $4,200 is required to complete the repairs to the pier resulting from damages sustained in 1928. It is urgently necessary, according to the statement of the engineer, that the above amount be included in the estimates, as this is a most important point north of Wiarton on the Bruce peninsula. The amount spent there in 1928-29 was $17,811; in 1927-28, $8,197, and in 1926-27 $189.25.


Harry Bernard Short: What is the other business
carried on at this point, with the exception of the 40 tons of fish landed there? Forty tons of fish is about one week's catch for one of our good-sized fishing boats.


John Campbell Elliott: The success of fishing is
in the report that you give. I see my hon. friend does that very well. May I just give him this information, which I think will satisfy him. If my hon. friend will look at the map he will see that this plaice has no railway facilities. It is in an isolated position, some distance from railway communication, so that all the business for that section of the country has to be done by water transportation. In 1928 the traffic was as follows:
Hay. 850 tons at $15 a ton	 $ 12,750
Cattle, 2,000 tons at $80 a ton.. ..	160,000
Hogs, 1,000 tons at $33 a ton	 33,000
Sheep, 1,500 tons at $14 a ton.. ..	21,000
Fish, 40 tone at $300 a ton	 12,000
Total	 $238,750


Ernest Lapointe: We will have to increase the facilities.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, as the business increases.


Robert James Manion: How many boats arrived
there last year?


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


Harry Bernard Short: That is more business than
they did at Kincardine. We will have to let this item pass.


John Campbell Elliott: It is big business for the
expenditure involved.


Robert James Manion: You have balanced it
pretty well, because the other is a big expenditure for the business involved.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Elgin-breakwater repairs, $15,000.
John Campbell Elliott: In connection with Port
Elgin I would say to my hon. friend that the
1070	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
expenditure for the last six years was $4,334.58. If my hon. friend thinks it is time well spent I will give the details.


Peter McGibbon: The minister might
give us the major items.


John Campbell Elliott: There are not many
major items, when you consider that the total expenditure last year was only $27.75. For the year before the total expenditure was 8291.82.


Peter McGibbon: The minister did not
understand my question; I meant the major items of trade.


Hugh Guthrie: Had any boats called there at all?


John Campbell Elliott: I will give to my hon.
friend the information that I have. This amount was requested by the acting engineer to repair the damage done to this breakwater by storms. It is in a very bad state of repair and must be maintained to prevent the channel from filling in. It is in danger of destruction by heavy seas. About sixty tons of fish valued at $18,000 were shipped from here in 1927, when the channel was in good condition, and it is expected that the fishing will increase in future with the use of larger boats carrying gill nets when the channel is dredged. It is also a summer resort.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Stanley-harbour repairs and improvements, $150,000.
Robert James Manion: Before we adjourned at six o'clock the minister and the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) were explaining some points in connection with this item.
I wanted to ask the minister as to the amount of business passing through this port, and particularly whether Port Stanley was one of the places which had one of the liquor export docks.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: 
Robert James Manion: No, we were just asking for information.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am sure if hon. members opposite understood the merits of this item they would not question the expenditure. Port Stanley is situated at just about the centre of the north shore of lake Erie, and serves as the distributing centre for a large
[111-. Elliott.]
part of western Ontario. The chief business there is the bringing in of bulk coal; the bringing in of coal by the ferry company and the bringing in of tourists on the daily boats which ply between Cleveland and Port Stanley. There is also the fishing industry, and the Canada Steamship Linas make Port Stanley a port of call.
I do not want to take the time of the committee in quoting a 'lot of figures, but I might just show how the business has increased. With regard to bulk coal, 17,000 tons were brought in during 1925, while in 1929 that increased to 177,000 tons. In 1925 the ferry *company brought in 174,000 tons of coal, while in 1929 they brought in 251,000 tons. The total merchandise brought into Part Stanley in 1925 amounted t.o 191,000 tons, and in 1929 that figure increased to 428,000 tons. Had there been increased facilities there for warehouses, according to the engineer's report business would have been much greater. Port Stanley is also a celebrated summer resort, with a line of steamships running to Cleveland. In 1926 there were 14,900 passengers brought to Port Stanley on these boats, and that number increased in 1928 to over 20,000 passengers; in fact during 1928 and 1929 approximately 40,000 'passengers came from Cleveland; 'bringing with them 6,258 automobiles. While we cannot get any accurate estimate, I would judge that these people during the two years spent dlose to $800,000 in that vicinity. The amount of customs duties collected there has increased from $19,000 in 1925 to $107,000 in 1929, and that in itself represents only a smalll portion of the dutiable goods Which passed through that port, because we must remember that the 251,000 tons of bituminous coal, a large portion of which was dutiable, was consigned to other ports. In fact, goods are manifested through Port Stanley for 98 inland ports. Practically all this trade is carried over the London and Port Stanley railway which is owned by the city of London. This is a very good source of revenue for that railway as otherwise there would 'be a larger deficit which would have to be made up by direct taxation on the people of London. This port not only serves t'he county of Elgin but, as I have said, is the distributing centre for practically the entire southern peninsula. I am sure my hon. friend from Hamilton will not object to this vote, because at the present time the coking plant in that city brings in a great deal, if not all, of its coal through Port Stanley. This coal travels to London over the London and Port Stanley railway and then goes to Hamilton over the Canadian National.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
I think that is all I need say, unless my hon. friends desire further information. I might add that in southern Ontario the people appreciate very much the facilities which are being provided for the increased business there by the Department of Public Works, and I am sure if my hon. friend from Pictou understood the situation he would not object to this item.


