1908-07-08

Mr. VICTOR GEOFFRION (Chambly and Vereheres).: Mr. Speaker, in asking that the
report of the committee appointed to inquire into the charges of Major Hodgins with respect to the National Transcontinental Railway be concurred in, I wish to place before the House as briefly as I can some of the reasons which induced the committee to adopt this report. It will be useless for me,
I suppose, to state very minutely the circumstances which led to the appointment of this committee of investigation. I think they are known by every hon. member of this House, and I simply wish to recall that Major Hodgins, who now resides in the city of Victoria, B.C., who had been for some time previously in the employ of the Transcontinental Railway Commisison and who had either left his position or been dismissed by the commission on the 16th April last, wrote a letter which he signed and caused to be published in the ' Daily Colonist' newspaper, published in the city of Victoria, B.C., charging the Transcontinental Railway Commission with undue influence over their engineers, charging them also with undue influence over some members of the government and making other charges which are set forth in the letter, which letter is quoted in the report now before the House. This letter was followed by two alleged interviews in the same paper with Major Hodgins enlarging and repeating in other words the charges that had been made by him in the previous letter. The Transcontinental Railway Commissioners thought it their duty to send a memorandum to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) denying all the charges made by Major Hodgins in his letter and these interviews, and asking that a committee of this House be appointed to inquire into these charges, to give an opportunity to Major Hodgins to prove his charges and an opportunity to themselves to disprove them. That committee was appointed on April 29, and commenced its proceedings about that date. Major Hodgins was put on the stand and was subjected to a long examination by his own counsel and by the counsel of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. During the course of this examination, after it had proceeded for some time, on June 3 last Major Hodgins practically repudiated the two interviews which had been attributed to him by the ' Colonist.' I shall quote his exact words to the House to show how emphatic his repudiation was. They are to be found at page 248 of the evidence. He was then being examined by Mr. Murphy, counsel for the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and his examination reads:
Q. Well, it is of importance to know, major, how much or how little of this interview you are now prepared to stand by, because it affects the cross-examination?-A. I am not prepared to be responsible for the interview at all. As I say, if a reporter interviews you and takes down half a dozen sentences, and his notes certainly were not that long (illus-

trating by a gesture) and writes up two columns you cannot hold me responsible for it. Part of the interview, I might tell you, the reporter was trying to find out what an engineer has to do, why he does this, that and the other-in fact I was giving him more or less of a lecture on engineering. There was a whole lot of questions he was working up and he got hoplessly mixed up in the thing.
Q. Prom your answers this morning you would not like to be responsible for other articles that are written nearer home?-A. No.
Q. On the same subject?-A. No.
After this repudiation by the Major of his two interviews in the 'Colonist.' I think about June 16, Major Hodgins repudiated or withdrew all charges he had made previously in his letter to the ' Colonist ' with which we had to deal during the investigation. The question of the classification of materials In district P where he was working, had been the subject of a great deal of correspondence and discussion between the engineers for the Grand Trunk Pacific and for the Transcontinental Railway. The engineers, the commission and the contractors also had obtained from eminent jurisconsults in different parts of the country opinions as to the proper interpretation to give to the specification on that very question which was the basis for Major Hodgins' charges. It was given in evidence that these opinions were all adverse to the contention held by the Major. In the face of this evidence the Major on June 16, withdrew these charges and imputations which he had made in his letter. His withdrawal is to be found at page 386 of the evidence. Major Hodgins was examined by Mr. Macdonald, a member of the committee :
2. You regard that as practically the only question left now?
That is the question of the interpretation of the specification for the classification.
Q. You regard that as practically the only question left now, the question of whether your view of the classification is correct?-A. That is all.
Q. That is all. I understand you to say, from the information that you have gathered since coming into this matter, Major, that you feel that you can not say that you have any imputations to make upon the commissioners in regard to any improper interference, with the engineers for instance?-A. With those legal and engineers' opinions there I do not see that I have.
Q. And you are, not in a position to offer any evidence to show that they exercised any improper interference with the engineers?-A. No.
Q. In regard to that matter in which the statement was made here that Sir Wilfrid Laurier refused investigation on account of the influence exercised on him by Mr. Parent;
I understand , you are not in a position to say, or to offer any evidence that would show that Mr. Parent attempted to influence Sir Wilfrid


Victor Geoffrion: in any way, or are you?-A. No, not unless Mr. Parent came up to say he did.
Q. You have no evidence of that?-A. I have none.
Q. And in regard to the question of engineering you apparently as an engineer, with your experience, took a certain view as to how the wording of these specfications should be interpreted?-A. Yes.
Q. Now you find that since you put in the statement here, Mr. Lumsden, on January ID laid down certain instructions for the engineers to follow, which may; be said to be an interpretation from his standpoint of whaf the specifications mean?

