664
COMMONS DEBATES. APRIL 9,
[...] Alert, and was very glad to hear that contradicted by
somebody who professes to know, because I wish to express
as strongly as I can my disapprobation of such a. course.
I have heard it rumored since that the department
are about to call for tenders for the construction of a larger
and better boat to supplement the Northern Light. I hope
that rumor is true. I was in hopes we would have had an
ofiicial statement made to night by the hon. the MinisterÂ
of Marine, because after the plain, practical and convincing
statements made by my hon. friend, based as they are upon
historical facts and upon the declaration made by the High
Commissioner to Earl Granville as to the intention of the
Government, and upon the suggestion which Earl Granville
made to this Government, I hoped we would have heard
tonight what the policy of the Government is. I think
my hon. friend has made out a complete case, and has put
the House in full possession of the facts, and I do think
our long-suflering people are entitled to have their grievances in this very serious
matter removed. We have been
year after year pressing this matter, and I am sure the
House does not want me to go over the old story, and I am
not going to do it again tonight, because my hon. friend
has anticipated me and has put the points better than I
could, but I do begin to have some assurance from the Minister in reference to that
wharf, and, if he can give it in
the absence of the Minister of Marine, some information as
to the action of the Department of Marine in reference to
the censtruction of another steamboat.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I was about to rise just now, When I
saw the hon. gentleman wished to say a few words, and I thought it better he
should speak first so that I might answer both gentlemen—the mover of the
resolution (Mr. Perry) and the member for Queen's (Mr. Davies)
—at the same time. In answer to the last question of the hon. gentleman,
I may say that the contract for the wharf or pier at Cape Tormentine was broken
by the Government because the contractor did not proceed with the
work quickly and evidently could not go on. Under those circumstances we called
for new tenders, and have given a new contract. The
contract has been signed, and I understand that the contractors are
men who are quite able to perform the work, which will he proceeded with with
all due vigor.
Mr. DAVIES (P. E I.) Will the hon. gentleman state who
they are ?
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I do not remember now. When the
Estimates come on, I shall be able to give the names. As to the boat, I cannot
positively say, but, as far as I recollect, the intention of the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries is to provide a new boat. In reference to the
remarks of the mover of the motion, I may say, first, that there will be no
objection to bring down the papers, and second, that the survey made in 1886
was communicated to the House and hon. gentlemen know what was the result
of that survey. The hon. gentleman complains that no work has been done in the
direction of constructing a subway. I do not suppose he expected that
we would proceed in that way. He knew, and I think the hon. gentleman who spoke last
stated, that the Minister of Finance had made
a statement that we would give our attention to that work, and that we would
have new explorations made to see whether the work was a feasible one or not.
Well, I am glad to say that the last survey, which was made in July and
August, 1887, has given a much better result than the first survey of 1886,
and, if we go on in that way, improving all the time, we shall find the
distance very small.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I did not say that. The hon.
gentleman says so, and I am glad to hear him fix a
date, because the Government of course will thus know the wishes of hon.
gentlemen on the other side. The engineer in the month of August took a series
of borings in a line from Carleton Point to a point in New Brunswick, I think
Munsey Point. The greatest depth of water found is ninety-
one feet, the bottom is more favorable than on the line of soundings taken in
1886, and the distance is six and a half miles, which is one and a half miles
less than on the line of borings taken in 1886. This shows that, as I said, if
we go on in that way, we shall find the distance very small, and I think
that in any case this result is much more favorable and must please hon.
gentlemen so far, at all events, as the survey goes, as it shows that, if the
matter has been left over for a year to obtain new soundings and new
measurements, the time has not been lost in vain, that we have obtained a much
better line by this survey than we had in 1886. I have no objection to the
granting of the motion.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) I would like to be permitted to ask
the hon. gentleman whether the result of the survey has been so satisfactory as
to induce him to believe it to be right and proper that he should purpose a
subsidy or a vote to the House to carry the work out, either by means of a
company or by Government contract?
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I am afraid that is a question which I cannot answer immediately. I think it is
one of those questions
that must be left to the consideration of the Government, and the hon.
gentleman may be sure, after the surveys which we have made, that the Government
will give to the matter their best consideration.
Mr. DAVIES (P. E. I.) I fear we cannot hope for anything in the supplementaries?
Mr. ROBERTSON. Have the Government any offers from any
company to build a subway for any particular sum?
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I am not aware. There may have been
some offer of that kind in the Railway Department, but I am not in a position
to answer that definitely.
Motion agreed to.
NEWFOUNDLAND AND CONFEDERATION.
Copies of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of
Canada and the Government of Newfoundland concerning the admission
of Newfoundland into the Confederation.
He said: I have no intention to comment on the subject
at this moment. My only object is to have as soon as
possible before the House the papers on that important
question.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I hope the hon. gentleman will not
insist upon his motion after what I shall say. This matter is now engaging
the attention of the Government, and, as the hon. gentleman will see from
the newspapers that a delegation is coming to Canada about this matter,
we think the public interest would not allow us to lay this
correspondence now before Parliament.
Mr. LAURIER. If I understand from the hon. gentleman
that the correspondence is still going on, that it is not yet in a fit
condition to be published, I will not press my motion.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. The Minister, I suppose, has no objections to inform us when he expects the
1888.
COMMONS DEBATES.
665 delegation to arrive, and perhaps he might give us the
names of the gentlemen, if he has been made acquainted with them in
advance.
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. I am not able to give the names of
the gentlemen who will form the delegation, nor the precise date of their
coming to Canada, but I suppose it will be about the end of this month.
Mr. MITCHELL. Perhaps the hon . gentleman could tell us
whether the Parliament of Newfoundland has authorised the delegation, or
whether their Parliament has given any authority to a delegation to come
here.