Robert James Manion: There was no export dock there?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: No, but on perhaps four or five occasions liquor was shipped out of Port Stanley directly from freight cars into a rum running boat. There was no licensed liquor export dock there.


Mark Cecil Senn: I fully realize the importance
of Port Stanley. Just before six o'clock I was asking the minister whether the department had received any assurance that a coking plant was to be established at that place. Up until last year the facilities were quite adequate to accommodate all the traffic at Port Stanley; I think there can be no doubt of that. Is it not a fact that the new facilities at Port Stanley were to be the deciding factor as to whether that coking plant should be established there or whether it would go to another port on lake Erie, Port Maitland, which has facilities which are perfectly adequate? From what I understand of the situation it seems that if these facilities were not established at Port Stanley possibly the coking plant would not have gone there. Has any assurance been given to the department that a coking plant will be established there if the facilities are increased?


John Campbell Elliott: The department has not
taken sides as between Port Stanley and Port Maitland or any other port; we are only trying to provide for the business which comes to these ports or which is in prospect through the efforts put forth by the people in the vicinity. We do not take sides as between these different ports. There is no definite assurance with regard to the coking plant, although there is a fairly definite assurance that they expect to locate there. There is nothing binding them as far as the department is concerned, and there is nothing binding the department to provide any facilities for them. Every new industry which proposes to locate anywhere receives very sympathetic consideration at the hands of the department. If Port Maitland or any other port has an industry in prospect, nothing is done by the department or any of the officials to divert that industry to any other port.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am sure, the explanation of
the minister is satisfactory as far as it goes. He told us before six o'clock that these facilities probably would be needed, but I do not think there has been any damage to the facilities which were there previously; the piers are not particularly out of repair. Will the additional facilities to be provided by this vote of $150,000, together with the $50,000 spent last year, be sufficient if a coking plant is established at Port Stanley?


John Campbell Elliott: No, these facilities are just for the present needs at that point. If a coking plant is established there, further substantial expenditures will be necessary; and from all the information we have we believe more business is expected. My hon. friend has been told of the increase in business at Port Stanley in recent years, and I am told that the only reason that increase has not been greater is that the facilities would not take care of any further increase.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think the hon. minister will
agree with me that the same increase in business would apply to the other ports on that great lake.


John Campbell Elliott: I am delighted to say that that is correct; all those ports are doing very well.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am sorry to have to say that most of the goods are coming into the country rather than being exported. I think the member for West Elgin made the statement that most of the coal coming into that port goes to Hamilton, and that practically all the supplies for the coking plant at Hamilton come through Port Stanley. I am afraid he is misinformed in regard to that, because a considerable amount of traffic comes through Port Maitland to go over the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway, not only for Hamilton but for other points. I do not wish to press this matter further, but it seems to me that we should be very careful about these expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rondeau-harbour repairs and improvements, $49,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister explain this item?	.


John Campbell Elliott: Of this amount, $8,700 is a revote from 1929-30. It is required to complete the contract with the Chatham Dredging & General Contracting Company for repairs to the east pier and provide for repairs to the east and west piers during 1930-31. During the season of 1928 coal imported amounted
1072	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
to 482,743 tons. The fishing catch for that year was valued at $48,345. The proposed work is as follows:
1.	To complete contract 19033, Chatham Dredging & General Contracting Company, repairs to east pier, $10,750.
2.	To continue reconstruction east pier, further 250 feet, $26,750.
3.	Shore protection-250 feet of concrete cribbing at each end of existing shore protection with timber substructure, $7,500.
4.	Repairs to west pier, $3,250.
Inspection, say, $750.
Total estimated cost, $49,000.


