Mr. CARVELL:

That is the point at issue. I have not studied it closely, but I know generally what the situation is. The case is under preparation by the department to be tested out in the courts, and when the case is decided we shall know what the court says, at all events. I am afraid the decision of Professor Prince is not of very much assistance to us when a wharf is in question, because while a wharf may have claws to fasten it to the ground, it could hardly be construed as an animal.

Harbours and rivers-Ontario-Pembroke- repairs to wharf, $1,500.

Mr. H. J. MACKIE:

I would draw the

minister's attention to the exceptionally dangerous condition of this wharf. Six large boats use it, and I would not take the price of any one of them to go on that wharf at night, it is so exceedingly dangerous. I trust that within a very few days after the passing of this item something will be done to improve the condition of the wharf.

Mr. CARVELL:

We are now preparing

plans and specifications for every work which can be done by tender and contract, and we have already -called for tenders in a great many cases. I presume the work at Pembroke will have to be done by day labour and in the case of all small repairs of this kind we intend to start work just as soon as the item is passed and finish up the work before August or September. I can assure my hon. friend that we will be at work on this wharf within a few days.

Mr. H. J. MACKIE:

The work required is patching the surface.

Mr. OASSELMAN:

I presume the minister's remarks apply also in the case of the wharf at Cornwall.

Mr. CARVELL:

My remarks apply to

every public work for which we are asking an appropriation.

Dredging-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and

Alberta, $45,000.

Mr. PARENT:

With regard to this item, perhaps the minister may think that we are quite persistent in our request for certain works on the River St. Charles, in the province of Quebec. It just occurs to me that if the works cannot be proceeded with in connection with the building of the dam, perhaps we could find some means of dredging the river so as to accomplish what the people are so anxious to have done. In looking over Hansard recently I read the statement made by the minister on the 13th of May to the effect that if the works on the St. Charles river had not been proceeded with it was due to the fact that that part of the contract under which the city of Quebec was to take care of the sewage was never performed. Here is what my hon. friend said:

The sewage of at least three-quarters of the city of Quebec enters into the St. Charles river above the location of this dam and before the work was started an agreement was made with the city of Quebec by which they were to provide for the sewage.

My information is that the contract did not contain any such agreement. What it did contain was an agreement on the part of the city not to ask the Government to pay any of the expenses that might be incurred by reason of any change in the sewerage of the city. It was not a condition that completion of the works was to be dependent upon the sewage being taken care of by the city. All the department has to do is to go ahead with the works, and it will be then for the city of Quebec to attend to their sewage, if it is found necessary to do so.

Mr. CARVELL:

My hon. friend has correctly interpreted my words, and if I put his version of the contract along side of mine, I do not think there will be very much difference between us. He may be using the exact words of the agreement, and I may be paraphrasing them. There is no doubt there was an agreement or understanding with the city of Quebec that they should provide for the sewage. It is quite true we might go on and spend another J2,000,000-it will take that much to finish the works-and then when we had expended that much and waited for three months and found we had a cesspool there causing typhoid fever and other diseases, we would have to say: "We have got to take out these works in order that the city may put in its sewerage." That is not good business. 1

would very much like to go on with ihis work. In July last I had some correspondence with the mayor of Quebec. I called his attention to the fact that the city had not carried out their part of the agreement, and intimated that I did not see how we could go along until some provision was made to take care of the sewage. I think my hon. friend, with his intimate knowledge of the location, is sufficient of an engineer to know exactly what could happen in three or ifour months' time with the small amount of water coming down the St. Charles river, i^ we built that dam and made a pond behind it. Much as I would like to proceed with the work, I do not see how we could go on with it until something is done by the city. If they would make arrangements to do the work we might start simultaneously. But until something is done by which we

10 p.m. are assured that the city will carry out their part of the agreement, I do not think we would be justified in doing anything further.

As to the dredging, I do not think my hon. friend is serious. Unfortunaetly no money can be expended by the Public Works Department which gives so little labour, considering the amount of money expended, as on dredging. Dredging is practically a machine proposition, and very few men are needed to operate a very extensive dredge. Then, on the other hand, if you are going on with the dam proposition and raise the water fifteen feet, you do not need very much dredging, because then you create an artificial lake with fifteen feet more water in it than there is at the present time. So I think my hon. friend, when he thinks it over, will see that it would not be a good business proposition to proceed with these works until some arrangement is come to with the city of Quebec.

