Mr. CLANCY.
The wharf and the business.
My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) committed himself to the vote one or two sessions ago. That was the time to criticise.
Mr. INGRAM.
Has the department any idea of doing dredging there ?
It is not provided for in this vote.
Mr. INGRAM.
There is no boat of any depth that could pass there-not even a fishing boat. This is another case of resurrecting works for which there is no real demand.
The difficulty in carrying out this work, so far as I know, is that we are waiting for the municipality to transfer the property Mr. LENNOX.
Mr. CLANCY.
Has there been a report as to the work on this pier not being completed without dredging being done ? Has the hon. minister some comprehensive plan
with regard to the harbour to justify the expenditure of this money ?
The work is under contract and is nearly completed. I did not go into the details myself personally, and the matter was in this state when I entered the department.
Mr. CLANCY.
Has there not been a report as to the depth of the water ?
There ought to have been at the time it was asked for. The officers of the department inform me that they have a full report and surveys.
Mr. CLANCY.
What would be the cost of dredging to make the pier more valuable ? There is no use in building the pier, unless there is water to enable the vessels to come in.
I cannot understand the object of building a wharf where there are no vessels. Of course, I have no personal knowledge of the matter. But I shall be pleased to bring down the report regarding it, made before the work was undertaken.
Mr. CLANCY.
The opinion I have is that this money is being expended on a pier on which there is not water for even a small draught vessel to get in. And, even if the work is completed, no captain would think of bringing a vessel there. If that be true, surely the hon. minister is not warranted in asking this House to spend a single dollar until some solution of that difficulty has been found.
The money has been spent. And I see by the report that the work is going on in sixteen feet of water. So, thefe appears to be some mistake in the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Clancy's) information. I speak on the information before me. Parliament voted this appropriation, and the work is under contract and almost completed.
Mr. INGRAM.
That sixteen feet was when the original pier was being built.
No, the present work. Of course, I will not undertake to say that there is sixteen feet of water there.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
I have left the Chair, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Campbell) to give information in this matter. I do not live In this riding, but in the next. But I know Bayfield as well as I know my own home. Some years ago there were very good wharfs there, but, unfortunately a storm carried most of them away. A few years ago, Mr. McMillan, who represented the riding, urged upon the government to build a wharf. This is quite a fishing centre of Lake Huron. Owing to the storms the opening was filled up with a sand bar; and this pier was com-38i
menced two or three years ago and partly constructed, and sunk to about fourteen feet of water. When this is completed the dredging of the sand bar which now prevents the fishing boats from coming in will make it possible for fishermen to reach the dock. I think it is a work very much in the interest of the fishermen. Sometimes a schooner comes in but hardly any large vessels come in there. This is quite a fishing centre, but, if the fishermen have no place to shelter their boats in a storm, it would be impossible to carry on that industry.
Mr. CLANCY.
Then, according to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Deputy Speaker's) statement, we have a pier intended for the fishermen, yet the fishermen cannot get at it until the bar is dredged. But there is no money for dredging purposes.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
I understood the minister to say that the dredging would take place as soon as the wharf was finished.
No, I was not asked that. However, we have a general dredging appropriation, and now that the pier is there the dredging can be done.