Robert James Manion: What constituency is that in?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in Kent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sarnia-harbour improvements, $75,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the hon. minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to complete two dredging contracts and to commence the construction of a public dock and warehouse to provide for a large and increasing traffic in package freight. At the present time there is no public dock at this place to accommodate this traffic, and there is no place where tramp steamers can dock for supplies. The dredging completed in 1929, for which there is a balance owing to the Canadian Dredging Company, Limited, was required to accommodate the heavy grain traffic and relieve the congested condition of this harbour. A new elevator with a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels was constructed in 1927, and this has been enlarged to 3,000,000 bushels capacity. Over 10,000,000 bushels of grain are handled per season.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saugeen river

harbour repairs and improvements, $35,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to continue repairing the harbour work at this place for the benefit of the fishermen, whose annual catch amounts to 184 tons, valued at $48,900. It was decided in 1929 to abandon the Chantry island breakwater at Southampton owing to its costly upkeep, and in view of the fact that these works at the mouth of the Saugeen river provide a more satisfactory and economical harbour for the fishing boats.


Robert James Manion: What is the traffic going
through that port?


John Campbell Elliott: A considerable quantity of lumber and logs is brought to this port each year. For the season of 1927, 700,000 feet

board measure of timber were unloaded. The fishing catch for the season of 1927 amounted to 248 tons, with an estimated value of $65,840.


George Spotton: This will be the only
public work carried out at Southampton and vicinity?


John Campbell Elliott: ' Yes.


George Spotton: You have abandoned the works at Southampton?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Spotton: I think that is a very wise move.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister tell us how badly this constituency has been neglected in the past to need so much nursing at the present time?


John Campbell Elliott: All I can say to my hon.
friend in that regard is that Southampton is about the only place where we have abandoned works of this character. It was considered desirable not to make any further investments at Southampton. I think this change is desirable, although it has not been very acceptable to the people at Southampton.


Robert James Manion: Is Southampton in the
same constituency?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph narrow's and Pointe Anne-dredging, $75,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Will the hon. minister tell
us in what constituency this is, and also give us a little information regarding the item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is in the constituency of South Hastings. This work was requested in letters from the Canada Cement Company of Montreal, dated April and November, 1925; also by the Canadian Industrial Alcohol Company, Limited, and the chamber of commerce of Belleville. This dredging is required to provide facilities for the importation of coal and for the shipping of cement and alcohol products. The plant of the Canada Cement Company at Pointe Anne has an annual output of approximately 1,500,000 barrels of cement. One million dollars worth of freight is taken in and out of Belleville annually.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto

repairs to pier, $3,000.
Robert James Manion: Does the minister not
think that this is too much for the city of Toronto?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Saskatchewan


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing is too much for
the city of Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wabigoon-wharf extension, $2,500.
Robert James Manion: What is the business carried on at Wabigoon?


John Campbell Elliott: This work was requested
by the residents of Wabigoon in a petition forwarded by the Minister of Labour on February 27, 1929, and is required to provide adequate facilities for the handling of increased traffic due to the mining development. This extension would also be of great benefit to boats using this harbour during rough weather.


Robert James Manion: I shall not object to this at all because I like to see anything given to northern Ontario. At the same time I might point out that the mining development in that vicinity has not been great. A few prospectors were working outside of Wabigoon and I understand they closed down some time ago. I hope, however, they will get this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Windsor-harbour improvements, $65,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister kindly give us the details of this?


John Campbell Elliott: The department has been approached by the International Terminals Limited, Windsor, Ontario, L. A. Merlo, president, and by the Canada Steamship Lines in connection with the proposal to develop a cold storage warehouse at Windsor on government property and adjacent thereto, to develop a combined water and rail package freight transfer dock and warehouse. We are holding in abeyance action on the proposal to enlarge the existing warehouse on the government dock at Windsor in order to see if the proposal now made is feasible and warranted. It is proposed that this department undertake the construction of a dock built along the harbour line in the Detroit river, off the Canadian National railway yards, west or downstream of Devonshire street. It is thought that a wharf frontage about 800 feet long would accommodate both vessels at the cold storage warehouse and at the adjoining package freight warehouse. It would be proposed that the area in rear of the dock would be filled and a portion of the dock and the government land, being the filled area of the water lot, be leased to the International Terminals Limited upon a long term lease at suitable rental. It is proposed that the other section of the dock property be also filled in rear, where it is now water lot, and the department construct on it a freight warehouse
80 feet wide, of suitable length, and that this dock, land and warehouse be leased on suitable terms to the Canada Steamship Lines, which company would release their present holdings on the present government dock, leaving that wharf and warehouse for the accommodation of the general public of the Border Cities area in respect to passengers and freight. The Canadian National Railways have expressed their desire to cooperate and give rail connection to the cold storage warehouse and to the package freight warehouse. They would lay their rails both along the water side and the rail side of the cold storage warehouse and the package freight warehouse.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Saskatchewan and Alberta-Alberta Beach (Alberta), Lac Ste. Anne wharf extension, $3,800.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Might I ask the minister to give us a little information on this?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: I can explain this. At Lac Ste. Anne, which is situated about fifty-five miles west of Edmonton, a great deal of fish is caught and shipped out to different points. About two years ago, I think in 1928, the government built a landing wharf and the water receded in the meantime leaving the wharf high and dry. This item of $3,800 is for the purpose of extending the wharf out to deep water.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am not objecting to this item at all. I just wanted to have it pointed out where it was and what it was for. I hope to be able to use this as a peg on which to hang something for the rivers in southern Alberta. I thing I mentioned to the minister some years ago and even last year that the Bow river at the city of Calgary had its course diverted considerably for two reasons: first, on account of the government giving a company the right to put a dam across the river, throwing the whole course of the river against the government's own boulevard. In the second place the government took no care to protect its own boulevard and because of that, the river washed into the city and washed a large part of its property away. The city endeavoured to fill in between the groins with stone. The Department of Public Works or the irrigation department for a time even endeavoured to stop the city from filling in between the groins, because it was represented to them they would be throwing the river back on its old course. I pointed out last year that the government gave a grant of $15,000 to protect the banks of the Highwood river. I did not object to that, but I make a plea to the Minister of Public Works
1074	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Saskatchewan
that the city of Calgary ought to be assisted in some way. I would not ask the department to put the river back again to the old line. It eroded its banks to the extent of nearly 200 yards. We have to fill in between the groins to keep the erosion from going further into the banks or it would wash them clean away to the foot of the hill, and I suggest to the Minister of Public Works that either in these or in the supplementary estimates he make a small grant to the city to assist them in reclaiming part of the property that was washed away, through the government's own fault because they would not protect their own boulevard and because they granted a permit to a company to put a dam across the river.