Motion withdrawn.
MEMBER INTRODUCED.
The following member, having previously taken the oath
according to law, and subscribed the Roll containing the
same, took his seat in the House:
DAVID BISHOP MEIGS, Esq., Member for the Electoral District
of Missisquoi, introduced by Hon. Mr. Laurier and Mr. Fisder.
ASSISTANCE TO WRECKING VESSELS.
Copies of all papers. &c., with reference to: 1. The refusal of the
United States authorities to allow Canadian wrecking vessels and machinery to assist
Canadian vessels while in distress in United States
waters. 2. The refusal of the Canadian authorities to allow United
States wrecking vessels and machinery to assist United States vessels
while in distress in Canadian waters.
He said: There is a Bill before the House standing, I
think, for its second reading, introduced by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Kirkpatrick),
which relates closely
to this subject, and I sincerely hope the hon. member will
press his Bill, and that it will receive the support of both
sides of this House. His Bill is to permit American vessels
to aid vessels which are wrecked or disabled in Canadian
waters. I suppose that that Bill would not have been introduced by that hon. gentleman
unless the Canadian authorities had hitherto prevented American vessels from
aiding wrecked or disabled vessels in Canadian waters. I
have no doubt, however, that the reason why the Canadian
authorities took this exceeding harsh line was because the
American Government prevented Canadian vessels from
assisting vessels which were wrecked in American waters.
I think it will be of considerable advantage to this
House, in the consideration of the Bill to which I have
referred, if these papers are bi ought down, so much, at
least, as the Government feel at liberty to bring down,
and I hope they will bring them all down. The
motion refers not only to correspondence and Orders in
Council with reference to the refusal of the United
States authorities to allow Canadian wrecking vessels
and machinery to assist vessels in American waters,
but also as to the refusal of the Canadian authorities
to allow Americans to do so, so that we will have both
features of the case before us when we have these papers.
1 have no doubt, as I said before, that the Canadian authorities could not have adopted
the harsh measures which they
have in this matter, and which are to be cured by this Bill,
unless the Americans had done the same, but I find in the
United States Congress they do not take exactly that view
of the case. They seem to think that the Canadian Government has acted much more harshly
towards them than they
have acted towards the Canadian Government. However,
the papers will show how that is. But in order to show
the once the view that is taken of the matter on the other
side, I will refer to a resolution which was introduced into
the House of Representatives by Mr. Nutting, early in the
month of February. In that resolution it is recited:
"Whereas, it is alleged that the Canadian authorities for years have
refused. and new refuse to allow American wrecking vessels and machinery to assist
American vessels while in distress in Canadian canals
and waters."
So far, I take it, he must be correct, or else the Bill of
the hon. member for Frontenac would not be necessary.
He then goes on to make an allegation, which I confess, I
very much doubt, but he says:
"And it is alleged further that Canadian wrecking vessels and machinery have been,
and now are allowed to come into American waters
and assist any vessel there in distress."
Now, whether that is so or not, we will perhaps find out
when this correspondence is brought down. But he quotes
a couple of letters from American vessel owners and captains which show certainly
the great hardship to them of
the practice of the two Governments. One is a letter from
Oswego, dated 1st February, 1888, by Mr. John K. Pope.
He says:
"On or about the 30th day of September, 1881, I. being controlling
owner of steam-barge Thompson Kingsford, was notified that she was
ashore at Wellington, Out., and immediate assistance was needed. I
informed our wrecker, Mr. Allan, who expressed himself ready to start,
providing the Canadian authorities would give him permission to work
in their waters. I therefore applied by wire to the hon. Minister of
Marine at Ottawa, and after a long delay was informed that the assistance needed could
be procured at Kingston, and the application was
denied I thought the treatment was severe, especially as my tugs were
all ready to go, and we could have got the barge out of danger in 24
hours. As it was, during the delay, or rather by the delay. in waiting
for an answer, she was subjected to a severe gale, causing great damage
and eventually costing us about $l,200 more than it would if we could
have done the work ourselves. A gain, about the 19th day of August
1882, the same barge was sunk in the Bay of Quinté by collision, and I
again made application to go to her relief with my own appliances,
and was again refused."
Then another letter was quoted by Mr. Nutting, which was
sent to him by Albert Quonce, also of Oswego, dated 1st
February, 1888, in which Mr. Quonce stated:
"At the suggestion of Mr. Allan I make the following statement:
On or about the 3rd day of November, l882, the schooner Camanche, of
which I was controlling owner, was sunk in the Welland Canal, near
Port Colborne. Although Buffalo was but twenty miles from her and
assistance could have been secured in six hours, we were told that American assistance
would not be permitted, although at that moment the
steam pumps were loaded and ready to come. The result was we had
to wait for assistance from Amherstburg, nearly three hundred miles
distant, and causing delay of three days. Owing to the delay the
vessel's cargo
swelled and sprung her entire deck up, and almost ruined
the vessel."
These statements will show the view taken on the other
side, of our harsh law, and I am sure if we can do anything
to secure an improvement for the sake of common humanity as well as for the sake of
commercial friendship with
the United States, the Government will hasten to bring
down these returns so that, if possible, we may have them
before us when considering the Bill of the hon. member for
Frontenac (Mr. Kirkpatrick).
Mr. BOWELL. I would suggest that in the first paragraph the words "not already brought down,"
be inserted after
the words "departmental orders." Some years ago a large amount of
correspondence was laid before the House, and I do not suppose it is
necessary to duplicate the return.
Mr. BOWELL. I think it was; I know it was, because I
have a copy of the printed return on the table in my office.
Mr. BOWELL. I am not sure, I cannot say the year, but I
can furnish the information. However, all the correspondence and
orders made in regard to this subject will be brought down, other than those
which have already been [...]
This individual participated in:
