Mr. BARNARD.

If the old wharf was in such a dilapidated condition, why was it deemed desirable to spend $3,000 in repairs, especially when there was a vote of $5,000 for a new wharf?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

What we have done is all good work that will form the approach to the new wharf.

Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Was the old wharf a government wharf or a private wharf?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

A private wharf.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Then if private enterprise could build and maintain a private wharf for many years, how is it that the government has now to build a public wharf there?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

That often happens. You will find sometimes that thirty or forty years ago some enterprising man has been in a certain line of business, perhaps shipping lumber, who would build a wharf. He may have failed in business and not have kept the wharf up. In this case the wharf was allowed to go into decay and it has become necessary, if we are to give the people any reasonable accommodation at all, to build a new wharf.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.

Does the government own the land?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I have no memorandum with regard to the title, but I feel sure the title to the approach and to the portion which we have built, the crib-work is in the Crown. If my hon. friend wishes the information, I will have it looked up. I am quite sure that is the case, because I remember the question coming up.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

How far is the wharf from the railway?

Mr. FORTIER.

Ten and a half miles.

Mr. E. ROY.

The best part of the municipality consists of farms along the river.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Without speaking particularly of this wharf, the policy upon which the government are embarking will result in the necessity of building wharfs all over this country. Where private wharfs have existed in the past, we are to have government wharfs in the future. That will be a large undertaking. Take the rivers of this country, both sides of the rivers, wherever a wharf is required, and all indentations of the coast line on both oceans, you will have perhaps 12,000 or 15,000 miles of country upon which the government will have to build wharfs. If you carry that out to the extent of building a $50,000 wharf to accommodate 5,000 or 6,000 people, some of whom' must be fairly well accommodated by a railway, it is going to involve a large policy. Yet I do not see that there will be any escape from it. I know that in the province of Nova Scotia, up to within recent years, the principle was that these wharfs were matters of private enterprise, they were built by private individuals who charged wharfage.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Up to what time was that?

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Up to a recent year, I think. As I have told the minister, I know of one instance in my own county

where there was a very good private wharf, and a government wharf was built within a quarter of a mile of it; if I remember rightly it was at Port Dufferin. The subject was discussed in this House six or seven years ago. I think it is the very wharf about which some inquiry was made in the House the other day, but I am not absolutely sure of the locality, I had letters from the place at the time, on behalf of the persons who were interested in the private wharf, and who bitterly complained because the wharf they had built, and from which they derived a certain revenue, would be practically put out of business by the government wharf. Well, that does not seem to be a very provident system, to say the least of it. I think the government are embarking upon a pretty large undertaking.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It is not this government which is embarking upon this policy. The old government built wharfs along the St. Lawrence many years ago, and I remember it was a great complaint we used to make in New Brunswick that the federal government were building wharfs on the St. Lawrence and the provincial government had to build them in New Brunswick. My hon. friend now speaks of Nova Scotia; but perhaps a little later on this evening, or at some other time, we will hear members of this House upon the opposite side complaining of how many wharfs are being built in Nova Scotia as compared with other sections of Canada. This is not a new policy at all. All governments since confederation have engaged in building wharfs, more or less, regarding it as a policy in the interest of the transportation system of the country. I am prepared to justify the building of wharfs wherever they are necessary for the accommodation of the people. Wharfs are so intimately associated with transportation, and with navigation, they are so much a necessity in aid of navigation, that if there is any work that is properly federal work, it is the construction of wharfs. Of course, we must draw a line as to the extent of expenditure to which we shall go. For instance, if a large expenditure is necessary in order to give accommodation' to a limited number of people, we might hesitate in doing that work. But my hon. friend is entirely wrong when he says that he can fairly take the cost of this wharf as a measure of the cost of all other wharfs wdiich are to be constructed. If my hon. friend looks at the expenditure made upon other wharfs he will see they do not at all come up, upon the average, to the cost of this one.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Why should this one come up so high?

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Because the local conditions are such as to make it necessary to Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

expend more than is usually expended upon wharfs of this character. The physical features of the site often make a great difference in the cost. We can build in one place a wharf for $5,000, whereas in another place we might have to spend, owing to the physical conditions, $10,000 to build a wharf not any better, and perhaps not as good. A great deal depends upon the length of the approach, or how far you have to build your crib-work out in order to get a depth of water sufficient to accommodate steamers. In many cases you will get that depth at fifty feet, and in other places you might have to go out 100 feet or 300 feet to get the same depth of water, and to get the same accommodation for steamers. All these things affect the cost of the wharf. I think in this case wre are justified in expending this amount of money in order to give this accommodation to the people. Here are some 5,000 or 6,000 people whose natural market is the city of Quebec. There is no railway, as has been pointed out, from that portion of the province to the city of Quebec. To take the produce down that railway to Levis and cart it across to the city of Quebec, adds so much to the cost of transportation as to give no profit to the farmers. I think the expenditure, while it is large, can well be justified by reason of the advantage which we give to the people.

Mr. PERLEY.

I do not think the minister has made out a good case for this particular wharf. No one objects to the government building wharfs where they are needed. The minister is continually harping upon what the Conservative party did in the old days; if he followed them a little moTe closely perhaps he would get on better. He talks about their spending money on wharfs; certainly they did. As a matter of fact, last year thi3 government expended on public works nearly $15,000,000, and in the days of the Conservative party the expenditure was from ten to twenty per cent of that amount. I have no objection to this particular wharf, except that I think the cost is extravagant.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

The country has trebled in business since that time.

Mr. PERLEY.

But the government is spending eight or ten times as much money on wharfs, and if they were spending it well, I would not mind. But the minister has not yet read us any report from an engineer of his department saying that this wharf was needed at this particular place, a wharf that he estimates will cost $46,000. According to past experience with this government, it is likely to cost $70,000 or $80,000 before they get through with it. The wharf is at a place where there is no incorporated village. We cannot see the

place, and we cannot see these wharfs to judge for ourselves. But here is one across the river at Hull which we can see, and it is an expensive wharf, practically no value to any body. Even there it is built in a city of 10,000 people, but it is hardly used at all. Many of these wharfs built by the government are in places where they are not required, and the government often build wharfs costing four or five times as much as it is necessary to spend, because a wharf costing a quarter of the amount would answer the purpose just as well.

Mr. FORTIER.

The village of Ste. Croix is not a large town, but it is the chief place in the county. There are six or seven important merchants doing business there, ami a bank and the registry office is located at that point. Unless this accommodation is provided, all the products of farmers will have to go by the Intercolonial railway to Levis, at which point they will have to be transferred to the boat and then taken across the river to Quebec. Instead of doing that, when this wharf is constructed, the produce will be placed on the boat at Ste. Croix and go straight to Quebec, which is the market of the farmers of Lotbiniere. This service is now performed by two boats which call at St. Jean des Chaillons and carry the produce to Quebec. One of these boats goes every fifteen days to Montreal with cheese, butter, potatoes and other products intended for shipment to Europe. With regard to the old wharf, I would like to remind my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that it was built only for the accommodation of sail boats. There is not a sufficient depth of water, and these sail boats could only go to this, wharf at high tide.