Mr. PARENT:

It will take a certain time before the works are finished. In the meantime, if the Government does proceed with the woTk it could get into communication with the city.

Mr. CARVELL:

I would rather make an arrangement first.

Mr. PARENT:

The contract says plainly that the Government will first start the work, and when it is finished the city will attend to its part of the contract. That is the way I understand the terms of the contract. But I understand that my hon. friend is afraid of typhoid and other diseases resulting from the completion of

the dam. I would remind him that there is not only a dam to be erected, but locks also, and when the works are finished it would be very easy to prevent typhoid by opening the locks and letting the river flow through as before. I call my hon. friend's attention specially to this, that an enormous amount of money has been spent on these works, and they are deteriorating while in an incomplete state, so that a lot of money is being lost in that way. If proceeded with I think the country should win out in the end.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Some years ago certain dredging was done at the -mouth of the Little Bras d'Or harbour. I think I brought it to the notice of the minister last year. I do not know whether anything was done to complete the work after we discussed the matter in the House?

Mr. CARVELL:

I think nothing was done.

Mr. McKENZIE:

A good deal of money was spent there some years ago with very excellent results, making a splendid harbour and a good channel to the mouth of the Bras d'Or-creating a new harbour practically. The harbour was there, but there was a bar across the mouth of it. That bar was partly removed and a depth of about twenty-two feet of water obtained. But there are patches here and there that were not cleaned out, and in that way of course the channel is dangerous. The amount of work left undone is comparatively small.

In connection with that I would like to call the attention of the minister to the following. A delegation from North Sydney, consisting of the mayor of that town and Dr. McLean, waited on the minister some six weeks ago in connection with a relatively small amount of dredging at Sydney. I have not heard whether or not anything was done; the only difficulty was the obtaining of a proper dredge to do the work.

Air. CARVELL:

Last year our whole plan was disorganized by the loss of the dredge Cape Breton. Moreover, we had a dredge that was to do some of this work along the coast and then proceed to Yarmouth, but the demand came for the construction of the hydroplane station at North Sydney and the dredge was taken there and remained there during the latter part of the season. There is a dredge now in New Brunswick; it is fitted up and ready to start on Alonday morning to do some of this work. It is to go to Sydney and Bras d'Or and also to North Sydney. It is our intention, unless someumK>' happens that we cannot foresee,

to carry out during the present summer all the work to which my hon. friend has referred.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Where is the dredge that was working at North Sydney in connection with the hydroplane station? Is it still there ?

Mr. CARVELL:

Yes, but that is a suction dredge; the work referred to by my hon. friend must be done by a dipper dredge. There is no dipper dredge in that locality, but one will go down there some time in the early summer.

Air. G. B. NICHOLSON:

Is anything in contemplation with regard to dredging at Little Current? It is anticipated that 150,000 tons of coal will go into Little Current during this season, but because of the condition of the channel only small boats can go to the wharf. Light-draft boats going into the upper lakes with coal cannot carry back large cargoes, and if such boats must be used the difficulty with regard to getting tonnage will be increased.

Mr. CARVELL:

We have no dredge on the lakes that would be available for the work at Little Current. This matter was brought to my attention a number of times last year. But there is another work at Little Current which I think we must go on with. A very serious fire occurred there some months 'ago and the wharves were burned down. While I cannot make any positive announcement, I feel that something must be done at once, and quite a large expenditure will be involved. Whether it will be possible to carry on both works at that important point this summer I am. not sure, but one or the other will be proceeded with. The matter that my hon. friend has directed attention to will certainly be discussed when the Supplementary-Estimates are being prepared.

Air. G. B. NICHOLSON:

I would not like the minister to feel that I suggest for a moment that the dredging should have precedence over the re-construction of the wharf, because the wharf is a vital necessity; they cannot get along without it.

Roads and bridges, $309,000. [DOT]