Mr. PUGSLEY:

I think the Government is acting wisely in, increasing the rate of interest to four and one-half per cent. Investment in dry docks has not proven very attractive to capitalists.

A Dry-dock Act has been on the statute-book since 1882. Various attempts have been made to construct dry-docks under its provisions but no dock of the first class has been built. Under the Act as first passed the subsidy was at the rate of three per cent of the cost. It w,as afterwards increased to three and a half per cent, and then to four per cent. Even with the increases from time to time, there has been very little done in the way of taking advantage of the offer. Some docks of the second class have been constructed; for instance one at Collingwood. I think that

was followed by a second one of the second class. There is also a dock at Port Arthur. Then there is a floating dock at Montreal, and one at Prince Rupert. A graving dock of the first class is pretty expensive. The cost would run up to $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 and the capitalists have not found the proposition sufficiently attractive to take hold of it. In view of the high rate of interest to-day,. I should think that four .and a half per cent would be a reasonable rate of interest to prescribe. With regard to the other . change, that bonds may be issued when $1,000,000 has been expended, I observe by the Bill that the proportion is only 75 per cent. My experience was, when I was a minister that one of the serious drawbacks against capitalists taking hold of the proposition was that the investor felt that his security ought not to be dependent in any way on the ability o.f the company to operate the dock. Under the original statute it was provided that, if at any time the company should cease to operate the dock, the interest on the subsidy should cease. The matter was brought to the attention of the late Government when I was Minister of Public Works and Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance. The Government recognized that objectionable feature of the statute and a change was made by which it was provided' that when the Government accepted the work and engaged to pay the interest that should be irrevocable and should continue for the period specified , whether the dry-dock was operated or not. Provision was made that the Government should take charge of the dry-dock and operate it, charging up any expenses of operation to the company, but notwithstanding, the paymeent of the subsidy should continue for the specified period. As I understand, the only change that is now made is that an agreement is made by you to pay the subsidy on what you might call progress estimates, no payment to be made until the expenditure has reached the sum of $1,090,000. I should suppose that the margin of 25 per cent ought to be reasonably .sufficient to ensure the full completion of the dry-dock, 'and also that it would be a desirable change make because you can understand how difficult it would .be for any company to finance the whole $5,000,000. It makes it an easier proposition if bonds on progress estimates can be financed during construction. On the whole I would think that the change is a reasonable one. The subsidy is limited to cases where, in the opinion of the Government, a dock of the first class is

necessary in the public interest. I very heartily approve of the Bill. I think there is one slight change that ought to be made.

Mr. HAZEN:

You want to put in the

words "per annum?"

Mr. PU'GSLEY: Yes.

Mr. HAZEN:

I have that noted.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax):

What ie the policy of the Government with respect to the construction of a dry dock at Halifax? There has been, in the annual estimates, for some years, a sum. for the construction of a dock there, and I have always understood that it was provided for the reason that it would be required partially for naval services. I also understand that on .many occasions the British Admiralty have urged the construction of a dock of the first class at that port. When this resolution was introduced,

I said that the policy of paying a certain rate of interest for a period of years on an issue of bonds was calculated to encourage purely promotion schemes, which was undesirable. The chances of an expensive dry dock being a very profitable project in Canada are very slight indeed either on the Pacific or Atlantic coast. I did urge on that occasion that great care should be taken by the Government in entering into contracts for the construction of dry docks. A dock, for instance, should not be constructed at Yarmouth, N.S., or somewhere on the. St. Lawrence under the Act, simply because some promoter represents to the Government that l^e desires and is in a position to construct such work. That would be bad policy. The point I wished to. make, however, was that if it is the policy of the Government, or the desire of the British Admiralty to have a dock of the first class at the port of Halifax, primarily or partially for na'val purposes, the question then arises whether or not the Government should build the dock of Canada in conjunction with the British Admiralty. I have an idea that if the Government secured the services of a reputable contractor to build the. dry dock upon the basis of bost, plus a small percentage, of profit, in the end a very substantial amount would be saved in the construction. I would not be surprised but that a competent contractor, building on a force contract basis, could build a $5,000,000 dry dock for at least $1,000,000 less than would be required by a company. I fear it is the practice of private companies, when constructing dry docks to increase improperly

the cost of construction. I would like to present that view to the minister, and I would like to know if the construction of a dry-dock at Halifax for naval and commercial purposes has been considered as a matter of policy by the Government.

