Mr. CARVELL:

I must protest against this section. This raises the question that we have been discussing in New Brunswick for three or four years. We want this road built, and we want these bridges built. If section 5 goes through as now proposed, these bridges cannot be touched for a year. The province of New Brunswick is guaranteeing bonds to the extent of $7,000,000, paying it over to a lot of bright, shrewd Yankees in New York, who are using up what little^is necessary to build the road, and are putting the balance into their pockets, or paying it out for political purposes. That railway is of no use without these bridges; and, if section 5 goes through these bridges cannot be touched for a year,

because the legislature of New Brunswick will not meet until say March of next year.

Mr. BORDEN:

Has the legislature prorogued?

Mr. CARVELL:

Yes, and it simply means deferring this matter for a year. If a bridge across the St. John river is going to cost $2,000,000, it cannot be built in one year, or in two years. If the work is to be postponed for a year, it will take three or four years after that to complete the bridge, so that it will be four or five years before Grand Trunk Pacific business can go into the city of St. John. It is a fact that neither the Government of New Brunswick nor the Government of Canada will be justified in spending a dollar on this road if it is not for the purpose of opening up a highway from the West into the city of St. John. Of course, some money must be spent in building branch lines, tout the idea is to build a through road, and, unless it be a through road, the province of New Brunswick will be bankrupt, because it will have $7,000,000 tied up in one road, and that will be a tremendous financial strain upon the province. Unless this road is so built that it makes a through highway for western business into the city of St. John and gives the people of the province something to do, I do not know what will become of the province. I wish I could make my hon. friends opposite realize the importance of this matter to the province from a financial standpoint. Very serious charges have been made in the provincial legislature regarding the construction of this road. I have made the statement here, and nobody has dared to deny it, that it is not a first-class or a second-class or even a third-class road that is being built. I do not believe it is the intention even to go to Grand Falls. I listened the other day to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in regard to this matter; and, without cross-examining him, I thought we would have an opportunity of discussing the matter at the committee stage. I understood him to say that, according to Mr. Montserrat's estimate, $3,000,000 would be necessary to build the three bridges-one across the St. John river at or near Andover, one across the St. John river at or near Nistake, and one across the Kennebecasis river at or near Perry Point.

Mr. BORDEN- ^he Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been detained owing to

an important engagement. He is much more familiar with the object of thb legislation than either the acting Minister of Railways and Canals or myself. 1 Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. member for Carleton that we let the Bill remain in Committee until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is able to be here, and then we can consider my hon. friend's suggestion as to the elimination of this section.

Mr. CARVELL:

That is satisfactory to

me. The whole gist of the Bill is contained in section 5, because, if this goes through and we cannot commence the building of the bridges for another year, it will be four or five years before they can be completed.

Progress reported.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Will the minister please explain this resolution ?

Mr. ROGERS:

This resolution is presented to meet the difficulties that are found in raising the necessary capital for the construction of a first-class dry-dock. Hon. members will understand that a first-class dry-dock is one that is not less than 1,150 feet in length, with a width of 116 feet and a depth of 37 feet. Under the old Act, the subsidy was based upon an amount equal to three and a half per cent of the cost of such a dry-dock. Section 8 of that Act provided:

The subsidy payable in respect of dry docks which have been constructed under this Act shall be-

(a) if of the first-class, a sum not exceeding three and one-half per cent of the cost of the work, as fixed and determined under subsection 2 of this section, each year during a period not exceeding thirty-five years from the time the Governor in Council has determined, under this Act, that the work has been completed.

Subsection 2 provides:

The cost on which the subsidy shall be calculated shall be fixed and determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, based upon the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Public

Works, accompanied by plan,, and specifications of the proposed works, and such cost shall include the cost of all necessary equipment, machinery and plant, and any sum bona fide expended or to be expended by the company in the purchase of a site for the dry-dock, but shall not include the value of any site received or to be received by the company by way of bonus or gift; and the amount of the subsidy shall be so fixed and determined before the agreement for payment of the subsidy is entered into.

In view of the cost of money at the present time it has been found impossible for companies to undertake the construction of a first-class dry-dock on the basis of a subsidy of three and a half per cent, and it is proposed to increase it to four per cent. We have at present .a crying demand from Vancouver for a dry-dock of first-class dimensions, and it is apparently impossible to get any company to undertake the work on a basis of a three and a half per cent subsidy.

