1908-07-17

Mr. A. K.: MACLEAN (Lunenburg) presented the report of the Select Committee appointed for the purpose of investigating the conditions and guarantee under which the government of Canada paid moneys to the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM (Antigonish) moved that the report be concurred in. He said : As we are within a few hours of prorogaton, it would not be fair to the House
for me to make any very extended remarks on this question. However, at the risk of wearying the House, I propose to make a few observations regarding it. The question of the construction of a bridge across the River St. Lawrence is an old question- one that has agitated the people of the province of Quebec, the city of Quebec particularly, for very many years. Indeed, about the time of confederation a report was made by an eminent engineer on the feasibility of a bridge at or near Quebec. Several times afterwards the question of bridging the St. Lawrence came up, and reports were made upon it, the tenor of which was that the project was a perfectly feasible one. In 1887 the Quebec Bridge Company was incorporated, and, as is usual in such cases, its charter was renewed from time to time. The company approached the then government of Canada and also the provincial and municipal authorities with a view to obtaining aid for the construction of such bridge, and assurances were given from time to time that upon its being shown that the scheme was a feasible and proper one, the necessary assistance would be rendered. Again and again Sir Charles Tupper and Sir John A. Macdonald promised assistance if the company would show that it was really in earnest. First when the bridge company was incorporated the capital stock was $1,000,000. It is alleged that this capital stock was very small for such a large enterprise.
It is true the enterprise was a large one, the construction of the greatest bridge ever undertaken, but I should have thought >that the time to discuss the question of the sufficiency of the capital stock was at the time of the incorporation of the Quebec Bridge Company. 1 do not think, however, this is a matter with which we need to " concern ourselves at present. The bridge company was incorporated in 1887 and there was subsequent legislation revising and amending the terms of the company's charter. In 1889, a subsidy of $1,000,000 was voted by the parliament of Canada, as set odt in this report, for the Quebec Bridge Company. Of this $1,000,000, $374,353 was eventually disbursed to the company. The assistance given by the Quebec government was $250,000 and the city of Quebec gave a subvention of $300,000 so that really this company started out, although its paid up capital was somewhat small for such a large enterprise * with assets to the extent of $1,550,000 in addition to its capital stock of $1,000,000 of subvention from the Dominion government, $300,000 from the city of Quebec and $250,000 from the province of Quebec as subventions, indicate that the scheme must then have been recognized as a wise, prudent and patriotic one, and the company capable of carrying out the scheme. The fact j that the city of Quebec and the province of Quebec contributed as liberally as they did goes to show what faith they had in this enterprise. When the Quebec Bridge Company

had approached the late government the answer in every case was : Show your good faith, show your sincerity in this scheme, by contributing yourselves. Therefore that company was incorporated and the citizens of Quebec, irrespective of politics, actuated mainly by patriotic views and by the desire to have this route across the St. Lawrence which would be not only of national importance but of great local importance contributed towards the scheme. It is true they contributed in small sums in many cases but this goes to show that this was not one of the wild-cat schemes we too frequently see, but was a genuine scheme. The list of shareholders contains the names of some of the very best men of the province and city of Quebec-merchants, bank presidents, vicepresidents and directors, presidents and vicepresidents of railways, Conservatives and Liberals alike.
In 1900, the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company entered into a contract with M. P. Davis for the construction of a substructure and in 1903 entered into a contract with the Phoenix Bridge Company of Phoenixville, Pa., for the construction of the superstructure. Before the company entered into the contract for the superstructure, tenders were asked from various bridge companies in America. Tenders were called for by public advertisement throughout Canada and the United States. Quite a number of plans and oilers were submitted by different companies. The determination of which was the best plan to adopt was a matter of vital importance. Inquiries were made as to the most competent engineers on the continent and the directorate of the Quebec Bridge Company after most careful considr eration of the information obtained became convinced that Mr. Theodore Cooper was the most eminent and competent engineer in America. The plans were submitted to him, he examined them all and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the best plan to adopt was that submitted by the Phoenix Bridge Company, and he so advised the directorate of the Quebec Bridge Company. It is not alleged and cannot be alleged that the Quebec Bridge Company did not take all necessary precautions to ascertain the best plan and scheme for the construction of the proposed bridge, and to have it constructed on the best terms possible. In fact it is quite sufficient to say that such men as the directors of the Quebec Bridge Company, business men of experience as they are, would of course take all precautions. There is abundant evidence that they proceeded with the greatest care with respect to the selection of a plan and getting a company to build this work, as indeed they did proceed, in all the different matters with which they had to do.
As to Mr. Cooper, the report of the Royal Commission which investigated the causes of the collapse of the bridge speaks of him in the most complimentary words. It is Mr. W. CHISHOLM.
admitted on all sides that he is and was regarded at that time as the best authority who could be secured. The plans submitted by the Phoenix Bridge Company were prepared by Mr. Szlapka, the designing engineer for the Phoenix Bridge Company. After the plans had been prepared they were submitted to Mr. Cooper who carefully examined them. They were also submitted to a government engineer, Mr. Schreiber. It will be observed that the greatest care and caution were exercisd by the government to see that the plans were properly drawn; they were not satisfied with the opinion of their own engineer but called in a more expert and eminent scientific authority iu whom they might have the fullest confidence. They therefore selected Mr. Theodore Cooper. On October 19, 1903, an agreement was entered into between the government of Canada, and the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company which provided, among other things, that the company should release any claim it had to any unpaid balance of the subsidy of $1,000,000 voted in 1899. The government of Canada agreed to guarantee the bonds of the company, not to exceed in amount $6,678,200, which amount was considered necessary to meet the liabilities of the company as at that date, and to complete the construction of the bridge.
It is alleged that at that time the government should have taken over the assets of the bridge company. In what better position would the government have been in if they had done so? The Quebec Bridge Company, it must be admitted! on all sides, had constructed the work up to that date as economically and carefully as possible. It was their interest to do so. The evidence, I am sure, shows that they exercised the greatest care and had carried on the construction in the most businesslike way. Could the government have done better ? I submit, it could not. I submit that for every dollar expended there was a dollar of work there. In fact, I go further and say that, according to. the testimony of Mr. Parent, the bridge company had got for about one and one quarter million dollars substructure and approaches for which the government would have paid at least two million dollars. One can readily understand how that could be ; the work would be conducted more economically by a comnany than by the government. I do not mean to say that government works are constructed extravagantly or that in all cases it is inadvisable to have work done by the government: but we must admit that often, and particularly in the case of these very large works, a company can build more economically than the government can.
Now, it is alleged that when the government undertook to guarantee the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company, they did not take sufficient precautions iu the way of

providing a competent engineer to look after their interests in the work. What happened ? Immediately after the government became responsible under this agreement of 1903, it provided for the appointment of an engineer to look after the government's interests. The minority report states that an order in council was passed that such an engineer should be appointed. I believe that is true. It was not true, however, that it was on the suggestion of the Quebec Bridge Company's consulting engineer or of the bridge company, this course was not pursued, that is, that the employment of an expert bridge engineer who was to act independently on behalf of the governemnt was dispensed with. Now, that is not correct. The evidence is entirely the other way I would refer to the evidence of Mr. Parent at page 181 :
Q. When the difficulty arose about the employment of an expert, by Mir. Sohreiber, why did not the bridge company insist that such expert be appointed and act so that the company might benefit by the advice of that expert, without having to pay the cost of an investigation ?
A. The bridge company never objected to that; on the contrary, it was favourable to the government's suggestion. I met Mr. Cooper myself in regard to that matter, .in New York; Mr. Cooper objected entirely to Mr. Niohol being associated with him in the construction of the bridge.
Mr. Nichol was the engineer suggested to the government by Mr. Scbreiber. So far as -the bridge company was concerned they interposed not the slightest objection to the employment by the government of Mr. Nichol or any other man. But Mr. Cooper did object to any other engineer being associated with him. Mr. Parent went to New York to see Mr. Cooper and tried to persuade him that it was proper the government should have an engineer. But he objected to any one

-ho even went so faT as to say hat if we insisted he would resign his position. He even came to Canada to meet Mr. Sohreiber and discuss the question; the government had to choose between the resignation of Mr. Cooper and ithe appointment of Mr. Nichol.
You will Observe therefore, that the statement of the minority report, that the bridge company's consulting engineer objected to or prevented the selection of an independent engineer is at variance with the facts. And further on :
Q. Why could Mr. Cooper object to the government employing the person it desired to employ in order to assure itself of the efficacy of the plans?-A. The reasons given by Mr. Cooper were these: If the government appoints an expert or a bridge engineer, that man might probably take upon himself to do certain things or to give instructions during the building -that -might -clash with that which I might myself do; and as the affair is a large one I do not w-isth that any one but -my-self should interfere in the control of the entire
construction. His fear was that suoh a man might give instructions contrary to his own. Mr. Cooper considered -at the time that Mr. Ho-are was all he -needed and that the latter would not -taike_ upon himself to do -anything without consulting him.
Now, what could the government do under these circumstances ? If it persisted in taking Mr. Nichol, who, it is admitted, was not as competent, by any manner of means, who had not so high a reputation as an engineer as Mr. Cooner, they would have lost the services of the latter. Then, if the bridge had gone down as it very likely would have the government would have been accused of negligence ; it would have been said that they failed to avail them-sedves of the service of the most competent man and had taken a second rate man. This is clearly set forth in the evidence of Mr. Parent, who said :
Q. If the expert the government had decided to employ had found out the defects in the plans that have caused the disaster, would it not have been -a good -thing?-A. Here is what might have happened: Mr. Coo-per pretended that there was no man -w-ho could go over his work and I think that -w-as pretty much the opinion of eminent engineers at that time; and on the other hand, if the government had -appointed Mr. Nichol, if Mr. Cooper -h-ad resigned and that -the accident of -the 29th August had taken place all the same, the government would have been blamed far more for having set Mr. Cooper aside, he who -was considered the best of authorities-to take Mr. Nichol, -wiho was not such; the situation would then have been worse.
Therefore, the action of the government in continuing Mr. Cooper and not selecting Mr. Nichol is quite justified by the facts. And why should not Mr. Cooper have been continued ? It is true, he was the consulting engineer of the Quebec bridge company. But it is observed that the Quebec Bridge Company's interest and the government's interests were identical. If Mr. Cooper had been the Phoenix Company's engineer, it would have been a different case, for their interest and that of the government might have not always been the same. The Quebec Bridge Company's interest and the government's interest coincided, and the engineer employed was the most eminent engineer to be found in America. And this man's services were continued.
Now, I come to another point. In the agreement in the Act of 1903, it is provided that before the government guarantees the bonds of the company, the company was to procure subscriptions to $200,000 additional stock. I may say that the company had delivered bonds to the extent of $472,000 to M. P. Davis for amount due on the substructure. These bonds were sold at 60 cents to Mr. Davis himself, who was the only person then to accept them.
The discount of forty per cent, that is to say the difference between par

and the price at which the bonds were sold to Mr. Davis, the contractor for the substructure, had, according to the terms of the agreement referred to between the government and the company to be paid up by the stockholders before the government guaranteed the bonds. What happened with regard to that? It is alleged that the whole amount of $200,000 of stock was not actually paid up before the bonds were guaranteed. The way that happens is set out in the majority report, clause 7 :
It was urged before the committee that contrary to the provisions of the agreement ratified by chapter 54 of tho Acts 1903, the issue of the said bonds preceded the payment of the $200,000 of additional stock by reason of the fact that a cheque of M. P., Davis given in payment of subscription stock, in the sum of $94,900 was not immediately converted into ^ cash and that there was therefore, in this respect, not a compliance by the company with section 4 of the agreement of October 19, 1903.
The company regarded this cheque as cash and so certified to the government and (hereupon the government became guarantor of the bonds. The directors did not deem it advisable that the contractor should be too large a holder of this stock.
It was agreed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company that it would take up a certain amount, and it was expected that the Quebec Central Railway Company would also have taken a certain amount of-this stock, and in that way the amount of stock in Mr. Davis' hands would be lessened. It was a wise precaution for the directors to endeavour to prevent the contractor having the control of the stock to be issued and paid up. When they got his cheque for $112,000 they regarded it as cash, although they did not cash it and deposit the proceeds. They expected, as I have said, the Grand Trunk Railway to take a portion and the Quebec Central another portion of these 112,000 shares. The Grand Trunk did come later on and take a portion of this stock, paid for the same and a new cheque was given by Mr. Davis for $94,900, the original cheque having been returned to him. That is to say, Mr. Davis first paid up $112,000 for the new stock by giving his cheque therefor, but the Grand Trunk took the difference later on, and Mr. Davis' stock came down to $94,900. The Quebec Central, it was expected, would take over a certain other portion of this 94,900 shares, but it happened that the Quebec Central was not in a position to do so owing to the fact that its charter did not permit it at that time to purchase stock. Later on this company did actually buy stock from the Hon. John Sharpies. As soon as it became apparent that nobody else would take any portion of the 94,900 shares, the bridge company cashed the cheque of M. P. Davis. The question arises as to whether that cheque should be regarded as cash. The Mr. W. CHISHOLM.
Quebec Bridge Company did regard it as cash. The evidence of Mr. Price and Mr. Lemoine, who are gentlemen of the highest financial standing justifies one in holding that the cheque meant cash. At any rate the company did regard it as such. It was cashed and was placed to the credit of the company. The time when it was cashed is not material. I mention these facts to show why the cheque was held so long. The stock was issued to Mr. Davis just as soon as he gave his cheque. It was merely a matter of delay in going to the bank and getting the cheque cashed.
Now objection is made that the Quebec Bridge Company disposed of their bonds at 60 cents on the dollar. Regarding that it must appear to any person that these bonds must be disposed of at the highest price they would bring on the market. Now what is the evidence regarding the wisdom of selling these bonds at 60 cents on the dollar ? Take the evidence of Mr. Price. Mr. Price was a director of the old company, is a large lumber merchant and is associated in many commercial undertakings. He is also a leading Conservative in the city of Quebec and a man of high standing in that city. On page 94 he says this regarding the sale of bonds :
Q. Do you consider that a good bargain, or otherwise, made by the company from a purely business standpoint ?-A. Well, when you can only get one man to buy something that nobody else will buy you are generally satisfied with your bargain.	,
Q. Of course you have got to take the circumstances into consideration. Taking the circumstances that existed into consideration, do you consider that the company showed good business judgment in making this deal with Mr. Davis ?-A. Absolutely so, because if the substructure had been completed and the superstructure had never been completed, the bonds would be absolutely valueless.
Here is the opinion of Mr. Price, who says it was absolutely a good bargain. Then Mr. Gaspard -Lemoine, who is also one of the leading men in the city of Quebec, who was formerly president and vice-president of the Lake St. John Railway and now a director of the Quebec bank, says that was a good bargain, that in his opinion the Quebec company acted wisely in disposing of the bonds at 60 cents. In fact he says they could not get that much anywhere else. To the same effect is the testimony of Mr. Thomas McDougall, who was the banker with whom the bonds were deposited by Mr. Davis for advances. He says on page 126 of the evidence :
Q. Will you as a bank manager probably dealing in these matters, tell us what you think about it ?-A. Of course when we took this bond from Mr. Davis we took it as collateral security for his account which was a running account with us for the construction of the bridge. We did not go minutely into the exact value of it, Mr. Davis handed it to us and told us he had a good contract and we knew that he knew his business well.

Q. Give us your opinion as a banker, for Mr. Davis ?-A. As a banker I think he took very considerable chances on these bonds.
Q. As a banker you think he took very considerable chances in taking those bonds on his contract ?-A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that price could have been obtained in the bond market for them ?-A. Never.
To the same effect is the testimony of Mr. Scott and Mr. Duinoulin. Now as to the conduct of the affairs of the bridge company the evidence of the solicitor went to show that it was conducted on thorough business lines. The testimony to which I refer was the testimony of men whose judgment-and Integrity cannot be questioned and whose standing every man admits. They say that under the management of Mr. Parent the affairs of the Quebec Bridge Company were conducted in a thoroughly businesslike manner and it must be very gratifying to Mr. Parent to receive the testimony of such gentlemen as those who appeared before the committee. The opinion they gave of his management was Indeed very flattering and does high credit to the integrity and ability of the president of the Quebec Bridge Company, the present chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. As far as the management is con-cernedj I think, it must be admitted on all sides that everything was done thoroughly and well.
Now, I come to the falling of the bridge.
It is true that the bridge fell but whose fault is it? It is not alleged that it was the fault of any party in so far as the actual work itself is concerned. The report of the Royal Commission is to the effect that it was due to a mistake on the part of Mr. Cooper, the consulting engineer. It is all very well to be wise after the fact but could anybody forsee that such a calamity would happen. If the government had undertaken to build that bridge would it not have proceeded in the same way? It appears now that the proper course would have been to have selected three competent engineers to direct and control the undertaking. That suggestion has been made in the report. But, if these three competent engineers are selected, have you any assurance that another accident may not occur ? Experience will be of great assistance In guiding these engineers but we have no assurance that the employment of even three of tlie most competent engineers, whoever they may be, will prevent an accident occurring. If the government had taken over the assets of the Quebec Bridge Company in 1903 it is reasonable to suppose that they would have done the very same thing in the matter of continuing the work that the Quebec Bridge Company did. These men who were at the head of the Quebec Bridge Company were men of eminent business ability and capacity. The accident is due to no fault of the Quebec Bridge I 424
Company. They exercised the greatest caution possible. It is alleged that Mr. Hoare did not possess the scientific skill that was necessary. Who could tell anything about Mr. Hoare's scientific skill or whether . he was defective in that regard at that time? You have to take Mr. iHoare as you find him. The Quebec Bridge Company knew that he was a man of extensive experience, that he was a man recognized as possessing great professional skill. He had been for thirty years engaged in general railway and bridge work. He had been with the company since its inception and lie was familiar with the development of this work. He supervised the building of the substructure. He did one of the finest pieces of work in the world. It is admitted that the substructure is one of the best pieces of work of that kind to be found anywhere in the world and the best evidence of that is found in the fact that it stood the very severe strain which was put upon it by the falling of the bridge. Mr. Hoare was recognized on all sides as a_ man having the necessary professional skill and as being eminently qualified for this position. But, with the caution which characterized the Quebec Bridge Company, they went farther and retained the services of Mr. Cooper, a recognized authority. Referring to Mr. Hoare, I will read from page 103 what Mr. Price says :
Q. Did you know, or do you know, that Mr. Hoare was over connected with any great bridge construction work, apart from the ordinary bridge on the railway ? A. I do not know exactly what work he has done; I know he has had a varied experience.
Q. In the way yon have spoken of?-A. Generally on bridge work, on railways and on general engineering work?
Q. But are you able -to say that you do know he. was connected with any large, very large, bridge construction in metal?-A. I believe he built the largest bridge for the Lake St. John, or the Great Northern at Huwkesbury, I believe a cantilever bridge. _
Q. He built an iron or steel bridge I presume?-A. Yes.
Q. Dor the Lake St. John Railway?-A. Or tlie Great Northern.
The testimony of the directors is to the effect that they were perfectly satisfied that Mr. Hoare was the right man for the place -otherwise they would not have engaged him at all-and they had every reason to believe that he was fitted to assume the re-sponsibilty because of the wide experience he had had. It is true that it is stated in the rep.ort of the Royal Commission that Mr. Hoare did not have the high technical skill which a man in that position should possess. It is very easy to say that now, but would these gentlemen have made that report previous to the collapse of the bridge at which time he was regarded as a man of excellent practical ability? Previous to the fall of the bridge nobody thought there was anything wrong, nobody thought that



the bridge was not in charge of the best engineers that it was possible to secure and nobody intimated that the business of the company was not conducted in a proper way. Now that the bridge has fallen people naturally try to find excuses and to throw the blame on somebody and in this case it is thrown on the Quebec Bridge Company with the view, perhaps, of making a little political capital against the government. But, if you look at it fairly and squarely, I submit there is nothing in the evidence or the circumstances which would justify the charge that there was any carelessness or negligence whatever on the part of the government or of the Quebec Bridge Company. I submit that under these circumstances there is nothing that the House can do except concur in the majority report. The majority report does not pass judgment on the cause of the fall of the bridge which is a matter that scientific men alone can pass upon. On this point it refers to the evidence taken before the Royal Commission where experts dealt with the question. But the minority report undertakes to throw the blame on Mr. Hoare. If there is blame to be thrown on anybody it must be thrown on Mr. Cooper, but I do not think that anybody will say that Mr. Cooper was not recognized as an authority. It is true that his judgment failed in this case, but the greatest scientists in the world make mistakes and their judgment is apt at times to be at fault. I move therefore that the majority report be concurred in.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by my kon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Walsh) :
That the said report be not adopted, but that this House adopt in lieu thereof the draft report suggested by the minority of said special committee as the same appears in the minutes of said committee.
It is a very ungrateful task to have to address the House on a matter of such great importance as this is within a few hours of prorogation. Nevertheless, I think it my duty to give some details to the House with regard to the conclusions which the minority have arrived at with respect to these matters. It seems a fatal matter. When we voted $1,000,000 in support of this enterprise it was, if I remember rightly, at the close of the session, when we entered into the unfortunate arrangement of 1903 which was the cause of this great disaster and has brought us to this impasse it was within forty-eight hours of the closing of the session and here we are, within a few hours of the closing of this session, obliged to consider this matter in all its aspects and necessarily obliged to be extremely brief in any observations which we have to make. I feel it my duty to say that the proceedings of the committee were of a most agreeable character, the minority have no complaint to make on that score


Mr. W. CHISHOLM.: The chairman was fair throughout and so agreeable were our relations that on the last evening, at our meeting to consider the report. although we were in a majority, we considered my kon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) as present by a fiction of the imagination, we assumed that his view would be contrary to our own, and although in reality we were in a majority, our report was considered rejected and it comes in as a minority report.
I cannot help thinking that this matter is a lesson to us. We ought, I think, to adopt some rule under which matters of this importance could not come before the consideration of the House at such a late hour of the session. I think that would be a protection for the government which would prevent our proceedings from being, as to my mind they are in this instance, a contempt of the rights of the people. My kon. friends on the committee, although our relations were agreeable throughout, when it came to a consideration of the conclusions of the committee, seemed to have looked upon the matter as one of scarcely any importance. Look at their report; it is a relation of facts about which there is no controversy whatever. The origin of this company, its subsidies, the agreement of 1903, are all set forth, but when you come to that dreadful accident which has cost the country 100 lives and has Involved us in a loss which, in my opinion, will amount to over $7,000,000, they do not seem to think it is of more importance than would be the breaking of a window sash in the construction of a building.


Mr. TALBOT.: What did the hon. member expect tbe majority of the committee to say about the accident?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thought that in spite of any political tendencies -they would view this matter as a great national question, a grave national disaster, something serious about which it is of no use trying to shield people who are at fault. It is better to lay the blame where it should rest and attempt to arrive at the conclusions which impose themselves. The conclusions to which the minority arrive are the conclusions to which the royal commission arrived almost in terms. Does the government find fault with the conclusions of the commission which they named to look into this matter? There is nothing in the report of the minori-ty'tkat you will not find in the very able, the very exhaustive report to which the government seem to have adhered and at which arrived the royal commissioners named to investigate the causes of this disaster. The commission were not charged, as we were, with this particular feature of the matter, but their commission was of so large a scope that they entered into it and arrived at precisely the same conclusion as we have arrived at as regards the

financial aspect of the question and the control of the plans of the bridge-or rather the want of control, for which the Minister of Finance is absolutely responsible, and in regard to which I shall be very glad to hear what explanations he has to give to the House. I do not mean that the Finance Minister did not make a struggle in this ease, as he did in all matters relating to the Quebec bridge, but he succumbed at the last, and he is responsible for the fix in which we find ourselves at the present.
Let me refer briefly to the objects of the investigation, because I think it necessary to point that out. We were charged with the task of investigating the conditions and guarantees under which this government paid moneys to the Quebec Bridge Company, endorsed and guaranteed the bonds of that company and what was our recourse at the present moment, and we were charged also with the examination of what precautions the government took in regard to suitable and proper plans for that great structure.
One word in regard to the financial situation. My hon. friend who has opened the discussion on this question has spoken of the men who were in this company. I know most of them; they are certainly good men. I have known Mr. Sharpies for a long * time, and X have nothing but good to say of him. Mr. Laliberte I have known for a long time ; he is a very estimable citizen ; in fact, most of them are good men. They seem, in this instance, to have lent their names to an enterprise which, from its inception, viewed from a financial standpoint only, was absolutely ridiculous, perfectly absurd. Here is a company that had for its object the construction of a bridge which could not cost less than $6,000,000 ; that was a low estimate. What did they put into the enterprise? 'At most, at the time the scheme was entered into, $65,000. That was the paid-up capital of this ridiculous company, and then $20,000 of this at the very least, as mentioned in our own report, was given to the directors of the company not in accordance with the Act of incorporation of the company. Section 8 of the Act of 1887 incorporating the company defines under what circumstances stock can be given in payment, and it would not be under that section given to the directors for labours. To mention labours seems absurd ; they performed no labours. In violation of that clause, out of the $65,000, we find in our report that they got $20,000, reducing the capital stock of the company, organized for an enterprise that could not cost less than $6,000,000, to the sum of $45,000. X say that they got more than $20,000. At page 27 of the printed record you will find $5,200 additional. There was some doubt about that, in regard to which my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) 424}
and my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. [DOT]Walsh) did not seem to be convinced. We have reported, in regard to which there is no doubt whatever, that they got $20,000 out of the $65,000. I say that it is in evidence before the committee that- they got $25,200 in stock out of the $65,000. But why harp about that? In the Senate not long ago an answer was given by the Secretary of State to an inquiry made by Hon. Senator Landry, and what is the effect of that answer? It may be found under the caption of ' Payment to the Quebec Bridge Directors.' The information is authentic; there is no doubt about it; the directors of this company, these great men who are so patriotic, who have done so much for this enterprise and for their country in such a disinterested manner, have received, according to the answer given by the Hon. Mr. Scott, which answer was furnished by the Bridge 'Company, $49,661.01 out of a total paid-up capital stock of $65,000.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will my hon. friend allow one slight correction ? I know he wants to be fair; but when he states that there was only $65,000 paid up, surely he knows better than that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am speaking of the company at its inception. I will refer in a moment to what happened in 1903; and what happened in 1903 was a deception and. a snare, just like what happened before. I say that at the period of which I am now speaking the directors, out of a capital stock of $65,000, received for themselves $49,601.01 -the secretary, $16,890, and Mr. Hoare, the architect or engineer of the bridge, $45,150. The personnel of this company had $111,641.01 on a paid-up capital stock of $05,000. The financial situation resolves itself into this, that tills company owes the government at the present moment $6,000,000. There is no error in that. I did not hear my hon. friend (Mr. Wm. Chisholm) in his long comments on this question, point out any error in our calculations. It is over $6,000,000 They owe the government $100,000 and more of duties. What else they owe at or around Quebec I do not know. What are their assets ? Nothing. There are piers there. There are some constructions and some materials. What is the value of them? Nothing. Possibly the piers may be some use if the new board finds that they can be utilized. But I asked Mr. Holgate the . question : ' What can those piers be useful for ? ' He said : ' I do not know; it is very doubtful if they can be of any use, because any new plan must be absolutely different from the other; but they may be of use.'
I do not deny it. It is possible that they may have to be demolished. The materials can be of very little use. I say that these assets are valueless. This is an absolutely insolvent concern, and the government have recognized it to-day. But they did not recognize it in 1903, when that company came

here, having no assets whatever and a floating debt of over three-quarters of a million. That, I say, is the financial aspect. Our hou. friends in their report, have endeavoured to show that there was something of value.. There is really nothing. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) suggests that the new board may change the location of the bridge. It is very probable that they will. From what evidence I heard, it seems to me improbable that they will decide upon the present site. We shall see when the board has reported. The government have done to-day, after all this loss has been incurred, after a hundred lives have been sacrificed, what they should have done at the very beginning ; they have begun to consider plans : they never have done so before to-day. I assert that the government have never looked into the plans of this bridge company. Here we are, face to face with the construction of the greatest bridge in the world, the like of which has never been seen. We were involved to the extent that we financed the whole business, and the government-the Minister of Finance, pushed, I suppose, influenced by many forces-never saw fit to control the plans, to see what all this was going to be. That is a very strong assertion; I will endeavour to prove it. It was what the Royal Commission found. They gently hint. They do not use strong terms. I believe the time has come to speak the truth. But they say:
* The misfortune is that these plans were never studied by the government.' What happened, Mr. Speaker ? You will scarcely believe the story, but it is borne out by the work of the Royal Commission and by the evidence before our own committee. We had it in the findings and the evidence of the Royal Commission, even if we had heard no witnesses at all. But we heard some, and we three have arrived at the same conclusion as the Royal Commission; we have that satisfaction at any rate. Let us speak of tlie plans. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that in regard to this bridge, the greatest bridge in the world, Mr. Hoare, a very nice fellow, I have no doubt, but about as competent as a bridge engineer as I am, sent in to the government the specifications, whicii were in printed form, handed by the government to bridge constructors when we give subsidies for bridges, as we gave a great many last night. He took those specifications for the Quebec bridge, and sent them in to .the government as the ' specifications for the Quebec bridge, with a span of 800 feet. Is that credible ? Yet it is the fact. What happened? Mr. Douglas, our engineer for bridge purposes, found fault with them. He ventured to report to the government that the unit stress were too great, by which, as far as I understand the language of these gentlemen, is meant the weight was too great for these specifications. It was a note of warning ; but the government took no notice of it whatever. Here was a con-Mr. MONK.
struction, the plans of which had been devised by the construction company itself, the PhGenix Bridge Company, the government took no notice whatever of this note of warning sounded by Mr. Douglas. The bridge company has taken as its consulting engineer Mr. Cooper. Mr. Cooper is an eminent engineer. Heiis a man of seventy, and never but once, so far as I know, went near the construction ; and the man who in reality is responsible for the preparation of these plans is Mr. ySzlapka, with Mr. Deans. Who is Mr. Deans ? The chief engineer of the Phoenix Bridge Company, and any man who goes on the street will know that Mr. Deans is a very rash engineer. He is a man of ability, who aims at heap construc-.tion, and his aims have been attended by sinister misfortunes in the United States.
The government could have found that out easy enough ; they did not trouble to inquire. But the critical moment came ; the moment when the Minister of Finance enters on the scene-I believe I know too much of the Minister of Finance to think that were he not led in the matter he would not have done as he did-the critical moment was when the plans came up for approval by tlie government. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, when we gave the subsidy we stipulated we should have control of the plans and should approve them ; we always make such a stipulation. But further, in 1903 when we entered into this disastrous agreement we had stipulated specially in the Act passed at the end of the session, that we would have control of the plans and would supervise them. I may say to the House now that after the passage of that Act tlie government gave itself no heed whatever of these plans and never bothered about them at all. Parliament-as we say properly in our report- had imposed in that Act the duty upon the government of supervising the plans of this vast and unprecedented structure. But after the passage of the Act the government paid no attention to the matter. In July, 1903. when the whole of this scheme was concocted which we heard of only at the end of October, 1903, when parliament was about to prorogue, this matter came up before the government and what happened ? I say it is incredible to believe the tale which is unfolded unless you read the proof of it in the evidence. Mr. Schreiber is a very good engineer-there are a great many good engineers, but when you come to look into the plans of a bridge alongside of which the Forth bridge is a small affair, you require special skill and special caution in your experts. What did Mr. Schreiber do ? In July he asked the government, and he gave reasons for his request, to employ a specialist in bridge engineering to oversee these plans, and Mr. Speaker, had that been done I have no hesitation in saying-in fact I asked the question of Mr. Holgate and he gave a reply which he carefully read leads to the same conclusion-had that been done
13369	JULY 17, 1908	13370
the fatal defect in this bridge would have been detected. It was pointed out by Hol-gate and his associates that after this disaster the government asked a special bridge engineer in the United States to look into the matter and he pointed out the defect. Mr. Douglas, our own engineer, had hinted at it. I believe that Mr. Cooper, being one man with one head had overlooked the matter ; it escaped him. No one man alone can carry out an enterprise of that kind ; it is impossible. And, Sir, had that been done and had Mr. Schreiber's request been complied with we would not have had to lament and deplore this immense loss of life and money. But what happened? The tale continues to be extraordinary, it reads like a romance. I should have said that when Mr. Schreiber's request came before the government, the government of course granted it and an order in council of the 26th of July authorized Mr. Schreiber to employ a specialist. But this was objected to by parties interested. Mr. Cooper would not hear of it for he looked upon it as an insult. Here was the government of Canada financing this bridge and charged with the duty of overseeing these plans, and what insult could there be to Mr. Cooper. The correspondence is there, but I will not refer to it for I feel I am taking up to much time.
Some horn. MEMBERS. Go on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is such an important matter that I must refer to it with some emphasis. Mr. Cooper would not hear of another engineer being called in and he wrote to Mr. Hoare of the bridge company and' he pointed out to the government that this was altogether extraordinary. Extraordinary ? How? The people of Canada were furnishing the money to finance the whole enterprise ; the government of Canada were charged with the supervision of the plans and they were asked to have an independent examination of these plans. What was extraordinary about that ? What happened? Why, the government gave up completely and had no examination made whatever, and the plans' lay there in the Department of Railways in a huge trunk, all of them approved under the circumstances I have narrated and without a special bridge engineer being called in to give his opinion on them. Well, Sir, I think that with regard to the plans the minority of the committee are right in asserting-as did the Royal Commission and as any man who
reads the evidence must assert

that there
was no examination of the plans of this vast structure by the authority that should have examined them. The fact remains that we financed the enterprise without controlling the plans although the government was specially charged to control them ; and here again was exhibited that same lackadaisical spirit that has characterized the government all through in connection with this vast
work. And the member for Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) has conceded the point when he said :	The government considered Mr. Cooper was a competent man and provided the strength of the original specifications was maintained everything was satisfactory. These are the conclusions to which we of the minority have arrived. First, as regards the finances it is a total loss ; second, as regards the plans there has been no control, no effective and suitable control of these plans. The plans were approved as a formality and nothing more, and when you come to consider the vastness of this undertaking and the dangers that surrounded the building of a bridge of that size for which there is no parallel in the world, it seems to me that we are right in saying' that the government did not use proper precautions in regard to the plans of the structure.
But I must hasten on to what I consider the vital matter. The past is past and there is no use shedding tears, although it is_ necessary to point out where the responsibility is and where the defect was. But, to-day there is a proposition which the government brings to our consideration a few hours before prorogation. Mind you, this accident happened on the 29th of August, 190 (. Best there should be any misunderstanding, I think I am faithfully speaking the opinion of botli my colleagues of the minority of the committee when I say that we believe that this is not only a great national undertaking but that this is a bridge that must be built, and built at once. I do not wish to be represented in my own province as being opposed to this great undertaking. I think the bridge should be built at once. In my opinion when they named the board of very able men who constituted this Royal Commission the government should also have named at that time a board of engineers to prepare plans. We should have had those plans before parliament in January last, possibly with the contract. We should have been in a position months ago to close this matter up and to decide as to the completion of this great work. Instead of that, we are here to-day, with what, Mr. Speaker ? With a proposal to indemnify the shareholders. That is what the proposal of the government amounts to. Let me define my position in that respect. Have we authority at the present moment to construct this bridge ? I take the statute relating to the National Transcontinental Railway as passed in 1903, and I find in that statute that the government has not only authority but is bound by agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to build another railway from Winnipeg to Moncton. I say there is authority in that statute to build not only the railway but tile bridges connected with the railway. There is authority in that statute to bridge every river and every stream along the route of tlie railway, and consequently we have authority to bridge the St. Lawrence.

There is mo doubt about that. It would take too much time to quote the law, but there is no doubt about it. Amy Minister of Justice who looks at that statute of 1903 will find not only that the government has authority to raise the necessary money, but it is authorized and indeed it is bound under the agreement which is a schedule to the Act to build that railway and to build that bridge.
Therefore, I say that the moment this accident happened-for now I confine my remarks to the events since this dreadful occasion-the government could have named the commission for which it has asked a vote of $25,000 in the estimates recently passed by this .House. It had authority to name a board of engineers to go to work at once. No legislation was necessary. We have the law to go on and finish the bridge, just as we have the law to finish the railway. Fault is found with the calculations of the leader of the opposition as to the cost of this railway. I find fault with them too ; I say that they are too low, the railroad will cost more than the hon. member has estimated. But we are in for It, and we must-and, of course, we will- carry out the work whatever happens. T say that the government has all the necessary authority to go on and finish the work. And what does the Minister of Railways want to do now? He wants this House to authorize the government to take' up the agreement of 19th October, 1903, and pay money right and left. We are to bevin by paying $205,000, the amount of the capital stock. Let me digress for a moment. The hon. member for Bellecbasse (Mr. Talbot) said that I was mistaken as to (the amount of this capital stock. We had imposed upon this company in 1903 the necessity of raising $200,000 additional stock. We would not give the guarantee otherwise. That money was to be employed in paying the discount on the bonds. But they never paid it. They sent a certificate to the Minister of Finance that the condition had been complied with. It had not been complied with ; they were $94,000 shoirt, the amount subscribed by the contractor of the bridge who had paid in the bonds of the old company with the discount, and who paid up when the bonds were paid, out of the guaranteed amount. This was paid, I believe, in 1907. This is the story of the $200,000 additional stock. What we are asked to do now is to pay out money. The bridge lies there under the water, holding in its cruel clutches the bodies of many of those who lost their lives on that terrible day. What we are asked to do is to pay $265,000 to the shareholders. Are we obliged to pay it? There is no obligation whatever. We had reserved the right under our agreement to expropriate the enterprise when finished and a going concern. Well, it is not quite a going concern now. Not only are we to pay back the money of the shareholders, but we are to pay 5


Frederick Debartzch Monk: per cent interest from the time they got their certificate of stock. For instance, the one who subscribed $94,000 got his certificate immediately-he paid up three years after. We are to pay 5 per cent from the time when the certificates were given. And 10 per cent premium besides. And what else? Who knows what are the liabilities of this company I asked the question repeatedly of witnesses who appeared before the committee :	Have you any statement
of the affairs of the company? There was no statement. Who knows what debts we are assuming in taking over the debts of the company-for there is a stipulation in the agreement that we must pay all the debts of the company contracted 1 with the [DOT] assent and approval of the government.' These are very vague words. Why, as soon as this resolution is put in operation the claims will appear as thick as the leaves in Vallambrosa. What ground is there for it? None whatever. I still have confidence, great confidence in my right hon. friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier that he will drop that resolution, for if passed it will have the effect of plunging us into a sea of liabilities of which we know nothing. But, in the first place, if that resolution passes it is admitted that we must pay nearly $400,000 to the stockholders.


Mr.   A.@: If. MACLEAN. No, $265,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And 5 per cent for five years and 10 per cent premium-it is easily figured out. But this is a sum that we can calculate and know ; other claims will arise the amount of which nobody can know.


Mr. BERGERON.: What about the city of Quebec and their bonus?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These shareholders were heroic men, but they took care to protect themselves in every way. Hon. members will find, on reading the agreement, that there was' a provision for the payment of subsidies by the Quebec city and Quebec province after everybody has been paid. There is nothing in the position of these shareholders which obliges us to make such a sacrifice as is proposed. People suffer every day. When I arose in this House years ago to ask the gentlemen to give assistance to the depositors of the Yille Marie Bank under circumstances which I thought justified the giving of that assistance, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told me that the government was not an eleemosynary institution, that there were sufferers in business and sufferers in banks. As a result of this, the labours of this board, in which I have confidence-for I hope the company will appoint none but able men-if they find that these piers can be utilized, or some valid ground for dealing with the company in such a manner that those who have cash in the enterprise-those who have put cash in the enterprise and those only-I

shall be the last man to object. But to start at this poiut, without any necessity for it, upon this vast additional expenditure, I say is altogether unjustifiable. The government can go to work and build this bridge without any legislation whatever- there is no doubt about that. But, in any case, why take the action here proposed?
X was speaking the other day with a very eminent engineer, one whom I would like to see employed on this work, if that could be possible, and I mentioned that it would take at least three months to prepare the plans. He scoffed at the idea and assured me that it would take a much longer time than that. In three months another session will be near at hand. Then there are tenders to be called for and contracts to be made. Why should we then pass a resolution which will involve us more and more in this disastrous and unbusiness-like way of carrying out a great national work.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg).: At this stage of the session, when prorogation is at hand, I do not desire to occupy the the time of the House for more than a few moments. There is nothing very difficult or complicated about all the matters relating to the Quebec bridge. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), who has just taken his seat, that the collapse of the bridge was a national disaster. But I think it should be treated as a national disaster by hon. members in discussing the subject instead of, apparently, gloating over the country's misfortune. The hon. member (Mr. Monk) finds fault with the report of the majority in not reaching conclusions similar to the findings of the Royal Commission. I submit that the position taken by the majority of the committee was the correct one. Immediately after the collapse of the bridge in August last year, the government, very properly, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the disaster and all questions relating thereto. That necessarily was a technical question and could only be dealt with by men who have professional knowledge. The report of the commission was, later, placed before parliament. The majority of the committee, feeling that this _ was a technical question, did not think it advisable to make any finding on that subject.
Now, my hon. friend boasts that the report of the minority in this respect concurs with the report of the royal commission. Well, if that is a comforting thought to my hon. friends, they are at liberty to entertain it. But I submit that the minority of the committee appointed to investigate and look into the matter of the Quebec bridge construction, and later, of its collapse, have no more idea of the causes of the collapse than have the mummies in the tombs of the Pharaohs. I have great respect for the attainments and judgment of the hon. gentlemen who compose the minority of
that committee, hut I submit they have no evidence before them, and they were not competent to form any conclusion of any value when they made the report which they have made, and which is called the minority report, and upon which report the hon. gentleman who has just_ taken his seat compliments himself and his confreres because it was similar to that of the royal commission.
Now, just a few words as to the history of this project. This project had its genesis in the city and province of Quebec. The idea of the construction of this bridge developed in the province of Quebec, and naturally and properly there were many reasons why the people of that city and province desired the construction of such a bridge. It was not then a political question, everybody, irrespective of politics, around the city of Quebec were willing to invest a few dollars in the project. When the Conservative party were in power they time and again promised assistance. At one time Mr. T. Chase Casgrain, then Attorney General of the province of Quebec, publicly stated that if the government of Sir John A. Macdonald did not _ implement their promises and give a subsidy to this bridge his Quebec colleagues should resign their seats. It was not until the present government came into power, however, that the enterprise received any aid. The company was organized first in 1887. The hon. gentleman complains about the amount of their capital. It was small, it is time, only $65,000 of paid-up capital, but the subscribed capital was over $200,000, and the unpaid portion of the subscribed capital was certainly an asset of the company. But, in addition to that, the province of Quebec had voted a subsidy of $250,000 and the city of Quebec a subsidy of $300,000. So at that stage, at least, the company had assets to the extent of over half a million dollars. In the year 1900 the bridge company had made such progress that they entered into a contract with Mr. M. P. Davis for the construction of the substructure. The contract involved an amount of over $1,000,000. The plans were approved of by the government, and the substructure, under that contract, was eventually completed. The affairs of the Quebec Bridge Company were then in charge of Mr. Hoare. I wish to submit to this House that the building of the substructure was probably as important and as difficult an undertaking as the construction of the superstructure. Mr. Schreiber, in his report to the government, stated that in his judgment Mr. Hoare was quite competent to be In charge of the construction of the substructure. The fact that the substructure withstood the collapse of the bridge last year was a tribute to the efficiency and competency of the work of the contractor and the oversight of Mr. COMMONS
Hoare, who was then in charge of the project on behalf of the bridge company. Later, the question of the construction of the superstructure had to be dealt with by the Quebec Bridge Company, and the procedure they adopted was this : A general plan of the bridge was prepared under the supervision of Mr. Hoare. They then invited tenders from the most eminent bridge builders in America, and with the tenders they invited plans and specifications to be prepared by those tendering. The successful tenderers were the Phoenix Bridge Company, the best known and probably the most reputable bridge constructing firm in America, and their plans and specifications were accepted. At this time the Quebec Bridge Company secured the services of Mr. Cooper, of New York, as their consulting engineer. Mr. Cooper, let me say, was, in tiie judgment of the profession, regarded as the most eminent bridge designer and builder in America, and perhaps had no superior in the world. I just wish to dwell for a moment on this point, because it is important, because it afterwards transpired that the government, that the Quebec Bridge Company, that everybody interested relied very much on the judgment of Mr. Cooper ; and having, as they believed, in their employ one of the most competent men available in the world, it was only natural that they should rely to a great extent on his judgment. I wish at this point to read what the Royal Commission say regarding Mr. Cooper :
Mr. Theodore Cooper, of New York, was the consulting engineer. In the extent of his experience and in reputation for integrity, professional judgment and acumen, Mr. Cooper had few equals on this continent, and his appointment would have been generally approved. Mr. Cooper's strict duties were to examine, correct and approve plans prepared by the contractors,, and to give the engineering advice to Mr. Hoare when requested. Mr. Cooper and his chief assistant, Mr. Berret Berger, carried on a most thorough and painstaking examination of the plains. Mr. Cooper appointed both shop and erection inspectors for reasons explained in his evidence, and had these inspectors report fully and regularly to him. Mr. Cooper states that he greatly desired to build -this bridge as Ills final work and he gave it careful attention. His professional standing was so high that his appointment left no further anxiety about the outcome m the minds of almost everybodv concerned.
That is the finding of the commission respecting Mr. Cooper's capabilities as an engineer. They summarize their finding in the beginning of their report, and they say this :
The professional record of Mr. Cooper was such that Ms selection for the authoritative position that he occupied was warranted, and the complete confidence that was placed in his judgment by the officials of tbe Dominion Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
government, and of tbe Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and of the Phcenix Bridge Company was deserved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask in ail fairness, wliat more could be expected of the government in the circumstances ? They believed that the Quebec Bridge Company had as its consulting engineer the most eminent man available in America, a man of well known professional standing, and a man of very great experience. It is true, as was stated by my hon. friend who proceeded me, that Mr. Schreiber recommended the appointment of a consulting engineer who would act on behalf of the government as well. It is true that Mr. Schreiber's suggestion received confirmation by order in council. Later it was found that Mr. Cooper objected to the appointment of an engineer to act on behalf of the government and, Mr. Schreiber, owing to the opposition of Mr. Cooper to the appointment of such an engineer, reported to the government that he had such confidence in the ability and integrity of Mr. Cooper, the interests of the government and of the Quebec Bridge Company being in common, that he felt that they might rely upon Mr. Cooper solely. Accordingly the government abandoned the idea of appointing an inspector. It is very easy to be wise after the event. Had this bridge not fallen, Mr. Cooper's reputation would have been enhanced, had the bridge not fallen, Mr. Hoare might have been known to the engineering profession in Canada as a great bridge builder, but, unfortunately, a fundamental mistake was made in the design of the bridge. I submit in all fairness, that, the design of the bridge having been supervised and approved of by Mr. Cooper and been approved of by Mr. Schreiber on behalf of the government of Canada, it is hardly fair criticism to say that the government were careless and that they did not take sufficient precautionary measures with reference to inspection.
In 1903, as I have already stated, the bridge company had completed the substructure, and the question of the commencement of the construction of the superstructure was before them. They were, not in good financial circumstances and late in October of that year they addressed a communication to the Department of Railways and Canals, or probably to the government, explaining their situation and asking for financial assistance in the way of a guarantee of bonds. This request was granted upon certain conditions. An agreement was entered into and that agreement was ratified by parliament in October, 1903. That agreement contained several features, one of which was that the company were to pay up $200,000 of additional capital. The hon. gentleman who preceded me stated that a portion of that agreement was not complied with. Well, if it was not complied with at the moment at which the bonds were issued it certainly was subsequently. To say

the worst of it there may have been a postponement of the fulfilment of that condition, but it was eventually complied with. I am doubtful if it is even open to the interpretation placed upon it by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. One hundred and nineteen thousand dollars of that subscription'was made by Mr. M. P. Davis, a gentleman of well known financial standing. That would have given him a control in the company. The company desired that the railways entering at Quebec should be interested in this project and that they should become shareholders. The delivery to Mr. Davis of his $119,000 of stock was postponed in order to obtain a subscription of stock from the Grand Trunk Railway Company. Later the Grand Trunk Railway Company did subscribe for $25,000 of stock, they paid the amount and when they did pay it Mr. Davis substituted a cheque for $94,000 in place of his $119,000 cheque and subscription. When this was done the cheque was cashed. The company say that they always regarded that cheque as the equivalent of cash, and I have no doubt they were justified in so doing. Thereupon the company certified to the government that $200,000 had been subscribed and paid. I do not know that it is very important whether the company were justified in treating that cheque for $94,600 as cash or not. It eventually went into the undertaking ; at least it is so reported by Mr. Bell, an auditor of the Department of Railways and Canals. Neither the interests of the government nor of the Quebec bridge, nor any other interest suffered by the postponement of the conversion of this cheque into cash. They certified to the government that the full amount was subscribed and paid and upon this certificate the government guaranteed the $6,000,000 issue of'bonds. It is said that the government were not justified in doing so prior to the subscription and payment of this $200,000 of stock. In addition to that I have this to say that I am very doubtful if it were possible for the agreement to have been worked out in any other fashion than that in which it was. The Bank of Montreal later advanced moneys upon these bonds and accepted the certificate of the company. They must have had legal advice to the effect that the portion of the agreement requiring the payment of $200,000 had been fully complied with ; otherwise the issue of bonds might not have been legal and there was an issue, as I say, of $6,000,000,
At one o'clock House took recess. '
House resumed at three o'clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I had reached that stage in the history of the Quebec Bridge Company when they found the substructure of the bridge built, and when they found themselves considerably in debt and in need of financial assistance to proceed
with the erection of the superstructure. In October, 1903, they made application to the government for financial assistance of some character or another. Up to that time they had expended $914,862 upon the bridge; they were indebted to the extent of $779,550 and they calculated that it would take $6,866,882 to liquidate their indebtedness and place them in possession of the funds necessary to complete the undertaking. An agreement was entered into and the main features of that agreement are: In the first place the company released the government from its obligation to pay the subsidy of one million dollars, a portion only of which (about $375,000) they had received and expended. The company also on its part undertook to receive from the shareholders of that company as of that date the stock issued and to substitute therefor a stock issue equal in amount to the sum actually paid upon the stock. The company also agreed to procure $200,000 of new stock. That $200,000 of stock was subscribed and was eventually paid. Whether it was technically subscribed or paid prior to the guarantee of the bonds by the government is after all not of very great importance because the $200,000 was eventually paid; it went into the treasury of the company and became a part of the common fund of the proceeds arising from the issue of the bonds which were guaranteed by the government. In consideration of these agreements on the part of the company the government agreed to guarantee the bonds of the company to the extent necessary to liquidate their indebtedness and to provide them with that amount of money which they believed would be sufficient to complete the bridge. That agreement was ratified by an Act of parliament and under that agreement the government subsequently guaranteed the bonds and the company were placed in a position to liquidate their indebtedness and to be in possession of funds, and they proceeded with the construction of the bridge. That is practically the history of the bridge until it fell in August, 1907.
To epitomize the story of the bridge in a few words and in chronological order let me say. First, the scheme received its inspiration in the city and in the province of Quebec. The city of Quebec, its citizens, and the province of Quebec wee primarily interested in the construction of the bridge. In 1887, a company was organized to commence the undertakir . and I submit that was the proper way to connnenc" the construction of such a work. Neither us provincial nor federal governments would at that time undertake it, and it was only natural that a company composed of the citizens of Quebec should be organized for the purpose. There were three parties interested: first, the province of Quebec: sacond-lv. the city of Quebec; and thirdly, the shareholders of the company. The city of Quebec voted by way of subsidy $300,000; the province of Quebec voted $250,000 and the

company subscribed $200,000, so that tbe undertaking was launched with a capital either promised or subscribed of $750,000. Later, the Dominion government became interested and voted a subsidy of $1,000,000 so that the company at this stage with all the parties interested, had a fair and reasonable amount of capital at their back. Objection was made by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that certain stock was issued to directors on account of services rendered on behalf of the company. This is a matter 1 need not detain the House about because after all it is not important. The stock of the company had no value at that date; the directors rendered very valuable services, the business of the company occupied a great deal of their time and in many other ways they devoted themselves to the project. Then, we have the company undertaking the project with a capital at their disposal of about $1,600,000. In 1900, they gave a contract for the substructure to Mr. M. P. Davis, the anticipated cost of which was to be over one million dollars. The substructure was successfully built; it stood the test of the collapse of the bridge and I think no adverse comment can be made upon that portion of the enterprise. In addition to the substructure a contract for the terminals on each side -of the river approaching the bridge was given also to Mr. M. P. Davis, and that contract was completed at a cost in excess of $1,000,000. Then the company invited tenders and the submission of plans for the superstructure, and the plan of the Phoenix Bridge Company appearing to be the best-was accepted. It was submitted later on to the consulting engineer of the company, Mr. Cooper, of New York, who was a bridge engineer of considerable eminence and one of the best known bridge builders in America. Mr. Cooper approved of that plan subject to some modifications. It was also approved of by the government engineer. and in 1903. a contract was actually entered into with the Phoenix Bridge Company to complete the work. It was suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Monk) that because at one stage in the history of the Quebec bridge, Mr. Schreiber. the government engineer, had recommended the appointment of an inspecting engineer and because this inspecting engineer was not appointed that therefore the government acted without consulting Mr. Schreiber. I wish to correct that statement in case there may be some misapprehension on the part of hon. gentlemen about it. It is true that Mr. Schreiber recommended the appointment of an engineer and such recommendation was confirmed by order in council. Later, on the recommendation of Mr. Schreiber himself, it was agreed that inasmuch as the interests of the government and of the Quebec Bridge Company were in common, and inasmuch as Mr. Cooper was regarded by the profession generally as the most capable man whose services they could secure, it would be suffl-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
cient if the construction of the bridge were left to .the sole supervision of Mr. Cooper. The construction oP the superstructure was proceeded with and everything was going well until in August, 1907, the bridge fell and instantly the critics developed over night. The critics say that there was not a sufficient system of inspection. Now Mr. Speaker, I submit that when the government of the day had secured the services of the most eminent bridge builder in America, and when as the Royal Commission have found-and they have emphatically found upon this point-the government and the Quebec Bridge Company were justified in assuming that everything as regards inspection and construction was in good hands when in the hands of Mr. Cooper, and that the complete confidence placed in Mr. Cooper by the government and by the bridge company was deserving, I say in view of all that, the criticism is most unfair.
I submit further that if that bridge were being built by a private individual, and he had the endorsement of the plans by a man so eminent and so highly regarded by his profession as Mr. Cooper, he would have done just what the Quebec Bridge Company did and what the government did. It is all very well to suggest now that there should have been a commission of engineers in charge of the construction of the bridge. Human aftersight is better than human foresight. So long as there is that limitation of the human judgment, it is only fair to say that accidents of this character are liable to happen and have happened in the past, notwithstanding every precaution that may be taken. The question to-day is, what is to be done to insure the completion of the . bridge ? The resolution which has been placed on the Order Paper by the Minister of Railways is to the effect that the government are to take over the stock of the company and pay the shareholders. I submit that there is nothing unreasonable about that; it is the only fair and businesslike thing to do. Immediately after the collapse of the Quebec bridge, it appeared to be the opinion of the public generally that the government should take hold of this enterprise.
I think it is only fair that under the terms of the agreement of 1903 they should possess themselves of the stock of the company and proceed with the completion of the bridge. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier suggested that we were taking over liabilities, the amount of which was unknown to us. I submit that there are no liabilities which we are assuming that we do not know of. In the first place, we shall have to pay the sum of $260,000 to acquire the stock of the company plus ten per cent premium. That is definite and well-known. In the next place, we know what our loss is in the guaranteeing of the company's bonds, and I suppose it is only fair for me to state that that will in all probability be a total loss to the government of this country.

There is no possible liability, so far as I can see, in connection with the loss of life. 1 understand that the Phoenix Bridge Company carried with some insurance company a policy which will liquidate any loss which they may be obliged to pay by reason of the loss of life, and I understand that the Phoenix Bridge Company have up to the present time liquidated all claims for damages in that regard. Therefore the only thing left for the government to do is to acquire control of the company and to proceed with the completion of the bridge. It is a national undertaking, and nobody else can assume that responsibility. It is unfortunate that the collapse of the bridge occurred. The government took all reasonable precautions to prevent any such thing happening. I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that it is unfortunate in a sense that the government are obliged to step in and take control of the bridge. It is an undertaking that I think could be better handled and controlled by a terminal company ; and it might be worth the consideration of the government, after they have obtained control of the company, whether they should not invite all the railway companies of Canada who have an entrance into the city of Quebec to become part owners in the bridge. In so far as the minority report so-called makes findings of fact, I make no protest against it ; any statements in it regarding the history of the enterprise appear to be properly set forth. But in so far as that report charges the government or the Department of Railways and Canals with want of care or with gross negligence,. I do not concur in-I do. not desire to occupy further the time of the House upon this matter at this late hour, as I know that there is considerable business yet to do.


Mr. R. N. WALSH (Huntingdon).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to detain the House for a short time in making some remarks on the minority report of the committee. The kon. member who has preceded me (Mr. A. K. Maclean) stated that the members who have presented the minority report did not apparently treat this as a national disaster, but rather as a means of making political capital against the government. With that I take direct issue. I do not think that any members of the House appreciate more fully than do the members who have presented the minority report the greatness of the disaster, not only from a monetary standpoint, but in the loss of life which was occasioned; and in view of the fact that the report of the Royal Commission which was appointed by this government stated that had there been efficient supervision this loss of life could have been prevented, I say that it is more than a national disaster, it is a national disgrace. The government of this country practically controlled the construction of that bridge, which was not only a
national undertaking, but the largest undertaking of its kind in the world, and they handed it over to a company of which not a single man knew anything of bridge building. There was not a single bridge expert connected with the company, and they had a very limited capital. What is the history of that company V It was organized in 1887, and if you will read the minutes of the company, you will find that at their meetings at that time their principal business was the appointing of committees to interview one government or another with the view of getting subsidies. Previous to this the Quebec government had contributed money for the preliminary surveys, but up to 1897 very little had been done. At that time Mr. Parent was asked to join the company, as it was thought that his influence would have some effect in procuring assistance for the bridge. In that I think they were not disappointed, and I wonder if the reason that the government are continuing the project is not on account of their promises of .support made long ago. ^ I find in the minutes of the Bridge Company that at a meeting held in September, 1897, Mr. Parent stated that he had seen Sir Wilfrid I.aurier, who stated that the subsidy could not be voted at the next session owing to very grave reasons, which were privately explained ; but Sir Wilfrid wanted the company to proceed, and they would be sure to get the necessary security to finish the bridge if it is not voted next session; Sir Wilfrid would send a letter guaranteeing the subsidy for the following session. So as early as 1897 we have the government practically pledged to furnish sufficient securty ito carry out the work. However, in 1903 the government secured the bonds of the company. In the meantime interim bonds had been issued to Mr. Davis upon which there was a discount of some $188,000. In this agreement it was provided that there should be new stock furnished to cover that issue. Evidently the Finance Minister considered that this had been very injudicious financing, and that what had been lost in that way should be made up. Had that been done simply I could have understood it, but when this new stock of $200,000 was practically added to the capital, the government undertaking to take the bridge over and to pay 5 per cent and a premium of 10 per cent, I do not think they in any way helped the matter. It has been said that the sale of the bonds at a discount of 40 per cent was justified in a way, because Mr. Davis would not draw any interest until the substructure was completed. However, he was paid some time within two years, and I notice he drew some $29,000 in Interest, which I think was a pretty fair return for the money. It has'also been said that the reason the bonds were sold in that way was because there might be a loss on them.

