Mr. CARDIN:

I have no objection.

4840 COMMONS

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers

Mr. HARTIGAN:

Had the number been called, I would have spoken before. What I wanted to bring to the notice of the minister was the position of Sydney with regard to the public wharf. I think it is of interest to the department to be well acquainted with conditions there in respect to public wharves.

A short time ago I took up with the transport commission the idea of re-routing the Canadian National Railways along the waterfront in Sydney. The dominion government has an extensive wharf property in Sydney; they have spent a great deal of money on it; but with all that there are a number of wharf properties below the government-owned property which are very unsightly, and I would suggest to the Department of Public Works that a survey of the Sydney waterfront be made this year. It would be of really economic value to the government as a whole, because, with the cooperation of the transport commission, a large amount of useless expenditure on the part of the railways could be avoided. What I have reference to is the fact that the Canadian National Railways go directly through the centre of the city, and at the present time Sydney is making application for overhead bridges to cross the railroad tracks. I am informed by the transport commission's engineers that those bridges will cost from $225,000 to $250,000 apiece. If we assume two or three of these are required, the aggregate expense will be pretty nearly a million dollars.

There are six crossings in the city, and because of the congestion of traffic, chiefly motor vehicles, I am informed, and I believe correctly, about twenty-five people have lost their lives at the level crossings. That fact will give some indication of the danger, which is increasing because of the greater tourist traffic following the completion of our public park and so forth, and probably the death-rate will increase in the future. Therefore Sydney has taken action by applying to the transport commission to provide over-head bridges or some means of eliminating the level crossings. My contention is that if the department would institute a survey of the waterfront at Sydney from their own wharf to where the railroad sidings go through the city, by means of a little cooperation-and I have no doubt the transport commission would be pleased to cooperate, because all these bodies come under the government of Canada-and because of this public works feature of the water-front, the whole scheme could be put through for roughly a million dollars, and it would give the government a real water-front. In any event it would cost the transport commission three-quarters of a

million dollars to provide overhead crossings. A word to the wise is sufficient; I am not going to belabour the point.

I quite agree with the junior hon. member for Halifax that the biggest difficulty in Nova Scotia, and one which I will venture to say is not usual in respect of public works offices in Canada as a whole, is on account of the fact that our Nova Scotia district office of public works is under-staffed and undermanned. The officers of the public works department should 'be more cognizant of what is going on; if they were, a good deal of money would be saved. The public works department should undertake this work. If a survey were made this year I have no doubt a minimum valuation would be put on the properties and a good many of them could be had for next to nothing. No one knows who owns them. Altogether the situation is deplorable and calls for remedial measures. I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration.

Mr. CARDIN:

I shall be glad to take the hon. member's representations into consideration.

Mr. STEWART:

This item of $182,000

has reference to the establishment of a ferry between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and there is another item of $201,000. In other words, we have a total of $383,000, a large item for the establishment of a ferry. I understand that there is already a ferry between two points not very far distant from the present ones. Would the minister be good enough to outline the location of these termini in comparison with those of the existing ferry, and the reasons which make it desirable in the public interest that this large expenditure should be made for the establishment of another ferry. In what constituencies are the two ends of the ferry located?

Mr. CARDIN:

From Charlottetown to

Pictou is a distance of fifty-six miles. The other is from Wood Islands to Caribou, a distance of about thirteen miles. It has been represented that the farmers of Prince Edward Island cannot easily reach the mainland with their trucks. Trucks were not allowed on the ferry from Charlottetown to Pictou, but the new ferry will provide facilities for trucks and the run will be much shorter. This will enable the farmers to dispose of their natural products. The Wood Islands development is in Queens county, the Caribou development being in Pictou on the mainland-the Caribou development.

Mr. STEWART:

This is a large sum of

money for the establishment of a ferry. Where

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers

ia the vote coming from? What provision is made for the service after this expenditure is made? Will a subsidy be required?

Mr. CARDIN:

Yes. The boat service

will be furnished by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that department will pay the subsidy. It is not exactly my concern, but it is the intention to transfer the subsidy at present paid for the vessel operating from Charlottetown to Pictou to the new ferry when established.

Mr. STEWART:

I am sure the minister

would not undertake such an expenditure without a complete survey and knowledge of all the details. Do I understand it is likely that the existing ferry will be abandoned altogether?

Mr. CARDIN:

The subsidy will be transferred.

Mr. STEWART:

If it is necessary to pay

a subsidy now to maintain a ferry service and the subsidy is transferred, does the minister think it will be possible to maintain the existing service without a new subsidy?

Mr. CARDIN:

I have my doubts.

