Mr. STIRLING:

I do not think the minister answered the question just asked as to whether the buildings in the camps will be disposed of.

Mr. ROGERS:

I think I answered it; I think I said that the physical equipment-

Mr. STIRLING:

That is the contents, but what about the buildings, the lumber?

Mr. ROGERS:

None of that has been transferred to the Department of Labour; it all belongs to the Department of National Defence, and that question is under discussion between the two departments.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Does the minister think it is wise to dispose of the buildings or the equipment? We may be as optimistic as we please, but we must be realistic too. I was recently in a camp where there were fifty-eight men whose average age was fifty-four, unable to look after themselves. I am quite convinced either that our institutions for aged people will have to be greatly enlarged or that something will have to be done in the way of camps for this class of men.

Then, however optimistic the government may be, I am convinced that under the measures taken by parliament at the present time there is no possibility of providing employment for all single and married unemployed persons in the Dominion of Canada within a measurable time, so I suggest that very careful consideration be given to the matter before disposing of the buildings and equipment.

Mr. MacNICOL:

When the house rose on May 8, I believe one of the items under discussion was that referring to the Richelieu river improvements, and in connection with that item I should like to make a few observations. From what the minister said at that time it would appear that this expenditure of $500,000 is only an initial amount, and that the ultimate improvements in connection with Richelieu navigation may cost about $10,000,000 or $12,000,000.

In the course of his remarks the minister referred to two of the proposed junction canals from the St. Lawrence river system to the Richelieu system, one from Chambly and, if I remember correctly, the other from lake St. Francis, which might be considered in the future. The subject of canals and everything pertinent to the waterways of this country and those of the United States has long been a study of my own. I have in mind the fact that in 1897 the report sent by the Deep Waterways Commission to the United States government, and later confirmed in the 1919 report of the War Department of the United States, proposed several other routes including the two mentioned by the minister. As I understand the situation, those routes would tap the traffic in the St. Lawrence system and divert it from Montreal and the St. Lawrence river east of Montreal to the Richer lieu system, and via the Hudson river system to New York.

One of the routes began in the two western lakes, namely lake Superior and lake Michigan, afterwards entering lake Huron. From lake Huron one route according to the map I have, proceeded through lake Nipissing and the Ottawa river to lake St. Louis, and then from the west end of lake St. Louis over to Chambly on the Richelieu. From that point it went on up over the height of land and down through the Hudson river to New York. Another route which is not commonly referred to, but which is shown on the map, was to leave Georgian bay at the mouth of the Nottawasaga river, then overland, I assume, via the Nottawasaga valley and the Humber valley to Toronto, then by lake Ontario to Oswego and the Erie canal, or down the St. Lawrence to lake St. Francis, and from lake

St. Francis over to lake Champlain at a point near Plat.tsburg.

Another proposal was to divert the traffic by lake Michigan and the Chicago canal to the Illinois river, the Mississippi river and then to New Orleans. Personally I am opposed to any proposal which would divert traffic that should follow the St. Lawrence river to Montreal harbour and the river, east. The St. Lawrence river route is the natural route for traffic from the west via water, and the route via the Richelieu, river, the Chambly canal and the Hudson river is an unnatural route. The United States Champlain canal, from the point where it enters the Hudson .river at the Mohawk river is and for some years has been canalized to take care of boats of considerable length. I believe the locks are 331 feet long and 45 feet wide, with a draft of twelve feet. As I understand the matter, the minister proposes to follow up with other locks in the Richelieu river to permit traffic up that river of boats which would pass, through the Champlain canal locks. The locks are to be 339 feet by 49 feet, with a twelve foot draft. I cannot help feeling that that would divert from the St. Lawrence system a great deal of traffic that should be going down that river. That traffic should go from Montreal down to the sea by the natural route. It is some considerable distance longer by way of New York than by way of Montreal to Father Point, which is in the deep water section of the St. Lawrence river.