George Spotton: With the permission of the minister I rise just to expedite matters. When I came into this house this evening some hon. member on this side said that inasmuch as I had not been present when the Goderich harbour improvement item was called, it was left open. I do not want to speak on it. We are delighted at the treatment the minister gave us last year and we hope he will not weary in well doing. I am well aware that the deputation that came to Ottawa presented the matter thoroughly and the minister has it fully before him. If that item was left open, the Ontario estimate can be closed now. I just, wish to expedite the business of the house.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask whether the Goderich item carried? I think it did.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: We have made pretty good progress and many of our British Columbia members are not present. It is now ten o'clock would the minister consent to have the committee rise?


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to meet the convenience of my hon. friends, and I appreciate the manner in which they have discussed the various items. It is difficult, however, for me to get time for public works estimates and if we could get these items through it would be in the interest of the different sections of the country involved. I do not want to urge unduly, but I am taking a train at eleven o'clock and perhaps we might sit till quarter to eleven.


Mr. McRAE:: I think there are enough of the British Columbia members present for us to proceed.


John Campbell Elliott: Thank you very much. I do not wish to curtail criticism at all, because TMr. Adshead.]
I think it is helpful. Still, the sooner we get these estimates through-*


Hugh Guthrie: The sooner the election comes.


John Campbell Elliott: -the sooner the various officials will be able to get to work and the works will be started.
Harbours and rivers-British Columbia- Coal Harbour-wharf, $9,000.


Alexander Duncan McRae: Would the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked to be provided for the construction of a wharf 60 feet by 40 feet, with an approach 358 feet by 14 feet. The proposed work is asked for by the member for Comox-Alberni, and is required to make it possible for freight and mail from Vancouver brought by motor trucks from Hardy Bay to be transshipped directly on to tug boats going to Port Alice and other points on Quatsino Sound.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: By whom was this work recommended ?


John Campbell Elliott: By the member.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the minister in the habit of considering recommendations from members, because, if so there are some that I should like to make.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Comox lake-float, $4,300.
Alexander Duncan McRae: What is the explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the completion of a float 60 feet by 40 feet at Comox Lake, also known as Puntledge lake. During 1929-30 the approach was constructed. This float is necessary to serve the rapidly growing needs of the district and to provide a quick means of access to the adjacent town of Cumberland. It would also enable the accident cases in the camps to reach the hospital at Cumberland in a short time. The Comox Logging Company operating at this place employs 250 men, but will increase the number to 500 when operations are fully under way. Fifty men are employed by the K. and K. Pole Company, and five firms operate private launches here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deserters Canyon-improvements, $2,000.
Mr. FRASER:: What are these improvements?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the construction of a tow path

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
along the bank of Finlay river through Deserters Canyon. The proposed work is requested by the district engineer. The construction of this tow path will allow the freighters to line their boats up and down stream instead of unloading and packing over a long and difficult trail over the walls of the canyon.


John Anderson Fraser: That is on the upper Peace river. Might I ask what work has been proceeded with during the current year at the Peace river rapids, just below the junction of the Finlay and Peace rivers?


John Campbell Elliott: We have the details here only of the works that have been going on in the places for which votes are being asked, and my hon. friend will readily understand that we have not the details with respect to places for which votes are not included in the estimates.