A. Yes.
Q. You were not aware of this being in existence at the time you wrote to the ' Colonist' on April 15, were you?-A. No.
Q. J suppose in regard to these opinions of counsel on the meaning of the specifications you had no intimation of them at the time you wrote the letter?-A. Another man's opinion is just as good as mine, as a matter of fact every engineer's opinion is valuable to himself.
Q. And it is a question upon which men may differ quite honestly?-A. Certainly.
* Q. You do not impute to these gentlemen any improper motives in their ideas?-A. Not after reading Mr. Lumsden's letter.
Q. You made use of the expression the other day that you did not regard this committee as the proper tribunal to determine the question at issue?-A. With all due deference to the committee, I do not; it is an engineering dispute and as far as I am concerned I quite believe that the arbitrators who are appointed for the purpose should deal with this question of classification and I think that the board of arbitrators is the only right and proper tribunal to determine it.
Q. And any evidence you have to offer in regard to this matter, to this question at all, whatever is left of it now, is evidence that you would prefer to give to this tribunal of arbitrators that has been appointed under the statute?-A. Exactly.
Q. They are people in whom you have confidence that they can settle this question in the interest of this country fairly?-A. Absolutely.
Q. And you are prepared to accept their judgment on this question of classification as absolutely fair from your standpoint and in the interest of the country?-A. Certainly; I would not put imyself in the way at all; they have to look after the interest of the country.
Q. And you regard this board of arbitration as being the proper tribunal to determine whatever there is in issue in this matter ?- A. They are the proper tribunal.
Q. Personally, Major, it does not seem to me -or have you any desire to go on before this committee through your counsel offering evidence and taking up the time of this committee, or wouln't you prefer to give it all before the aribtrators?
Mr. Lennox.-Would it not be better to hear counsel?
By Mr. Macdonald;
Q. What do you say to that, Major?-A. What is that again?
Q. Have you any desire to go on giving evidence here in view of what you have said now, or do you not think that the proper tribunal