133S4
At any rate, the government accepts the statement made that this bridge will be a paying concern. Mr. Parent had made a statement which the government evidently accepted, that, taking out operating expenses in the first and second year, they could still pay 3 per cent and leave a balance of some $36,000, so evidently Mr. Davis was not likely to lose anything. Further, in securing these interim bonds, he practically got a mortgage on the bridge after the reconstruction of the company, which gave him a first lien and practically put him in a better position. As to his cheque being held, the statement is made that this practically carried out the legislation. X wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Finance Minister, in giving his evidence, said that he would not consider that was carrying out the statute. When first it was brought to his notice he wrote to the Bridge Company drawing their attention to the fact that the statute had not been lived up to. It has been said that there was no harm in that, that Mr. Davis' cheque was taken and could have been cashed at any time. It seems peculiar to me that Mr. Davis should be so complaisant, that if he had nearly $100,000 in that he should pay his money and not secure his stock and have nothing to say. I think the history of this transaction, if completely followed out, would be very interesting.
In regard to the plans, the evidence of Mr. Douglas is that the plans on which this bridge was built were the ordinary bridge specifications of 1890, that even in the department after that these specifications had been amended, but that the original plans of 1896 were used as a specification for this bridge, and that it was considered that they were entirely inadequate and that new plans should have been made. When they were submitted to Mr. Douglas he found fault with them and criticised the unit stresses. After that Mr. Douglas had nothing more to say evidently in regard to the plans. Mr. Schreiber, who was a very busy man I understand, evidently considered that he had not the time to properly look after this work, and suggested to the government that they should appoint a bridge expert, which I think was a pretty good idea. It has been stated that the Bridge Company did not object to the appointment of Mr. Nichols. I find, however, in the report of the Royal Commission, a reference to this order in council. The commissioners state :
The policy of Mr. Schreiber was not in accordance with the wishes of the Quebec Bridge Company and its association-see letters, Hoare to Cooper, July 1, 1903 (exhibit 70 I); Parent to Fitzpatrick, June 29, 1903 (exhibit 70 T); Fitzpatrick to Parent, July 118, 1903 (exhibit 73 C)-and as soon as Mr. Mr. WALSH.
Cooper fully understood the deputy minister's plans be protested vigorously.
From that it is quite evident that the Quebec Bridge Company were not in accord with the appointing of an expert, and some of the correspondence in regal'd to that is interesting. Mr. Cooper objected, it is true, to the appointment of a bridge expert, and in a letter to Mr. Cooper from Mr. Deans, the chief engineer of the Phoenix Bridge Company, there is a paragraph which I think is significant. It says :
The order in council was taken solely to save time and to have your approval of our details final and binding on the government-it simply being necessary to have Mr. Sclireiber's signature a.s a matter of form.
That was the understanding of the chief engineer of the Phoenix Bridge Company. In a further letter of August 1, 1903, he
says :
I talked with Mr. Hoare over the 'phone yesterday (the service was not very satisfactory), and also wired him two long messages, and have received his reply, stating that ' he will take up the question with parties at Ottawa, and that we should go ahead, aud if anything turns up to cause trouble tell Cooper to let me know at once/ I have written him again, and urged him to stop entirely this proposed plan, and explaining that the sole purpose of the order in council was to give you the final authority to settle all details, the government approval being a mere formality.
It is evident that the construction and carrying out of the plans [DOT] were all in the hands of the bridge company, the government exercising no supervision. It is true that Mr. Cooper was considered an expert authority, and the hou. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) read the finding of the commission, in which they speak of his ability. But he did not read the whole jrassage. It continues :
In considering Mr. Cooper's part in this undertaking, it should be remembered that he was an elderly man, rapidly approaching seventy, and of such infirm health that he was only rarely permitted to leave New York.
Mr. Cooper assumed a position of great responsibility, and agreed to accept an inadequate salary for his services. No provision was made by the Quebec Bridge Company for a staff to assist him, nor is there any evidence to show that he asked for the appointment of such a staff.
From the evidence of Mr. Holgate, it is apparent that while Mr. Cooper was considered to be simply the consulting engineer, he was compelled to act as engineer in chief, and there was no engineer in chief on the works. The commission find directly against that system, and say distinctly that while it would not have been possible, probably, not to prevent the fall of

the bridge, it would have been quite possible had there been a man in charge wtho had authority to stop the work there to prevent the loss of life which occurred. The report goes on to say that the staff in charge of the bridge as a whole was inefficient and not well organized. This, I think, shows there was practically no superintendence for the government, little interest was taken in the matter, it being left wholly in the hands of the Bridge Company, and, as the report says, everything was taken, as far as the government was concerned, as merely a matter of form.
The resolution which is before the House in regard to taking over this bridge is evidently supplementing the promises made to these gentlemen who took up the stock. In regard to this $200,000 of stock, it is also interesting to note that of the directors of the Bridge Company, with the exception of Mr. Parent, there was not a man who took over $400 of stock. It is also very interesting to note that the voting of this money for their services and divided up, simply comes to a sum which supplements their subscription to make up this extra amount of $200,000. The greater part of this is made up by the railways and Mr. Davis. When Mr. Sharpies was giving his evidence I asked him if he had subscribed to the undertaking previous to the government guaranteeing the bonds, and he said :	No, he was not Jfoolish
enough for that. So this stock was perfectly good to these gentlemen. They were sure of 5 per cent. I believe assurances must have been given them to that effect, and that this action of the government is simply in pursuance of that promise. I believe that this matter should be left in abeyance until the government has a report from a board of engineers who will say whether this work is of any use at all or not and whether the bridge shall be built there, and make sure of all the conditions which will make the superstructure practicable, without paying money where there is no need to pay. I protest against it. If the government intend to build the bridge, they have all the necessary authority in the charter of the Transcontinental Railway. They do not need to go to the Bridge Company and beg for money which was put up to replace bad financing on the part of the company.
So far as the construction of bridges is concerned, New York maintains a board of three or four, every one of them an expert bridge builder. All construction of bridges is placed in the hands of this board. The details are all carefully gone into and everything provided for. But the government of Canada undertook the largest engineering feat in bridge building in the world simply relying on the efforts of a bridge company with little or no capital,
allowed that company to select all the engineers, and even interfered with the action of their own officer when that officer sought to have greater precautions taken. Mr. Douglas was evidently too critical in his supervision of affairs, and so he had nothing further to do with them. That the company had their way in this, and that Mr. Hoare was aware of it, is shown by the letter of 27 May, 1907, which Mr. Hoare writes to Mr. Deans, the chief engineer of the Phoenix Bridge Company, in which he draws attention to the fact that the regulation of the government in regard to the plans had not been followed out. He said :
The signature of the government engineer does not comply with the government regulations. The order in council passed some years ago only authorized certain modifications in the specifications and details from time to time if found necessary.
And he closes his letter :
We are under very close investigation now
Showing that there had been little or no superintendence of the work done.
I agree heartily with the minority report. I think it is in accordance with the facts. And I hope the government will not put through the resolution this year with regard to taking over this work. Before sitting down I desire to put on record in ' Hansard ' the report of the minority :
1.	-Financial responsibility of the Quebec Bridge Company.
The Quebec Bridge Company was incorporated in 1887, and, having regard to its undertaking to construct a bridge across the St. Lawrence at or near ithe city of Quebec, the oost of which would be at least $6,000,000, the company was from its inception deplorably weak financially.
2.	Of its modest nominal stock capital of $1,000,000, never, until the arrangements of 1903 to be presently referred to, did the money paid in by its 'shareholders exceed $65,000, and even of that amount, so petty for such a vast undertaking, some $20,000 consisted not of cash found hy the promoters but of the proceeds of fees voted by them to the directors and paid by the country itself for their services in that capacity.
In 1890, the province of Quebec voted to the enterprise a subsidy or aid of $250,000, and further aid of $300,000 was granted in the following year by the city of Quebec.
The parliament of Canada also voted $1,000,000 in aid of the undertaking payable as construction progressed.
The .site being chosen, the substructure of the bridge progressed; but in 1903, the company had more than exhausted all its resources, its subsidies as well as its small paid up stock capital weTe expended, and it had a floating debt of $779,550. It was then without money or means to further prosecute its enterprise.
At this time, the Dominion had undertaken the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway whereof the Quebec bridge was

recognized as an essential and most important portion. The early completion of the bridge was not only of national concern as a matter of trade and commerce, bnt any delay or misadventure would be fraught with most serious responsibility to the lessees of the eastern section of the great railway of which that bridge must necessarily be a part.	_
In the condition of the bridge company, it was not possible to prosecute its undertaking without the aid of the Dominion, and refusal of such aid would have ensured a forfeiture and abandonment of the venture. The obvious duty of the government, therefore, was to refuse aid, to deal liberally with the promoters, , and to take over the property and hold the bridge as a public work.
The president and directors of the bridge company, hopeless though their case appeared to be, succeeded in inducing the government to agree to guarantee the company's bonds up to $6,688,200, the amount required to meet its liabilities and finish the bridge.
An order in council was thereupon passed on the advice of ministers setting forth the terms and conditions of the proposed guarantee and an Act of parliament was passed to confirm the same. The Act referred to (3 Edward VII., chapter 54) was passed in the last hours of a long session, and in the course of a few days was rushed through the Senate and House of Commons with undue haste and *without opportunity for deliberation and proper consideration.
10.	One of the conditions enacted was that before tbe guarantee should be given, the oompany would procure the subscription and full payment in cash of $200,000 of additional stock, and apply the said money to a specific object, the restoration of $188,000 discount which had previously been allowed on an issue of the company's bonds.
11.	That condition was only in part fulfilled, though the government, having accepted the written certificate of the company's officers that it had been fully carried out, guaranteed the new issue of bonds. Attention is called to the admission of the Hon. the Finance Minister in his evidence, that had this deception been known to him, he would not have authorized the execution of the guarantee.
12.	The government's present liability or outlay on bonds, subsidy and special guarantee to the Bank of Montreal is $6,322,008.13 represented as follows:
Subsidy	$ 374,353 00
Special indebtedness to Bank of Montreal	 174,431 26
Liability on bonds with interest to April 30, 1908	 5,773,223 77

If you look on page 35 of the commissioner's report you will find the same thing :
In September 1898 the bridge contracting firms were asked to submit tenders upon their own designs, to be drawn in accordance with certain specifications.
The specifications, as I said before, given by Mr. Hoare were taken from the design drafted by the Phoenix Bridge Company themselves.
Practically this meant that each bridge company was asked to spend several thousand dollars on the preparation of plans, and that in return it was given an opportunity to bid for a contract 'to 'be let by a company of weak financial standing. The result was that although the magnitude of the work placed, it outside the limits of established practice, most of the tenders submitted were made from immature studies based upon insufficient data.
Supporting what I said, that on account of the Phoenix Bridge Company having the advantage In filing the plans from which Mr. Hoare took his specifications, no other responsible company would dare to put up some serious plan because it would have involved an expense of a few thousand dollars. There was only one company that had a chance to get its tender accepted.
The evidence shows that the Phoenix Bridge Company gave more time and attention to the competition than any other tenderer, but the error afterwards made by it in assuming the weight of the structure for final designs shows how faulty the estimate accompanying . its original tender was. We consider that the procedure adopted in calling for tenders was not satisfactory in view of the magnitude of the work, and was not calculated to produce the most efficient results.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I think I have proved by the commissioner's report that there was a lack of bona fides in the method of tendering. Now what was the first hitch after that ? This company spent a few dollars for the preparation of plans which were taken from the suggestion of the Phce-nix Bridge Company, and finding that they had not (sufficient money, came to the government and made a request for a million dollars subsidy. This is what the report says :
But when, for the purpose of a guarantee of $6,178,200, the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, found himself called upon to examine for approval, the plans and speci-fioations of the bridge, he formally applied for authority to employ a specially qualified bridge engineer. Such authority was granted by order in council of January 21, 1903.
Now why was Mr. Schreiber!s request made to the government ? A few years previously when a million dollars guarantee was demanded from this government, Mr. Douglas, the railway engineer of this government, was asked to submit a report upon the plans given to him by the Bridge Mr. ROBITAILLE.
Company. I must say in passing that it Is the rule of this government never to grant a subsidy for a bridge until their engineer has previously examined the proposition. Mr. Douglas, however, not having the weight of authority that Mr. Cooper has, condemned the plan. Later on he condemned the same plans when they came hack in 1903. Mr. Speaker, who Is the chief engineer, found himself placed between Mr. Cooper's high reputation and his more humble assistant Mr. Douglas, because these two gentlemen did not look at the matter from tlie same engineering standpoint-Mr. Sch-reiber finding himseif in this dilemna, and not knowing what responsibility he was assuming, came to a logical conclusion and said to the Governor in Council, I want an assistant to help me sift out the difficulty and see what responsibility I have taken. The Governor in Council thought that the idea was a good one, and an order in' council was granted on the 21st of July. What happened then ? If you look through the evidence given at this inquiry you will find that the pivotal point on which revolved the relations between the government and the Bridge Company, has been, not the contractors of the comnany, but Mr. Parent the president. Mr. Parent communicated with Mr. Cooper and said to him, how is it that a man of your standing should be subordinate to a humble engineer who has no standing ? It seems but right that if we keep you as. consulting engineer, we should not be embarrassed by correspondence with regard to the acceptance of certificates or approval of plans. The first tiding we knew, Mr. Cooper came up to Ottawa and said he would not play second fiddle in this matter-that Is at least the information that is given us, and immediately the government found that Mr. Cooper's views were all right. Now let us see what Mr. Sehrei-ber says in making his demand :
I would suggest that the department he authorized to employ a competent engineer to examine from time to time the detailed drawings of each part of the bridge as prepared, and to approve of or correct them as to him may seem necessary, submitting them for final acceptance to the chief engmeeer of * railways and canals.
Mr. Cooper strongly objected, saying, this puts me in th,e position of a subordinate which I cannot accept. Mr. Cooper at the same time wrote to Mr. Schreiber :
I do not see how such engineer could facilitate the progress of the work, or allow me to take any responsihile steps independently of his consent.
Exactly what I said. He found it. would jeopardize his authority and naturally delay the work. Consequently he was given a free hand. Further on the Governor in Council recalled this nermission of 1903, and in August, 1905, they said this :

Provided the efficiency of the structure be fully maintained to that defined in the orginal Specifications attached to the company's contract.
I must say that that condition of the order in council was not fulfilled, because there was no engineer competent to say who was to determine the efficiency of the structure, and to see that it was maintained to the standard the Governor in Council stipulated. [DOT]
The Governor in Council intimated that Mr. Cooper must have some one else with him acting on behalf of the government to check over his work. The order of the Governor in Council was not heeded and Mr. Cooper was the only man who was responsible for the approval of the plans and for checking the work for the government and for the bridge company. Probably it might interest our good friends on the other side to state how Mr. Cooper was engaged. He was not hired in the ordinary manner. The first thing he states before the commission in New York is that about February 25, he received a communication from the Quebec Bridge Company asking if he would be prepared to make an examination of these plans and he consented. There was no suggestion that he should become the consulting engineer for the greatest bridge in the world ; simply that he should give the company expert advice upon the plans which would be submitted.
Some months later

He states :
-Messrs. Parent, Hoare and Bar-the came to New York to see him. He stated to them what his fee would be for inspecting and passing on the plans.
They asked him then if he would act as consulting engineer, not resident engineer, but to stay in New York and advise them from time to time when they wanted his services.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Mr. Cooper at least once if not twice asked to be relieved of his duties as superintending engineer ?


Mr. ROBITAILLE.: I will come to that later. I have here Mr. Cooper's deposition, but probably the House does not desire me to answer the hon. gentleman's question at the present moment as I will come to it in the course of my speech. He said that Mr. Parent left him with the impression that the plans would be sent to him, but no definite step was taken at that time regarding his appointment as consulting engineer. Later on Mr. Cooper asked if he was limited to a certain specification because he found that the financial status of the company was not altogether satisfactory.
Mr. Cooper's opinion seemed to be that the amount of funds available was to a certain extent limited, for when asked if, at the pre-425
sent date, and with the advantages of several years' additional experience, he would still confirm his additional recommendation both as to the type of the structure and the merit of the design, he said: ' Yes, if under the same limitations that existed at that time as to the amount of funds apparently estimated for its construction.' That is an important point, because the structure was apparently limited to the amount of funds they had in sight as far as it was impressed on me.
I could go farther on this point but It is useless to weary the House. We are all aware of the fact that Mr. Cooper was not given the opportunity he should have had to control plans because he had to keep them within a certain limit of cost as he said before. There was no definite figure stipulated, but he knew that the financial condition of the company was weak. The company commenced the construction of a bridge that will cost about $8,000,000 with financial resources amounting to about $1,000,000.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is the hon. gentleman now stating that Mr. Cooper made the plans of the bridge ?


Lorenzo Robitaille: I do not state that Mr. Cooper made the plans but he approved and corrected them, he was responsible for them which is just the same as if.he had done it himself because it was up to him to see that they were all right. I think I have proven that the whole responsibility in connection with the bridge rested on the shoulders of Mr. Cooper, that there was no supervision on the part of the government although an order in council has stipulated that there should be supervision in order to ensure efficiency in the construction of the work. The commissioners report at page 33 :
The connection of the government with the enterprise provided the means for building the bridge, and the -final approval of plans rested with it, but in no way did the government exercise any cheek on the work itself, or any authority over the contractors. The administration of the contract and the disposition of the funds supplied by -the government were left entirely in the control of the Quebec Bridge Company, subject to the approval of the estimates by tbe government inspector, and except that the quantities of material were checked at Phcenixville by a clerk appointed by the Department of Railways -and Canals, and an officer of that department visited tbe bridge in connection with the checking of estimates, there was no supervision on the part of the government.
We find that the commissioners admit that Mr. Cooper was under a severe handicap. They say this :
In considering Mr. Cooper's part in this undertaking, it should be remembered that he was an elderly imian,_ rapidly approaching seventy, and of such infirm health that he was only rarely permitted to leave New York. Mr. Cooper assumed a position of great res-



possibility, and agreed to accept an inadequate salary for his services.
For the reason, as it was stated to him, that he would be engaged in a consultative capacity rather than to oversee the work.
No provision was made by the Quebec Bridge Company for a staff to assist him, nor is there tiny evidence to show that he asked for the appointment of such a staff. He endeavoured to maintain the necessary assistants out of his own salary, which was itself too small for his personal services, and he did a great deal of detail work which could have been satisfactorily done by a junior. The result of this was that he ihad no time to investigate the soundness of the data and theories which were being used in the designing, and consequently allowed fundamental errors to pass by him unchallenged.
If there had been a joint engineer to control, the work with Mr. Cooper in accordance with Mr. Schreiber's wishes the errors which were proven to exist by the evidence would have been detected and in all probability remedied, and if they had been remedied the bridge certainly would not have gone down. Mr. Douglas of the Department of Railways and Canals appeared before the committee and in a few minutes I will read an extract from his statement. Mr Douglas reported when the plans and specifications were submitted to him that he did not approve of the unit stresses which had been adopted, which were acted on and which were still embodied in the plan when the bridge fell. If that matter had been looked carefully into when it was pointed out I am sure that the bridge would not be down to-day. At all events the criticism of the Royal Commission on this point is clear enough. Now, in answer to my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I., (Mr. Martin) let me point out that Mr. Cooper, because of the limited financial resources of the company, the disadvantages under which he laboured, his age, his want of facilities to look properly after this work, wrote to Mr. Parent three years before the construction of the bridge was commenced, as stated by Mr. Cooper himself before the commission in New York that he would not he able to continue the work and asked to be relieved.



ASKED TO BE RELIEVED.

[Stage Direction]
Nearly three years >ago, before construction work at Quebec was commenced, Mr. Cooper informed Mr. Parent that he would never be aible to go to Quebec again, and asked to be relieved from ihis responsibilities, as lie felt impossible to give the work the attention that he should, 'as he was under the ban of his physician.
Mr. Parent responded that they never intended to let him go until the bridge was finished, as they had confidence in him and wanted his services continued. He told Mr. Deans the same, but neither would hear of it at all as they did not know of another one who could be mutually agreed upon.
There was no government control, no joint engineer, Mr. Cooper was supposed to have Mr. ROBITAILLE.
the full responsibility and Mr. Cooper had said that his old age and his feeble health, caused his doctors to order that he should not leave New York. All these considerations were put aside. It may be inferred from the action of the directors that they were better pleased that Mr. Cooper should remain in New York than be on the bridge where he could check things and prove that the work was not done in a business like way. Then, the responsible head of the whole organization in Quebec was Mr. Hoare. Mr. Cooper in his disposition says :
All important changes were referred to Mr. Hoare and I suppose through him to the department.
But the department was not in a position to ascertain the correctness of these plans from an engineering point of view and so Mr. Hoare was the only one to look after them. Mr. Hoare's responsibility is recognized by the commission who in their report (page 49) says :
The company's directors did not seem to have realized the importance of the duties pertaining to Mr. Hoare's position and whilst believing that he was not competent to control the work they still gave him all the powers and emoluments of the chief engineer.
There was a letter written by Mr. Parent to Holgate when it was admitted in 1898 that Mr. Hoare had not the ability to undertake the responsibility of chief engineer but still Mr. Parent said : Never mind, we know yon are not capable but you shall be chief engineer. Why was Mr. Hoare accepted under such circumstances ? It seems to me that a grave responsibility rests on whoever was the main instigator of the retention of Mr. Hoare and Mr. Cooper* who admitted their inability to cope with the magnitude of the work. The report goes further :
Mr. Hoare personally considered that he was in general control of the construction, and that everything was under his jurisdiction except the approval of plans; the evidence shows that he gave much personal time to the oversight of the fabrication of the material, to inspection of the erection and the preparation of the estimates; it also shows that he lacked a comprehensive grasp of the work that was being done by the inspectors, and that although his subordinates entertained the highest personal regard for him they did not look to him for advice when technical difficulties arose.
Was Mr. Parent really the man who was running the Quebec Bridge Company. Probably some bon. gentlemen may challenge that statement but if so I refer them to page 29 of the evidence given before the committee when Mr. Barthe, the secretary of the company, was examined, and Mr. Barthe knows all about the Quebec Bridge Company if any man knows. Mr. Barthe was examined by Mr. Chisholm :

Q. You are aware that the chairman, had a good deal of travelling and a good deal of work to do other than what the other directors did P-A. Certainly. He was the soul of the whole thing and he practically did all the work.
I go further and I say, that Mr. Parent was responsible for the bad as well as for the good in the management of the Quebec Bridge Company. Mr. Parent ignored Mr. Douglas's report which was subsequently proven to be correct. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) admitted that the unit stresses were the fundamental mistake in the design. If we admit the truth of the maxim, that to err is human, is it not strange that an undertaking of that magnitude should be left in the hands of one single man ? Mr. Douglas condemned the unit stresses, and I quote from his evidence :	v
Q. Are you in a position to state that this accident could have been avoided by the adoption of the unit stresses you recommended ?- A. To answer that question is a very large statement but I think-
Q. But speaking generally it would ?-A. Yes, I may say that the experiments that have been made at Phoenixville as a result of the collapse of this bridge corroborate my recommendation.
Mr. Hoigate stated about the same thing but still Mr. Parent ignored Mr. Douglas's report against the first plans and he ignored the logical recommendation of a joint engineer to supervise the technical accuracy of the plans. Mr. Parent also ignored Mr. Schreiber's admission that he was not in a position to be able to take the responsibility for the approval of these plans and he ignored also the Eiffel committee's report. I may say in passing that the greatest committee of engineers in the world is what is known as the Eiffel Committee in Paris. Eiffel was a great engineer who promulgated certain theories as to stresses and the flexibility of steel and on account of his great scientific attainments the French government permitted him to exemplify his theory by erecting the Eiffel tower for a period of five years. The French government has been so impressed by the successful carrying into practice of the theories of Eiffel that they have allowed the Eiffel tower to stand. There is therefore a committee of engineer's in Paris which studies every important work in the engineering world. The Eiffel committee reported that they did not see their way clear to accept the present cantilever scheme unless there was a double resting point provided, and that otherwise the bridge would be exposed to great inconveniences. Time has proven that these defects in the bridge existed and the bridge has fallen. In the presence of all these facts I say that there rests on the president of the bridge company the responsibility of wilful neglect 425*
which may probably be extended to criminal negligence ; because a man who undertook such an important position should have known his own responsibility, and if he did not he was not fit for the job.
I say that a man guilty of such carelessness or want of business ability or the ordinary precautions which anybody should take in the ordinary walks of life must in the eyes of God and man be held entirely responsible for the neglect of a duty which was entirely under his control. What was the verdict of the coroners jury at the inquest in Quebec. which was held to ascertain the cause of the death of those poor three score men who went down with the bridge ? These people were in a hurry to pack that jury with shareholders of the company, who rendered a verdict in consideration of their own interests, and went further than a coroner's jury is expected to go, in stating that all of the necessary precautions were taken by the Bridge Company to prevent the collapse. An ordinary motorman who runs down a vehicle or a human being in the streets, is immediately brought before the courts and tried for manslaughter ; but when these high and influential men cause an accident which destroys the lives of three score men, nobody even considers who is responsible. I think it is the duty of this parliament or of the courts of this country to sift this matter to the bottom and see who is responsible. This government does not know what kind of a white elephant it is getting when it agrees to take over the property of this Bridge Company under the broad wording of this resolution. The probability is that this parliament will have to pay out of the public treasury for the errors of incompetent and irresponsible people.
Another point which I wish to impress on the House is that the government had not sufficient control over the finances of the company. The want of such control resulted in loose business methods being resoi'ted to by the company, amounting almost ito misrepresentation. I read in the report:
One of the conditions engaged was that before the guarantee should be given the company would secure the subscription andt full payment in cash of $200,000 of additional stock. That condition was only in part fulfilled, through the government, having accepted the written certificate of the company's officer that it had been fully carried out, guaranteed a new issue of bonds.
I must say that when the attention of the Finance Minister was called to this, he admitted in his evidence that had this deception been known to him, he would not have authorized the execution of the guarantee. The Finance Minister is a high official upon whose statement relative to finances we can rely, and he considers that the terms of the statute were not fulfilled. How was it ? We find that $2,500 of stock was acquired by Mr. Parent which was paid for not in
[Stage Direction]
money, but in services rendered ; $2,500 was taken by a few of the directors in sums varying from $400 to $100; and the balance of the stock, amounting to $119,900 was taken by Mr. Davis. He signed no subscription list. If you look at the evidence on page 59 of the report, you will find that Mr. Bell, the auditor of the Department of Railways, said that he did not think that the subscription list was signed at that time. Mr. Davis gives his cheque, and it lies in the till from January 27, 1904, to February 21, 1907, a cheque that is worthless. It may be said that Mr. Davis had good financial backing ; but I would like to pay my debts in that way, by giving cheques to people who would not present them at the bank. Rater we find that Mr. Hays took $25,000 worth of stock, which reduced Davis's to $94,900. The argument was used that it was desirable that Mr. Davis should control stock because he was a contractor ; and it was anticipated that the Grand Trunk and other railways would take some ; but up to the present time no responsible railways have greatly interested themselves in the bridge project, on account of the terminal arrangements that were attempted to be forced upon them. When they saw that, they simply withdrew, and never showed any enthusiasm for the project.
Mr: TALBOT, With the permission of my hon. friend, who I think wishes to be fair, I would ask : does he persist in saying that no railway corporation in Canada took any stock in that company or any interest in the construction of the bridge ?
Lorenzo Robitaille: I did not say what the hon. gentleman states. I said that no responsible railways showed any enthusiasm for the project. Furthermore, why have the railway companies never put up a public kick against the terminal arrangements ? As I have already told the Prime Minister, it is because the president of the Bridge Campany is a Transcontinental Railway Commissioner, who has a good pull with the Railway Department and has much to do with the railway legislation of this country ; and as the railway companies have to come here from time to time for legislation, they do not want to incur the displeasure of Mr. Parent, and they thought that instead of opposing the project, it was better for them to show their disapproval by not showing any enthusiasm for it. If I were allowed to give publicly the information which I have received privately from some of the highest officials of railway companies in this Dominion, I would say more ; but I will not, because it might harm them and would not help my case. That cheque of Mr. Davis was uncertified, and was never presented at the bank for three year's, but last year, when the Bill for transferring the bonds of the company to the government was before the House, I made a speech Mr. ROBITAILLE.
which according to the judgment of some men on the ministerial benches was somewhat erratic ; but the Finance Minister, as a practical man, took a hint from it, and thought it advisable to see if there was any foundation for some of the statements made. Mr. Bell went to Quebec in August, and he found that that cheque was there. Mr. Bell said : ' I cannot enter that in my report ; it has either to be paid or the shares will have to be given back.' What happened ? The financial stringency was in full swing, and I know the result, because I saw Mr. Davis in the Bank of Montreal, and he had a very long face, and it was only on the 2nd of February that he was in a position to say to the bridge directors : ' You can pass my cheque now ; I have funds in the bank to meet it.' They put the cheque of $94,900 in the bank, and issued a certificate of stock ; but there was no interest charged to Mr. Davis for these three years. If you look up Mr. Davis' statements, however, you will find that he charges interest for every day that the government does not pay his bills after they are handed in. Why should he be so eager to collect from the government this small amount of interest as compared with the three years' interest on $94,900. In the face of that the Finance Minister admitted himself they do not live up to the statute. Mr. Parent writes to the Finance Minister :
I hereby certify that additional stock to the extent of $200,000, has been duly subscribed to the capital stock' of the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, and paid up in full.
A cheque, until it has passed through a bank, is not considered worth more than the paper it is written on. The presumption might be that the cheque is worth something, but in fact the cheque itself is of no value ; still the bridge directors accepted it. I shall read part of a letter which I wrote to the Prime Minister last summer advising him of certain facts, and I shall allow the country to judge whether or not my statements have been justified by events. I wrote :
To the item of the Quebec bridge I especially draw your attention. As you are aware I have had occasion to communicate with you upon this important subject and as I then told you it was my intention to study the question and treat it according to its merits. During your last trip, when parliament was considering the Bill authorizing the government to lend the Quebec Bridge Company $7,000,000, I expressed my views upon the subject. Those views are known to the majority of the electors not only of my riding hut also of Quebec city, wiho are about to awaken from their lethargy judging by the agitation made in Quebec in reference to the demand for 50 feet of land for the Ross Rifle Company under the impress-ion that they were combating a suggestion of Mr. Parent. They are to-day aware of the enormous speculation proposed all along the cove and it would be advisable

for yon to well study the question, as your government in the future may he seriously embarrassed by it, and I would be sorry to see a scandal, just when we are on the eve of a general election, which will be keenly contested. Such a scandal would mar your reputation as an honest politician and a great Canadin, a reputation that is recognized by both parties, and political history will be forced to attribute to you, as to the great Mercier, certain unconscious weakuesses in favour of your friends. I hope that nothing will occur that will oast upon your government discredit before the whole country.
That was on July 29, 1907, and on August 29 the bridge fell.


Mr. D. ROSS.: Carried.


Lorenzo Robitaille: I hear the representative of the Great Northern speaking.


Duncan Ross: X do not think the hon. gentleman should be permitted to say such things in such a cowardly way, expecting that people will not be able to hear them.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the word cowardly is improper.


Duncan Ross: I think it is myself, but I think the circumstances justify it. However, I will withdraw the word. The hon. gentleman made his statement in such a way that he did not expect me to hear it: I hear the representative of the Great Northern. I do not think the hon. gentleman should have made a statement of that kind, and I want him to explain now why he did make it.