George Halsey Perley: But the minister could make a note of the question, and send a memorandum to the hon. member on Monday.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to do so.


John Anderson Fraser: Was an amount provided in last year's estimates for the improvement of the Peace river at the Peace river rapids?


Kenneth Alexander Blatchford: My hon. friend, I believe, is speaking of that part of the river just below the Finlay forks. I would advise the Minister of Public Works to take into consideration the necessity of improvements at that point, for it is a very hazardous place, passing up or down. Some improvements should be made there.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the name of the place? Is it the Finlay forks?


John Anderson Fraser: Just below the forks.


John Campbell Elliott: There was nothing last year.


John Anderson Fraser: Has there been any work going on there?


John Campbell Elliott: I think probably out of the general vote there was some work done at that point.


John Anderson Fraser: Out of last year's general vote for harbours and rivers?


John Campbell Elliott: That would be the vote if there was any work done. There was no special estimate. If any work were done there, it would be done out of the general dredging vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser Lake-wharf repairs, $1,200.
Mr. BARBER:: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is requested by the district engineer to provide for general repairs required to the wharf, which was damaged by the action of the frost and ice. There is a small settlement at this site, but it is a railhead for a considerable area in which logging and farming is carried on extensively.


John Anderson Fraser: When was that wharf
built?


John Campbell Elliott: It was built in 1924-25-26,
at a cost of $2,867. It is a pile structure, 606 feet long.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-north arm-extension to jetty, $40,000.
Mr. LADNER:: I want to commend the government, the minister, and his department for providing for the extension of this jetty. Whether or not the amount provided is sufficient is a question. The north arm of the Fraser river is gradually becoming, and as the days go by will more rapidly become, the centre of the industrial portion of Vancouver city. The recent decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners granting a through rate on freight over the Canadian National Railway, as over the Canadian Pacific, will be an added influence in the development of industries in that district. I wanted to inquire whether or not under this vote the jetty will be extended into the straits to a point where the cross currents will not fill in the mouth of the river.


John Campbell Elliott: It does go out into the straits. It will extend 1,000 feet from where it is at the present time.


Leon Johnson Ladner: What I want to know is
whether this vote be sufficient to extend the jetty to a point in the straits where the cross currents will not fill in the entrance to the river?


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose one cannot tell
that until it is actually constructed. I have a map which I shall be glad to show my hon. friend.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I take it from the minister that the intention is to extend that jetty out into the straits so as properly to protect the entrance of the river from cross currents and ultimately enable traffic to get up there. The officers of the department know it is uneconomic to allow the jetty to remain in its present position, because it does not extend
1076	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
far enough out to prevent the filling in of the river by cross currents, and this filling in of course necessitates dredging.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-north arm-dredging, $28,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: Why was there a carry-over
of $28,000 from last year? Will the work be completed this summer?


John Campbell Elliott: The contractors were delayed in getting started last year and were not able to complete their contract. This is to provide for its completion.


William Garland McQuarrie: What does this contract include?


John Campbell Elliott: An order in council was
passed on October 17, 1929, accepting the tender of the British Columbia Bridge and Dredging Company at fourteen cents per cubic yard place measurement for the dredging of approximately 678,270 cubic yards class B material in the north arm of the Fraser river, entailing an approximate expenditure of $94,957.


William Garland McQuarrie: In what part of the
river is the work being done?


John Campbell Elliott: These various cuts are
shown on a plan which I shall be glad to have my hon. friend look at. These are the various cuts:
cu. yd.
Cut No. 1-300' wide by 3,500' long
at outer end jetty	 221,200
Cut No. 2-150' wide by 7,500' long
west of Marpole	bridge		..	269,700
Cut No. 2A-150' wide by 3,000' long
at Marpole	 74,000
Cut No. 5-150' wide by 6,000' long at 4J miles east of Marpole.. ..	113,370
678,270


William Garland McQuarrie: What depth will this
give up to New Westminster when the work is finished?


John Campbell Elliott: The channel, I understand, will be 10 feet deep at low water.


William Garland McQuarrie: All the way through
to New Westminster?


John Campbell Elliott: Where improved.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister knows,
of course, that this north arm runs up to New Westminster, and the channel is very much rsed, particularly for the towing of logs and of barges. I am interested to know whether when the work is completed there will be a ten foot channel right up to New Westminster, or is it contemplated that further work should be done?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineer has been
instructed to make a report showing at what points further work will be required in order to give the desired cjiannel right up to New Westminster. It is intended to make a channel ten feet deep at low water.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it contemplated that the work will be proceeded with as soon as possible?