Mr. STEWART:

What does the minister

mean by transfer of subsidy? Does he mean that a subsidy will be granted for the new service, which is a much shorter one? Is it the intention that the same company or corporation now carrying on the service shall take on the new service and have transferred to them the present subsidy paid for the existing service? If that is not so, then the word "transfer" is hardly the appropriate one to use, because "transfer" conveys a different meaning. What I am anxious to find out is whether in the end this is going to result in a duplication of services, two ferries instead of one, two subsidies instead of one, and what the additional cost will be over and above this $383,000, which is a large initial expenditure. It is merely preparing the way for an annual expenditure for the maintenance of the ferry. I suggest to the minister that on the basis on which he has put it-the volume of agricultural products that will move from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia over this ferry-such an expenditure cannot be justified.

Mr. CARDIN:

I forgot to mention that strong representations were made that this new and much shorter ferry would attract a larger number of tourists to the island than the present ferry induces to go over. Tourists would naturally hesitate before crossing a stretch of fifty-six miles, but they are not at all reluctant to cross eleven miles. The information I have from the Department of 71492-304J

Trade and Commerce is that they have arranged for a ferry which will mean a subsidy of $28,000 from that department. The subsidy that is being paid presently, if my information is correct, is $30,000. My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Commerce will cease paying the $30,000 on the present ferry and will pay a subsidy of $28,000 on the new one. So, as far as we are concerned, the question of subsidy is not of great importance except that we pay possibly $2,000 less. The expenditure of course remains for the building of the terminals on the island and the mainland.

Mr. STEWART:

I venture to say that the government will be pressed to maintain the existing service also, and the amount involved is not simply the difference between $30,000 and $28,000 but probably an additional expenditure of $28,000. The minister speaks of this contributing to additional revenue from tourist traffic-desirable of course. The argument would be stronger if the existing ferry were the only means of communication between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. But is there not a car ferry and a means of communication between Charlottetown and-Borden, is it?

Mr. CARDIN:

Cape Tormentine.

Mr. STEWART:

I am not familiar with the geography there. I am sure tourists do not make much use of the existing ferry on the sixty mile service about which the minister speaks. I believe the volume of tourist traffic between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia is fairly large at the present time. If that be true, they must be finding their way on another ferry altogether. It is most natural and proper that they should; that means of communication is now there. There is a car ferry that accommodates all traffic; it is ample. To a motorist in these days of good roads, a few miles more does not make any real difference. So I suggest to the minister that, so far as tourist traffic is concerned, there is already ample provision for them to make their way between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and they are taking advantage of it. Possibly the minister has some figures that he can give as to the number of motor-cars that pass between these points, and the number, if any, that pass by the present ferry.

This service for tourists is, of course, seasonal, and neither on the ground of service to tourists, who already enjoy ample and complete service, nor on the ground of transportation of agricultural produce from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia, can this expenditure of $380,000 be justified as an

4842 COMMONS

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers

initial expenditure. On neither of these grounds can this expenditure be justified, even if it were the beginning and the end. But when this large initial expenditure inevitably leads to further expenditure for the establishment and maintenance of a ferry for a service that is only seasonal and duplicates a service whioh already exists, it is very hard indeed to justify any such expenditure at this time when there is a demand all through the country for economy, and expenditure on unproductive public works should be curtailed. This large expenditure certainly should be held up, should not be authorized by this committee until some better justification is presented for it than is to be found in the arguments of the minister to-night.

Mr. STEWART:

There is one fairly large item here of $130,000 for wharf and warehouse at Bathurst, with a revote of $35,000. Would the minister give the committee some particulars of this?

Mr. CARDIN:

This is for the completion of a wharf under contract with the E. C. Gorman Construction Company and $55,000 for the construction of a warehouse. I have a note that the wharf and warehouse have been requested by the Bathurst Power and Paper Company. The existing wharf is small, suitable only for fishing boats, the available depth at low water being only six to ten feet. It is entirely inadequate for the shipment of lumber, pulpwood, et cetera. Industries to be benefited by the new wharf include a large sawmill, woodworking factory, iron foundry and large pulp and paper mill. The warehouse in providing storage for large steamer loads would allow large steamer business and thus be of general benefit to shipping. It is anticipated that out of the total mill output, 60,000 to 100,000 tons would be shipped by steamer during the season of navigation, having a value of approximately $4,000,000, in addition to large imports of sulphur, salt cake, coal, et cetera. Without the provision of warehouse facilities and the lower cost of water transportation, the mill will have difficulty in maintaining its rated output. The annual wharfage revenue, based on present business of the Bathurst Power and Paper Company, would amount to about $15,500.