Mr. HAZEN:

There is now a subsidized dry dock at Halifax which, of course, is the naval station on the Atlantic coast, and a very important point. That dock was built with aid from the Government of Canada, the British Government, the Government of Nova Scotia, and the city of Halifax. It has served a very useful purpose, and during the war has been extremely busy all the time. It is not, however, a dock of the first class. The first-class dock of to-day is 1,150 feet in length, and the standard fixed under this Bill is 125 feet width at'the base. The Halifax dock is about 600 feet long. It is most desirable, in the interests of Canada and of the Empire, that there should be a large dry dock at an important naval station such as Halifax. That matter has been considered by the Government. I understand that my hon. friend suggests that the tendency of an Act such as this will be to induce promoters and speculators to embark upon enterprises of this sort. I do not think there is much danger of that occurring, judging from what has taken place in the past, because, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), no dry dock of the first class has been built under the provisions of the Dry Dock Act up to the present time, and I doubt whether, even with the changes being effected now, promoters, people not bona fide interested in the development of shipping, will be induced to go into enterprises of this sort, because the maintenance of a dock after construction involves large expenditures, and unless those who build such docks can see a fair prospect, after completing the dock and supplying the plant, of doing a considerable volume of business at a fair profit, it is most unlikely that they will put their money into such an enterprise.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

There is no guarantee of principal.

Mr. HAZEN:

No. All they get is this amount for a period of thirty-five years, and the amount is barely sufficient, if it is sufficient, to pay the interest on the full amount. Thus they must desire a considerable revenue from the operations of the dock. It is very desirable that, at Halifax on the east coast, and at some point on the

west coast, Esquimalt or Vancouver, there should be first-class docks, in the interest of the defence and of the

trade of Canada, and also ' of the

larger interests of the Empire. The matter has been considered by the Government, and no doubt by previous governments, and when the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) then Minister of Public Works was in England in March and April last, the matter was taken up with the Imperial authorities. He had many interviews with officials of the Admiralty, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, and urged the necessity, from the standpoint of the Empire itself, of constructing docks on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, of a size that fwould make them available for the accommodation of the largest war vessels and commercial vessels now afloat. The hon. member for Winnipeg has just informed me that he has some interesting correspondence on that subject which he had with members of the British Government, but that it is impossible for him to lay his hand on it this afternoon; and he has suggested that the matter be allowed to stand until the next sitting so that he may have an opportunity of giving that information to the House in more detail than he can do to-day. Under those circumstances, I suggest that we pass the second reading, with the understanding that we go into committee on the Bill at the next sitting.

Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.

Mr. NESBITT:

How much is there in the main estimates for this?

Mr. HAZEN:

Nothing.

Mr. MURPHY:

Is this a new work?

Mr. HAZEN:

It is an extension of an old work.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Will the minister explain it?

Mr. HAZEN:

The acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Reid) is away to-day, and has asked me to bring the matter before the committee. It was before the committee on a previous occasion and there was some criticism of it. A good many years ago, during the time that the constituency

of St. John was represented by the late Hon. Isaac Burpee, it was decided to extend this breakwater running from the western shore of St. John harbour to Partridge island.

Mr. PTJGSLEY:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring before you the question of the irregularity of the present proceedings. I do not think the committee is properly constituted. There was no motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair. On every day except Thursday and Friday, the Speaker can only leave the Chair on motion put. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) rose to his feet and was desirous of making some remarks. Under the rule, the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion put on Thursdays and Fridays.

Mr. HAZEN:

My understanding was that on Saturdays the same rule prevailed as on Fridays, and I think that will be found in the motion to take Saturdays.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

The motion, which I have before one, reads that the order of precedence on Saturday shall be the same as on Fridays. That does not change the rule that on all days except Thursday and Friday the Speaker can only leave the Chair on motion put.

Mr. HAZEN:

I have been proceeding on the idea that on Saturdays exactly the same procedure shall be followed as on Fridays.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

My hon. friend will see how important it is.