Mr. CARVELL:

I presume that I shall be correct if I understand the minister as saying that this applies to docks for which contracts have been entered into as well as for those to be contracted for in the future ?

Mr. ROGERS:

No; this applies to the future only; there is nothing retroactive about it.

Mr. CARVELL:

Does not the hon. minister think it could be extended ? For instance, take the case of the dry-dock at St. John. As he knows, a company is building a dry-dock, and I think I am safe in saying though I have no personal knowledge of the matter, that on account of the financial stringency iabout which we heard so much from the Minister of Finance last evening, they have difficulty in financing on a basis of three and a half per cent for thirty-five years. Would not he feel justified in extending this increased subsidy to the dry-dock at St. John just as though the work were in the future ? It is true, the dry-dock has been commenced and a large amount of work has been done; but it seems to me it would be reasonable and fair, and in the public interest, that this should be made retroactive to cover the case of dry-docks in the course of construction. Let me point out another thing. The dry-dock in St. John, as I understand it, may not come under the head of a first-class dry-dock as the minister has described it or in commercial language. It is only 900 feet long, but they are building in Levis, and I think on the Pacific coast, docks 1,100 feet long. Would it not be reasonable

for the minister to include the St. John dry-dock in this resolution and provide that it be made a first-class modern dry-dock in .every respect ? I hope he will see his way clear to carry out this idea.

Mr. ROGERS:

The same conditions that apply to St. John would apply to other cases as well-to the case of the Montreal dock, for instance. And I do not see how it would be possible to stop even there. We should have to go back to other docks that have been subsidized under contract made with the Government and with Parliament. In the case of the dry-dock at St. John, we have there a reputable company, as I understand it, that has undertaken to construct a dry-dock and has made a definite and specific contract to carry out that work on the basis of three and one-half per cent. I do not see how it would be possible for me to recommend that we make this legislation retroactive. In the case of the St. John dry-dock, we have offered the contractors who have made a contract on the basis of a dry-dock of 900 feet that whatever amount a dock of 1,100 feet would cost, we will extend the contract on that basis should they desire it. I do not think it would be the part of wisdom to make the legislation retroactive, because as I have said, it would be impossible to stop at the case of St. John, but we should have to include the dock at Montreal and even go back to the beginning of the building of dry-docks. I do not think it would be possible.

Mr. CARVELL:

I do not think there are as many lions in the path as the hon. minister seems to think. He is looking at this matter through distorted glasses. Not many dry-docks have been constructed under this Act. I do not think there is a first-class dry-dock in Canada, except the floating dock at Montreal. I speak subject to correction. I think the minister would not be violating any principle if he extended the scope of this resolution to include the St. John dry-dock. He says he will agree with the contractors to build a dock of 1,100 feet if they do it on the same basis as that on which they are now building the dock of 900 feet. But these terms are very onerous; the more docks you build on those terms the poorer you are. When you have a bond the interest on which is guaranteed for thirty-five years at three and one-half per cent, you have not a very saleable proposition under present financial conditions. When my hon. friend asks this company to extend their

dock 200 feet under the present conditions, he is only putting them in a position to lose more money.

Mr. ROGERS:

We did not aisk them to do it.

Mr. CARVELL:

When the people of St. John asks them to do it and my hon. friend comes back with this offer, it is only asking these people to lose more money than they are doing now. It seems to me that if the minister would make this retroactive so fair 'as the St. John dock is concerned, he would give us in St. John the opportunity of having a really first-class dry-dock 1,100 feet in length, the same as those at Levis, on the Pacific coast, and, I believe, at Halifax. I consider that this is only a reasonable request >amd I still hope that, notwithstanding my horn. friend's rather pronounced views on the subject, he and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be able to get together and put St. John in the same position as these other great national ports.

Mir. ROGERS:

The considerations that

would apply to first-class dry-docks would also apply to second-class dry-docks, so that this would have to be done at Port Arthur, Montreal, Prince Rupert, Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto and St. John. But I do not see how it would be possible to carry out such legislation as the hon. member has suggested by reason of the fact that if we adopt any retroactive legislation it would have to be applied to all of these dry-docks.