Lorenzo Robitaille: Since the hon. member is so generous as to withdraw the word * cowardly,' and in order not to disturb his quietude, I will say he is not the representative of the Great Northern; is that sufficient? The Prime Minister said;
I do not understand what you are saying, but if you bave any accusations to make, make them specific.
I then sent him a short affidavit, which reads, in part (translation) :
In March, 1901 or 1905, an amount of more than $800,000 was paid by the Ottawa government to Mr. M. P. Davis, contractor for work done at the Quebec bridge. In August of the same year the said account, certified by the engineer in chief, E. A. Hoare,-
There we see the utility of Mr. Hoare for the Quebec Bridge Company.
-and another who is 9aid to be an employee of his and paid as above was presented to the accountant of the Bridge Company, the deponent, in order to place bis books in conformity with the said account being instructed by the secretary that it was the desire of the directors that his books should accord with this account.
A direct intimation of the wish of the company to have the books made to suit
the account if there was a greater payment than his hooks showed the company owed to Mr. Davis.
In checking the account the accountant found an error of $165,000 overpaid to Mr. M. P. Davis, although it was certified, as follows: X. An amount of $130,000, balance of the provincial subsidy in favour of the bridge company and transferred to the said Davis in part payment of work done upon which amount he bad already cashed $30,000 paid in the beginning of June of the same year. This amount of $130,000 was not credited in the account filed by Davis to the company.
2. An amount of $35,000 which represented a draft which the bridge company had made on the said Davis to finance this draft on, being accepted, was entered to the debit account of the bridge company in Mr. Davis' hooks. This draft on maturity was paid by the Bridge Company and in the said account is charged to the debit of the bridge company.
In looking over Davis' accounts filed here in Ottawa we find that $35,000 is entered as paid in cash to the bridge company. When you accept a draft or give a note, it is bills payable, it is not cash. It may have been a clerical error ; but whatever it was, it was sufficient to induce the Finance Minister to pay on it and not discuss the item.
This is not the only loose thing in connection with the Bridge Company. I mentioned a few moments ago that when they organized the company $50,000 was actually paid in cash, $15,000 of paid-up stock was given for services, $200,000 was supposed to he subscribed by statute, making $265,000; but still the government was content to make that company responsible for $8,000,000 and more. Now, I have some information which I give under reserve, but I think it will be interesting to this House as showing the excellent existing relations between Mr. Parent and Mr. Davis. I have been informed that on different occasions Mr. Davis, knowing how Mr. Parent likes little attentions, has bought certain jewellery for Mr. Parent's family. Furthermore, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, the late Minister of Justice, when he went on bis summer vacation at Riviere du Loup one summer, enjoyed greatly the nice team of driving horses and equipages which belong to Mr. Davis. The whole thing works in the same


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the statement against Chief Justice Sir Charles Fitzpatrick which has just been made. Surely such statements are not allowed in this House against a gentleman occupying such a position in this country.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the statement is hardly a proper statement to make.


Lorenzo Robitaille: My Georgian friend (Mr. Talbot) likes to bear his own voice now and again. Furthermore, I have information to the effect that in Quebec city, in a certain year, Mr. Parent obtained from this government a supply of manure from the quarantine station in L&vis, and that he used Mr. Davis's scows to transport it to his farm at St. Augustin. It is current rumour in the city of Ottawa that the house he occupies to-day is the gratuitous gift of Mr. Davis


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.
Mr. SPEAKER, What is the point of order ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Robitaille) has no right to make insinuations of that kind against any man unless he is prepared to back up his statements with evidence. He has a right to make charges but not to make insinuations.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The rule applies to certain named persons.


Mr. LENNOX.: This gentleman does not come within the class of persons referred to in the rule.


Lorenzo Robitaille: I will accept the ruling of the chair


Mr. FOSTER.: I do not understand that the ruling of the chair is that any except certain privileged persons shall not be mentioned in this House. It is a mere matter of the convenience or necessity, or taste of the member who makes use of the name ; but there is no point of order involved. No member of this House must go away with the idea that Mr. Speaker can arbitrarily rule a man down.


Wilfrid Laurier: My contention is, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this House has the right to make insinuations against any man. If he has charges to make, let him make them. But to make insinuations of that kind with ' It is rumoured,' ' I am informed,' ' I have heard,' is absolutely out of order.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is very strange doctrine to preach in this House. Any member of this House is himself the judge of the propriety of the way in which he shall speak of any person to whom the miles do not apply. He is within his privileges, and there is no rule that I know of under which he can be called to order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The only rule applicable to such a question is Rule No. 19, which says :
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, -nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the Governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House

:
And so on. As this rule does not apply there is nothing in the rules or practice pro-Mr. SPEAKER.
vlding that what the hon. gentleman is saying is out of order.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Is there not a rule under which there must be some relevancy in discussion ? Are not members required to discuss the subject before the chair ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is quite another point. If that rule be invoked, I believe the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Robitaille) is not relevant.


Lorenzo Robitaille: To satisfy the scruples of hon. members, I will not go further on that line. 1 will give positive facts. Probably it would interest the members of this House to consider for a moment : Who is this Mr. Parent ? He was a very poor man in Quebec not many years ago ; to-day he has a three thousand-dollar piano, and his house is fitted accordingly. He became mayor of the city of Quebec at a time when the finances of the city were in good shape. To-day, Quebec is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the Dominion. He became Minister of Crown Lands of the province of Quebec, and in ten years sold a larger area of public lands than -had been sold in the province of Ontario in thirty years.
Mi'. SPEAKER. Of course, the hon. member (Mr. Robitaille) will observe that the point of order was taken of relevancy. The hon. member's present observations are hardly relevant.


Lorenzo Robitaille: Then, let us consider this point : What is the effect of Mr. Parent's friendship with Mr. Davis ? A part of it can be summarized in this form :
Discount on bonds, $188,721.
Unpaid shares (unaccepted cheque), $119,900.
Excess on bill as established by affidavit, $105,000.
Certifying of Davis' bills by engineer incompetent and uncontrolled.
Obtaining the contract for 150 miles of construction on the Transcontinental, Quebec to New Brunswick.
It is useless to say that every one knows how estimates are made. No one can make an estimate exact to the dollar. I have done some contracting work myself, and I have seen cases where the estimate has been made at $7,500 for a certain piece of railway work, two-thirds of a mile, when we did it for $3,000 odd. We know that contractors work at less than cost and yet, somehow, they make piles of money.
It is useless to say what effect all this has upon Parent's standing in the district of Quebec, this acceptance of little favours which can be used for electoral purposes. If I were good friends with Mr. Davis I would go round with my bag. But I understand the other man would have it. Well, we shall have a chance to meet him.
Well, Mr. Speaker, -the bridge is down. Some tell us that we should not cry over

spilt milk. What is to be done for the future ? If the government desires to stand in a logical and honest position before this country, its duty is to appoint a committee of independent engineers to study the most advisable site for the future bridge. In this resolution there ought to be a sum of $25,000 or $30,000 appropriated to defray the expenses. This committee of experts should make comparative estimates between the present bridge site and railway terminals in the city of Quebec and the site and terminals if the bridge is built by the island of Orleans.
I may say that several prominent engineers who have no political influence admit that the latter plan is the most practicable for the development, not only of Quebec city, but also of that portion of Montmorency county which is known as the Island of Orleans. If the government is going to pursue the present plans for terminal facilities they will have to do it on ground artificially made. When these estimates have been made up, let them be reported to parliament with the plans suggested, not leaving every tenderer to make his own plans. Further, I would suggest that there should be a committee to superintend and control the work during the whole period of construction. When plans are finally adopted, call for tenders. I claim that the latter suggestion should receive some attention from the government; as to the rest, they can do as they see fit.


William Alfred Galliher: I shall take up little time in discussing this matter. I shall not follow the wanderings of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Robitaille), nor do more than refer to the questionable taste he has exhibited in reading private correspondence and in attacking the private character of individuals. If he is satisfied that is his mission in parliament and his duty to his constituents, then I am not going to question it. He certainly has not confined himself to matters within the purview of the resolution under which this report was brought down and is now before the House. He has gone beyond it to the extent of discussing matters entirely irrelevant and extraneous to it. Furthermore, he has made statements that are not at all facts, but have no other source than his imagination. The hon. gentleman made a speech in this House some time ago, and I had the pleasure of examining him in this committee on that subject, and as a sample of the weight that may be attached to many of his statements I will read one of his answers to my question. In his speech he stated that by reason of certain affiliations and associations of some of the officers of the Quebec Bridge Company, we might expect all sorts of calamities to occur. He hedged on that when it was brought to him directly, and said that he did not say that as a matter of fact. Then I asked him :
Then your speech has really no relation whatever except in the sense that such and such things might happen?-A. Yes.
Q. Now to your knowledge, or so far as you know, they never did occur?-A. Yes, that is why I was asking the government to take the thing under its control, because I was foreshadowing the result.
The hon. gentleman's speeches in this House on that occasion and on this occasion are largely imaginings. Now he tries to convey to this House the idea that one of the reasons why this bridge collapsed was because of the weak financial standing of the company, in other words, they were not strong enough to put such a project through as was necessary for the purpose. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that such is not the case. The Royal Commission, when they went into that matter, found that the financial status of the company had nothing whatever to do with the accident to the bridge. On that point I will read their finding from paragraph (e) :
The failure cannot be attributed directly to any cause other than errors in judgment on the part of these two engineers.
(f) These errors of judgment cannot be attributed either to lack of common professional knowledge, to neglect of duty, or to a desire to economize.
If you refer to the appendix to the report of the Royal Commission where they deal with the financial situation, you will find that the conclusion they arrived at was that in no respect whatever had the financial Condition of the company anything to do with the lamentable accident that occurred. My hon. friend from Quebec county has also made this an occasion to vent his spleen upon the Hon. Mr. Parent. Now, whatever information may have been furnished to the hon. gentleman for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and whatever the object of that information may have been upon which he felt bound, rightly so I admit, to move in this House for an order of reference that these matters he inquired into, whatever be the object of that information, and whether it was furnished by the hon. member who has just taken his seat or some outside party. I do not know. Evidently, if it was furnished by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, one of his objects at all events was if possible to procure evidence that would discredit in some way the Hon. Mr. Parent. Now, I am not here as sponsor for Mr. Parent or any other man. But having had this matter under consideration, being one of the commissioners who sat on this inquiry, when I hear these statements made regarding that hon. gentleman as chairman of the Quebec Bridge Company, I would refer hon. members to the evidence of the co-directors of Mr. Parent on that company, Mr. Price, Mr. Sharpies and Mr. Dumoulin, and others who were examined before us, and they will

see what confidence is reposed in Mr. Parent by his associates. These are the only two points in the hon. gentleman's remarks that I propose to deal with. I am sure that when he reads his remarks and the Insinuations and imaginings that [DOT] he has caused to be spread on ' Hansard,' he will find a great difficulty in understanding really what he has been talking about for the past hour.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mi*. Monk) in speaking upon this report, seemed to think that the report of the committee as presented was not full enough, and had not dealt with the matter with sufficient completeness. There were, under the order of reference, three matters which the committee were asked to take into consideration. The first matter was to investigate ' the conditions and guarantees under which this government paid moneys to the Quebec Bridge Company, and indorsed or guaranteed the bonds of the said company.' That, we have set out in the report brought down to-day by the committee. We have not gone into detail or made comments upon it but we have taken the essential parts of the evidence that has been produced in connection with it so that they may be read to the House and the country. In that respect I think we have complied fully with the first branch of this inquiry. The third branch of the inquiry is in regard to, ' what security the government at present possess for the sums already received by and guarantees given to the company.'
As to that my hon. friends who have joined in the minority report differ from those of my colleagues who have joined with the chairman in the report of the committee. There may be an honest difference of opinion as to what the value of these securities is. We, in our judgment, have set out what in our opinion the security is that is held by the government for the money they have expended, so that it becomes a matter of opinion as to what the actual value of this security is. We know what the cost of the substructure, the terminals, the connections with these terminals and the roadbed that has been built was and we know that all these are in existence to-day. We know that there is a quantity of structural material delivered on the ground. All these things are assets that are available and will be available to the government in taking this work over. With regard to the second portion of the inquiry as to what measures were adopted by the government to ensure the preparation of suitable plans of construction and the proper execution of the same,' very little, if any evidence, was adduced before the committee that was not adduced before the Royal Commission. A considerable part of the inquiry in that particular necessarily had reference to matters of a technical nature which no member of the committee is really able to cope with in an intelligent manner, or with sufficient


William Alfred Galliher: intelligence to enable him to speak authoritatively on the subject. The Royal Commission made their findings upon that point and we refer to them in the report that we present to the House. We say that inasmuch as a portion of the inquiry was of a technical nature and has been dealt with by men competent to deal with it we deem it inadvisable to express any opinion upon that point. So that I think we cannot be charged by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with not having brought down a full report within the purview of the resolution under which we were acting. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier also mentioned the fact that we had made no reference whatever in this report to the deplorable loss of life. I do not know exactly what reason my friend had for making that re,mark but I am sure that he will hot accuse any other hon. gentleman on that committee with feeling any less keenly the regret which every one must have felt at the deplorable loss of life that took place in that accident. We all deplore the fact. But, I do not think it will do any good now to refer to it. I do not think that was within the purview of the committee. We might, of course, have mentioned it, but I cannot see what would have been accomplished by our having done so. My hon. friend rather plumed himself on the fact that he and his colleagues had come to the same conclusions as had the members of the Royal Commission. I have no objection to my hon friend's statement in that connection, but I would point out that if they came to the same conclusions and justify their conclusions by saying that they agreed with those of the Royal Commission some of the conclusions which were embodied in the report of the Royal Commission that toy hon. friend refers to might very well in fairness have been placed in the minority report. My hon. friend sought to convey the impression that the Phoenix Bridge Company were trying to build this bridge as lightly and as cheaply as possible; in other words, that they were skimping their work. That is what I would infer from the expressions made use of by the hon. gentleman. I would refer the hon. gentleman and the House to paragraph L of the report of the Royal Commission which says :
The work done by the Phoenix Bridge Company in making the detail drawings and in planning and carrying out the erection, and by the Phoenix Iron Company in fabricating the /material was good, and the steel used was of good quality. The serious defects were fundamental errors in design.
If my hon. friend agrees with the findings of the Royal Commissioners does not this statement convey to his mind, as it conveys to my mind, the impression that in so far as the material furnished by the Phoenix Bridge Company, the construction under the direction of the Phoenix Bridge

Company and the materials manufactured by the Phoenix Iron Company were concerned, they were good. The statement or inference of the hon. gentleman that the work was being skimped, that it was not being done as thoroughly as it ought to have been, or that the material supplied was lighter than it should have been, in the face of this paragraph from the report of the Royal Commission, falls to the ground.


Mr. BARKER.: Do they not say the design of the bridge was bad, and was it not the design the government were to approve of?


William Alfred Galliher: They said the error was in the design, but I was pointing out that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier conveyed the impression that the Phoenix Bridge Company were not supplying proper material and were trying to work upon a cheap scale, and I was proving to him by the report of the Royal Commission, with which he says he agrees, that such is not the case. There is a section of this report of the Royal Commission which has reference to Mr. Cooper himself and which I fail to find included in the minority report. The report of the Royal Commission says:
The professional record of Mr. Cooper was such that his selection for the authoritative position that he occupied was warranted and the complete confidence that was placed in his judgment by the officials of the Dominion gov-'ernment the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and the Phoenix Bridge Company was deserved.
There is a high tribute to Mr. Cooper, and if as my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says the minority report contains practically all the findings in the report of the commission, in all fairness that should have been included. The evidence deduced before this committee shows that the directors of the Quebec Bridge Company were capable business men; men of varied experience in business life. It appears also that the affairs of the company were conducted honestly and economically and that the sole aim in view of the company was the building of one of the greatest bridges in the world. The evidence, and the finding of the Royal Commission go to show that it was the desire of the Phcenix Bridge Company and the desire of the iron works to supply the best material, and further, that it was the desire of Mr. Cooper to make the Quebec bridge the crowning work of his life as an engineer. The desire of all parties concerned was centred in bringing to .a successful conclusion the completion of this great bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Quebec. As to the manner in which the bridge company conducted its business I would refer to the report of Mr. Bell, who was sent from the Railway Department to audit the accounts. He says:
After careful examination of every voucher since the 14th October, 1903, I find nothing
which had not been properly authorized and which might not be considered as legitimate expenditure of a joint stock company.
That report of the auditor puts it beyond all question that the affairs of the Quebec Bridge Company-whatever their financial standing .may have been-were managed economically and in the best interests of the company and of the country. As to the certificate that was given to the government I shall not refer to it further than to quote some evidence that was taken before the commission. At page 71 of the report Mr. Bell says:
Q. Do I understand you to say that the proceeds of the $200,000 of the new stock was used for the purposes of the company ? Is that what you say?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. But they were not used for the purposes of fulfilling the agreement which required that the money should be used to pay off the discount on the interim bonds?-A. The Act, as I stated in my report, was not strictly complied with in that respect.
Q. You stated that in your report?-A. I stated that in my report; the Act was not strictly complied with.
Q. It was not complied with at all?-A. In that respect it was not complied with at all.
Q. There is no limit. You say ' strictly complied with'?-A. I mean speaking of the whole Act. It is admitted that particular part was not complied with, but the $200,000 was subsequently used and paid out, and if that had not been there the $200,000 would have been taken out of bond account for the 9ame purpose; so that one replaced the other. The net result iu the end is the same. That 13, if the Act had been strictly complied with the company would have been in exactly the same position to-day.
Q. The company used the $6,800,000 guaranteed bonds to raise money for their purposes. If they had got the cash from Mr. Davis and applied it there would have been so much less necessary from the bonds at the moment?- A. At the moment, but they would have had later to take from bond account a similar amount to meet the accounts which were paid by the money secured from the stock.
Therefore, although It is true that the Act was not strictly complied with in that respect yet the result in the end was the same. The reasons have been already given and commented on as to why this cheque was not immediately cashed, but as Mr. Bell deposes the net result in the end was the same as if it had been cashed in the first instance. One other point I wish to draw attention to, and that is with reference to the appointment of a commission of engineers. When Mr. Holgate was giving evidence before our committee, Mr. Monk questioned him as to his views on how a structure of this kind should be initiated, and he gave it as his view that there should be a commission of engineers who would go into all the details of design and of drawing plans. The questions and the answers being general in their nature I wanted to know if he was speaking with reference to what he

would have done in the first instance before it was known an accident would occur, and Mr. Holgate frankly acknowledged that he was speaking simply in the light of facts and information he had acquired during the investigation. Therefore, on the principle that hind sight is better than foresight, Mr. Holgate would not go s'O far as to say that if in the first instance he had been undertaking this work he would have done what, in the light of the knowledge he afterwards obtained, he would consider necessary. He gave it to be understood that if he were undertaking this work in the first instance he would not say that a commission of engi-ners should have been appointed. I do not desire to detain the House at any greater length.


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on this matter, on account of the lateness of the hour ; but I wish to make a few remarks in answer to the hon. member for Quebec county (Mr. Robitaille). I notice that when that hon. member speaks under oath he speaks very differently from what he does when he speaks in the House of Commons. That hon. member a few days ago was called before the committee appointed to investigate this Quebec bridge matter and was asked by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) certain questions in regard to a speech which he made in this House last session. X wish to read this evidence in order that the House and the country may know that when the hon. member for Quebec county speaks under oath he speaks in a different way altogether from what he does in the House of Commons. I remember well the words that the hon. member uttered last session, [DOT]when he made statements that at the time we were not in a position to answer ; and that is the reason why we thought it proper to bring him before the committee in order that he might have the opportunity of repeating those statements under oath. I will not read the whole of his evidence but simply the more striking portions of it. One statement made by the hon. member for Quebec county in his speech in the House last session was that the premier of the province of Quebec, at the time the subsidies were granted for the Quebec bridge, happened to be the president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The hon. member is supposed to have certain instruction if not education ; but he did not know that the president of the bridge company was not at the time the subsidies were granted the actual president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The following is his evidence before the committee in regard to another statement:
Q. Do you know whan that subsidy was obtained?-A. No.
Q. Now, a little further on in the same speech you stated i(reads): ' In 1901, after Mr. GALLIHER.
having secured this subsidy, a company was formed called the Quebec Terminal and Railway Company. Associated with Mr. Parent were Hon. John Sharpies, E. Taschereau and Gaspard Lemoine.' Do you know as a matter of fact that Mr. Parent was ever a member of that terminal company?-A. I must say, in passing, that there are a few statements in that speech that were mot correctly taken by the stenographers. In reading it up this summer I found, for example, that certain figures do not corroborate certain statements. I corrected some of .these with the original that I had when I gave them out, and I think personally that Hon. Mr. Parent's name was not mentioned in the House by me at the time. I read from the ,statute-book the names of the parties who had registered themselves when they asked for letters patent. Mr. Parent's was not, if I remember right, hut there was Mr. Edmond Taschereau, who is a notary in Mr. Parent's office.
Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of legal matters In the province of Quebec knows that a notary is altogether different from a lawyer ; but when the hon. member for Quebec county speaks of Mr. Edmond Taschereau as if be were a lawyer, he shows how much he knows about matters of that kind. As to the personal attacks made upon persons who are dear to me. I will not refer to them ; the hon. member's condemnation will come later. He lias given us only an exhibition of the last kick of a dying ass.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.


Georges Parent: I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker. I intended to say a few words on this subject, but as it has been so fully discussed, I do not think it Is necessary for me to go further into the affairs of the bridge company. I wish to refer to one statement in the minority report to the effect that the Quebec Bridge Company was not in a proper financial condition, that it had too small a capital, to undertake such a work. If there is anybody who ought to know something about that, it is the people of the city of Quebec themselves ; and both sides of politics in that city took one view of the question, and everybody there is perfectly satisfied with what has been done by the company and the government. On this point, instead of attempting to make any argument myself, I will read an appreciation contained in the only Tory English paper that we have in the city of Quebec. This is taken from the Quebec ' Chronicle ' of December 14, 1907:
The company was taunted with the smallness of its capital in comparison^ with the magnitude of the work to be achieved, aud was represented as a gang of exploiters, whose only object was to make' a good thing out of the government. Now iu order to properly value the justice of these accusations it will be well to recall the circumstances previous to .and at the time of the company's organization. The want of a bridge over the St. Lawrence had long been felt, and, as the years

progressed, became stronger and stronger. There was a bridge over the St. Lawrence at Montreal, it is true, but that bridge was, and still is, the means of oonveying Canadian produce to American seaports to the manifest detriment of our own ports and shipping. When the Conservatives held power, Sir Charles Tupper came down to Quebec and promised the government's support towards the construction of a bridge, but he made it a condition that the Quebecers should show the genuineness of the interest they professed to feel by initiating the- enterprise, and investing capital in it. Either there was a misunderstanding about this condition, or the Quebec men of means in those days were unwilling to comply with it and the project dropped. As time went on the need for the bridge became more apparent; the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company were opening out a new and immensely fertile region in the Hinterland of the province; the wheat fields of the Northwest had grown to such an extent that the government of the day considered it necessary to provide another outlet for their products, in suoh a manner as to find a vent for them in Canadian, and not American seaports. Then the government of Sir Wilfrid Lanrier did practically what that of Sir Charles Tupper had done. It promised effectual co-operation in the building of the bridge, but it was still co-operation only. Then, mindful of what had happened in the past, Quebec gentlemen formed the present bridge company, lest the opportunity should again be lost. It is probable that they were inspired by motives of self interest as well as of patriotism, but they can scarcely be blamed for that, had they not acted as they did, the bridge would not have been commenced.
As for -the smallness of the oa/pital invested, it must be remembered in the first place that there are no onulti-mdlliona-i res here, and in the second place that the company was required as the necessary impetus to set the work going, and not to carry it on ito its completion. Nobody expected that a company could he formed in Quebec that would build the bridge out of its own resources, and scanty subsidies from the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments. This was well understood from the outset, and it was well understood also that the work being one of national importance the government would sooner or later intervene, and practically, if not actually provide for its completion itself. What was required was an initiative taken by Quebecers, and that was afforded by the company that is now blamed for doing so, and reproached for the small amount invested. But, if it had not oome forward, what then?
I quote this to show the sentiment prevailing in Quebec. In conclusion I would say that the people of Quebec feel, and I as a member from the district of Quebec feel that we should be thankful to the government, thankful to the ministers who have helped towards building this bridge which will result in making Quebec a great city and in giving to the harbour of Quebec the place it should have under the sun of our Dominion.
House divided on amendment Mr. Monk.
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Avery,
Barker,
Barr,
Beattie,
Bergeron,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Boyce,
Brahazon,
Bristol,
Broder,
Chisholm (Huron), Christie,
Clare,
Crocket,
Daniel,
Foster,
Fowler,
Haggart,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes (Victoria), Jackson (Elgin), Kemp,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Leonard,
McLaren,
Maclean (York S.), McCarthy (Calgary), Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Owen,
Perley,
Porter,
Pringle,
Reid (Grenville), Robitaille,
Roche (Marquette), Sproule,
Staples,
Taylor,
Tisdale,
Walsh (Huntingdon), White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington,
Wright (Mnskoka)-52.
NAYS : Messieurs
Archambault,
Aylesworth,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais, Brodenr,
Brown,
Bureau,
Caldwell,
Calvert,
Carney,
Caron,
Cash,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Clarke,
Copp,
Cyr,
Delisle,
Demers,
Desjardins,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Dyment,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Finlay,
Finlayson,
Fisher,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gordon,
Graham,
Harty,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.),
Logan,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
McCarthy (Simcoe), McCool,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), McKenzie,
McLean <Huron), McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Michaud,
Miller,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Parent,
Pickup,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Rousseau,
Savoie,
Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford),

Hunt,	Sinclair,
Jackson (Selkirk),	Smith (Oxford),
J ohnston,	Stewart,
Kennedy,	Talbot,
Knowles,	Telford,
Lachance,	Templeman,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Tobin,
Napierville),	Tolmie,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Turootte,
Lapointe,	Verville,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Walsh (Montreal, St. Laurier	Anne),
(L'Assomption),	Watson,
Lavergne,	Wright (Renfrew),
LeBlanc,	Zimmerman.-103.
Lemieux,
Ministerial.	PAIRS : Messieurs Opposition.
Burrows,	W ilmot,
Turriff,	Seagram,
Law,	Osier,
Sloan,	Bennett,
Carvell,	Ward,
Conmee,	Elson,
Crawford,	Ganong,
Devlin,	McLean
German,	(Queens, P.E.I.), Martin
Grant,	(Queens, P.E.I.), Cockshutt,
Greenway,	Armstrong,
Guthrie,	Smith (Wentworth).
Hall,	Marshall,
McColl,	Lalor,
Smith (Nanaimo),	Clements,
Boyer,	Forget,
Sifton,	Mafcdonell,
Black,	Ames,
Beland,	Paquet,
Fortier,	Lewis,
Ratz,	Thompson,
McCraney,	Schaffner,
Turgeon.	Stanfield.
Amendment negatived.	
Motion agreed to on division.	
BUSINESS	OF THE HOUSE.
calling of the orders of the day, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the government to facilitate the passage of the Senate Bill relating to the water carriage of goods. This is on the Order Paper under ' Public Bills and Orders '. There is a strong demand in favour of the measure-almost unanimous support X believe. I would like to know the intention of the government.


Mr. FIELDING.: There is that Bill and also another Bill from the Senate, the two being in the same position. In answers to the hon. member's suggestion, I may say that, some time to-morrow, or to-night if time will allow, we shall be glad to have them called up.



SALE OF INDIAN LANDS-TELEGRAM FROM MR. SIFTON.

[Stage Direction]
' Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have received from Mr. Sifton the following telegram:
Winnipeg, Manitoba, July 16, 1908. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa.
Please read following to House: Mr. Boyce's statement that improprieties exist in sale Indian lands unfounded, statement that application put in under name different from real applicant at my suggestion or request or with my knowledge absolutely untrue. I do not know that Mr. Philp has or ever had any interest, did not know Messrs. Wilson and Ree-sor had acquired these lands until a year after sale took place, sale made by officials ix ordinary way and under ordinary rules given so far as I know, no privilege whatever to purchasers except what were open to any applicant, I unqualifiedly deny the existence of any improprieties or irregularity whatever.


Mr. FOWLER.: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if he intends to answer certain questions I put upon the Order Paper with regard to the Intercolonial Railway ? I refer to questions 1 and 2. I desire to ask the same question of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) with regard to question 8.


Mr. GRAHAM.: I understand that questions will be called to-night or to-morrow. I have the answers to question No. 1 here, but I am not quite sure about the other.


George William Fowler: Could you give the answers now ?


George Perry Graham: It would not be in order to give it now. Questions will be called before prorogation.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Have the orders of the day been called ? If not. on the Mr. PARENT.


Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
Resolved. That it is expedient to authorize the government of Canada pursuant to the agreement between it and the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, dated the 19th day of October, 1903, and set out in the schedule to chapter 54 of the statutes of 1903, to exercise the right to take over the whole of the undertaking, assets, property, and franchises of the Quebec Railway and: Bridge Company, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the said agreement and the said Act, and that the moneys required to pay therefor he appropriated for that purpose out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Motion agreed to and House went into committee on the resolution.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What is the estimated amount of the expenditure ?


George Perry Graham: X thought that, as it is so near six o'clock, the hon. gentleman, (Mr. R. L. Borden) would prefer to have the resolution reported and the discussion of these points take place on the Bill. The estimate for the construction of the bridge, of course cannot be given, until we have the report of the board of engineers.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to reserving the discussion until the committee stage of the Bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 217) respecting the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia- and Defence) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolutions :
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to confirm the following orders in council, that is to say:
(a)	An order in council dated the sixteenth day of May, 1904, authorizing the sale to the corporation of the city of Toronto of certain ordnance property in that city, consisting of the whole of the military property lying between and including the old fort and the exhibition;
(b)	An order in council, dated the sixth day of December, 1905, authorizing the sale to the _ city of Montreal of the ordnance property in the St. Lawrence river, opposite the eaid city, known as St. Helen's Island: and
(c)	An order in council, dated the twenty-seventh day of duly, 1907, authorizing the conveyance to the city of Montreal of a portion of the ordnance property in that city known as Lafontaine park, and to authorize the sale and disposal of the said ordnance property in the manner and subject to the conditions by the said orders in council, respectively, provided and subject to such further and other conditions as may be imposed by His Majesty and accepted by the corporation of the city of Toronto and by the city of Montreal, as the case may be.
2.	Resolved, That the purchase moneys received from the corporations of the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal for the said ordnance properties may be used and applied and are hereby appropriated to and for the purposes, of the purchase of sites and construction of building thereon for military schools of instruction in connection with the permanent force in those cities, respectively.
On section 2,
William Findlay Maclean: Is it the intention to make any stipulation for the maintenance of the old fort in Toronto when it comes into possession of the city?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do I understand that the government sells to the city of Montreal, St. Helen's Island for so much?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And the city of Montreal, as compensation, deeds to the government part of Lafontaine park?


Frederick William Borden: Not exactly. In the Bill which I shall introduce, the orders in council referred to in this resolution are printed in full. But in the order in council relating to the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers, the two matters are kept separate. The fact is that St. Helen's Island was under lease to the city for certain purposes. The city wished to acquire it, and the government agreed to sell it for a certain sum of money after it had been appraised. The city had been occupying the whole of Lafontaine Park for many years, and having improved half of it, the city wished to acquire Lafontaine Park and the department agreed that the half which the city had improved should be deeded to the city, and that the city should give up any claim it had on the other half so that the department might have the use of the other half for the purposes of drill. At the same time, it is understood that when it is not occupied by the department for parades the city shall have the use of the other half.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I suppose that this will he left a great deal to the discretion of the hon. gentleman and the city of Montreal when the time comes. He knows that there were objections on the part of many citizens to giving up any part of Lafontaine Park.


Frederick William Borden: There is no intention to construct military buildings on that half of the park, but merely to use it for the purposes of military parades.


Mr. HAGGART.: What do you do with
the proceeds of the sales?


Frederick William Borden: That is provided for in the Bill. The money is to be expended in the purchase of sites in Toronto and Montreal.


Mr. KEMP.: What is the purchase price of the site in each city?


Frederick William Borden: $200,000 in each case.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 218) to authorize the sale or other disposal of certain ordnance lands in the cities of Toronto and Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Sir- FREDERICK BORDEN. I wish to say to the committee .that in introducing my resolution I omitted to state that His Excellency had been apprised of the subject matter of the resolution, and recommended it for consideration.
[Stage Direction]
Oft section 2,
Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to inquire from the minister if he has' received any representations from any one in Toronto in respect to the street car service running through these grounds?


Frederick William Borden: When the arrangement was made with the city of Toronto, the papers in connection with them were laid on the table two or three years ago, it was stipulated on the part of the government that the old fort and the old burying ground should be preserved by the city, that is the condition on which the property is handed over to the city. It is to be used for park purposes exclusively.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you not reserve a part for the purpose of the public buildings that you intend to put up in Toronto?


Frederick William Borden: The city of Toronto was anxious to have this land. They have had seventy-five acres of it for many years, and they had a lease before that, and had practically become the users ; so they thought it desirable that they should become the owners. We have got a fairly good price for it and we have purchased, or the city has purchased for us, a farm at the very low rate of $20,000 and that farm is to be transferred to the government as soon as this legislation goes through, and the balance of the money will be used for the purpose of constructing buildings for the military school at Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: I asked the minister if he had received representations with reference to the street cars going through it ?


Frederick William Borden: We have stipulated with the city that the fort should be maintained and restored, and of course if the street cars were to go through it or injure it in any way that would not be an observance of the conditions. I think there was a further order in council with reference to this very matter which said that nothing of the kind, no railway of any kind could be carried through the Fort without the consent of the people of Toronto ; it must first be permitted by by-law of the city.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EDMONTON, YUKON AND PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 213) respecting aid for the extension of the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway-Mr. Graham-read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Robert Laird Borden: Is the Bill exactly in the same terms as the resolution?


Frederick William Borden: 


George Perry Graham: Exactly.
[Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NORTHERN. RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 214) respecting certain aid for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway.-Mr. Graham-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Is this in the .same form as the resolution?


George Perry Graham: Yes, exactly.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-SEED GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House
again go into Committee of Supply.
['The attention of the House was called to it by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), and I intimated to him the other day that the Bill would not be called. However, I will not press it now.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 1.50 a.m., Saturday.', '\n\nSaturday, July 18, 1908.']
George Eulas Foster: The hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) promised to lay detailed information on the table of the House in reference to the buying and distribution of seed grain in the west. I have not noticed that it had been brought down.



George Eulas Foster: There is a notice in the papers of a petition forwarded to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association setting forth, in a memorandum, the state of the woollen industry in Canada and it was stated that the Prime Minister had made a reply. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he would think it well to lay on the table to-morrow the petition so that it may be within the information of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will do so to-morrow.


MR. CONGDON'S ACCOUNTS.
George Eulas Foster: Has the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) received any information from the Yukon as to the question he asked by telegram in reference to Mr. Congdon's accounts as administrator and whether any audit had been made by the Yukon Council?


Mr. OLIVER.: I got a reply. I will try and bring it in the morning as I do not have it with me now.


FINANCIAL REVIEW.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I want to make a few remarks with reference to the financial condition, as it appears, and the outlook on the basis of that condition. It has been usual of late years for the opposition to

make a summing up of tlie matter, presenting the figures and, to a certain extent, embodying their own position with regard to it which custom will not be departed from on the present occasion. It seems to me that it is particularly timely "at this period to review some of the more recent events and transactions in relation to Canadian finances and to present in concise form the condition of things as it appears at the present time. The government have been in power now for about twelve years. It is an old story to make mention of the principles they professed and the policies they propounded before they came into power. That has been gone over in successive years until I think there remains not very much more necessity for mentioning it in a review of this kind.
The three principal points in connection with the finances of Canada are : the taxation collected from the country, the expenditures which are made, and the increase or otherwise of the public debt resulting therefrom. The House knows that the Liberal party before 1896 professed to be in favour of low taxation, declared that the taxation at that time imposed was excessive, and promised that when they got into power it would be their privilege and duty to reduce it. To-day the matter stands something like this ; that the per capita taxation of 1896, $5.46 per head, was in 1908 raised to $11.70 per head. The total taxation of 1896, amounting to $27,700,000 was raised in the last year to $73,000,000, an increase of $45,200,000, or 163 per cent increase in volume of taxation. The student of the history of taxation would find that $252,000,000 in taxes has been paid during the administration of these gentle-
1907-8.
men more than if the level of the taxation exacted in 1896 had been maintained, and that in the eleven years and three quarters of the administration under review $544,000,000 have been taken from the people in taxation, an average of about $48,000,000 yearly, and that each day there is collected In Canada a little over $200,000 as against a daily collection of $76,000 in 1896. There are not many more than six millions of tax payers in 1908 as compared with about five millions in 1896 ; so that the increase in rate, in volume and in yearly amount of taxation has been increased far away and above the increase of population.
Coming next to expenditures, we find that the party which when in opposition were opposed to the expenditure of that time as being alarmingly excessive, have raised the per capita expenditure of the country from $8.14 in 1896 to $18 in 1908, and the amount of the expenditure from $41,700,000 in 1896 to $112,000,000 in 1908, an increase of 70$ millions in that period, being an increase of 165 per cent. It is interesting to know that in that period of eleven years and three quarters $833,000,000 have been expended by this government of economy, which amounts to $71,000,000 yearly, and that the average daily expenditures of the country are $303,571 as against $114,000 in 1896. Although this has been the history of the expenditure of the country during that period, when we approach the year 1908-1909 we find that the expenditure authorized and contemplated is far and away the greatest of any year in the history of Canada. The following table shows the estimates of 1907-1908 and the estimates of 1908-1909 in parallel columns :
1908-9.
Supplementary	$	2,105,105	$ 5,329,633Main	
103,689,519	119,237,091Main supplementary	
11,018,605	10,665,657Other items	
100,000	2,850,000Bounties (estimated)	2,500,000	2,875,000

Loans-
Quebec Bridge. . Montreal Harbour

6,678,200
3,000,000
23,566,300
C.N. Ry. guaranteed bonds
11,067,000
Total .

Excess, 1908-9 over 1907-8	 $38,480,252

This is extremely illustrative when we take into account the condition of financial affairs in Canada and throughout the world at the present time as compared with the expenditures for 1907-1908. Where you would
naturally look for prudence and economy and if anything a curtailment of expenditures, you find a very large and significant increase. There is no indication in this of any appreciation by either the Finance Min-

ister or the government of the condition of the country or the financial conditions prevailing in the world. If they have any appreciation of those conditions they have not met them as most prudent men in business, banking, commercial or other positions always are ready and think it prudent to do. But the expenditure as outlined for the present year has a feature in it which is somewhat different from the feature of last year as I find by looking over the items of estimates, particularly of the supplementaries. These are what you might call pregnant estimates. A very large portion of them are for the beginnings of works which in the very hurried and altogether inadequate examination that could be given as the estimates were passing the House, promised to run into very large figures before the works for which these are the initiative votes shall have been carried to completion.
There is also this year the item of railway subsidies amounting to some twenty-three to twenty-five millions of dollars which of course extends over a period of years and calls for large sums if we take it for- granted that these are bona fide enterprises and will be carried out. Looking over these proposed expenditures and indeed over the expenditures of this government for the last five or six years, there seems to be no species of expenditure which is barred from public help; to expend seems to be the great object of each department and there seems to be no discriminating sense as to what are proper objects for the expenditure of Dominion moneys and what should be avoided. The limited examination which was made in the Marine and Fisheries Department, and which I believe if made in almost any other department of the government would be equally indicative of the general tenor of the expenditures, has shown I think to the satisfaction of everybody who has read that report and the evidence, that there was, according to the commissioners, an utter lack of care and prudence and business foresight, and in fact of directive power and of conscience in the expenditures which were made. During the second commission we have had the fact brought out that over $200,000 were actually thrown away within the last two or three years in the Marine and Fisheries Department alone on account of the patronage list purchases within the knowledge of the deputy and the officers which were larger than they should have been had the patronage list not ruled and had business foresight and discrimination been exercised. Instances were brought of articles which cost to manufacture $400 or $500 being sold to the government for between $4,000 and $5,000 on the excuse that a patent was concerned, but the validity of that excuse fell when the commissioner, Judge Cassels, pointed out that no government was justified in paying more than a reasonable profit and that they had the legal remedy in their own hands with Mr. FOSTER.
reference to patents which were granted by the Dominion. What one noticed in these expenditures is the utter lack of plan, of uniform development of the different resources and capabilities of the country and the extremely experimental and haphazard way in which expenditures are gone about. When one comes to look into it, the key to the situation is found in this that in not one case out of ten is the expenditure begun because of and consequent upon an examination as to whether the public interest requires the expenditure. The expenditure is begun because of party and political pressure, and the desire on the one hand to get money to expend within the member's locality and on the other hand to help the supporting member by that species of patronage. I am convinced that every year millions of dollars would be saved to this country if expenditures were made upon the basis which I first mentioned rather than upon the second which is the basis generally acted upon. But one of the most reprehensible troubles that we find in the passing of votes and initiating expenditures and undertaking works in this country is what X hope I am not too strongly naming as the absolutely false presentation of the expenditure made, either through carelessness or worse, by the department or the minister in charge of the measure. It is getting to be almost the invariable rule that you cannot place any reasonable reliance upon the estimate which a minister will give you with reference to the completion of a work undertaken by a vote of parliament and the granting of money for the initial proceeding. I shall mention only two instances of this, one on a small scale and the other upon a very large scale. First we have the Royal Mint. It was at first opposed by the Minister of Finance and argued out of the House. It was then made an election cry in British Columbia and ' Maxwell and the Mint ' was pasted up through the constituency because of Mr. Maxwell's receiving an assurance from the Prime Minister, after the Minister of Finance had decided it was not necessary to build a mint, that a mint would ,be built in Vancouver or Victoria, I forget which, Committed in that way the Finance Minister had to eat the leek and bring down the proposition. The statement made at that time was that the mint would cost us an outside figure of $350,000.
And, although there was some opposition, the House concluded that if a mint could be had for that amount it would pass the vote; and it did pass it on these statements. The mint, when it is finished, will have cost very close to $650,000, which is $300,000, or nearly that, above the estimate. That is an example which might be multiplied hundreds and hundreds of times, showing under-estimates of the same extent, or at least a great extent in what may be called the smaller transactions. But what I wish to take up

now is the large transaction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. That was a very large undertaking for the people of this country, an important undertaking. And in presenting the scheme the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were on their honour and under the responsibilty of their high offices which have the power of authoritative recommendation and explanation of the measures which are brought before the House. The Prime Minister studied the question, gathered, his information and jdaced a statement of the financial cost to the country, as well as other statements, before the House. And on that statement of the Prime Minister of Canada, the House voted, and the country voted afterwards to sustain what the ministry and the House had done. The Finance Minister is the exponent, naturally, of the financial side of every proposition. And, with his experience, with all the expert aid he had at his side and of which he says he availed himself, he made his statement of what the money cost to this country would be. I propose to-night to examine briefly these statements and to contrast them with what we find the conditions to be in 1908 when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is fairly starting out on the course of construction. Now, I do not wish to misinterpret any one, so I am going to carefully quote from ' Hansard' of 1903, where the speech of the Prime Minister is reported, the statements he then made. At page 7090, he said :
Now, it will be .asked: What is to be the liability of the government, what are they to contribute to the building of this railway, for they must contribute something ? What they contribute is simply this-the payment of the interest for a certain number of years. It is provided that the bonds shall run for fifty years. During the first seven years, the company are not to be called upon to meet the interest, which is at three per cent; that interest will he met by the government. After seven years the company shall pay the interest if the proceeds of the road are sufficient to earn three per cent. But, if the proceeds are not sufficient to earn three per cent, the payment shall be made by the government.
At another place, on page 7690 he said :
Now, Sir, what is the liability incurred by the government for the construction of this road from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean? Assuming that the road across the mountain is 600 miles long, the cost of construction will he $18,000,000 and the total interest for three years will he $3,780,000 This is the whole of the liability which is incurred by the government for the construction of the railway from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean.
This deals with the western section. He takes up the eastern section also. Then he goes on to explain the whole contract and says :
The total sum of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of that line of railway from Monoton to the Pacific
ocean rwill be in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, and not a cent more.
Having just before that explained that, just as we paid the interest on a certain amount for the Mountain section, we have to pay the interest for seven years on the cost of construction of the eastern section, he made the summation 1 have just read. There is nothing in the whole of the right hon. gentleman's speech in any way to qualify that plain and definite statement.
Well, Sir, the Finance Minister takes up the matter later. I shall quote from him a little more at length. He first takes up the line from Moncton to Quebec. He says that the distance is 386 miles, but, in order to be certain he estimates it at 400 miles, and then, as reported at page 8584 of ' Hansard ' of 1903, he says :
I am advised by competent authorities that, . from the general knowledge possessed of that country, that road cam be built at a very moderate cost. From Quebec or Levis to near the point where the railway will leave the province of Quebec it cam be built at a comparatively low cost. There is some expensive work in passing from the province of Quebec into the province of New Brunswick, and as you get into the province of New Brunswick, there are some portions which are moderately expensive. But I am informed that you can huild a line through that country with maximum grades no less favourable than those on the Intercolonial Railway-though that is not as good a road as my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mt. Charlton) wants

for $25,000 per mile. On 400 miles that would be $10,000,000.
From Quebec to Winnipeg I estimate the distance to be 1,475 miles. That is a larger mileage than some of my hon. friends have given. I am not trying in these cases to make the mileage small. I am advised by an engineer who has measured the distance that in putting it at 1,475 miles, I am making a liberal allowance. I put that down at $28,000 per mile, which I aim advised is a fair estimate. _ Remember that in both cases we are speaking of the road only, without equipment. That would make the cost of that section $41,300,000. Taking these two together, we have the estimated cost of the eastern division at $51,300,000.
Being questioned as to whether that included interest during construction, he said that it did not, and continued :
The difficulty there, as my hon. friend will see, is that you can hardly tell what amount will be expended in each year. I have had a rough estimate of that made, and it can only be a rough estimate.
In the first year we would spend only a very small sum. After that, the expense would increase yery rapidly. We would spend $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 a year. Distributing the amounts over tile period of construction in that way, I estimate that at the end of the period, instead of the capital of the road standing at $51,300,000, it would stand at $54,609,676.
That is, the interest during the construction period Is the difference between $51,300,-

fore the House. A qualification has in fairness to be made in reference to the Quebec bridge. Since the hon. gentleman made that calculation the bridge has fallen down and of course the Minister of Finance cannot be held responsible for the amount of loss thus involved. To that extent my statement must in fairness be somewhat modified.
What are the cash obligations which today are straight in front of the Minister of Finance and this country. They are these : Cash obligations incurred.
For Grand Trunk Pacific-
Construction, Winnipeg to Moncton	$114,393,765
Interest on cost of same whilst
building	 10,009,454
Seven years' interest oin total cost to be paid by government without recourse	 26,124,676
Cost of terminals, government's
share	 4,591,250
Interest to be paid by government without recourse on mountain section	  11,304,300

For Quebec bridge-
Total amount required	$ 14,422,238
Total cash obligations	$180,845,683
Bond obligations.
Canadian Northern Railway bonds
guaranteed in 1903	'	$ 9,385,639
Grand Trunk Pacific Bailway bonds guaranteed in 1903	  58,048,000
Total obligations	$ 67,433,639
Contingent cash liability.
Grand Trunk Pacific-
For three years' additional inter. est on cost of construction, eastern division	 11,196,290
Grand 'total of cash and bond
obligation	'	$259,475,612
About all but one of these figures tbeie is not a shadow of disagreement between either side of the House. For the Quebec bridge the total amount required will be $14,222,238, including the loss incurred by its collapse. The Minister of Railways took no exception to that statement; lie simply said that it did not belong to the Grand Trunk Pacific but he .allowed the estimate to stand, and I believe that is not an over estimate. That makes up total cash obligations to the sum of $180,S45,683.
There is another reckoning which I call the contingent cash obligation. That is that after we have paid the interest for seven years if the Grand Trunk Pacific shall not then out of its earnings be able to operate its road, make its betterments, and take care of itself and pay the interest on that immense sum coming up to pretty close on two hundred million dollars, then this government shall be called upon to pay Mi. FOSTEB
three years additional interest which would amount to $11,1146,290. That may be debatable but my own opinion is that it is a pretty dead certainty that we will have to advance that money during those three years, and if we do our total cash obligations will come up to $192,000,000 and over. But that is not all. The Grand Trunk Pacific has its bonds guaranteed, principal and interest, by this government to the amount of $58,048,000, so that you must add that and then you get a total of cash obligations and of bond obligations amounting to $250,000,000 in round figures. And in addition to that there is also a bond obligation which in 1903 was entered into by this government with the Canadian Northern Railway Company to the amount of $9,385,639, making a total cash and bond obligation, which at this date and before another estimate is voted in this House, faces the government, amounting to $259,475,612. An hon. gentleman may say the bonds do not amount to anything. Is that true ? Never in the case of a man, or in the case of a nation, or in the case of a business corporation is that true ? Whenever a nation wants financial aid it must submit to the scrutiny of all its obligations and the effect is felt upon the money markets of the world, when that nation has recourse, as it must often have, to these money markets.
Now Sir, with all that bond and cash indebtedness facing this government what else is there ? With the present scale of expenditure aud the multiplicity of objects which are continually claiming expenditure and which the government is meeting, and the falling of receipts which are marked both in customs and in the railways of the country ; we must not buoy ourselves up for a moment with the hone that those cash obligations can be met in any other way than by borrowing upon the money markets; London in particular. So that if you take these uudoubted cash obligations-leaving out the contingent obligation of $180,845,683, which is now lessened by $26,000,000 paid on that account up to March 31, 190S-and meet them by loans, what happens? It happens that your net public debt which in 1896 was $258,500,000 and on March 31, 1908 was $278,000,000 has to be increased to the alarming total of $432,845,683. And if that contingent liability of $11,196,290 comes to, us and we have to provide the money from borrowings the total debt will amount to $444,041,973 when all of these liabilities in cash shall have been covered. The most of that must be covered before the end of 1911 and ail of it within, a few years thereafter, so that new loans on this account will be necessary to the amount of $166,041,973.
But that is not all of it. There are now current temporary loans running at rates from 31 to 4J per cent amounting to $17,-S00,000 in different banks here and there wherever accommodation can he got. They
13433	JULY 17, 1908	13434
cannot always run ; no country can allow that. They must be taken up. Then again if you go to the Public Accounts you will find that before 1910 ends, $57,000,000 of public debt not provided for by sinking funds will fall due and these two items together will render necessary additional new loans amounting to $74,800,000 or a total of $240,841,973, of which $192,216,797, must be raised within three years.
Now, it seems to me that that gives any sensible man room for thought, and necessitates great anxiety and the most serious consideration. And yet, notwithstanding all these facts which 1 have recited, this appalling load of cash and other obligations that are to be met as much as the fates are to be met in their decrees or natural laws in their working out, no amount of ' Oh, we don't care ' will get rid of them ; no waving of the hand puts them out from fronting you ; no optimism based upon insufficient grounds of consideration or knowledge of facts will ever remove them from your path. They are there, and there to be met, and this country must meet them. And yet, Sir, in the face of these appalling facts, this government starts out in the year 1908 on an expenditure and an increase of obligations unprecedented in the former history of this country, involving in estimates alone $138,078,381, and in bounties, which the Finance Minister himself has estimated for me and which are to be paid, $2,875,000; being a total of $140,953,381. These are the expenditures authorized. But beyond that you have bridge subsidies and railway subsidies amounting to $23,566,300; you have guaranteed loans to the Canadian Northern Railway in the shape of 3i per cent bonds, and so have added to your financial burdens $11,067,000. Thus you have in this present authorization a total of obligations and expenditures of $175,386,681. I have read to you the obligations which before were staring this country in the face, amounting to $259,000,000 and more. Add that to the $175,000,000, and you have a total of $434,000,000 of cash and bond obligations, most of them cash, which are today staring this country in the face and to be undertaken as soon as tjiis Supply Bill shall have been passed. You may deduct $26,000,000 of that as having been already paid out upon the obligations upon the Transcontinental Railway up to March 31, 1908, which leaves you a total of over $408,000,000. And yet, Sir, I fail to see in any member of the government any move of the government, any utterance of the government, the least appreciation of the condition of things which is set forth in that presentation of what 1 believe to be the bare and naked facts.
Now, Sir, let me very briefly answer a question or two with reference to this. What is the accompaniment of this condition of
things ? Are the revenues buoyant ? Is trade prosperous ? I know that some one with less than knowledge than I think he ought to employ will be quick to declare that now I am going to depreciate the country. Very well ; let such a one say what he likes-the truth moderately but firmly stated is the only absolute healing salve ; and the man who tries to discourage the use of that is no friend to himself or to his country. Of Canada as a whole, her resources, her capabilities, her future, under anything like fair play, there is no man more optimistic than myself in the whole domain. But I do think that prudence is required, and that we ought to be careful and ought not to abuse even the sturdy power of a young country like ours. What, then, is the condition of the revenue to-day? The revenue is decreasing. What is the condition in the United States, in Great Britain, in every country in the world ? There is a hold-up to business ; there is a paralysis more or less thoroughly defined; there is the period which inevitably follows a debauch, when headaches come and stomachs are foul, and the man wishes he had not done what he did the night before. This is the certain accompaniment of a period of over-booming or of overgreat business progress and development, such as the world has seen in the last six or seven years. Every country in the world feels it; every other country than ours is providing for it by strengthening its financial position and by proper acts of economy. From Japan to Germany and from the United States to Great Britain that is the absolute rule. The opposite is what is being done in Canada. What do you find with reference to the revenue? In January there was a falling off from January of last year of a fifth of a million-not much, but yet a warning ; in February there was a falling off of a third of a million not much, but a little more, in March, there was a falling off of $1,000,000, in April a falling off of $1,000,000, in May, of $1,700,000, in June, of $1,500,000, in the first fifteen days of July, of $1,000,000, which if kept up will make a falling off of $2,000,000 for the month of July ; and to my mind the man who declares that things will immediately get better has not correctly sized up the trade or the financial condition in this country or in the other countries of the world. Your Intercolonial Railway, the figures about which I was not able to get to-day, though they were asked for by my hon. friend from Kings and Albert, show, I am certain, what the other railways of the world show, namely, a falling off. There is not a railway in the United States that does not show a large falling off in revenue. Our own will show the same, and although this year this country is I believe to be favoured, if Providence continues to smile

for a little while longer, with a bumper crop, still the railways, though they will be immensely aided, will show no increase over last year. More naturally 1 think, they will show a very considerable decrease, and they are preparing for it and have prepared for it. Every railway in Canada has set itself to strengthening itself by shearing off every unnecessary expense and by putting itself in a position to do the best it can in the period of depression. I notice also that in the money markets of the world the outlook is not so favourable as we would like it to be ; and Canada has had her warning with inference to that very thing over and over again.
Grand Trunk Pacific bonds were put upon the British market under what representation ? Under the representation of the Minister of Finance which I have read to you to-night and Grand Trunk Pacific bonds placed on the market under this most favourable representation are held yet by the men who underwrote them-and very largely held by those men. The Finance Minister himself has paid from 3J per cent to 7 per cent for temporary loans, and when he went on the market for $5,000,000 a few days ago only 44 per cent was subscribed by the general public, and the rest is held probably still almost entirely by the underwriters. These are not the best preparatives for future loans, and if that be true the Minister of Finance, who has to go to those markets within the next year and the succeeding year and the year after, for amounts up to $120,000,000 or $150,000,000 might well ask himself whether he is doing the best thing possible to strengthen Canada's credit in those markets by pursuing the wild and reckless course of extravagance he has brought before this parliament and this country in this year of grace 1908. To my mind no more foolhardy and unwise thing could have been done than for the Minister of Finance to flaunt into the face of present creditors and future lenders of money an example of the most inflated estimates and the largest obligations that in any one year have ever been undertaken by the Dominion of Canada. Can you make better representations under present conditions than you would have made when those other loans were being made. The Grand Trunk Pacific must go on the market with more bonds, but will they be taken readily ? The Minister of Finance must have more money. Will he get it oh more favourable conditions under the course that he is pursuing ? Men in Pondon are thinking men, men who lend money in London are thinking men and they will turn the Minister of Finance inside out when he goes to ask for more loans and will want to know exactly all the conditions in this country and who is responsible therefor. Money-lenders are not as a rule sympathetic friends ; they are the discerning surgeon and physi-Mr. FOSTER.
cian, they diagnose and cut to the very bone in order to find out the truth. But the Minister of Finance in reply to my hon. friend the other night, waved it all away with a simple passing of the hand, wrote it all off the book and brought it down to a mere nothing. Why, he says, suppose we had $58,000,000 of guaranteed bonds in our name for the road, what matter is that? Little likelihood that we shall ever be called upon to pay.	Suppose there is three
years of interest after the seven years we will never be called upon to pay ; suppose there is $180,000,000 spent, we own the road. May I put two questions to the Minister of Finance ? When every dollar of that money is raised, who raised it ? The Minister of Finance of Canada. When it is all raised whose debt is it ? The debt of Canada. When the interest is to be paid, who pays it ? The people of Canada. This very costly piece of road from Winnipeg to Moncton, when finished including the interest in the Mountain section will have cost from $200,000,000 to $230,000,000, it passes for 1,400 or 1,500 miles through no man's land at the present time, although we hope it will turn out mueh better than it now looks. I have been curiously waiting for the First Minister and the Minister of Finance to bring to us the reports of engineers and others who have now travelled nearly every mile in that country and have had their rods and itbeir lines upon it. How have they reported on that country ? If they had reported the country as being good and had come back bearing grapes of Escol upon their shoulders, do you think these gentlemen would not have displayed the fruit ? They have been as mum as oysters, which convinces me that [DOT] the travellers through that country have not brought a very optimistic report as to its capabilities for furnishing local traffic. So that after all the money is borrowed and the debt incurred and the interest paid by the Dominion of Canada we may or may not get a return of 3 per cent, but if we do it will to that extent add to the revenues of the country some fifteen years from now, but not a single cent up to that period.
A word with reference to general matters. Whilst this government is adept in finding methods of expending money and lying awake nights to find extraordinary channels in which to set it running, they are not so diligent in reference to other matters. They appointed a civil service commission. That commission was not to go into the principles of the civil service because the government were careful to state that those principles were just and right. They appointed this commisison upon the reports of the civil service of this country that their expenditures had increased beyond all bounds, over and above their remuneration and that the matter ought to be looked into, and if their cause was just that the disparity
13437	.	JULY 17, 1908	13438
ought to be adjusted. Months and months were spent with that commission, the salaries of the commissioners were paid, their report was given and sustained the contention of the civil service absolutely, going towards readjustment. What have the government done ? They have made an excuse of the enactment of that Civil Service Bill to raise unnecessarily the salaries of many men who are getting quite enough at the present time, men with high salaries and not over-onerous duties. They have increased those favourites of theirs, those men who might well have dragged along for a little bit on a salary of $3,500 or $4,000 or $5,000 and have made both ends meet, might have got porridge for breakfast and some light refreshment for tea besides keeping up the general apppearance of a household. They have rushed to an unnecessary rescue of that class of officer but they have left the under official whose salary is not, on their own confession, equal to the requirements made upon him, out in the cold, in their Bill they have taken care that the high-class man shall have his $100 a year of increase, but the civil servant in the lower classes only gets a paltry $50, though the men with the small salary and the young and growing family is the man who needs the great increase rather than the other. They have taken means in that Bill to single out their own favourites, and have advanced, and are now advancing, the salaries of those favourites by leaps and bounds. But the great mass of the service has not had a single grievance sympathetically dealt with, and the whole outside service has simply been put off with promises which, as promises sound well to the ear but which, when they are remembered only as broken promises add a weariness to the heart and add a bitterness to the daily life-struggle of these men in all parts of the Dominion.
This government got in a hurry over the insurance question, named its insurance commissioners, and has paid them up to date some $85,000, one favourite receiving $25,000 and another $14,000, and others in proportion. Those commissioners have looked into all, and in some cases more than all in the opinion of some people at least-they ought to look into. They have made their report. They had their experts, who put a Bill-the Bill-before the government. The government took the Bill and turned it upside down, making a Bill of their own. And, as usual, with Bills made by men who have no expert knowledge of that with which they are dealing, the moment the practical man got before them with that Bill in the Committee on Banking and Commerce, the principal sections were riddled from end to end. Where is that Bill to-day? Two years have passed, the government's fav-ourities have got their big fees, the government have had their investigation- and the greatest use made of it up to the
present time has been to follow certain members of parliament with emanations from that commission in the vain endeavour to annihilate those men who are opponents of this government. That may have been what the government wanted, but it is not what the country expected.
The government had a commission appointed for the civil service. Unexpectedly, that commission was bold enough to lift off the lid from one half of one department and expose the brew to the admiring gaze of the public of Canada. Immediately, the commission stopped. It was not asked to continue the same good work in other departments. But enough had been done to make it necessary that some semblance of an investigation should go on. And a semblance of an investigation was instituted. A man who had more work to do than he could do and who told the Prime Minister so-and who told him at the same time that unless he, the Prime Minister, took care of his work he would not undertake the investigation at all-was, in sprite of all, appointed. Months have passed and that investigation has not had six consecutive days under the new commission, and months will pass before that investigation can be again proceeded with. And there is your department, without a proper organization, without directive power and without conscience-half its men under suspicion. And yet this parliament Is asked to put millions of money into an organization of that kind to be spent behind the back of parliament. And that commission-not because Judge Cassels wishes to do it, but because the government wish it-that commission is dofng just the thing that the government had done before, jollying things along to prevent any examination until the elections are over.
This government has been kind to the wrong doer and eminently kind to the middleman When has the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) ever stood between the treasury of this country and the man who wanted to loot it? Will any one out of his own experience tell of one single ease in which it has been done? But when Merwin looted the treasury, when Lodge looted the treasury, when Pierson, Dodge and hundreds of others have looted the treasury, though the Prime Minister knew it, though it was proven and put up to him, not once has the Prime Minister risen and by even a word condemned such proceedings. And to-day the middleman and the patronage list flourish in all their glory. Yesterday as a finale of the land transactions for the present session was displayed before this House one of the most malodorous deals that have ever been exposed here to our humiliation-a trust for the Indians sacrificed by the men who held that trust; Indian property sold for $9,000, and turned over almost before the bill was paid for $100,000. And yesterday the Minister of

the Interior slept during nearly the -whole of the presentation of that subject. And when he got up, the first thing he did was to call the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) a scandal monger. And the next thing was to give his plea. And his plea was : The laud belonged to the Indians ; Indians cannot eat land ; you have to sell it and get money or they cannot get the good of it; we sold it-and that is the whole story.
Franchises are given everywhere. I brought one case to the attention of the House not long ago. Here were four members of parliament In good standng-Duncan Fraser, of Guysborough, Mr. Mclsaac, of Antigonish, Mr. Maxwell of a British Columbia constituency and Mr. Mclnnes, also of British Columbia. And these four members of parliament were standing up like little men fighting for every proposal that the government tried to put through this House. And they got the townsite of Whitehorse divided amongst themselves at $10 an acres, a townsite in which lots-and an acre makes several lots-I have been informed sell at from $500 to $1,500 per lot. That is a part of the system of doping. The Prime Minister dopes the country in several ways. For instance, he gives a contract of printing to Mr. Pierson, who owns the St. John ' Sun,' who has no job office. And Mr. Pierson receives the contract and thanks the Prime Minister. Then he turns it over to a gentleman by the name of Armstrong, telling him:	You do this printing
and I will keep 25 per cent and you can have the other 75 per cent. That is done, and the Prime Minister knows it. Why should not the country have that 25 per cent and Mr. Armstrong do the printing and get just as much for it as he gets now? And the same thing is done in Halifax, and for the benefit of the same gentleman. The right hon. gentleman himself carries on the doping process. How? By writing out a promise of a judgeship or a governorship and giving it to a man who supports him as a member of this House.
The Prime Minister knows he did it, knows the letter was read, knows that the gentleman had it in his trousers pocket, and voted for him. Since they have come into power in 1896 they have appointed seventy-five members of parliament to positions of emolument, involving an annual salary of $350,000 ; and these men, until they got the office, would of course have supported the government; and they would be heathens if, after they got the office, they did not say a good word for the government. And so it goes on, and to-morrow we will be asked to swallow another measure. the infamous Quebec bridge matter, which we will have something to say about then. I believe that the proposition which is put before the House in that respect will not stand fair investigation. It was a political thing ; the gentleman who has been the soul of it for these years back,