to determine this question is the board of arbitrators composed of Mr. Woods, Mr. Lums-den and a third arbitrator?-A. I do not think it is for me to answer that. I think it is for the committee to decide that.
I shall pass over some of the evidence which is very long as I want to give only answers bearing on the withdrawal of the charges. The examination continued :
By Mr. Macdonald:
Q. I understand you to say you do not desire to press before this committee any charge of wrong-doing on the part of the commission as far as their interference with the engineers is concerned, is that a fair statement?-A. That is right.
Q. And as far as that phase of the inquiry is concerned, you do not offer any evidence for our consideration?-A. It is simply this, that I do not see why I should stand the expense of finding out whether the specification is right or wrong.
Q. Or whether the academic question between engineers should be settled at your expense, that is the position you take?-A. Yes.
This was a withdrawal by the Major of all imputations and charges made in his letter. The question came up afterwards in the committee whether it was proper to continue the investigation. A long argument followed between members of the committee and the majority of the committee thought that it was no use continuing the investigation after the withdrawal of the letter. I submit that the proper guide for us in this investigation was the order of reference which reads as follows :
Order of reference.
House of Commons,
Tuesday, April 28, 1908.
Resolved, that the memorandum of the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd April, and laid on the table of this House on the 24th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the publio press therein referred to, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be composed of Messrs. Carvell, Macdonald (Pictou), Geofirion, Barker, and Lennox; and that they have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.
Attest.
(Sgd.) THOS. B. FLINT, Clerk of the House.
What was referred to that committee for investigation ? I submit it was properly the charges of Major Hodgins. It could not be the memorandum by the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister denying the charges he had to investigate, it must have been the letter, and the charges in the letter in respect to the question of classification having been withdrawn, we thought that the proper
tribunal to continue the investigation was not the committee but the Board of Arbitration which had been created by statute pursuant to agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the commissioners for the Transcontinental Railway. It is for that arbitration board to decide all questions according to the agreement. The agreement says that all difficulties and especially difficulties which appertain to the classification of materials which is probably the most important part to be decided by this tribunal are to be decided by a, tribunal composed of Mr. Woods, chief engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific and Mr. Lumsden, chief engineer for the National Transcontinental Railway. If these two chief engineers cannot agree on the disputed question, they are to choose a third arbitrator and this tribunal is to adjudicate on the question. All these questions of classification are to come up before these gentlemen. They had agreed after having discussed the question a long time to adopt a certain standard of classification which has been adopted in the work and is being used now. I admit that some complaints as to over classification or under classification have been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the fact that one of the parties to that agreement claims that there has been over classification or under classification does not prove this to be the case until that tribunal has adjudicated on it. That clause providing for arbitration in a contract is not an unusual one. We find very often such a clause in contracts where works of special importance have to be performed, and the fact that it is claimed by one of the parties to the contract that the work has not been properly classified, as I said, does not establish that fact until after the board of arbitration has adjudicated upon it. The very important question of classification was not one to be discussed before the committee. A board has been properly appointed by statute for this very purpose, and all those questions, as Major Hodgins said himself, ought to be brought before that board to be adjudicated upon. After having discussed the matter we came to the conclusion that there was nothing left to be inquired into by your committee. Supposing that Major Hodgins, before the appointment of that committee, after the publication of his letter had withdrawn his letter, no one would pretend that this House would have appointed a committee to investigate. Suppose also he had withdrawn all charges and put in another letter charging that there had been over classification by some engineers, would a single member pretend that a committee should have been appointed to inquire and decide whether that question of classification, which by agreement is to be entrusted to the arbitrators, ought to be discussed any f urthen ? I think iSir, that the .course adopted by the committee was logical, fair

and just, and I move, seconded by Mr. Car-veil, that the report which I laid on the table of the House a few days ago be now concurred in.
Mr. HAUGHTON LEiNNOX (South Sim-coe). Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in appointing a small committee the House expected us to occupy a somewhat judicial position and to endeavour, regardless of what our preconceived opinions politically might be, to arrive at a conclusion which would be in the interest of the country. I am sorry that I cannot concur in the motion of the chairman of our committee for the adoption of the report to which reference has just been made. The order of reference to that committee was made on April 28th last. The hon. gentleman who has just moved the adoption of the report has stated that certain matters were known to the House, certain matters were of public notoriety at the time the order of reference was made. That* is true. At the time the order of reference was made it was known to the House and to the country that Major Ilodgius had made certain charges which reflected very seriously upon the conduct of public business by the Transcontinental Railway Commission and, not only that, but (that his statements had been followed up by comments and editorials in the newspaper's which carried the matter even further than Major Hod-gins' statements went. There was abundant reason why the investigation should take place. It was the motion of the government and not of the opposition. It was a position taken by the government which the government thought was justified by the circumstances. But whilst the charges of Major Hodgins and the editorial and other comments in the press were known to the country, it was not known to the country or the House, but known to the government and the government alone, that statements had been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers which were far more damaging and far-reaching than any charge made by Major Hodgins or the public press. The Grand Trunk Pacific in fact was up in arms against the classification which prevailed, not upon any special section of the eastern division, but from one end of the line to the other. The charge was made by that company-as the government knew, but as the country did not know at that time- that this was not the result of ignorance on the part of the government, but was due to malice aforethought. At the time the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made the motion it was not known, but it became known in the committee afterwards, that there were attached to the memo, of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Commission the letters which constitute Exhibit No. 38, as filed before the committee, and which contained the dam-Mr. GEOFFRION.
aging statement I am about to refer to. It is alleged and reiterated by Mr. Parent that attached to the memo, laid on the table, and upon which the right hon. gentleman moved, were not only clippings from newspapers, but the bundle of papers which form Exhibit No. 38 filed in the committee as well, and which contained the charges I am about to refer to. In other words, the right hon. gentleman, for reasons unexplained, saw fit to detach from that memo, a portion of the documents which had been transmitted to him with it. I do not wish to read any more of this correspondence than is absolutely essential, but I believe it is essential that this House should know exactly the class of material and how it was classified, in order to be in a position to decide whether the motion I am about to make, namely, that the matter be referred back to the committee for further investigation, should be adopted, or whether the inquiry should be burked at this stage. Before reading the letter of Mr. Wood, Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, I wish to make an explanation in order to elucidate certain statements in it. In the specifications in the various contracts on the eastern division we have it defined that earth excavations have a slope of one and a-half foot to a foot; that loose rock excavations have a slope of one foot to a foot, and that solid rock excavations have a slope of only one-quarter of a foot to a foot. Therefore, when we fin 1 in these letters reference to the fact that a slope is one and a-half to one, that means that the engineer is calling attention to the fact that whereas the slope is a slope of common earth the percentage returned for the work is a large percentage of solid and loose rock.
Having said that, I want to read the first letter of Mr. H. A. Wood to the chief
engineer :
Montreal, October 7, 1907.
H.	D. Lumsden,
Chief Engineer,	_
Eastern division of the National Transcontinental.
Dear Sir,-At the request of District Engineer Armstrong, he was furnished recently with a statement of classification for the heavier work on the above section, which were, /when given in detail, so different from his expectations that he requested the writer to visit the work.
During the past week we passed over por- . tions of the work from the Batisoan river west for fifteen or twenty miles, and later from mile 115 to 132.
With reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances of from three to five miles, and as we did not have total quantities of graduation, could not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although percentages for entire distance seemed excessively heavy in both loose and solid rock.
With the latter portion we had detailed percentage for each cut, and were greatly sur-