After referring to these maps which I secured some years ago from the War Department, during trips to Washington, I wonder if the department is certain that the building of the canal would be beneficial to Canada. Personally I do not believe it would. I feel that any diversion of St. Lawrence traffic down the Hudson river would be detrimental to traffic in the St. Lawrence river which is Canada's great artery and certainly the natural route. Unless the United States up traffic is particularly beneficial, I cannot see how it would be of great benefit to the boats using the system, because of the elevation that ships would have to ascend from Sorel to the south end of lake Champlain where Champlain canal commences. I believe it rises about ninety f-eet in all, then from lake Champlain up over the height of land and into the Hudson river, which I believe is up about forty-five feet and down about 140 feet, before it enters into the Hudson river near Albany. It is to cost $500,000, and then later millions will have to be paid out. In my opinion that large amount of money might be better spent in Montreal harbour and the route east from that harbour.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers

The Montreal Standard of March 30 has a little item headed "Low water in port vexing problem. Channel control now suggested. Montreal port future menaced." That is just one of many articles which have appeared in the papers for some time past. In my humble opinion it would be much better to spend this money on deepening the Montreal harbour or providing works east of Montreal or improving the St. Lawrence river. I do not know if the minister can change the item from the Richelieu to the S;t. Lawrence river, but I hope it is possible to do so. I am not opposing the spending of this money because it will provide work, but I would much rather see this ten or twelve million dollars, which the minister has given as an estimate of the eventual cost, spent in Montreal harbour and on the river east of Montreal than on the Richelieu river.

Mr. STEWART:

When we left off the

discussion of this item on a previous occasion I had raised certain objections to this expenditure. There are two very serious objections to it at this time. The first is the amount of this item itself, but more serious than that is the fact that it commits the Dominion of Canada to a very much larger expenditure in the future.

Following the discussion in this chamber there was some newspaper comment of which I am sure the minister has taken notice. The Montreal Gazette of May 14, 1936, contains an article which sets forth opposition to this expenditure and it indicates that the local council of the board of trade-

Mr. DUPUIS:

I do not think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is in order in reading from a newspaper.

Mr. STEWART:

I have not yet done so.

I am just referring to the fact that the newspaper contained comment on this expenditure. I do not desire at this stage to read long extracts from newspapers, but I desire to base my comments on what has appeared in the newspapers, and a very responsible paper in the city of Montreal is opposed to this project. It is being opposed by the council of the board of trade, and I assume the minister has been made aware of the objection from that quarter.

The Montreal Daily Star of May 29 also contains a long article setting forth objections and criticisms of this proposed expenditure.

As the minister knows, this is not a new proposition at all. It is one which has been considered by the department at different times, and one which has been postponed for reasons with which the minister is familiar.

12739-256^

This waterway, if developed at an estimated expenditure of eight or ten or twelve million dollars, will, after all, be a light draft waterway. The minister knows that the tendency of the day is toward larger ships, ships of deeper draft. In years gone by ships of lighter draft did serve a useful purpose and carried quite a large volume of traffic. Still, the trend of traffic is toward larger ships and deeper waterways. There is also a very marked tendency toward the carriage of local freight by truck. In view of these facts we should seriously consider at this time whether it is advisable to undertake the deepening of waterways which, after all, will not carry ships of heavy draft and which will have to depend to a certain extent upon local traffic.

The minister indicated that there would be tourist traffic coming up from Albany and from the Hudson to the St. Lawrence. That is all right, but it is, after all, not a very heavy volume of traffic and not very profitable from the standpoint of the government. The minister knows that in Ontario the Trent canal system has been abandoned and taken over from the Department of Railways by Ontario for the development of power. The Rideau canal, a good canal in days gone by, passing through my own county, and a canal in which I am very much interested, has outlived its usefulness except for small craft and for tourist purposes. I am sure that for the traffic which would be on any of these canals we would not consider to-day the expenditure of any large amount, and this proposed expenditure is a very large sum, ten or twelve million dollars, and that in these days when we are urged and find it necessary to economize in every direction. I would urge upon the minister that this is a work which is not justified by the volume of traffic that will be on this waterway, and if the minister presses the item and carries it through the committee I beg of him to reconsider and review the whole situation from every standpoint. The passing of an estimate is not a commitment of the government. It is not a contract to undertake the work, and I would ask the minister to review and discuss the matter with his colleagues and delay this comparatively very large expenditure for this year, and the very much heavier commitment for the future. I really think from my knowledge of conditions acquired in the department and from everything that has been said as to the possibilities of this waterway, that circumstances at this time do not justify our embarking upon an expenditure that ultimately will amount to eig"ht or ten ir twelve million dollars.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers

Mr. CARDIN:

Mr. Chairman, I think it is only fair that I say a word in answer to the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this matter. At this late hour I do not feel like entering upon a lengthy discussion to justify the proposal which has been made, or mentioned incidentally, the rebuilding of the Chambly canal. Certain comments have been made outside this house by certain people who, I am sure, do not know the first thing about the matter, and have never seen the Richelieu river and its surroundings. Without being too severe I may say that that criticism and their contention were most unfair and were evidently the result of a desire to say something disagreeable to the minister.