George Eulas Foster: is the close political friend of the Prime Minister ; and had it not been for that political influence I do not believe the Finance Minister would have done what he did with reference to these bonds. Now, after it has gone to pieces through lack of government supervision, we are to shoulder the whole loss, then we are to rebuild the whole bridge, and then do what we can, little or more, to get any revenue from it afterwards. These and many other methods of the transaction of public business, alongside with what is to my mind, the utterly reckless extravagance of the government, are making themselves felt in this country, are making themselves felt outside this country, are affecting us here and affecting our credit abroad, and I think lit is high time that a halt wTas called. I therefore move the following resolution :
That this House notes with grave concern the continuous and alarming increase in the yearly expenditures and capital obligations of the country under the present administration, as shown by the following:
(a) Comparative expenditures, 1896 and 1908.
1895.	1907-8.
On current account. ..$36,949,142 $ 76,652,401 On capital and special account	 4,753,241	35,253,979
Total	 41,702,383 111,906,380
Expenditure per head $8.14	$18
Increase in 1908 over
1896	$ 70,203,997
Increase per cent	 165 p.c.
(b) Cash Obligations Incurred.
For Grand Trunk Pacific-
Construction, Winnipeg
to Moncton	$114,393,765
Interest on cost of same
whilst building	 10,009,454
Seven years interest on total cost to be paid by government without
recoux-ses	 26,124,676
Cost of terminals, governments share		4,591,250
Interest to be paid by government without recourse on Mountain section	 11,304,300

 11,067,000
Grand total	$175,386,681
That these huge expenditures have in numberless instances been characterized by utter
lack of discrimination, absence of proper inquiry and investigation, disregard of public as compared with private interests, want of common business prudence in oversight, costly pandering to partisan interests, lack of conscience in purchases from the patronage list, and the aggrandizement of the middleman, through all of which millons have been annually wasted.
That in the opinion of this House the mad and reckless financial course of the government is seriously affecting the public credit, unduly burdening the resources of the country, and if longer persisted in, mil end in public disaster.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has placed in your hands may here and there have a touch of new colour, but, subject to that modification, I have to describe it as a very old and very familiar friend. Once upon a time there lived a foolish shepherd boy who fell into the very bad habit of amusing himself by trying to alarm hiis neighbours by crying * wolf, wolf.' For a little while his neighbours were aroused by it, and they came out to see what the trouble was, and to render help to the lad if help should be needed. But every time they came out they found that the alarm was a false one, that the wolf did not come. It is no wonder that after a time they became rather tired and paid no attention to the cry of the foolish lad. But the little story has rather a sad ending. At last one day the wolf did come, they paid no attention to the cry of the boy, and the wolf fell upon the innocent lambs and destroyed them. It is not likely that the wolf will come, financially speaking, to this country, and nothing will occur which will really alarm the financial world in regard to the affairs of Canada so long as my hon. friend stays where he is and we, on this side, stay where we are. But if perchance the wolf in that way should ever come, and if my hon. friend should raise the cry, no attention would be paid to him, because all concerned would remember that for twelve long weary years he had cried out ' wolf, wolf ' when there was no wolf. For twelve years my hon. friend has been the prophet of gloom, for twelve years he has been painting these dreadful pictures of what must happen to this fated country if my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his colleagues should remain in power. From the beginning of the career of this government the hon. gentleman adopted the wolf policy. This government came into power in the summer of 1896, and there was a summer session a few weeks later. There was no time to prepare a policy. All that the government did was to take up the estimates prepared by their predecessors, with some slight modifications amounting . to very

little, place these estimates before the House and ask the House to approve of them, reserving until the coming session, to be held a few months afterwards, the declaration of the policy which the new government should desire to announce. One would think that, under conditions of that character, there would have been very little cause for alarm. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite remained in force, the estimates which were brought down to the House were substantially their estimates, and one would have thought that they would have allowed them to pass with little or no comment. But no; the wolf policy was adopted from the beginning, and before this government had been more than a few weeks in power the hon. gentleman raised the very same cry of '.wolf, wolf,' which he has been repeating every year for the last twelve years. Let me show my hon. friend the evidence of that. If time permitted to make quotations to show that that was the policy of hon. gentlemen every session, it would not be without interest, but I do not want to do that. During the very first session, before this government had had time to proclaim or arrange any policy, when we were just simply taking the estimates as my hon. friend had left them, I find that even at that time the hon. gentleman pictured to us a gloomy outlook :
The Finance Minister looks out upon a future in as normal condition as it well can be, and he deliberately asks this House, with a revenue of less than $37,000,000, to sanction an expenditure of $44,600,000, with supplementary estimates to opine down. . . . $14,600,000 will be nearly $8,000,000 more than the total revenue that oan be expeoted during the present year.	.
The leader of the opposition of that day, the veteran Sir Charles Tupper, was more alarming yet. He was a bigger wolf than my hon. friend. He said on that occasion that our statement of the position :
Involved the expenditure of millions of money more than he (the Finance Minister) can show any expectation of obtaining.
He said further that the Minister of Finance :
Was about to expend something like $10,000,000 more than he has any reason to expect to receive.
My hon. friend from North Toronto was a little more moderate. He said $8,000,000, but the leader of the opposition of that day was a larger wolf, and he said that this government was preparing for a deficit in that year of $10,000,000. Then the veteran Sir Charles said at the same time that we were preparing to destroy the credit of the country, which had been so well established under the administration of himself and his friends. What was the result? In due time the supplementaries which Sir Charles Mr. FIELDING.
referred to came down, the accounts were closed, and we bad the result before us. What was it? Did we have the $8,000,000 of a deficit which my hon. friend said was staring us in the face? Did we (have the $10,000,000 deficit that the veteran Sir Charles Tupper saw facing us? Just as loudly as my hon. friend declares it now, that hon. gentleman said that we were going to have a shortage of $8,000,000, and just as loudly Sir Charles Tupper declared that there would be a shortage of $10,000,000. If there bad been a shortage of $10,000,000 at that time it would not have been anything that we had need to be ashamed of. It was not onr year; there was not time to mature a policy ; we simply itook the estimates of our predecessors, with some slight changes, and carried them through the House. If we had had a large deficit that year, it would have been something for which our predecessors were as much responsible as we were. But what happened? Was there a deficit of $8,000,000? Was there a deficit of $10,000,000? Did the wolf come? No, it did not come to the extent of $8,000,000, or $10,000,000, or $1,000,000, but there was a deficit of only $519,000. These bon. gentlemen cried ' wolf, wolf,' but the wolf did not come.
Their prophecies as to the public credit were put to the test. The hon. gentleman to-night discussed the public credit, and I may take occasion to allude to that further on, but on the occasion to which I have referred, in that first year the veteran leader of the opposition, -Sir Charles Tupper, declared that we were entering upon a condition which would destroy public credit. A few months later I had the honour to go to England to float a loan, and that loan was admittedly the best loan that had ever been obtained in the history of Canada. We were able at that time to put on the market, for the first time in colonial history, a loan bearing the low rate of 2J per cent interest, and which sold at a price to make it unquestionably the best loan in the history of Canada. So that no wolf came to the credit of Canada on that occasion. Then we come to the session of 1897, and again we find my hon. friend indulging in his prophecies of gloom :	.
They are going on the straight road towards piling up millions of debt each year.
It would have been a dreadful thing If we had done that. Well, we would just have been following my hon. friend's example, for that is exactly what he did on a very large scale. However, I do not want to discuss that at this moment. I may refer to it in a few moments. We did not have the presence of my hon. friend in the House during the years from 1900 to 1905, but his mantle as a prophet of evil fell upon others, and hardly a session passed that we did not have a melancholy
13445	JULY 17, 1908	13446
resolution like the one you now hol'd in your hand, Mr. Speaker, and a glommy speech like that with which nay hon. friend has favoured us to-inght. Then we came to the year 1904, when we were approaching the elections, just as my hon. friend thinks we are to-night, and possibly he is right. I find that at that time the gentleman on whom his mantle descended spoke as follows. The hon. gentleman referred to is not in the House just now :
Now, I believe this country is going to get relief . . . but the people will secure relief as soon as they are given opportunity.
. How much that sounds like my hon. friend to-night !
For here is a record that cannot be presented to a population . . . without making certain the condemnation of those who have made the record.
It was another cry of ' wolf, wolf.' The election came on soon after that, all the melancholy resolutions of my hon. friend's friends were discussed throughout the country from ocean to ocean, and the result was that the record which lie said was so sure 'to be condemned was approved by the intelligent electors of this country. Then in the next session we had the honour to have with us again my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) and again he entered upon this business of predicting gloom. In 1905 my hon. friend felt it his duty then as now to issue some solemn warnings. The revenue of that year was $71,186,072 and he warned us that in bis opinion the revenue had reached probably its highest point. To use his words : ' The buoyant point of our revenue had about reached its maximum.' But it was $71,000,000 then and it continued to rise until it rose above $96,000,000. There was another cry of ' wolf, wolf,' but the wolf did not come. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has proceeded on the same lines to-night; he has gathered up the estimates, and appropriations in every shape and form : he takes the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, and the consolidated fund, and the capital, and the railway subsidies, and the guarantees, and everything in the world that he can possibly put In to swell what he calls :	This appaling
presentation of the facts. Well, some of these are proper subjects to be included in our budget expenditure, but the hon. gentleman rolls all things up as he did in former years so as to convey the impression to the people of Canada that there is some dreadful disaster coming upon them, and he must not be surprised, if judging by the past, the people of Canada refuse to take him seriously.
I observe that my hon. friend and those associated with him are quite ready to denounce expenditures generally, but there are moments when they take saner views. It is easy enough to be general in these denunciations, but the best and fairest way is
to approach this question from the point of view of the particular locality with which we are best acquainted. It is easy to declare that you ought to he economical in one province if you want somewhat extravagant expenditures in your own. It is easy to find fault with expenditures'at a distance, hut when one goes to the locality with which he is best acquainted he is obliged to take saner views. And so while hon. gentlemen opposite can see no reason for this large expenditure generally, the moment they come to think of their own counties they are able to declare that these expenditures are highly necessary. Take for example the expenditure in the Militia Department, and during this session repeated allusions have been made to the rather liberal expenditure, as it is said, we are making in that department. Is it not curious that the very moment these gentlemen opposite are denouncing the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia for the expenditure in their departments in connection with the militia of Canada, we find my respected friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson)-who is slumbering so peacefully just now


Mr. HENDERSON.: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: What is to be thought of my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson), who, while he is going to vote for this resolution against expenditures generally, thinks the Minister of Public Works should build an armoury at Oakville in his own county. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche)-whom I do not see in his place

joins in this general condemnation of expenditure, and particularly on the militia, but he wants us to build him an armoury at Minnedosa. The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) would like to have an armoury at Valleyfield. The chief whip of the opposition (Mr. Taylor) no doubt will vote for this amendment ; he is against expenditure, but he quietly whispers in the ear of the Minister of Public Works: Send us along an appropriation for an armoury at Gananoque. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall! is going to vote for this amendment, but he would like a drill hall at Aylmer west. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) wants an armoury at Orillia, and the hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) thinks we should have au armoury at Picton, while the gallant colonel from Victoria Halliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) insists that there should be an armoury in the county he represents. And so we find that hon. gentlemen opposite are against expenditures, but when it comes down to expenditure in their own constituencies they are just as anxious for it as anybody else.
We are putting a good deal of money into improvement of harbours and rivers, and perhaps there is no class of expenditure which hon. gentlemen opposite so generally

condemn. But, when they come to Consider the matter from the home point of view they see it in quite a different light. My hon. friend from West Hastings (Mr. Porter) is very anxious for improvements at Belleville harbour; the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Clements) wants improvements on the Thames river; the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) wants a breakwater In Macleod ; the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) also wants harbour improvements ; the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen) wants a wharf and a shed beside in his constituency. Then the hon. members from New Brunswick, (Mr. Crocket and Mr. Fowler) while they are prepared to condemn expenditures generally, they particularly serve notice on the Minister of Public Works that they want more money for wharfs on the St. John river and the inland waters of their province. The hon. members from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Martin, Mr. McLean and Mr. Lefurgey), are champions of economy when you are speaking generally, but all the same they serve notice upon us that they want harbour improvements, and breakwaters, and piers and wharfs, and in addition to that they venture to say they would like to have a tunnel. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) has spoken with gratification of the amount of money we are spending in improving the harbour of that important port, and he informs the Minister of Public Works that he had better go on with his expenditure because St. John needs more. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)-if he were here to-night I suppose he would vote for this amendment-he does not want us to spend money on wharfs and so forth in Nova Scotia, but he thinks it highly important that a wharf should be built at La-chine in his own constituency. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is very anxious for economy generally, but at the same time he serves notice upon the Department of Marine and Fisheries that no effort must be spared to deepen the channel of the St. Lawrence so that there will be 30 feet clear navigation from Montreal to the ocean, and more than that, he has again and again condemned this government because we have not made a rush order of the report of the Transportation Commission which calls for expenditures running up to possibly $100,000,000. And so I might follow through the long list.


An hon. MEMBER.: Go on.


William Stevens Fielding: The list is too long and the time too brief-Oh, yes, I had nearly forgotten that in the midst of professions of economy the other evening, most of the western members sitting on your left Mr. Speaker, wanted this government to buy up all elevators in the Northwest Territories. And the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has given evidence of Mr. FIELDING.
his idea of economy to-night, when, in the midst of this thundering against the expenditures, we find him advocating that we should spend probably two millions more by adding to the salaries of the civil servants.
My hon. friend who usually sits near the hon. member for North Toronto is not there to-night-I refer to the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart)-but as a rule he is unceasing in his demand that we shall at the earliest possible moment enter upon the construction of the Georgian bay canal which will cost $100,000,000. I mention these things because I think they prove that the denunciations which hon. gentlemen opposite hurl in their speeches, and in their resolutions such as the one we have before us to-night, are not to be taken very seriously. As I have said, it is easy to denounce expenditures generally ; but when hon. gentlemen come to look at home and see the needs of their own communities, and the demands made on th'is government from all parts of the country, they have to realize, as we have to realize in this growing time, that there are needs which the government have to meet and which the government will meet in the right spirit. Some of the demands to which I have referred are perhaps not unreasonable; some of them certainly will bear postponement to a later day ; but many of the things asked for in this way are fair and reasonable, and it will be the duty of the government from year to year to endeavour to meet every demand of this character. I say, therefore, that when our hon. friends indulge in this general denunciation of the extravagance of the government, the people will bear in mind that while that is the course these hon. gentlemen pursue when dealing with the matter generally, when they come to deal with it from the point of view of their own needs or the needs of their constituents, they realize as well as we do the need of these increasing expenditures.
Now, one trick in which my hon. friend from North Toronto indulges frequently- and he is doing it to-night-is to roll up in his budget the votes for railway subsidies, in addition to the ordinary appropriations, and he appears to think that by putting these big figures before the country he can create alarm. Now, let us look for a moment at the history of a railway subsidy ; how does it generally come about ? There is a section of the country where there is either no railway at all or inadequate railway facilities, and the people make up their mind that they would like to have a. railway. They have not any very clear idea of how it can be brought about, and so they come and ask the government to help them. The government, finding that there is a field for a railway in that part of the country, agree to give a subsidy for it if the people can find a company to do the work ; and then the subsidy, perhaps a million dollars,

is put into tile votes, and the hon. gentleman adds it to the bill which he puts before the House at the close of the session. Perhaps two or three years pass and nothing is done. The people are discouraged, and they send a deputation down here to say that they had hoped that somebody was going to build the road, but they have been disappointed, and they hope that the government will renew the subsidy for another term. Again the subsidy appears in the estimates, and again my hon. friend puts it in his bill, though it has not cost the government a penny. At the end of the second term, perhaps a company comes along and says, we think there is a chance of doing business, and if you will renew the subsidy, we will build the road. >So the subsidy is brought down again, and my hon. friend for the third time puts it into his bill of expenditures. By and by the company undertakes the work and makes some progress ; but it probably finds that it cannot finish it'witliin the specified time. It comes and says to the government, give us this subsidy for a further term and we will complete the road; and the Minister of Railways puts it among the railway subsidies for the fourth time' and for the fourth time the hon. gentleman has a chance of adding it in his bill. Not one dollar of the subsidy has been paid out of the public treasury, but my hon. frieud has had plenty of fun in adding a million dollars to his budget every year. I have taken a list of the railway subsidies voted from 1899 down to 1906. and I find that during that time they amounted to $39,131,159. Now, according to the annual bill which my hon. friend presents, we must have spent that amount ; but the actual fact is that the expenditure on railway subdies during that whole period was just $18,319,000, or much less than one-half of the amount of the subsidies voted. So that when my hon. friend is adding these sums to his bill of expenditures every year, he is creating needless alarm ; it is another cry of wolf, wolf, where there is no wolf.
Then my hon. friend gets very much disturbed about the condition of the public debt of Canada, constantly conveying the impression that there has been some alarming addition to it. Now, there is no foundation for any statement of the kind ; on the contrary, the debt statement which this government is able to present is of the most gratifying character. The increase of the net debt from 1878 to 1898, a period of 18 years during which our Conservative friends were in power, was $118,135,000 ; that is, an average of a little more than six and a half millions per annum. The increase of the net debt from 1897 down to the close of the last fiscal year under this government, a period of eleven and three-fourth years, including a considerable sum for the Transcontinental Railway is $19,474,376. The average increase per year under the Conservative government was $6,563,000; the average increase per year under this government was $1,657,393. That is the best possible answer to the inference my hon. friend seeks to draw, that we have added largely to the public debt. But there is another way of viewing the public debt. The public debt is only a burden in proportion to the number of people who have to bear It. If Canada should have a population of twenty millions instead of what she has to-day, her public debt would be almost insignificant. The true test of the public debt is not merely the amount of it ; it is the proportion in which it has increased as compared with its increase in the previous history of the country, and the proportion which it bears to the population of the country. I have made up a statement of the net debt per head, beginning with the year 1891, and coming down to the close of the last fiscal year, and it is as follows :
Net debt
Year.	per head.
1891		 49.09
1892		 49.15
1893		 48.96
1894		 49.40
1895		 50.57
1890	 50.82
This was the point at which the debt per head stood when this government came into power. Now we come to the later years :
Net debt
Year.	per head.
1897	 $ 50.87
1898		 50.77
1899		 50.62
1900		 49.88
1901		 49.84
1902		 49.59
1903		 46.84
1904	 45.74
1905		 45.G3
1906			44.63
1907	(to March 31)	 42.84
1908		 40.50
The census authority of Canada, whose figures I have quoted, has made his estimate of the poulation of Canada as it stood on the 31st of March last past being the end of the fiscal year; he has applied his usual method of computation, allowing for the natural increase of population and taking into account the immigration, of which we have carefully compiled records, and the statement made by the statistician is that on March 31 the population of Canada was 6,803,500. If that statement be correct, and it is given by the statistician as being prepared in the usual way, the net debt per head of Canada on March 31 last was $40.50 per head against $50.82 on the day when my right hon. friend assumed office. Sometimes it is said : ' Oh, well, but this government have had good luck, and have not spent much money outside of the ordinary routine ; they have been able to

show a surplus in that way.' I have ha! an examination made of the expenditures outside of what we call consolidated fund, that is what is called the capital and special expenditure-all those things that are not charged to ordinary consolidated fund. I find that in the eighteen years, from 1878 to 1896, this special expenditure, capital and other expenditure, apart from the consolidated fund, amounted to $167,166,252. In eleven and three-quarter years, from 1897 to March 31, 1908, the expenditure on this account has been $162,542,277. It will be seen that we expended during our eleven and three-quarter years on that class of expenditure pretty nearly as much as our predecessors did in their eighteen years. In that respect we stand about even. If you put it on the average, we have spent much more than they did on these expenditures outside of consolidated fund. But observe that at the same time there is a marked difference in the two periods as respects the public debt. The Liberals provided more generously for the public service, as I have shown, but to a large extent they paid their way. Our Conservative friends spent large sums in expenditures of the character I spoke of, but they added them largely to the public debt. Although there was $167,000,000 of capital and special expenditure during the eighteen years of our Conservative friends, they paid but a small part from the revenue and added $118,000,000 to the public debt. Of the $162,000,000 which we have spent on this capital and special expenditure we added to the public debt only $19,000,000 and we paid out of our ordinary revenue $143,000,000, adding, as I said, only $19,000,000 to the public debt, while they in their period added $118,000,000 to the public debt.
The hon. member for North Toronto has made a reference to the rates of interest we have been paying and to the obligations we are likely to have to assume. His remarks, to some extent, were a repetition of a statement he made outside of this House at an early period of this session. I took note of it at the time, but there did not seem to be a favourable opportunity to call his attention to it. In a speech at Hamilton, shortly after the opening of the session, I find him reported as follows in the 'Mail
They (the government) have marched up to a point where a debt of $100.00n,000 must be paid in two years and Mr. Fielding has made no provision to meet it.
My first point in reply is that my hon. friend magnified in an enormous degree the debt which is maturing. He does not seem to think it necessary to speak on these grave matters with that sense of responsibility which should attach to him as a former Minister of Finance. A very much less sum Will have to be met within the time named. He proceeds :


William Stevens Fielding: Instead he (Mr. Fielding) was paying as high as seven per cent to the bank of England for the use of money. The highest that he (Mr. Foster) ever paid was two and seven-eights per cent.
That was an extraordinary statement for my bon. friend to make, if he did make it. We have not paid 7 per cent for any money. He should be aware of that from information given in the House.


George Eulas Foster: In the first place, I do not think I ever said that the highest I paid was 2J per cent, because I know exactly what 1 did pay. It is reported in the newspaper, and the newspaper does its office as best it can, but sometimes it will not get it right. The information I had was that you were paying the Bank of England rate, and the Bank of England rate at the time I spoke was 7 per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: experienced engineer and take his advice ? That is what we did. The estimates we presented were the estimates of the eminent engineer, Mr. Schreiber, the long experienced and well-trusted chief engineer of railways and canals. And when my hon. friend speaks of it as a ' silly ' thing to present these estimates to the House, I humbly submit that the opinion of Collingwood Schreiber on a matter of that character is almost as good as that of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The road is costing more, to some extent, as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) showed, because, though we were looking for a good road, the commissioners had given ns even a better road than we were aiming to get. The road is well built. And it is well known that economy is not always gained by cheapness of construction. It pays to build a road well. There are great railways built and running to-day which realize that mistakes were made in former years when the roads were too lightly built, with curves and grades that were not what they should have been. And untold millions are being spent all over this continent of America to overcome difficulties of that character. By making a good road, by bringing your grades down to the finest point, by giving us such a road as we are getting in the National Transcontinental, we are doing the best thing to cheapen the transportation of the country. And if the people of Canada have jmt into that road one dollar more than they thought they would need to do in l'M)3. they realize that they will get the benefit of that dollar in the cheaper transportation which will come to them as long as grass shall grow and water run.
My hon. friend has much to say, and is very much alarmed about the credit of Canada. He thinks some dreadful tilings are going to happen. I again remind my hon. friend that there is not a sentiment in his speech to-night that is not to be found in the speeches of Sir Charles Tupper and himself in the year 1896, and in their speeches of the years following. It is an old. old story of the dreadful things that are going to happen, but which never do happen. My hon. friend talks of the credit of Canada to-day as suffering. But away back in 1SOO the illustrious leader of the Conservative party said just the same thing. Now there are some foolish ideas about the credit of Canada. One respected member of this House who had not given the matter much consideration, though he is usually well informed, solemnly advanced the argument one day in the course of discussion, that because we borrowed money some years ago for 3 per cent or less, and have since paid as high as 4 per cent and sometimes higher, therefore the credit of the country was going to the dogs. Well, that is a foolish argument. Money is a commodity which, like other commodities, rises and falls in -value;
Mr. FIELDING
whenever you find an abundance of money, money is cheap, and when you find money scarce, then money is dear. Now if we want to make comparisons of the credit of Canada there is abundant material to enable us to do so. The true way to test the credit of Canada is not to ask how much we paid years ago and how much we pay now, but how much did we pay years ago in comparison with some standard security, and how much do we pay now in comparison with the same standard security. Now the highest standard security is the British consols, of which I may say something later. Let me make a comparison now with that very high class security known in financial worlds as India government stocks as quoted in London. In 1896 India 3 per cent stock at its highest quotation was 115, and the Canada 3 per cent stock at its highest quotation was 107. There was a difference against Canada of 8 points. Turn to the situation now. In recent quotations the highest for India 3 per cent stock was 93, while the highest for Canadian 3 per cent stock is 97. So we have this position, that in 1896 Canada was 8 points worse than India ; in this present year Canada is 4 points better than India government stock. Now if we make a similar comparison with the great corporation stocks of London which are, very high class, it will be found, if you make the same comparison, that Canada has come closer to them, and is often on even terms, but certainly very much closer to them then in 1896, and that is a true comparison.
Why, Sir, so strong has been the credit of Canada in that respect that we have been able to secure from the British government, under this Liberal administration, a great financial concession which my hon. friend laboured in vain to secure in his day. I do not say that he is to blame because be did not secure it ; he and his colleagues made the best effort they could. Again and again thev pointed out. that the Canadian stocks were not admitted to the trustee list, that is to say, that people who hold trust money in England were not allowed by the laws of England to buy Canadian stocks, and that diminished our field of buyers. Again and again the late government, and especially Sir Charles Tupper, laboured to secure admission of our stocks to the trustee list, but he laboured in vain. But after this government came into power- whatever other cause there may be, and I am not here to blow the trumpet of this government, but merely to defend them and put their case fairly-turn to the record and you will find to-day that after the administration of a few years of Liberal government, and consequent on the great progress that was coming to Canada, with the finest development, with the higher position Canada was taking in the eyes of the world, this Liberal government was able to

secure for Canada that great boon that the Conservative government tried in vain to obtain.
Not very long ago, and this has a very important bearing on the credit of Canada, a member of the British parliament put on the Order Paper a question to Mr. Asquith, who had not then left the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. This member of parliament called the attention of Mr. Asquith to the fact that Canadian three per cents stood at a higher price than some of the securities guaranteed by the imperial government, and he wished Mr. Asquith to explain how it was. Mr. Asquith was not willing to admit that, on a close calculation, there was that discrimination against guaranteed securities of the imperial authorities. But at all events, we had this fact, that the two securities were so close together that there was a dispute between the financial men in the British parliament as to whether the guaranteed securities of Great Britain or the securities of Canada occupied the highest place.
Now with regard to this question of increase generally, I must say that my hon. friend is really not wise when he imagines that the people of Canada are going to be deceived by his comparisons between what happens now and what happened in 1896 with regard to the expenditures of public money. The conditions certainly have changed. There was an old Canada in 1896; a new Canada has grown up since then. 1 think it was Sir William Van Horne, who has a habit of saying quaint things, who said that Canada had been living on a back street for a long time. Canada no longer lives on a back street. Canada has moved up on to the main street, and has her sign out, and the public know to-day that Canada is one of the rising nations, that Canada is becoming rapidly one of the great countries of the world. This has not been accomplished without some expenditure. Does any man imagine that the country is going to stand still ? If my hon. friend wants to talk of increased expenditures, let me call attention to the following comparative statement for the year's 1896 and 1906 :
Service.	Expenditure.	Revenue.	1896.	1906.	Increase.	1896.	1906.	Increase.8 cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Post Office	
Railways & Canals, Collection of Rev-	3,665,011 30	4,921,577 22	1,256,565 92	2,964,014 23	5,933,342 53	2,969,328 30enue	
...	.3,826,225 51 470,869 86	8,779,677 46 555,923 25	4,953,451 95 85,053 39	3,480,217 19 7,926,005 94	8,058,620 73 14,010,220 30	4,578,403 54 6,084,214 30 26,297,856 41Excise. . 	Customs	806,3.32 50	1,548,384 08	652,051 58	19,766,741 48	46,064,597 89	T otals	8,858,439 17	15,805,562 01	6,947,122 84	34,136,978 84	74,066,781 45	39,929,802 61
In regard to the Post Office, note the magnificent revenue of a little under $6,000,000 as compared with the revenue in 1896 of $3,600,000. I have taken a ten year period. The figures of later dates are somewhat larger. Then in regard to Railways and Canals. In the year 1896, we only received a revenue of $3,480,000, but in 1906 we received $8,058,000. While these figures show a deficit on the road, and while they show a large increase of expenditure the account is balanced by a large increase of revenue. Take the Excise Department. In 1896, we admit that there was only spent by our predecessors $470,869 and that the expenditure increased in 1906 to $555,923, but, in 1896, they collected under $8,000,000 and in 1906 this government collected over $14,000,000 of revenue. Though there was an increase in expense to the country there was an enormous increase of revenue. Take the Department of Customs. In 1896, the then Minister of Cus-427
toms expended $896,000 and we have to admit that ten years later the expenditure was $1,548,000. But the revenue which was collected by the Department of Customs in 1896 was $19,000,000 while the revenue which my hon. friend the present Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) collected in 1906, was $46,000,000, so, my hon. friend ought in all fairness when he tells the people about this enormous increase in expenditure, to also tell them that in many of the departments these expenditures are met by corresponding increases in revenue. In regard to increases of expenditure generally, nobody expects that the Dominion of Canada is going to stand still. The increase in expenditures has had something to do-it has had much to do- with the increased development that has come upon this Dominion. If we had not built railways in various parts of the country could there have been that development? Could the Crow's Nest country have been developed if we had not put money into that