Mir. HEMIEUX:

I quite sympathize with the view taken by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). I do not know personally of the case at St. John except by rumour and by what is being published in the press. I know that this great dock will revolutionize things at St. John. The effect of the establishment of a floating dry-dock in Montreal by the Vickers firm has certainly been to improve the condition of our whole transportation system. As pioneers in that new industry, the Vickers are certainly entitled to preferential treatment, and I know that they are at present asking the assistance of the Government to recoup them for the very large expenditure which they have made in order to give Montreal and the St. Lawrence the benefit of their dock. Since the establishment of that floating dock many ships which have suffered accident have been repaired in Montreal. Still it has

not yet become a paying institution and I am quite sure that if the Government would apply the present legislation to the few cases which exist, making it retroactive for these few cases, it would be simply doing justice to the pioneers. I would like to put in a good word for the Vickers Company because they have certainly improved considerably the conditions of transportation in the St. Lawrence, and especially in Montreal.

Mr. ROGERS:

We all appreciate what

the Vickers Company have done in the construction of the dry-dock in Montreal which is giving, as I understand, entire satisfaction. At the same time in view of the fact that a strong company, such as the Vickers, have made a contract foT the construction and operation of this dock,

I do not see how we could fairly ask Parliament to amend the subsidy after the work has been practically completed and give them an advance on the subsidy for which they had already contracted to build the dock. It is true that there was an understanding, implied or otherwise, at the time 12 noon, they made the contract, that ' they were going to have the opportunity of building a navy for my hon. friends opposite in the city of Montreal,. and that, in view of that prospective work, they made a contract for the building of a dry dock at a lower rate than they probably otherwise would have asked. I for one would be very glad, if possible, to amend the Subsidy Act in some way that would lend them assistance, because of the fact that their dock is giving entire satisfaction; but if you do that in the case of Montreal, why not in the case of Prince Rupert or Port Arthur or the Sault or Collingwood? That is the difficulty that confronts us. Otherwise I would be very glad to yield to the recommendation of my hon. friend, but I do not think it would be possible to do so.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

The answer of my hon. friend is so far very satisfactory. I wish to say something, however, as to the suggestion thrown out by my hon. friend as regards the proposed Canadian navy. My hon. friend has supplied us with an excellent argument which was combatted by hon. gentlemen opposite when the discussion took place last year, namely that we were in a position to build a navy in Canada. Now, it is perfectly true that when the Vickers established" their

floating dock in Montreal, with their shipyards, they had in mind that, possibly in the near future, they would receive orders for the proposed Canadian navy. They were entitled to expect that, and if it is true that they believed that they would receive such orders. Is it not then, surprising that the Prime Minister last year contended that for fifty years Canada would be unable to build ships? I remember perfectly the circumstances of the establishment of the Vickers shipyard in Montreal. They stated then, and they state today, that if the Government would live up to the expectations which were given in 1910, they would certainly undertake to build, not the dreadnoughts but the smaller cruisers which would be a part of the Canadian navy. I do not wish to start a debate on the Canadian navy, but I am glad to hear my hon. friend confirm the statement made by several members of the Liberal party last year that if Canada wanted a navy our own shipyards could build the vessels.

Mr. CARVELL:

Perhaps it would not be out of the way for me to recall to hon. gentlemen opposite that what has been said about Montreal is true of St. John to a greater degree, because in the case of St. John there was a tender to build part of those vessels, and it was the lowest tender; and my hon. friends opposite had the deposit in their hands when they came into power, but they returned it. I have no doubt whatever that the promoters of the dry-dock in St. John believed-I happen to know they had very good reason for believing-that a portion of those vessels would be built in St. John. I happen to know, and I think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works know, that Norton, Griffiths and Company were working in conjunction with Cammell, Laird and Company, who were the contractors for me war vessels; and there is no doubt that the Government have obtained a better contract with Norton Griffiths and Company for the construction of the dry-dock and harbour works by reason of that company's expectation of building a portion of those vessels. Norton Griffiths and Company were influenced, no doubt, by a contract which they had with Cammell, Laird and [DOT]Company for the construction of the war vessels. I have some knowledge of this, for I was present when the contract was drawn up between these companies, and I repeat that Norton Griffiths and Company

were largely influenced in tneir tender for tire construction of this dry-dock and harbour works by the fact that they expected to work in conjunction with -Camm-ell, Laird and Company for the construction of a portion of these war vessels. I believe the 'Government to-day has a mu-ch more favourable contract with Norton Griffiths and Company by reason of that expectation, which has not been fulfilled, than they would have got without it. 1 had not intended to refer to this, but as the Minister of Public Works has brought the question up, ll give it as an additional reason why the St. John dry-dock and harbour should be treated as generously as the dry-dock at Levis, at Halifax, and the one on the Pacific coast.