May 30, 1929

CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

I think the shipping cf

the harbour justifies that expenditure.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

The present shipping does not. It depends to a large extent upon the relative merits of Port Hope and Cobourg with regard to certain shipments of coal and ore that are liable to go to the one place or the other. When this was started a year ago it looked as though those were going to go to -Cobourg. It looks now as if the parties most directly interested have some notion of using Port Hope.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

I think that that traffic

is temporarily diverted due to the present condition of Cobourg harbour. That is my understanding of the matter.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Either harbour is available for use at the present time.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

Not for unloading coal

from the esplanade, as it has all slid into the harbour as well as some of the railway track.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

They cannot do it ai

Port Hope either.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

I understand that soma

of the Shipments of the coal company go to Port Hope in preference to Cobourg.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Did my hon. friend say

that he understood that they were going to Port Hope in preference to Cobourg?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Well, that is the information we have.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

It is due to the esplanade at Cobourg being unavailable,

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Oh, no, because there :s

no accommodation at Port Hope now.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

Certainly they cannot land and unload at Cobourg. That is the fact. I would like to ask the minister if he will have placed in the supplementary estimates an amount at least necessairy for the work on the esplanade. Has the minister had an engineer on the ground and been advised as to the present condition of the esplanade?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Our engineers have been going as rapidly -as they can all over the flooded areas where the washouts have been particularly heavy this spring. I do not know that there is a very recent report in regard to Cobourg, but we know pretty well the condition there through various reports that have reached the department. My hon. friend asks if It is our intention to put in the supplementary estimates an amount to provide for harbour improvements at the esplanade. I would call his attention to the fact that the item already in the estimates at page 41 is an item for Cobourg harbour improvements, $75,000. That is for the esplanade and dredging in the harbour.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

I understand from the estimates that that is only a revote of the $75,000 that was voted last year, and that that was being expended upon dredging -and some repairs to a pier.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Of that amount $34,000 is a new vote entirely; $41,000 is a revote.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

Milton Edgar Maybee

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAYBEE:

My understanding is that it will require that or more for dredging.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

The minister stated that some fifteen years ago the principle was recognized of giving grants toward the construction of interprovincial bridges. Sixteen years ago the principle was recognized of giving grants to bridges, within municipalities, that crossed public harbours. An aot was .passed by this

Supply-Public Works-Bridges

parliament in 1913-I cannot at this moment give the name of the act, but it was a subsidy act for the purpose of assisting in the construction of a bridge over the public harbour of Vancouver. Unfortunately the war intervened and the bridge was not constructed within the period of time laid down in the act. After-the war the demand for a bridge in that particular part of the harbour was so urgent that the municipalities surrounding, the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, constructed the bridge. This government declined-well, I would not say they declined to give a contribution at that time, but the contribution was made through the harbour board of the city of Vancouver. In that particular instance it was very natural that the contribution should be made in that way, because the bridge was a toll bridge and the harbour board of the city of Vancouver will be able to liquidate the advance through the return on the investment, because it is a paying proposition and eventually they will receive back dollar for dollar that has been advanced. For some years past the city of Vancouver has suffered greatly owing to the lack of a bridge across another portion of the public harbour from the foot of Burrard street over False creek. I want to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that in this instance all the international traffic that comes into the city of Vancouver must necessarily cross that public harbour at one or other of two or three points on False creek. There is great congestion of traffic. It has been almost unanimously recognized that another bridge must be provided. With that in view, the province of British Columbia has agreed to contribute a very substantial sum of .money towards that bridge. The Canadian Pacific Railway has agreed to contribute a very substantial sum of money towards that bridge. The city of Vancouver was quite prepared to contribute the major portion required for its erection, but it did request the Dominion government to make a contribution inasmuch as the bridge crosses a public harbour. Now the principle has been recognized of contributions towards interprovincial bridges; the principle was recognized by statute sixteen years ago of contributions towards bridges crossing public harbours, and the principle is' recognized of contributions towards international bridges. And I would point out that an enormous amount of international traffic crosses the bridges over Vancouver harbour. Recently, and after this government's refusal to make a contribution, a by-law was submitted to the electors of Vancouver for the construction of this bridge, involving payment by the city of 78594-194

Vancouver of the total cost with the exception of the contributions by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the provincial government. But although the people voted on that by-law and indicated that a tremendous majority was in favour of the bridge, the bylaw was unfortunately defeated by a few votes because it required a two thirds majority. Since the defeat of the by-law I have received numerous letters on this subject from public bodies and others, which indicate to me the certainty that the bridge must be built, for the city is suffering in the meantime to a great extent through want of it. In view of these facts is the minister prepared to do what he has done-and I am not criticising him for having done it-in connection with the interprovincial bridge at Hawkesbury? In this case, apparently, the government is prepared to take the initiative; but I would point out that in the matter of the bridge which I am discussing the initiative has been taken by the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver. There is an urgent demand for that bridge. In view of these circumstances will the minister not consider placing in the supplementary estimates a vote as an offer to the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia that if they wish to proceed with the construction of the bridge this government will contribute a sum sufficient to take care of the extra cost entailed, by the fact that the bridge crosses a public harbour belonging to this country and a harbour which must be protected.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

The matter my hon. friend has brought up has received a good deal of attention by the department. He knows, of course, that this is not an interprovincial bridge but a bridge within a harbour in the province and within the city. It does not come within the category of the interprovincial bridges.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
Permalink
CON

May 30, 1929