railway by large and liberal subsidies ? Could the western prairies have been filled up as they have been with immigrants from other lands if we had not spent money on immigration and the building up of our railways? Surely it must be evident that when we are spending these sums of money we are contributing to the development of the country. The needs of the country are large and varied. The west needs railways to open up the country, the lake and St. Lawrence districts need river and harbour improvements, and the maritime provinces require breakwaters and wharfs to facilitate trade and to protect the lives and property of the mariners and fishermen. At one point a public building is required to give reasonable accommodation to the public business; at another point an armoury is required in response to the military enthusiasm of the people. Those who wish to be sectional will see only their own need and not be willing to see the need of others. It will not do to make comparisons in that way. The duty of the government is to see the needs of the whole country. My hon. friend from North Toronto on one occasion made reference to our spending moneys at the little places in Canada. Sir, the mass of the people of Canada live in the little places. The needs of the cities are great and we are not unmindful of their interests, but whence come their progress and prosperity if not from the hamlets and villages scattered throughout the country and which originate the trade which passes through the great cities? The needs of the country are great and we are not forgetful of the great works or the little ones either. We are building the Transcontinental Railway and we are going to push on to completion this work which interests the whole country from ocean to ocean. We are going to build the Hudson Bay Railway and thus realize the expectations of the people of the west. We are" providing for the various needs of the country according to their respective requirements. It is the duty of a government, Sir, not to be sectional, not to think of this particular place or that, but to take a broad look throughout the whole country and adapt its policy to its needs. That is the policy which this government has followed. We look back to-night with pride and pleasure upon the twelve years of Liberal administration, upon the results of this policy we have adopted, and in the face of the splendid record, which any Liberal candidate can present to an audience in any part of Canada. I do not hesitate to say, Sir, that that policy will continue to command the support of an intelligent and patriotic people.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has made us a stump speech and he has opened it up by telling us a little story about the wolf at the door. Well, I Mr. FIELDING.
may say to my hon. friend that I do not think he can be called a watch dog as far as the public treasury is concerned nor can lie be compared with the man who once guarded the public treasury, Alexander Mackenzie, and whose record and experience in days gone by have been made public in this country by a letter which was published shortly after 1875. My hon. friend refers to historic incidents and fables. I would think he might have referred to the days of old when a king and his courtiers banqueted and feasted while the enemy was at the gate and the handwriting was on the wall. The Minister of Finance pumped up his courage tonight, because, notwithstanding all his boasting, notwithstanding all the vain glorious promises as to what his government will accomplish in the future, and all the vain glorious references to what he has accomplished in the past, he knows that the trend of public opinion in Canada to-day is against him. He has referred to the financial situation of the country. He failed to tell us however, how he expects to meet the $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 of obligations which must be met by this country within the next two or three years. Before I sit down I will read to him some words from the London ' Economist ' which go as far in their condemnation of the record of this government as any words uttered by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He boasts of his loans. He is proud, Mr. Speaker, that a loan of this Dominion of Canada placed on the London market was taken up only to the extent of forty-four per cent. He actually boasts here to-night of the fact that withiu the past year the government has been paying six per cent at the Bank of England and apparently he does not understand how much that reflects on his lack of foresight in not preparing for the financial stringency which was foreseen by every important business interest in the country, but was not foreseen by the Minister of Finance for Canada. He boasts of the fact that he placed a loan on the London market that lie had to go to financial underwriters in London and that only forty-four per cent of it was taken up.
He boasts of. the position of Canadian securities to-day under his management, but let us look at another comparis-son. A Canadian loan, backed by all the enormous resources of this country but handicapped with the evil financial record of this government, was subscribed for to the extent of only 44 per cent or less than one-half. At about the same time the Irish land loan was placed on the London market by the British government and it was subscribed for between seventy and eighty times over. My authority is the LondLon ' Morning Post,' of July 8. 1908. Is the Minister of Finance proud of that ? What has he to say with regard to it ? Nothing. What has he to say with respect to the conditions when the new loans fall

due within the next few years ? The Minister of Finance says nothing, but the London ' Economist ' has something to say and I shall quote from that journal a few words which may serve to tone down the enthusiasm of gentlemen opposite, and which may also serve to enlighten the people of this country as to the opinion which will be held by the great financiers of London of the future financial standing of Canada should the present rate of expenditure be maintained. After referring to the great progress Canada has made in recent years ; after referring incidentally to the fact that the public debt of Canada is now four times greater per head than that of the United States, the article continues :
The country in short has been making rapid progress and is well able to carry its burdens provided there is no monstrous addition in Hie immediate future.
The article goes on to enumerate the great public works and undertakings which this government proposes, and it continues:
Here-deducting what has already been spent by the government on account of its section of the Grand Trunk Pacific-is a total of not far from two hundred million dollars to be raised in London before long, to say nothing of the considerable aggregate of Dominion debts falling due, or of the possible necessity for borrowing for other services now that the era of buoyant revenues is over.
I invite the special attention of the Minister of Finance, and the special attention of the Prime Minister, and above all the special attention of the members of this parliament and the people of the country to tlie words which follow :
This, it must be allowed, is a staggering outlook. Instead of economizing the govern. ment has gone on increasing debt and expenditure as a means of mitigating depression ; always a risky policy.
And in the face of that opinion from an impartial and well informed. source-because the London ' Economist ' is recognized as one of the greatest financial authorities in the world-the Minister of Finance en-tei'taius this House with a stump speech, and he gives not one word of information as to how these enormous obligations will be discharged. I was amazed that a gentleman occupying his position should not in the course of an hours' speech give one word of information to the people of Canada as to how these enormous burdens are to be met in the future. Not a word of comment on them, not a word of explanation, not a word as to provision for the future, but many words in idle taunts against some half dozen members on this side of the House who had asked for legitimate expenditure of public monevs in their constituencies. Sir. we on this side of the House have not objected and do not object 4274
to proper and legitimate expenditures, but we do object to the expenditures of this government in countless instances for the past ten or twelve years for purposes which are not in the public interest and which the Minister of Finance knew were not in the public interest when he sanctioned and authorized them. I was told of one instance, out of hundreds in his own constituency, where an opponent of the Minister of Finance at an election in his county went to a certain voter and inquired as to how he intended to vote and this gentleman who had previously supported the Minister of Finance was not well satisfied. Why, he said, Mr. Fielding means well; he has built this breakwater as a means of giving more employment but he knew and we all knew that it was of no possible use, and why did not Mr. Fielding take that money and divide it amongst us. I say we do not object to legitimate expenditure but we do object to middlemen's profits. The Minister of Finance has declared that there is a new Canada to-day, a new Canada which was not born until after 1896. Weil, Mr. Speaker, there is a new Canada and there is a new sign at the door of almost every department in the public service, and it*is a sign to the middleman : Apply here. That invitation to the middleman has not been neglected by that very numerous class, and they have been well rewarded.
The hon. gentleman referred to a great many subjects in the course of his speech, but he omitted to refer to a great many more. To a certain extent he dealt with one or two important subjects, but he dealt with tlthm in a small way. He spoke of the enormous expenditure by the government of Canada in recent years, hut he did not mention the fact that the government has taken out of the pockets of the people during the past twelve years $252,000,000 more than the taxation would have amounted to upon the basis that existed in 1896. And where has this money gone ? Look around this country and point me to any great enterprise that has been completed and paid for. I admit that something has been done by the government in improving the canals, in continuation of a policy initiated by their Conservative predecessors. I admit that the Intercolonial has been extended to Montreal, that some public buildings have been erected through the country, and that something has been done for the St. Lawrence route. I do not desire to minimize in the least anything the government has done in the way of legitimate expenditure for public works, but look at the great public works that are now proposed by the government and which have not been paid for, or paid for in only small part. Look at the Transcontinental Railway : it will cost nearly $200,000,000 of which we have paid up to the present time only $26,000,000. Look at the Geor-

gian bay canal, which these hon. gentlemen flaunt before the country whenever they think it expedient to do so ; look at the Welland canal which they are proposing to build, in their speeches out of parliament if not in parliament ; look at the necessary but unaccomplished development of our ports ; look at the proposal for building the Hudson Bay Railway; look at dozens of other great and important and necessary public works in this country, the expenditures on which the country will have to face during the next few years, and ask yourselves whether or not, having regard to the enormous increase of taxatiou within the past twelve years, the country has received any fair and adequate return for that money which has come out of the pockets of its taxpayers.
My hon. friend dealt among other things with the Transcontinental Railway. He did not dwell upon it to any very great extent ; but I desire to say one or two words with regard to it, for the purpose of placing before the people of this country the ideas of the Finance Minister and the principles upon which the government propose to deal with capital expenditure. In a recent debate in this House my hon. friend was good enough to refer to some statements made by me as the cost of that road as ' monstrous representations ' or some similar phrase, and I think it is well to look a little at the cost of that road and at the views of the Minister of Finance with regard to it. What is the position which we take with regard to the cost of that road ? We point out in the first place that whereas the Minister of Finance estimated the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton at $51,300,000, it is now admitted by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance that without taking into consideration interest, or terminals, or anything execept the bare cost of the road it will amount to $114,500,000. X take that as the cost of the road to the country, because some one must pay for that road, and there is no one to pay for it, so far as I am aware, except the people of this country. The Minister of Finance says that that is a complete mistake and a monstrous statement to place before the people of this country. In order not to do him injustice, I will use his own words :
Let me say at once that it is a monstrous statement to say that that represents the cost of that road to Canada.
And he concludes his sentence by saying:
Therefore you must strike it out entirely.
of Finance estimated, or $114,500,000, as the reality proves. Further than that, if you are to strike out that item entirely, as the Minister of Finance argues, then it would not make the slightest difference to the people of this country whether the road cost $250,000,000, and therefore all inquiry into Major Hodgins' charges or into the Grand Trunk Pa.cific complaints is utterly idle. Would any one imagine that these were sober words proceeding from the mouth of the Minister of Finance of Canada. One would imagine that language of that kind could only come from some person who was entirely reckless or regardless of his words and absolutely void of any responsibility for the effect they produce. But mv hon. friend went further. He said that interest on construction should be struck out for the same reason. Therefore it necessarily follows that it makes not the slightest difference to the people of this country whether they pay 10 per cent or 3 per cent on the cost of construction. Does the Minister of Finance or anyone else imagine that the people- of this country can be deceived by an argument of that kind ? I concur in the view that has been taken by many gentlemen on this side of the House that in placing the cost of the National Transcontinental Railway at about $192,000,000, I have placed it very much below the mark ; that when the people of this country come to foot the bill, it will be found that the amount which I named, and which as the hon. member for North Toronto truly says is only an estimate, will be found very much below the mark.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather a grave situation that confronts the people of Canada to-day. My hon. friend boasts of bis revenues. Let me read one or two further paragraphs from the article in the London ' Economist ' to which I alluded a moment ao-o.	After dealing with the attemptswhich have been made to settle the great northern portions of this country the article uses this language :
The tendency is to push railways further and further north into the solitudes lying above the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, where development even under the most favourable circumstances, is bound to be slow; and schemes are actually on foot for invading Labrador and TJngara. The higher price we h-ave to pay for money in England may deter the federal and provincial governments from voting cash subsidies to such projects, but some of them are certain to obtain guarantees, which may easily prove embarrassing.
' Let us look at that for a moment. In considering the cost of the Transcontinental Railway you must strike out that item entirely ; what follows ? This follows : That it makes not the slightest difference to this country whether that road costs $51,300,000 as the Minister Mr. R. L BORDEN.
My hou. friend the Minister of Finance puts to one side with a wave of his hand the liabilities which this country has assumed aud which it is proposing to assume in respect to these guarantees of great undertakings. That is not the view that is taken by- the article I have quoted

from this great financial journal, which declares that these guarantees may well prove embarrassing. The Minister of Finance has a different outlook and a different view entirely to that entertained with regard to these conditions by this great financial journal. Further on in the same article it says :
Hereafter we are likely to get into trouble over the government end of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Many in parliament are of opinion that the company, which has agreed to pay an annual rental equal to 3 per cent on cost for this portion, will be obliged to back out of its bargain. It does not begin paying rent till some time after the completion of the road, but recent explorations have not revealed any great timber or mineral wealth along the route between Winnipeg and Quebec, whilst the division from Quebec to Moncton can hardly be remunerative in view of the competition of the Intercolonial, a government line barely meeting operating expenses. On all sides it is felt that the government should have been content with the company's original design, to begin at North Bay and go on bo the Pacific. North Bay being a terminal of the Grand Trunk proper. Unfortunately, the government yielded to party and sectional pressure.
And this Is comment from a great financial journal upon the action of that gentleman who to-night boasted that this government was never under any conditions subject to sectional prejudices. The article continues as follows :
The company intended, of course, to live honourably up to its covenant, but circumstances may force it sooner or later to ask to be relieved of the stretch of 1,000 miles from Moncton to North Bay-such, at least, is the growing impression, in which event Canada will be saddled with another white elephant. This, however, is a matter for the future. I mention it merely to strengthen the argument that we had better go slow, and let the remote north remain unopened till we have fulfilled the obligatons, direct or incidental, undertaken in behalf of other parts of the Dominion.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend mind sending the paper to me ?


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has stated this is the comment of a great financial journal, he has given the impression' that it was a statement by the editor. I have not opened the paper yet hut I do not believe the article was by the editor at all.


Robert Laird Borden: It was from the Ottawa correspondent of that journal.


William Stevens Fielding: I took down the words, the hon. member spoke of the comment of a great English journal and he has presented to this House an article by a correspondent
and represented it to be the comment of the London ' Economist.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. It is comment found in the columns of that great financial journal and it is the comment of their Ottawa correspondent who has been In exceedingly close touch with this government and who announces in that very article that the government is going to undertake the construction of the Hudson Bay railroad and who wrote the article at a time when the government intended to undertake the building of that road and to embark on it this session.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member did not say it was a correspondent, he said it was the comment of this great London financial journal and it was not until I asked him to send the paper to me that he made any allusion to the correspondent.


Robert Laird Borden: The article was at the hon. gentleman's disposal at any time during my speech and I say it is the comment of the journal to which I allude, found in its columns.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member knows that is not fair, there is all the difference in the world between the comment of a journal and the comment of a correspondent. I offer no opinion as to whether the correspondent is wise or not, the editorial of a great paper is one thing, the opinion of a correspondent is another.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to be very familiar with this correspondent. I do not know whether it was any one in close touch with the hon. member who wrote it.


William Stevens Fielding: Not to my knowledge.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the gentleman has been in close touch with the government in the last ten years. It is perfectly obvious he was in close enough touch to know the intention of this government to build the Hudson Bay Railway immediately, although that intention seems to have been modified to a considerable extent in the last three or four weeks.


Mr. CONMEE.: Does the hon. gentleman agree with the article ?


Robert Laird Borden: What part of it ?


James Conmee: The whole Of it. For instance does he agree that the road should have been built to North Bay and no further ?


Robert Laird Borden: I shall read some portions with which I do agree.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Farrer salaried by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: I was under the impression that Mr. Farrer was a good deal closer to the government than to the Can-

adian Pacific Railway but my hon. friend with his superior information will no doubt correct me in regard to that.
Here, deducting what has already been spent by the government on account of its section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is a total of not far from $200,000,000 to be raised in London before long, to say nothing of the considerable aggregate of Dominion debts falling due, or of the possible necessity for borrowing for other services now that the era of buoyant revenue is over.
I agree with that. What does the hon. member for Rainy River say, does lie agree with it ?


James Conmee: No.


Robert Laird Borden: From what part does he dissent.


James Conmee: I disagree with the whole article.


Robert Laird Borden: If $200,000,000 are not to be raised in London or elsewhere how much is to be raised in London or elsewhere ? My hon. friend does not reply ; he does not seem to be able to explain with what portions of that he does not agree.


James Conmee: I am waiting for my hon. friend's answer.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will examine the ' Hansard ' of 1903 and 1904 he will find exactly what I thought then and what X think now on that point. What I stated then I am now prepared to stand by. Here is another part of the article which is headed :
Prom our Ottawa correspondent.
Whose identity is announced by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot).
This, it must be allowed, is a staggering outlook. Instead of economizing the government is bent on increasing debt and expenditure as a means of mitigating depression- always a risky policy.
Does the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) not think that a risky policy? So on, all through the article. I have already placed those portions of it on * Hansard ' and I say it is a most striking comment on the course that this government has pursued in its financial policy in the last ten or twelve years, and it comes, if my hon. friend from Bellechasse is to be believed, from a gentleman who has never been regarded as unfriendly to the party in power.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I think the balloon is pricked and burst.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has placed an exhaustive statement of the position before the House. So far as the important and significant portions of that statement are concerned, the Finance Minister, has made no attempt to meet them. They relate Mr. R. L. BORDEN
in the first place to the rapidly increasing expenditures of this country; in the second place to the tendency of this administration to increase that expenditure still further in the face of falling revenues ; and in the third place to the necessity of meeting loans in the London market of bet ween two and three hundred millions during the next three or four or five years. These all-iro-portant points have not been grappled with by the Finance Minister who has uttered no word with regard to them, yet in the significant and pregnant words of the article I read here to-night it is these matters which are engaging the attention of financiers in the great money markets of the world although they are not engaging the attention of the government of this country. These are considerations which it was proper to place before the House at the close of the session and when we come to realize what the proposed expenditures of the government amount to I say that no hon. gentleman who reads the resolution and takes to heart the enormous figures of expenditure and the necessary increase of the public debt in the resolution, can find it consistent with his duty to vote against the resolution proposed.


Mr. TAYLOR.: One word in reply to a statement made by the Minister of Finance referring to myself. I am satisfied that the minister would not willingly misrepresent me and must have made his statement from hearsay, relying on the report of some person who was present in the House when the discussion took place. Had he taken the trouble to read * Hansard ' he would not have made the statement that he did and I presume when he made that statement reflecting on myself the same application might be made to the hon. gentlemen on this side to whom he referred. I shall read for his information what took place. We were discussing the militia estimates. And I made this statement :


George Taylor: It is fair to assume that these armouries will cost about $10,000 apiece and this vote of $50,000 will therefore erect five armouries.	.
The Minister of Militia had a vote in the estimates of $50,000 for armouries. I made this reference to it :
I would like to know where the minister is going to place these. I want to remind him that they ought to put Gananoque in as good a position as the government found it in when they came into power. We have at Gananoque a battery and a company of rifles. When this government came into power we had a first-class'drill shed and armoury, but the government saw fit to tear it down and to pu'roh'ase another site.
And they promised to build another armoury in its place. That was eleven years ago, and they have done nothing. I asked that $10,000 of this $50,000 that was being devoted to the construction of arinoui/les

might be used to carry out the promise of the government to replace the armoury in Gananoque which they had torn down. But the promise they made, like every other promise which they have made, has been left unfulfilled. They took the whole $50,000 for buildings in constituencies of their supporters and neglected the pledge that they had made to Gananoque. The bon. minister says that I made application for an expenditure of public money. All I asked was they should keep the promise they made. In the course of the debate there was the following :


George Taylor: What about carrying out your arrangement at Gananoque?


Frederick William Borden: I will put that on the list when I return to my office in the morning.


George Taylor: Gananoque should be the first on the list because we had a drill shed iand armoury there and the minister tore it down. He bought a site but he has not given the boys an armoury since.
The minister says that this is an application for public expenditure. I asked this government to carry out the promise and replace the armoury that they had torn down, and the minister acknowledged the corn.


Mr. C. L. OWEN (East Northumberland).: I wish to put on record my disapproval of what I am bound to call the unwarranted and extraordinary expenditure of public money by the government now in power. My name has been mentioned here to-night as asking for a wharf at Brighton village. I am justified in asking for it. I did not ask for a wharf where there is no'water. I did not ask for a wharf in an inland lake. I did not ask for a wharf which would turn into a bridge in the course of construction. I did not ask for a wharf to cost $13,000 at a little village on Lake Huron where the postal revenue is $10.14 per annum. I asked for a wharf where it is really needed in the interest of the public, and I say it is a shame and a disgrace to the government in power that they have not built a wharf at Brighton. It is a village of 1,800 inhabitants, with a large trade. I pointed out the need publicly in this House. I did not wait on the minister privately, but I went with a deputation who laid the matter before him. And he gave the deputation to understand that something would be done. I fully expected that there would be an item in the supplementary estimates for a wharf at Brighton village. I am surprised that it was not brought down, because the Minister of Public Works stated in the House that his policy was to spend money where it is needed. I cannot believe that that is his policy, because he has not carried that out in the case of Brighton village.
One can hardly realize that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) were at that great Reform convention held here in Ottawa in 1893. They were greatly alarmed at that time at what they called the large expenditure-which happened to be about $42,000,000. And, if I remember rightly the speeches of the Prime Minister in the campaign of 1896 in the province of Ontario, he told the people he was greatly alarmed at the annual expenditure and promised that if his party were given the reins of power, lie would reduce the annual expenditure $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. I believe the people are surprised at what the right hon. Prime Minister is doing. If he was alarmed in 1896, they are alarmed now. I am safe in saying that no parliamentarian, however long he may have sat in this House, lias ever seen that wilfully wasteful expenditure of public money as we have witnessed this session. I am not one of those who do not believe in the development of the country. I believe in spending money for the development, but I do not believe in wasteful expenditure. It has been proven in this House time and again that money has been expended, not in the best interests of the people of this country, but mostly in the interest of the middlemen. As stated by an hon. member this evening, we have middlemen rapping at the door of every department, and every one of them has had his wishes gratified. That is not expending money in the public interest ; and I protest against such wasteful and extravagant expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speaking with regard to the correspondent of the 'Economist,' led the House to believe that there is a great difference between the casual correspondent and the editor of a responsible journal. But this was not written by a casual correspondent. I have it before me and it is headed ' From our Correspondent.4 It is nof signed but is adopted by the paper as expressing the views of the paper. It carries with it all the weight of an editorial in that journal.
Amendment (Mr. Fostf*-) lost on the last division recorded.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to a matter of great interest t'o my constituency of West Algoma, of which I gave notice a week ago, but which has not been brought earlier to his attention owing to a misunderstanding with regard to the matter. Speak of it to-night because of a despatch from Sault Ste. Marie in the Toronto paper, which arrived to-night, to the effect that ' the rail mill of the Lake Superior Corporation closed down this afternoon for an indefinite period.' An unofficial statement was made that the reason is lack of orders and scarcity of ore to run


George Perry Graham: The question which my hon. friend has alluded to is one which is of very great importance to Canada and he will agree with me when I tell him that I have always taken a deep interest in the Soo industry. Before I came to this House and while acting in another sphere I went to a considerable length in doing what I could to see that that important industry was retained and maintained for the people of Canada. Although at the present moment the conditions are not just what I would like I still have faith in the Soo industry and we want to provide the largest possible share of orders for its product. We have two of these industries in Canada, one at Sydney and the other at the Soo. I am sure if my hon. friend will consult those interested in the Soo industry they will tell him that this government has shown its friendship to their industry in a very practical way. On two occasions at least since I have had charge of the Railway Department we have endeavoured to make it smoother for the Soo industry than it might have been if we had not made that endeavour. I believe with him that the steel rails made at Sydney and at Sault Ste. Marie are equal to any made on the continent. I am perfectly in sympathy with that view. I do not agree with the article read by my hon. friend which says that steel rails made in the United States are inferior because they make some magnificent rails there. I will communicate with the president or general manager of the Grand Trunk Pacific to see if there is any truth in the report that orders for rails have been given to the United States makers. I am
Possibly the minister is familiar with the firms who are importing, but there is no getting away from the fact that there are and have been a lot of very heavy importations of steel rails from the United States, some of which at least have been specially imported for use upon the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific. In contrast with that let nie remind the minister of a statement made by Sir Thomas Shaughnes-sy, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, in the famous speech that he made in Toronto not long ago at the celebration of the opening of the Toronto Sudbury line in which he said that every rail, s spike, bridge, tie, car and locomotive was of Canadian production and that despatch and quality of the Canadian product were equal to the very best. I know that I need not emphasize to the minister and to the House the condition of things which exists at Sault Ste. Marie, in Nova Scotia, and at Port Arthur and in connection with many other steel and iron industries, in which a large amount of Canadian, British and American capital is invested. I would ask him to give these matters his very serious consideration and do what he can now, to show the Canadian spirit which should and perhaps will influence him in the matter. to see that the terms of the agreement between this company and the government are strictly adhered to in spirit as well as in letter, that our Canadian industries get the full benefit of the work of the construction of that great road and that all materials and supplies which are the product of Canadian industries are used in the construction of the road, provided the condi-

anxious to do wliat X can to see that the rails to be used on Canada's great Transcontinental Railway shall be produced in the Dominion of Canada.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: This is the last opportunity I shall have to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals a question that I asked once or twice before as to whether he has been able to find the report of the engineer who was sent out last fall to inspect the Canadian Northern Railway between Irwood and the Pas Mission '!


George Perry Graham: Yesterday I placed on the desk of my hon. friend the report of our engineer dated February last and that Is the only report we have in the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: Last autumn I met a gentleman on the Canadian Northern and he told me he had been commissioned by the government to go over that road, and he gave a very graphic description of his trip.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps it refers to the same report ; was it Mr. McArthur ?


Richard Stuart Lake: No, it was Mr. Paradis. He gave me a graphic description of his trip as he would to an old friend, for I have known him for many years and he told me the land was swamp, and that nothing could be hauled over the line in the summer season until the whole country was drained. He told me a hand-car was the heaviest thing they could run over a considerable part of the line and that they had laid the rails so that when the frost came they could take a train of materials out. The report which the minister refers to was made by a gentleman who was sent out there after the freeze up and when there was a foot of snow on the ground. I should like to know if it is possible that a subsidy of 12.800 acres per mile, and which the Minister of the Interior says' has been selected in western Saskatchewan, could have been given to such a railroad as that.


BEAUHARNOIS CANAL-ROBERT SYNDICATE.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As this is the last occasion we will have to question the government, I would like the Minister of Railways to give me the information he promised with regard to the present condition of the Robert syndicate lease.


George Perry Graham: I had a copy of the lease in the House last night.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The lease has been in my possession since it was signed, but I want to know what has been done under it. Has the Robert syndicate made its payment to the government, and are they Mr. GRAHAM.
carrying out the conditions of the lease. A company called the Canadian Light and Power Company is applying to the city council of Montreal to light the city, and that company is supposed to be the Robert syndicate under another name. As I understand it the Robert syndicate cannot under the terms of the lease amalgamate with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company according to clause 16 of the lease. Their lease is very stringent on that point, and I would like to know if the Minister of Railways has been notified of any change ?


George Perry Graham: I will have to ask information from my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) what does the lease say about that ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In order to protect the people of Montreal against monopoly the clause 16 of the lease says : The Robert syndicate shall not amalgamate with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, and it is commonly supposed in Montreal that the Canadian Light and Power Company which is negotiating with the city council is in reality the Robert syndicate. I do not believe they could do that without the authorization of the Minister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: I imagine not. If the lease says they shall not amalgamate with a certain company that would seem to imply that they could with some other company, but anyway I think it would not be done without notifying the department and I have had no such Information.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The Robert syndicate cannot amalgamate with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, but the Canadian Light and Power Company might. A subterfuge of that kind would be tantamount to bad faith on the part of the syndicate and I should think the Minister of Railways would know something about it.


George Perry Graham: We have no information in the department with regard to that but I shall make inquries. They have paid $6,000 and another $6,000 is due on the 1st of July and I presume will be paid in due course.


CANAL AT BRADFORD, SOTJTH SIMCOE.
Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Railways said some days ago that he would tell me before the close of the session what he would do in reference to building a short stretch of canal near the village of Bradford in south Simcoe. I would be glad if I could tell the people interested that the Minister of Railways had decided to construct that small piece of work.


George Perry Graham: I do not think I promised my hon. friend that I would tell him what

I would do ; but I did look into tlie matter and I find that the report shows the mileage to be greater than my hon. friend had supposed.


Haughton Lennox: Three-quarters of a mile?


George Perry Graham: It is about three times that. I had an approximate estimate made but it is not one on which we can rely. We will have to consider the matter as we proceed with the work of the canal.


Haughton Lennox: After the close of the session the minister will have very little to do, and if I write to him would he answer me and let me know what he intends ? When we spoke of it some days ago the chief engineer was ill and the minister could not give any information about the matter.


George Perry Graham: I know my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will write me a very courteous letter and if he does I will give him all the information I possibly can in reply. I would not like to commit myself to anything because I really do not know what I am in a position to say.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT -FRENCH VERSION.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I wish to remind the hon. leader of the House that we have not yet had the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service in French, although to my knowledge it has been in the Printing Bureau for several months.


William Stevens Fielding: I have been informed by the Secretary of State that the delay is not in the Printing Bureau, but with the translators. I agree with my hon. friend that it should by this time be in the hands of those who want it in French.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Ottawa Victoria Memorial Museum-additional amount, $200,000.
George William Fowler: At what time in the century is it expected that the museum will be finished ?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works. I may say to my hon. friend that the museum is being constructed verv rapidly indeed. The contractor is Mr. Goodwin, who, although his contract price is some $300,000 lower than the estimate of the chief architect, and some $200,000 or $300,000 lower than the next lower tender-, has been carrying on the work with very great rapidity and with very great satisfaction to the department. I think he will have the building completed next year. If it were necessary, and I think perhaps it may be considered necessary, to have many of the geological specimens stored at as early a date as possible to preserve them from fire.
some provision to that end may be made even before the coming winter.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are all the lands and buildings bought for the new departmental buildings on Sussex street ?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: We have agreed for the purchase of the larger number of lots but in respect, to some we were not able to agree, and we are taking proceedings by expropriation.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about the Lindsay block ?