prised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case where the cuttings were not entirely all ledge the estimate given for solid rock is double, or more than double, what it should be.
In fact, the specifications had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not jjy reason of an error in judgment, but, as I understand, by special instructions from the assistant district engineer.
Let me give you some illustrations:
Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5826, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 per cent loose rock, slopes taken out li to 1. Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders, but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Station 5842 to 5860.-Classified 94 per cent solid rock, 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1. Solid rock over-classified at least 100 per cent.
Station 5866 to 5875.-Estimated 80 per cent solid rock, 20 per cent loose rock. No rock in place in this cut. Many large boulders, but a large amount of earth.
Station 5882 to 5901.-Estimated 78 per cent solid, rock, 22 per cent loose rock. A large amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers, and ploughing being done with two horses. There are hundreds of yards of earth here without a stone, large or small.
And yet there is not a foot of common excavation in that. They plough with two horses, and where It can be ploughed even with six horses it is common excavation. But it is all classified as solid rock and loose rock.
Station 6030 to 6046.-Estimated 40 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August 31 in this cut, at least 80,000 yards was pure sand.
Station 6071 to 6078.-Estimated 99 per cent solid rock, 1 per cent loose rock. Very little solid rock in place. Slopes taken out li to 1.
So that the solid rock might crumble down.
West of St. Maurice river.
Station 6391 to 6394.-Estimated 46 per cent solid rock, 33 per cent loose rock. Sand cut with few boulders, and possibly 1,500 yards ledge in bottom of cut not yet taken out.
S&ation 6493 to 6504.-Estimated 20 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock. No evidence of ledge and very few large boulders; nearly all sand.
Station 6506 to 6512.-Estimated 16 per cent solid rock, 44 per cent loose rock. This is purely a sand cut, with very few boulders. Upper slope nearly 100 feet high, material wasted into river. Certainly not 10 per cent of this should he classified.
I may say that it is only ' classified ' when it is solid rock or loose rock. Ordinary excavation is not ' classified.'


Mr. HAGGART.: Do the specifications declare what is loose rock ?