John Campbell Elliott: It will depend on how
much is found necessary to be done. After the report is in the matter will be considered in regard to how much will be proceeded with as the next part of this improvement.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is quite true, as the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) said, the north arm is becoming very important. My constituency is interested in that channel as well as South Vancouver. There has been a good deal of delay in looking after the north arm. I congratulate the minister on the work he is doing, but I think it is very important, particularly in view of the development of the Canadian National Railways in that section, that the work on the north arm should be expedited as much as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-improvements, $250,000.
Alexander Duncan McRae: What is contemplated by
this vote, and will it finish the work?


John Campbell Elliott: What is proposed is the
following work:
(1) Steveston north jetty-section 5-
towards bringing section 5 up to
grade by raising rock mound from
low water level to 12 feet above low
water level. Estimated cost,
$150,000. Amount asked for 193031	 $ 98,000
(2)	Annieville bar, extension to dyke,
1,800 feet long. Estimated cost..	27,000
(3)	Steveston north jetty, section 6, towards contraction of section 6 (final section of Steveston north, jetty). Estimated cost, $225,000.
Amount asked for 1930-31	 50,000
(4)	Sapperton bar. Towards construction of river training dykes.
Estimated cost of dykes 1, 2 and 3,
$51,000. To construct dyke No. 1.	25,000
(5)	Steveston, south jetty, towards first section of south jetty. Estimated cost of first section 8,000 feet
long, $370,000. To commence.. ..	50,000

My hon. friend of course knows that this is only the beginning of a much larger expenditure.


Alexander Duncan McRae: That is all right.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the minimum
depth in the main channel from New Westminster to the mouth of the river?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it is 28 feet
at low water.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister understands it is 28 feet at low water? I hope it is.


John Campbell Elliott: I find it runs from 16 to
18 feet at low water and from 27 to 29 feet at high water.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the objective
now of the department in regard to the channel?


John Campbell Elliott: The objective is thirty
feet at high water, and we are practically within one foot.


William Garland McQuarrie: One foot, or two feet. When does that depth of twenty-eight feet prevail?


John Campbell Elliott: The following is the record of controlling depths of the Fraser river:
January 31, 1928.. February 29, 1928 March 29, 1928.. April 30, 1928.. May 31, 1928.. June 30, 1928.. July 31. 1928.. August 31, 1928.. September 30, 1928 October 31, 1928. November 30, 192! December 31. 192S January 31. 1929.. February 28. 1929 March 31, 1929.. April 30, 1929.. May 31, 1929.. June 30, 1929.. July 31, 1929.. August 31, 1929. . September 30, 192 October 31, 1929 November 30, 192 December 31, 192 February 28, 1930
with a twelve foot tide?
(Feet)	(Feet)
16	27
18	28
18	28
18	27
16	25
17	26
17	261
16	27
16	26
17	27
17	27
17	281
17	28i
16	28
17	28*
18	29
18	27
17	271
17	27i
18	29
16	271
17	29
17	281
16	281
16	271
[DOT]e those	the depths


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I would say about a twelve foot tide. It is 271 feet at high water and 16 feet at low water. The tide is between eleven and twelve feet.	.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister no doubt received a recommendation from a joint committee of citizens representing the New Westminster board of trade, the mayor and city council, the harbour commissioners and officials of Pacific Coast Terminals Limited in October of last year.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I remember that.


William Garland McQuarrie: He has been told of the increase there has been in the shipping at that port from 1921, when we had only thirteen vessels and a net tonnage of 38,987 tons, to 1929, when we had 198 ships with a net tonnage' of 625,271 tons. The representation of the joint committee was that there was difficulty experienced by shippers in that they required to have a minimum depth of thirty feet on a twelve foot tide. They have had instances recently of three or four lines of deep sea vessels that refused to come up the river, claiming that there was not sufficient depth. The minister, I have no doubt, is familiar with these facts. It is absolutely necessary to have a minimum draft of thirty feet. That is the objective set by the citizens of New Westminster and other points along the river, and the figure at which they have been aiming for a great many years. In the recommendation of that joint committee certain requirements were pointed out. The first was for the construction of 8,000 feet of the south jetty during the fiscal year 1930-31; the second was that the north jetty be continued to deep water; the third, that the Annieville training wall be extended downstream the necessary distance in order to eliminate the Annieville bar; and the fourth, that permanent construction be undertaken on the Sapperton bar so as to create a permanent channel of 700 to 800 feet on each side thereof. The first item, I understand, has been accepted by the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: They have all been
accepted, and they are all being done.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much will be
done this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Shall I read to my hon. friend what is being done?


William Garland McQuarrie: Do you propose to do all this work this year?


John Campbell Elliott: We propose to do this
year what I read to my hon. friend a minute ago.


William Garland McQuarrie: It will not complete the program.


John Campbell Elliott: No, but it is as much as can be done. It provides for $300,500. This work eventually will cost half a million, but we propose to begin on the $300,000 worth this year.


William Garland McQuarrie: And leave about
$200,000 for next year.