William Pugsley: We have not decided to purchase the Lindsay block. I made some inquiries of a tentative nature with regard to the price, which I found was pretty heavy.


Mr. SAM. HUGRES.: You will come to it after a bit.


William Pugsley: Perhaps so in the somewhat remote future. The Lindsay block, however is not necessary to the departmental buildings which we are now planning.
Resolution reported.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 215) to authorize the granting of subsidies in aid of the construction of lines of railway therein mentioned-Mr. Graham -read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Is the Bill in the same form as the resolutions?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I asked if any of the roads proposed to be subsidized are now actually under construction.


George Perry Graham: I endeavoured to get all the information I could along that line. I find the following are partly constructed or under construction, Nos. 32,40,43 (three miles), 45, (a portion constructed, balance under construction), 55 (two miles under construction), 60 (a portion under construction). 61, (a portion under construction), 62, 65 (four miles), 66 and 68 (under construction). An hon. gentleman asked the mileage of each of the great railways under this. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of these figures as tlie subsidies are sometimes voted under names of other companies, but my clerk figures it in this way:
Miles.
Grand Trunk Pacific	 330-9
Canadian Northern Railway	 202-9
Canadian Pacific Railway	 270-15


Robert Laird Borden: I could not get access to these applications this morning and consequently cannot say much as to their contents. Taking a view of the items which I have had some opportunity of examining I observe that No. 39 provides for a subsidy

to the Canadian Pacific Railway in respect of 34J miles. Section 40 provides for a subsidy for the Canadian Pacific Railway for 123 miles. So far as the Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned. I have never known it to have difficulty in carrying out its undertakings in respect to the building of branch lines. It is a very wealthy and prosperous company. Its stock is considerably above par, standing at 150 or 160; it pays 7 per cent and so far as my memory goes' its officers have publicly announced that in the larger portions of Canada to-day railway building should be carried on without assistance from the government. I observe further in respect of 123 miles to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway, that the information contained in the documents on the table is very meagre. It states that the road is already under construction; if that is so I would be of opinion that that railway is quite able to carry the construction of that road to a conclusion. I do not observe from the documents before the House that there is any application by the Canadian Pacific Railway. It does not purport to be signed by any person. No. 68 relates to sixty miles of the Canadian Northern from Hawkesbury to Ottawa which, I understand, is partially completed. The same thing is true of items 49 and 62 which are to aid branch lines of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Item 62, is for a branch line from Port Arthur to the main line of the Transcontinental Railway. That is distinctly a part of the enterprise of the Grand Trunk Pacific, as will appear by reference to the statute under which the Grand Trunk Pacific was incorporated, section 12 of chapter 122 of the Acts of 1903. I refer to section 12 of that Act. which I would read if it were not that I desire to economze the time of the House. The same observation will apply to No. 49 which is distinctly a part of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I have not been able to look at the application with regard to that particular item. But an hon. member who looked into it informed me that there is no application excepting a very informal one purporting to be made by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I do not vouch for that of mv own information, for I could not find the document.


George Perry Graham: That is all the information it gives.


Mr.  R. T.. BORDEN@: Here, for instance, is the way the application reads in part :
Name of railway. A railway.
Province. The province of Quebec.
What subsidy applied for? 200 miles.
8.	Prom Montreal to a point on the Transcontinental.
9.	Applicant. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) will remember that I explained that it was put in this way only to show that there was an application.


Robert Laird Borden: This subsidy was granted in response to one of the largest deputations that have visited us this session, and who urged it very strongly. That is the reason it was informal-it was put that way merely to keep the record.


Robert Laird Borden: I am only dealing with the information that lias been laid on the table.


George Perry Graham: I explained that fully last night.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware of It. It must have been at the time when I was absent from the chamber. The points I take with regard to these five items- which are the only ones I have had an opportunity to look into-is that they must necessarily be built by the railway companies to whom subsidies are proposed to be paid. So far as that point is concerned. I might be permitted to allude to some observations made in this House by the exMinister of Railways and Canals, my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Eimmer-son). I quote from ' Hansard ' of 1906. page 5965 :
I recognize that the Grand Trunk Pacific came in 1903 o>r 1904 and asked authority from this parliament to build certain branch lines as weU as to have the lease from the government of Canada. They asked authority from the government of Canada, when it should have constructed a trunk line from Winnipeg to Moncton, to lease and operate that trunk line. A part of the scheme and arrangement and agreement on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific was that they should build certain branch lines; and they are held to that agreement.
And further on ;
The Grand Trunk Pacific Company are bound to build it; they are under obligation.
This is with reference to a line to the city of St. John. He deals with that exactly as with the other line. He is referring to the two branch lines to which I have alluded, and an additional one to the city of St. John. And he says that the Grand Trunk Pacific are ' under obligation.' The report proceeds :


Mr. DANIEL.: Under what charter?


Mr. EMMERSON.: Under every discussion that was held in this House in 1903 and 1904. They are under a moral obligation, more than that they are under a pledge, by reason of the project in its entirety. They asked for authority to build certain branch lines.


Mr. CARVELL.: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell me where we shall find the statute that contains that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not putting that claim forward. It was not within the statute, but it wa.s within the agreement, and a well understood agreement, and they are bound to do it.

That was the view of the government, as expressed by the then Minister of Railways, as regards the two lines, for both are included, I take it. I am not taking the point that railway subsidies should not be granted where absolutely necessary for the purpose of proper and legitimate railway development in this country. But I do take the point that where wealthy railway corporations need branch lines which would be carried to completion without a subsidy from the government, or where the company is under the business necessity o'f building these lines as part of its system, or under some arrangement or agreement with the government, it seems to me that we are going rather far in subsidizing such lines and making a heavy drain upon the revenues of the country. Looking at the live items I have mentioned, two are subsidies for the Canadian Pacific Railway, one for the Canadian Northern Railway and two others for the Grand Trunk Pacific. I find that the total amount of these subsidies authorized by the resolution and Bill is a little over $4,000,000, which is a pretty large sum and a pretty serious obligation. It might turn out, of course, that the roads will cost less than $22,000 a mile, in which case the amount of subsidy would be less, but the total subsidy authorized is no less than $4,079,000. I do not know how many more instances of- this kind would develop [DOT] if one had a proper opportunity .to investigate every one of these applications. I deeply regret that, within the time allowed, it is impossible to make such an investigation, and that the information brought down is of so scanty and unsatisfactory a character. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and 'Canals may be able to give some information with respect of the five lines of which I speak. In the absence of information it does not seem to me that the government has any justification for proposing to subsidize lines which, so far as the facts before the House indicate, would be built in any case without aid from the government.


George Perry Graham: With reference to the two Canadian Pacific Railway lines, one has slipped my memory at the moment, and the one is of 123 miles in length and will not run over $3,200 a mile, as it Is in prairie country north of Moosejaw. But, as the committee will remember, earlier in the session, a very strong plea was made to the Railway Department to urge the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a line 123 miles of north of Moosejaw. The reason was that the company had gone so far as to let the contract a year or two ago and people had rushed in there in great numbers. But for some reason it was cancelled. Apparently the road was not going to be built. I took up the question with the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities, and they announced
that they would proceed with the building of the ix)ad. That was accompanied by a request that if the government were giving subsidies to that kind of a road, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should be treated as other roads were treated. I thought so myself, and I put it in the list. The other one was applied for by the Canadian Pacific Railway themselves directly.
I made what inquiry I could, and I was assured that it was a road that would serve the people and ought to he aided. Now there is this question as to granting subsidies to a road -partly constructed, or that would be. Looking at it from one point of view, my hon. friend would he right, hut that has not been the view held bv the various governments. I find case after case where subsidies have been given to roads already constructed and in operation. If a country needs opening up by a railway, and a railway company is ready to go on with that, knowing that the policy of the government of Canada has been so far to aid railways, and if they proceeded on that assumption, I am inclined to think that it would not be a wise policy to say that because they went on with the work we should not aid i't, if it is doing similar work to other roads that are aided. The road from Montreal is not a Grand Trunk Pacific road, it is not so in stated terms. I suppose their charter giving them the right to build braoh lines would possibly be the only one at the present time. But in answer to a deputation, all that we said was that we would consider the advisability of aiding a line connecting the Transcontinental with Montreal. I was careful to put it in that way. It is necessary, both for the citv of Montreal and for that portion of Canada, as well as for the success of the road, that the connection should be made. Of the Canadian Northern between Montreal and Hawkesbury and Hawkesbury and Ottawa, quite a portion is graded, and the remarks I made a moment ago would apply to that. Work on * that road ceased some little time agio. However, I feel this way, possibly I may be wrong, but believing that we must before many years, notwithstanding all that has been said, have another line across the continent on Canadian territory, this being a portion of it, as it will be when it is linked up, and having aided the other two lines, I think it is only fair that we should aid this one. A part of the grading has been done. Taking, however, the view I expressed a few moments ago, that even if some work has been done on a road, it should not be a bar to getting assistance, if doing the same work. I was in favour of granting a subsidy to that line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When there was under consideration the other evening a proposition to build a branch line on Prince

Edward Island connecting with the main Prince Edward Island Railway, I submitted as a proposition for the consideration of the government that they should first determine with respect to branch lines already constructed and connected with their government system. The Minister of Railways and Canals on that occasion said he had very strong personal views with respect to branch lines. I need not quote what he stated, but it will be within the memory of hon. gentlemen that he personally spoke favourably with respect to them, and he said that another announcement would be made in connection writh that subject. Yesterday I had occasion to make some remarks when the resolutions upon which this Bill is founded were under consideration. I then asked the government as to their ideas with respect to the branch lines themselves, because while I take no objection to the policy of aiding railways so far as this country can do so, and while I am in favour of that policy, yet it seems to me there should be certain limitations. Furthermore, I think that in determining as to the advanced ground that should be taken by this parliament in relation to aiding additional lines, there should first be considered the position and the condition of the branch lines already constructed, and which have been aided financially by this government. Now the Minister of Railways has stated that he is favourable to aiding the construction of the line of railway between Montreal and the city of Ottawa. His reasons therefor were that this portion between Montreal and Ottawa would undoubtedly be a part of a third transcontinental line of railway. He is aware that there are to-day already running between this city and Montreal three lines of railway, two of them it is true owned by one company and the other owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, formerly known as the Canada Atlantic Railway. Now it would seem to me that it is a matter of very serious consideration whether the government, in taking this forward movement, should not first deal with the branch lines, and with its own railway system. The Minister of Railways is disposed to aid a trunk line, the Canadian Northern, and very properly. I take no exception to that. But it seems to me that the government for whom he speaks should take into consideration the Intercolonial, and the relationship which exists between that railway and the lines now connected with it. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways promised a later declaration with respect to the matter, and we had from the right hon. gentleman leading the House, yesterday, in answer to a question put by me, a statement as to the course that the government would take in the matter. The government accepted the principle as one that would be in the interests of the country and as one that would be adopted. The proposition would be Mr. EMMERSON.
adopted if the Intercolonial Railway were owned by a private corporation and that is a business proposition which must be acceptable to the country and in the interests of the country. He stated that
The matter has been given a good deal of consideration, but we have not yet been able to make np our minds that it is a policy we should adopt. Whilst we are not prepared to say bo my hon. friend

That is referring to myself-
-that we shall adopt this policy, we realize that it is one which requires consideration and makes it inouimibent upon the government to make the fullest inquiry in order that we may be in a position to discuss the matter adequately at another session.
That declaration may mean a good deal. There is a statement that an inquiry will be had, and I think it is due to this committee, as it is due to the country, that the nature of that inquiry should be disclosed. The government apparently have given the matter a good deal of consideration and they realize that it is a policy that requires consideration and places upon the government the responsibility of making the fullest inquiry in order that the matter may he considered at the next session or at another session. We are asked to deal with these propositions. There are railways that may be aided. Certainly we are incurring obligations with respect to certain proposed railways. We should not lose sight of the railways which we have already constructed, the railways in the eastern section of Canada and the railways that were constructed as feeders of the Intercolonial Railway and which were very largely constructed because of the fact that they would be feeders. I had occasion at the last session of this parliament to invite the attention of the House to the statements made by Sir Charles Tapper when he was asking assistance for the construction of certain of these lines and he justified that aid and assistance, properly so, by the fact that these lines would be feeders. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee by going fully into the question, but I think it might fairly be accepted on all sides that the Intercoio nial Railway has not been rounded out and will never be rounded out until it has control of its sphere of influence, until it has the control and management of the lines which may serve and which do measurably serve as feeders. In the interest of that section of the country these lines should be operated by the Intercolonial Railway. Now, I would like to ask the minister if he can acquaint this committee with the character of the investigation which is to he made. I quite appreciate the fact that no government should acquire any railways as feeders, that no government should acquire any of these branch lines without first getting tlie fullest possible information, without

first knowing what they were doing and then that they could only acquire them as a business proposition. I simply put that question to the minister, and I trust that he will take us and the country into his confidence with respect to the proposed inquiry. I ask if the government intend to have that inquiry and if they intend to have it at once ?


George Perry Graham: The question of branch railways, I have discovered, during the short time that I have been in this department, is one that is very vital particularly along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. If the Intercolonial Railway were run by a company there are branch lines now that would be a part of that system. The government railway is under somewhat different conditions possibly, but if the Intercolonial Railway is to retain its position it is worth while to very seriously consider if it ought not to go that far in carrying out business principles in order to see that it gets the traffic that rightly belongs to it. If, in the maritime provinces, keen competition should arise with the Intercolonial Railway we might wake up some morning possibly and find that another line had the branch lines and consequently the business that they now give to the Intercolonial Railway in a minor way. This is a large question. It affects Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. In all there are in the railways that would be called branches about 1,200 miles. There has been a report upon the branch lines of New Brunswick made at the request of the government of New Brunswick. That report I have. In short this is what I propose to do : In order to get the information that would be a basis to work on, it will be necessary to ascertain the length of each line, the amount of its traffic, its revenue, expenditure, rolling stock, the condition of the road and the probability of the development of business along the line.


Samuel Hughes: What option there is on the line.


George Perry Graham: The option possibly. .


Samuel Hughes: And who holds the option ?


George Perry Graham: These things would have to be investigated thoroughly, and I assume that the investigation would be along the line of getting this information so that we would be in a position to discuss iin a business way the question as to whether we should take over these branch lines. During the recess I propose to have such an investigation made.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Railways and Canals has proved himself a most excellent jollier. The minister says that he has already in his hands a report from the commission appointed by the late government in tiie province of New Brunswick in
regard to branch lines. I have no doubt that report was a very full and exhaustive one because the gentleman who acted on that commission received a very handsome honorarium and I know he is a man of ability and I believe he made a thorough examination.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were two of them.


George William Fowler: There were two of them. It seems strange that the Minister of Railways found it necessary to make another examination.	.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend had the responsibility he would not accept the report of any other officials except those immediately responsible to him no matter how eminent they might be. Before I would take any step towards serious consideration I would want a report of a man responsible to me as I . am responsible to this House.


George William Fowler: Surely the minister would have sufficient confidence in the men who ran the government of New Brunswick before March the 3rd to believe they would only appoint men who - were competent, straightforward, honest and trustworthy ? When the minster says he is going to make a further examination he is simply jollying the hon. member for Westmoreland.


George Perry Graham: There is a province of Quebec and a province of Nova Scotia as well as a province of New Brunswick.


George William Fowler: Then let us know what the policy is in regard to the branch lines in New Brunswick ? The majority of this House have been cheerfully voting large sums of money for railways in all parts of the country, and it seems to me it would be far more important to take over the tributary lines of the government railways. We have granted a large subsidy for a line to Hudson bay although we know nothing of the territory through which it shall pass, and we have conflicting testimony as to the practicability of the water route when the railway is built. The minister can quite understand that one management instead of several ; that the utilization on the branch lines of the lighter rails taken from the main line, instead of selling them to favoured friendis as old junk, with tremendous profit to the men who buy and great loss to the railway which sells ; the minister knows that this would tend to great economy in the management.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The old rails on the Intercolonial have not been sold as old junk to friends of the government. They have always been put up to tender and the highest bidder got them.


George William Fowler: Perhaps a better price may have been obtained than the hon. gen-

tleman would get for the broken pots and pans in his own house, but all the same these rails were sold as junk to be broken up. Mr. Mathew Lodge made extensive purchases of these rails and I understood he was quite a friend of the government because the government was quite a friend to him.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I dont think Mr. Lodge ever bought any rails.


George William Fowler: Perhaps -not when my bon. friend was minister, but it was commonly. reported that he did.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think not, but what is the point if he bought them by tender ?


George William Fowler: 1 said that these rails were sold to Mr. Lodge whom I took to be a friend of the government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Sold by tender.


George William Fowler: So were the timber limits and the coal lands sold by tender, but we know what happened. In certain districts in New Brunswick very great sacrifices have been made by ithe people to get these lines of railway. In one of the counties I have the honour to represent a heavy and a grievous tax was placed on the people for the purpose of getting these branch lines built. New Brunswick, compared with some other provinces, is poor in resources, but here in the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec, between Ottawa and Montreal, where there are at present three lines of railway, a fourth is being built, and it is being largely subsidized by this government; subsidized to an extent that would go a long way towards purchasing these branch lines in New Brunswick and making them part of the Intercolonial. The principle of acquiring these branch lines was adopted three or four years ago, when the government purchased the Canada Eastern. Why did they do that?


An hon. MEMBER.: Because it was connecting with the Canadian Pacific Railway, another great trunk line.


George William Fowler: But the Canadian Pacific already had a connection with the Intercolonial at St. John. The reason why they acquired the Canada Eastern was because of the political exigency that existed at the time, and because it was necessary to carry out a pledge whereby they had been enabled -to elect a supporter in the county of York, N.B. That is the reason why ; and at the very time that scheme went through I brought up the question of the acquisition by the government of the rest of the branch lines in the province of New Brunswick. I asked if that policy was to be adopted, and I got a very unsatisfactory reply from the then Minister of Railways. But it seems to me that if we have all the money required for these Mr. FOWLER.
various railway schemes-although the Finance Minister may have some difficulty when he comes to borrow-and if we have cheerfully voted for the building of canals in these upper provinces, which yield no revenue whatever to this Dominion, we ought to have some consideration for the maritime provinces in this regard. Take the scheme of the 'Georgian bay canal, which will cost, at the lowest estimate, about a hundred millions or, if we may judge from our experience with the Grand Trunk Pacific, will cost more than double that estimate, which would be $200,000,000, a very small portion of this would enable us to purchase all these branch lines in the province of New Brunswick. For these reasons, I do think that the government should announce its policy now in favour of the acquisition of all the branch lines which are feeders to the Intercolonial Railway. It should not be a question whether or not these branch lines are particularly profitable, but only whether the price at which they can be obtained is a fair price or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend, in referring to purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway by the government, knows that he was not accurate in his statement of the object. The object of securing that line was to protect the Intercolonal in its sphere of influence, and to prevent the Canadian Pacific Railway acquiring the line and invading the territory controlled by the Intercolonial. The purchase was made at less than $6,000 per mile. It was the cheapest railway that was ever purchased in Canada; but it was for that particular purpose and for no other that the railway was acquired, as my hon. friend knows.


George William Fowler: I find no fault with the price paid for the Canada Eastern Railway; but I do say that the purchase was not for the reason stated by the hon. member for Westmoreland, but that there was an understanding between a certain gentleman who was very prominent at that time and very influential in the county of York whereby the government party were enabled in the election of 1900 to carry the county of York for the government. The government did not carry out the terms, and session after session passed by until the election of 1904 came on, when the government found it necessary to carry out the terms, otherwise there would have been trouble. Any gentleman who was a member of this House at that time, and was acquainted with the then member for York, would know that he was calculating on this arrangement, and that he could be heard in these corridors declaiming against the government for their failure to carry it out. It was common knowledge that in the last session he was kicking all the time because that arrangement was not carried out, and finally it was I carried out. But gratitude is a lively sense

of favours yet to come, and as the railway had been bought, the people returned to their previous allegiance, and elected my hon. friend who now represents the county of York, and who will be elected again to represent it at the next election.


William Pugsley: I had a great deal to do in the provincial legislature with urging from time to time the adoption of resolutions in favour of the acquisition of these branch roads. The hon. gentleman truly says that the government of which I was a member appointed a commission for the purpose of making an inquiry into all the branches in the province which were feeders of the Intercolonial Railway, with a view of furnishing the Minister of Railways with sucli information as would be of value in order to enable him to determine whether or not it would be desirable to take over these roads. My hon. friend has given us a bit of ancient history. What is more important to us to-day, in regard to the Canada Eastern Railway, is to know whether the acquisition of that railway was in the public interest. I say unhesitatingly that it was. The Canada Eastern has proved to be a valuable feeder of the Intercolonial, and I personally have felt, and I have not changed my view in that respect, that it would be in the interest of the public and to the advantage of the Intercolonial Railway to have it considered by an expert whether all the branches in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec would be likely to prove valuable feeders to the Intercolonial if taken over. I think my hon. friend is unfair to the Minister of Railways in suggesting that he is trying to jolly my hon. friend who represents the county of Westmoreland, who has taken a warm and earnest interest in this question. I think the Minister of Railways is pursuing a prudent course, which will commend itself to the best judgment of the people of the country when he proposes, through the officials of his department, to conduct a minute inquiry into all these branch lines in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. I feel sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is thoroughly sincere in this. I feel that he desires to obtain the fullest possible information, and I can say for one that I am satisfied that the information which he will obtain will convince him that it will be not only in the interest of the maritime provinces, in the interest of the province of Quebec and in the interest of the whole country, but also in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway itself, that he should adopt the policy which has been adopted universally by all the great trunk lines in the country, that is, to acquire all these branches, or such of them as can be acquired on reasonable terms, which will prove valuable feeders to the Intercolonial Railway and increase its (traffic and its earning power.
428	*


George William Fowler: It must be grateful to the Minister of Railways to get a certificate of sincerity from so sincere a person as the Minister of Public Works. The minister tells us that as a member of the local government of New Brunswick he appointed a commission to inquire and obtain for the Minister of Railways so much valuable information. It is unfortunate that he did not discuss the matter with the Minister of Railways.


William Pugsley: That does not happen to be what I said.


George William Fowler: I do not remember the exact words, but that is practically what he said. It is unfortunate that he did not discuss the matter with the Minister of Railways so as to learn from him whether he would consider as valuable the information which that commission was supposed to obtain. Now', the hon. Minister of Public Works is in a position, as a member of the government, to make his influence felt in regard to this matter of branch lines ; and when all these subsidies were being considered by the government, why did he not put in a word for the branch lines in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec ?


William Pugsley: How do you know that I did not ?


George William Fowler: I am sure that he did not, because knowing the great influence which the hon. gentleman would have bn his colleagues, knowing the great assistance he ha* been to the government and the tremendous strength he has brought to it, which the First Minister must realize, his influence would be so great that he would be able to impose his views upon his colleagues and if he had advocated with his heart and soul and strength the construction of these branch lines they would have adopted that policy.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I think it strange when we hear so much from ministers and members on the other side about the acquisition of feeders for the Intercolonial Railway that they have said nothing about the Prince Edward Island Railway, which would be the most valuable feeder they could have for the Intercolonial Railway if a connecting link between the Intercolonial Railway and it were constructed. It seems there is either a concerted plan on the part of the government to overlook Prince Edward Island or else there is some ulterior motive in relation to the buying of these branch lines. We have had many promises of investigation and report. It seems strange that they should overlook the most profitable feeder the Intercolonial Railway could have.
Bill reported, read the third time and ' passed.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 217) respecting the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company-Mr. Graham-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the government come to a conclusion as to whether the present site and the works there will be utilized or will some other site be chosen? Have any inquiries been made on the subject ?


George Perry Graham: The position of the government is this. Leaving aside everything that has happened, this fact stares us in the face, the Quebec bridge is down and the Quebec bridge has to go up. It is the duty of the government to see that the plan is carried out as parliament has directed. This Bill provides for taking over the enterprise in accordance with the agreement. Different opinions are expressed as to using the present site. Some members say that the present material will do. I am not offering any opinion, but I say the first duty of the government is to select a board of engineers composed of two or three of the most prominent engineers in the world. To them will be entrusted the duty of seeing if any or all of the piers, if any or all of the material or design, is adequate for the construction of the bridge. To them will be entrusted the task of selecting a design for the construction of the Quebec bridge. My idea is to submit to them the question of site as well, and to take their advice largely as to the best place to build the bridge and the design to be followed. For, whatever has happened, it must be obvious to every person that no mistakes ought to be made in the future, but that the structure to be erected there should be a lasting one and a credit to Canada, because it will be the greatest of its kind in the world.


Mr. ROB  ITAILLE@: I' hope that estimates will be made not only for the present site but also for construction by way of the Island of Orleans. It may be remembered that the objection to the Island of Orleans scheme was that it might cost $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 more. But the cost of railway terminals is also to be considered. Estimates should be made so as to show the cost of both bridge and terminals by either route. It may be that the bridge by the Island of Orleans scheme will cost more, this will be more than made up in the saving on the terminals.


George William Fowler: Is the government to pay the bridge company anything for compensation ?


George Perry Graham: That is provided for in the agreement-the par value of the stoek with 5 per cent simple interest and the bonus of 10 per cent.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


George William Fowler: What is the amount of the stock ?


Lorenzo Robitaille: It will be $400,000.


George Perry Graham: Hon. gentlemen are inclined to guess at that. I have here the figures given me by the accountant :
Bar value of the capital stock (round figures, $263,000) to which is to be added a bonus of 10 peir cent and. 5 per cent simple interest from the date the stock was paid up (approximately) $353,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute provides that the government may take over the work on paying the amount of the stock with simple interest at 5 per cent per annum, the interest to be reduced toy any amounts paid as dividend, and also a bonus of 10 per cent. But there is something more important, and it is this : the government, taking over the stock and the whole enterprise, must assume all the obligations of the company entered upon with the consent of the government and also the bonded indebtedness. What is the amount covered by this last obligation so far as the minister is aware ?


George Perry Graham: I have a statement here showing the liabilities up to July 1 :
Statement as to July 1, 1908, showing the liabilities for which the government will be responsible in connection with the taking over of the Quebec.Bridge and Railway Company; also a statement of the assets of the said company.
Liabilities.
Total amount olaimed by the Bank of Montreal as due by the bridge company, being the balance of principal advances on bond account together with interest on the same; also the amounts of [DOT]temporary loans and interest on the same from the date the last advance was made on bond account	$3,976,796 23
Total indebtedness of the company to the federal government, being the amount advanced under au-tlMxrity of chapter 35 of the Acts
of 1907	 2,000,000 00
Interest on above, from February 9 to June 30 (approximately).. ..	23,334 00
Customs duties due to the federal
government	 133,027 00
Land expropriated from the Quebec Improvement Company, some 32 acres, for which the company would accept in final settlement. 14,000 00
Par value of the capital stock (round figures, $263,000) to which is to be added a bonus of 10 per cent and 5 per cent simple interest from the date the stock was paid up (approximately)	 353,000 00
Total for which the government will he liable	$6,500,157 23
Roughly speaking, this is about the amount of the bonds I think. The Phoenix

Bridge Company make a claim for material delivered, but of course that Is not allowed. I need not discuss it.


George William Fowler: How much is it?


George Perry Graham: I think it is $215,000 for material delivered which does not belong to us. These following amounts are given me
as assets if the bridge is to be constructed in the same place :
Assets.
Biers which the company claims may be utilized in reconstructing the bridge on new plans, and which cost about $1,125,000, but which the company claims could not be built
to-day for less than $2,000,000.. .. $2,000,000 A pproacihes, including Ohaudiiere bridge, which the company claim are worth	 4,000,000
Large quantities of miamufiacturedj steel, delivered at the time of the accident, or stored up in the company's yards since then, and part of which the company claim could
be utilized in construction	 1,000,000
Total assets	$4,000,000


George William Fowler: It is a pity you had not built more piers; as the profit on them would have met all the loss on the bridge.


George Perry Graham: Yes, if we could have sold them, but unfortunately the market is confined to only those piers needed for the bridge. Those that are there could not be built for less than $2,000,000.


George William Fowler: I suppose the material spoken of there is under water.


George Perry Graham: No ; a great deal of it is stored. Some of the engineers claim that a great deal of it could be used. I suppose much would depend on the design of the bridge. I do no.t care to express an opinion, but it seems to me that the present site and piers will do. If the site is retained, the piers ought to be usable.


George William Fowler: It strikes me that this is a pretty fair bargain for the company, but a pretty bad one for the country.


George Perry Graham: We are not making a bargain but carrying out the statute.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS.
William Stevens Fielding: There is a Bill on Public Bills and Orders which I would ask leave to call. I quite realize that a Bill of this character can only go through at this stage by general consent, and I think probably the character of this Bill may get such consent. I beg leave to move that item 00 on Public Bills and Orders, being Bill (No. 187) to amend the Canadian Temperance Act, be now called.
428$


Mr. LANCASTER.: Before that motion is put, while I do not object to the subject matter of the Bill, I desire to protest against this Bill taking precedence of my Bill on a very much more important subject. This House unanimously passed my Bill to amend the Railway Act early in the session, and sent it to the Senate before Christmas. It was a Bill to protect the lives of every man,'woman and child from the fatal accidents that are taking place every day at railway crossings. The Senate amended that Bill three or four months afterwards, and sent it back to this House. A week or ten days ago I asked the House to consider this Bill, and was told by the Minister of Railways that it was too late in the session, and that they could not take up any Public Bills and Orders. I think if any Bill is to be taken up, it should* bd that one.


William Stevens Fielding: I would not care to offer any opinion on that point to-night. I realize now that this Bill to amend the Canada Temperance Act can not go through, unless it meets with general approval. I judge from what my hon. friend says that this Bill may be a matter of debate, I offer no opinion concerning it. But if there is no objection to this Bill, we can deal with it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Two wrongs do not make one right. I was pointing out that a much more important Bill did not get any such treatment, and I do not think it is right.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to look at the Bill. Let it stand till to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: Then we will let it stand till to-morrow, if my hon. friend prefers. There is another Bill, item 65, a Bill from the Senate relating to the water carriage of goods, ilf there be no objection, I would like to take that up.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature
of it?


William Stevens Fielding: It relates to an important subject.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is a good deal of objection to that; it is an obnoxious Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: If I had any idea that these two Bills were coming up I would have looked at them, but I have not been able to do so. Otherwise, I would be happy to go on with them to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: The attention of the House was called to it by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean), and I intimated to him the other day that the Bill would not be called. However, I will not press it now.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 1.50 a.m., Saturday.



Saturday, July 18, 1908.