There may be duplication here, Mr. Speaker, I gave an answer to question No. 3, asked by the same hon. gentleman, and that question appears to be repeated as question No. 5. I think both questions may now be answered with the information I have given.
1. Referring to sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, when was the plan contained therein and showing proposed inside extension of Riviere-du-Loup wharf (a) drafted; (b) signed, and (c) received by the Department of Public Works in Ottawa?
2. Before or after the said plan showing proposed coppered steel sheet piling was drafted, signed and received in Ottawa, were any soundings taken around the said proposed piling?
3. If so, when and what are they?
4. If not, why, and how did the government (a) figure out, and (b) approve the estimated cost of that work, as it appears from vote No. 114 of the estimates for 1935-1936?
5. Is there any regulation in force in order to have plans drafted for the extension of wharves without preliminary soundings being taken ?
1. The plan contained in sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, is a photostat made from a print submitted .by the district engineer to illustrate his report .dated March 15, 1934. It is a copy of the plan which accompanied his report dated August 30, 1930, and showing soundings of dredging operations in front of the wharf at Riviere-du-Loup. He used a copy of this old plan, on which he added in outline the proposed extensions in. front and in the rear of the landing-head of the wharf, dealt with in his report of March 15, 1934.
2. Soundings were taken in connection with dredging operations in 1933, which information was available to the district engineer in preparing his comparative estimates for wharf extensions, including the steed sheet piling projects.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.
5. Plans for wharf extensions are always based on preliminary soundings.
1. Does the plan of the proposed coppered steel_ sheet piling of the proposed extension to Riviere-du-Loup wharf contained in sessional paper No. 200, reference No. 91 of February 25, 1935, show the length of the western side of that piling (a) outside the wharf; (to) inside the wharf?
2. If not, what are they?
3. Does it show the length of that piling from east to west?
4. If not, what is it?
5. What is the proposed length of the east side of the head block of the wharf including that of the proposed piling?
6. Has the department ascertained the nature pf the bottom of the river right over which it is proposed to construct such piling, in order to describe the nature of the footings required for its structure?
1 to 5. The plan shows in a general way the existing landing-head, measuring 50 feet in width at the east and west ends, and 260 feet long to be enclosed, as well as the proposed triangular extension to the rear, with steel sheet piling extending around a length of some 620 feet of wharf face.
6. Borings have been taken around the landing-head of the wharf.
7. Barings made in May 1933; bottom for penetration of steel piling consists of sand, clay and stones.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am responsible for the preparation of this address, and I find there are two slight corrections I should like to make. I therefore suggest that I should hand to the clerk of the house a corrected copy and have it reprinted to-morrow, so there will be no doubt as to the actual terms of the address.