John Campbell Elliott: They may not complete their $300,000 this year, but they will do quite

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
a proportion of it. I have before me the recommendation about which my hon. friend spoke with regard to the various repairs, and they are all under way. I am glad to know of the excellent results that have followed the work that has been done by the department, as shown by the increased business there. That is fairly typical of the beneficent results that have followed the work of this department all the way through.


William Garland McQuarrie: That may all be true, and it may be that the department has been doing some good work, but I would suggest that it has been rather slow.


John Campbell Elliott: No, not very slow, according to your figures.


William Garland McQuarrie: The department has been a little bit slow. The minister knows this is not a political question at all, as will be seen by the nature of the organizations which joined in the recommendations. Owing to the developments that are taking place there, and owing to the fact that shipping is increasing to such an extent it is absolutely necessary that we should have a channel capable of accommodating the traffic. I must say that although we do appreciate the work that has been done, we are not altogether satisfied with the speed with which it is being carried out.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know what would satisfy you.


William Garland McQuarrie: The government has perhaps been working on it; no doubt the chief engineer and the deputy minister are interested, but at the same time we want results. IV e want to get ships in that are waiting to come into that port; as the minister knows, the port of New Westminster is becoming one of the great ports of Canada. There is no doubt that in a comparatively short time the Fraser river will be the industrial centre of the mainland of British Columbia. I know that the minister's colleague who sits to his left, the former incumbent of the office, is very much interested in the port of New Westminster, and he knows that what I am saying is perfectly correct. The people there are united in asking that the work be done as speedily as possible.
There is also another matter which came uip for consideration just last winter, with regard to the ice in the river particularly above the Fraser river bridge. We had an unusually cold spell this year, and it looked as though there might be trouble both below and above the bridge. A channel was kept open below the bridge through the efforts [Mr. Elliott.J
of this department, but the large industries which are situated above the bridge had to close down, adding greatly to the unemployment which prevailed this year. It seems to me it would have been comparatively easy to have kept the river clear of ice both above and below the bridge, or at least to have kept a channel open. The suggestion I should like to make to the minister is that he and his officials consider the advisability of converting the dredge 303 into an ice breaker. I think that could be done at very little cost, simply by putting some sheets of steel on the bow. As the minister knows, this is a suction dredge and it could take enough water into its hold to give it the necessary weight. It has the power, and if the bow were reinforced with steel, which could be done at trifling expense, there would be no question as to her ability to keep the channel of the Fraser river open regardless of what kind of weather prevailed. The ice in that river comes from up above; as the minister knows, the river is several hundred miles long and the ice comes down from up above and causes this blockade at the bridge.
My suggestion to the minister is that the 303 is not very much good anyway for any other purpose; I am sure the deputy minister will not agree with me. The boat may be useful for some work on the river there, but as a general utility dredge it does not compare at all with the King Edward. I have said this before, but I am afraid my remarks have not had much effect. I think the 303 should be junked; it is an old dredge which was brought over from Germany, I believe twenty-five or thirty years ago, and it is out of date. I do not suggest, of course, that there should not be a second dredge on the Fraser river, but I suggest that there should be a new dredge of the King Edward type constructed, and I think a lot of money would be saved if that were done. I have discussed this matter several times with the deputy minister, but he considers the results achieved by the 303 quite satisfactory. I do not believe that is so, I think it would be a good idea if we could get rid of that 303 except for use as an ice breaker or for work for which she is suitable. All she does is dig holes; she cannot construct a channel and never has been able to do so. All the channel work has been gone over by the King Edward after the 303 finished. The 303 simply digs holes and never finishes a job. I wish the minister would take up that matter with his officials and see whether it would not be good business to give us a new, modern dredge of the King Edward type on the Fraser river.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