My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) has referred to an article in the Montreal Gazette. That article is really very mild, but it contains some kind of answer to the fear expressed by my hon. friend. It says that already a very important paper company in the province of Quebec has built two ships capable of navigating the rowboat canal as we have it at present at Chambly, and that other paper companies are contemplating the building of ships capable of navigating that canal in order to ship their paper and wood pulp to the United States, avoiding by that method going round the Gaspe peninsula into the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean in order to reach New York and other important ports in the United States. They have found it advisable to build ships to navigate the present canal. We must remember that this canal is capable of being navigated only by vessels of 250 tons. That was all right in the old days, but the experts tell us that it is possible to develop this canal to permit its navigation by ships of 1,800 tons. This would be quite sufficient to take care of any possible traffic.

The objection was raised the other day that there was no traffic available. Well, there was no traffic available when the Canadian Pacific Railway was first initiated. There was no traffic available when both parties decided to build the Hudson Bay railway and to develop a port on the Hudson bay. We all wanted to develop any possibilities in Canada, and we took those methods of developing traffic. Many undertakings have been started without any present justification. The development of the St. Lawrence river from the ocean to Montreal was not undertaken when vessels were waiting in the gulf to go up to Montreal. The development of the wharves and other port facilities at Montreal were not undertaken jvhen the traffic was waiting in the harbour; those facilities were provided for the traffic that might develop later on.

[Mr Stewart.]

The same thing applies to the Richelieu river and the Chambly canal. There is no traffic at the present time because it is no longer profitable to use ships of only 250 tons. The traffic through the St. Lawrence canals when they were of the same size as the Chambly canal would compare very favourably with the traffic passing through the Chambly canal. To-day there is a great difference in the traffic through the two canal systems because the St. Lawrence canal's have been deepened to permit vessels of larger draft to go through. If the St. Lawrence canals bad been kept at the old depth of twelve feet, the present depth of the Chambly canal, there would be no traffic going through the St. Lawrence from the great- lakes to Montreal because it is not profitable to transport goods in vessels of only 250 tons.

I regret I have discussed this canal at this time because there is no necessity of this entering into the discussion. The vote which I am asking the committee to pass provides for a regulating dam between St. Johns and Chambly. This will be used more particularly for reclaiming low land's in the vicinity of St. Johns-Iberville and Missisquoi counties. It has been established by a report now in the Department of Public Works that a revenue of $500,000 per annum can be obtained from these low lands. These lands are so low that they cannot be cultivated at the present time. They are flooded every spring and as far back as 1900 requests were made to the department for the dredging of the Richelieu river in order to permit the water to flow off in the spring so that these lands might be cultivated. When the federal government started to dredge the Richelieu river an objection Was made by the United States. It was contended that this dredging would precipitate the flow of water in the Richelieu river and lower the level of lake Champlain. The Canadian government then submitted to the United States authorities a proposal for the building of a dam, which was approved. This dam would regulate the flow of water in the spring. When the water is high, the dam would be opened and the river having been dredged, would permit a more rapid flow of water and the lowlands in the vicinity of St, Johns-Iberville would not be flooded. When water is needed in the summer or fall for navigation purposes, the dam would be closed and the normal flow of water *would be permitted down the Richelieu river.

That is the proposal under consideration. Out of this vote of $500,000 to cover the building of the dam we want a few thousand dollars to be used for survey purposes to

National Harbours Board

determine the desirability of rebuilding the Chambly canal. My hon. friend mentioned an amount of $12,000,000 for this work, but the figure I mentioned the other day was $8,000,000. This figure was a mere guess on the part of the engineers. As there are no plans in the department for the rebuilding of this canal, no one can say definitely just what it will cost. I gave that figure the other day because I was pressed, but it represented a mere guess on the part of the engineers. If the government should decide to proceed with this rebuilding, the matter would come up next session or at another session. There would then be a vote placed before the committee, or possibly some other legislation would be introduced to provide for the reconstruction of the Chambly canal. I want it to be clearly understood that this amount is just to cover the building of a dam which has been contemplated as far back as 1900. After this explanation I feel that any apprehension which may have existed with regard to the rebuilding of this canal should disappear. If it is definitely decided to rebuild this canal, the house will have an opportunity to discuss the matter at a future session.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that a message has been received from the senate informing this house that the senate agrees to the amendment made by the House of Commons to the tenth amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 67, to amend the Customs Act (Canadian waters), without any amendment.