John Campbell Elliott: Since my hon. friend
began his remarks I have taken up the matter at some length with my deputy and with the chief engineer, and they tell me that putting these sheets on the bow of the dredge would tend to make her nose down, and practically useless. I know my hon. friend has discussed this question with the officials before, but they do not agree with him. Neither do they agree with the theory that the 303 is not a good dredge and has not done effective work and is not still capable of a good deal of useful service.
With regard to the other remarks of my hon. friend, I must express appreciation of the appreciation which he has expressed. I quite agree with him that this is not a political vote; there are no politics in it at all, except that I think it is always good politics to do good work at a low price in order to produce good results.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is this work being
done under contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river (lower)-operation of snag boat, $30,000.
Harry James Barber: I understand this item
provides for one boat. I should like to know what work this boat did last year and what part of the river it covered.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it operated on the north arm of the river from the gulf of Georgia up as far as it could navigate. This $30,000 is to provide for the maintenance and operation of the snag boat, Samson, employed in the removal of snags and obstructions in the Fraser river between Chilliwack and the gulf of Georgia; for assistance in surveys and inspections; for minor repairs to floats and piers in nearby harbours, and for occasional work in Vancouver harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fraser river-contribution toward protection work at Canoe Pass, the municipality oif Delta to contribute a like amount, $2,000.
Harry James Barber: I have no objection to this item, but under this head I should like to know what is the policy of the government in regard to the protection of banks. This is a matter which I have brought to the attention of the department on more than one occasion. The government have contributed toward the protection ot the bank of Nico-men, island; I bdlieve they boore all' the cost of that work. They have also contributed to the cost of the protection of the bank at Agassiz and Rosedale, and the other day
I brought to the attention of the government the case of Matsqui, where a very serious condition exists. I think the engineer has pointed out that it is very dangerous, and the department has been requested to contribute to the cost of that work. I should like to know just what is the policy of the government. It appears that in some sections assistance is given in protecting the banks; in other places the whole cost is borne by the government, and in still other places the department refuse to give any assistance whatever.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a matter of
arrangement between the provincial and Dominion governments. In the case of the bank at Nicomen island, the dyke was built by the provincial government and the shore protection work was done by the federal government, acting through this department. It is a matter for negotiation in the various cases to which my hon. friend refers.


Harry James Barber: In the matter of the protection work at Rosedale, certain work was done there last year with the understanding that the provincial government would contribute one-third of the cost, the federal government one-third, and the municipality the remaining third. Now I understand from the municipality that they have had a communication from the department stating that the department did not agree to contribute to the cost of this work. Both engineers were on the ground; it was important that the work be done at once, and it was done. The result has been that the municipality has had to contribute two-thirds of the cost, and they have applied to the department for a vote to cover the one-third which they understood to be promised. A precedent has been established in this respect because a few years ago the government contributed one-third of the cost toward the construction of a work in that district, and this is simply a continuation of that work. The municipality expected that the federal department would contribute towards this work, in fact I have just received a telegram to-night, as follows:
Has Rosedale protection work grant been included in estimates.
That is signed by the clerk of the municipality. This matter is very important and I hope the minister will give consideration to it.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
give the matter my consideration. The circumstances in the two cases are quite different. On the former occasion negotiations were
1080	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
carried on with the department and the department agreed to contribute towards the cost. On this occasion the municipality went ahead without any agreement and did the work and then asked the department for a contribution. No arrangement has been made up to the present time and the department does not see its way clear to make a contribution under the circumstances.


Harry James Barber: The municipality understood that the provincial Department of Public Works at Victoria were taking the matter up with the department at Ottawa, and that the same understanding had been reached. Both the provincial and Dominion engineers were on the ground and the municipality understood that these negotiations had been concluded.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot add very much to what I have said already. It is true that the engineers did go over the ground but no agreement was reached by which the Dominion government would contribute to the work. The municipality went on without that arrangement being consummated, and my hon. friend can understand quite readily that we do pretty well when we contribute to the works to which we agree to contribute. I do not think we can be expected to contribute to works which we have not agreed to contribute before they are started.


Harry James Barber: Apparently this government has no stated policy in connection with this class of work.


John Campbell Elliott: It has a policy not to pay for work which it does not agree to pay for.


Harry James Barber: It just depends upon whom the negotiations were taken up with. When both engineers were on the ground and the provincial department proceeded with the work, it was understood that both governments had agreed. There is the other matter concerning Matsqui dyke, which is a similar situation to that at Nicomen. Snags and jams have fonned which in turn form bars, and a large gravel bar has formed just to the north of this point which has turned the river into the bank. The same situation exists at Nicomen. This is a very serious situation because if the dyke breaks at this particular point it will endanger not only 10,000 acres of land but also the right of way of the Canadian National railway. I think this matter is before the department at the present time and I hope before high water comes the department will give serious consideration to it.


John Campbell Elliott: This matter will have the very best consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Glenannan-wharf, $2,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Could we have an explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a re vote of $2,000 to provide for the construction of a wharf now being completed by day labour.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the estimated cost?


John Campbell Elliott: $6,400.


John Anderson Fraser: Were tenders called for?


John Campbell Elliott: Tenders were called for,
and two received. One was received from Edward A. Nolan, of Glenannan, for $6,000, and one from R. C. MoCorkell, Vanderhoof, for $8,638.03.


John Anderson Fraser: Why was not one of those tenders accepted?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Nolan would not carry out a contract in accordance with his tender, and we are doing it much cheaper than we could have done by contract.


John Anderson Fraser: Has the work been completed?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be finished this
year. There was $2,594 spent up to February 25.


John Anderson Fraser: You have spent that much already and you are asking for $2,000 more to finish it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


John Anderson Fraser: No, this item is not carried, I want some information on it.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry to say I cannot give it to the hon. member to-night, as I must catch a train. I move that the committee report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.50 pan.
Monday, March 31, 1930