Mr. LENNOX.: Yes, they state the nature of each class of material.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: May I ask is that an estimate of the quantities taken out, or an estimate of what they were before the work was begun 1


Haughton Lennox: This has reference to the returns actually made by the engineers upon the work to the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is pointing out how ruinous and absolutely unjustifiable this classification Is. And I am reading for the purpose of showing what these men propose the country shall pay for.
Station 6522 to 6548.-Estimated 26 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock.^ This is borrowed material from the side. Very little solid rock shown, except what was used for blind drains, but some large boulders not placed in embankment.
On account of heavy rains we were not able to go west of station "6600, but we understand that classification is made about as noted above.
In every case where cuttings were not entirely in ledge we find the material over classified very largely. Mr. Armstrong has been over this work at different times, perhaps quite as often as the assistant district engineer. His estimate and my own are not very different as to the amount of classified material, and until he received detailed quantities he had no intimation that such heavey classification had been given. In many cases, particularly in sand and gravel cuts, he had supposed that no classification would he given, except perhaps for a few boulders as loose rock.
I am informed also that on the work east of the St. Lawrence river heavy classification is being made in borrowed material where ploughing is done with one team and material moved in slip scrapers.
As before stated, these over-classifications are made through error in judgment, not upon the decision of the resident or division engineers, who -are fully acquainted with the character of the work, hut by arbitrary orders from their superior. To such classification as mentioned above, increasing the cost of the work to such alarming extent, we most seriously protest, and respectfully request that either yourself or the assistant chief engineer visit the work and pass judgment upon the classification as made. Please note that the percentages given above indicate the work done to August 31. We are not advised what the September estimate will show.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) H. A. WOODS,
Assistant chief engineer.
Now that letter, 1 thought it well to read in full, because every word of it is important. But I can economize time in relation to the others. Mr. Lumsden took action. He wrote a letter on October 18 which will be found in the printed evidence at page 395.	1 need not read the letter but merely
refer to it for the purpose of showing that at that time it appeared to Mr. Lumsden, from statements made by District Engineer



Doucet, that Mr. Doucet at that time admitted and recognized that his assistant engineers were over-classifying. It is important to bear in mind that, at that time, Mr. Doucet, to some extent, stood by the country and against the contractors. But Mr. Doucet does not maintain that position afterwards. I need only read from this letter what Mr. Lumsden says to the commissioners. He says : It would appear to me some material may be classified as rock which should be classified otherwise.' He had learned that upon a verbal statement of Mr. Doucet on the 12th instant. More anxiety seems to have been felt about points of etiquette than about the interests of the country. Mr. Ryan, secretary of the Transcontinental Commission says :
Although the procedure

Referring to the letter of Mr. H. A. W. Woods complaining of these matters :
-was distinctly irregular, the commission have taken full cognizance of Mr. Woods' complaint and have given directions that the matter he fully investigated.
This committee, although they do not approve of the manners exhibited by Mr. Wood, have been gracious enough to say that they will take the matter into their full consideration and have it Investigated.
I regret to say that that promise has not been carried out. Mr. Doucet thinks this was not as politely done as it ought to be, and he says in his letter to Mr. Lumsden on October 21:
I may state that such accusations are not only uncalled for, hut most unprofessional, as we in Canada understand professional etiquette.
I am more concerned about this investigation and about some gentlemen stepping out than I am concerned about the order of their going. Now, I refer on page 399 of this evidence to the letter of Mr. Doucet to the chief engineer of the Railway Commission. That I need not read in full, but I want to call attention to one or two sentences. A moment ago I mentioned the fact that Mr. Doucet did not propose to stand in harmony with his subordinates as to the higher classification, but in some way he gets over there, and like the chief engineer he chooses his attitude as time advances, and as soon as the 26th of October we find that Mr. Doucet is prepared to state to the chief engineer that they stand shoulder to shoulder as one man for the Quebec classification. The effect of that upon the chief engineer, upon the fortunes of Canada and upon the amount that Canada will have to pay for this work will be evident to every member of this House before we conclude. Now, he says to Mr. Lumsden :
Dear Sir,-I have already had occasion to state to you verbally that the interpretation


Haughton Lennox: the engineers in district ' B ' have placed on the classification of solid and loose rock, and in accordance with which the progress estimates have been returned since the inception of the work.
I want hon. gentleman to take note of that, that the engineer here announces that from the very beginning of the work the classification which he has contended for as made by these subordinate engineers, and which at first was resisted by Mr. Doucet, and definitely resisted by the chief engineer, that classification has prevailed from the very inception of the work, and prevails to the present time.
Mr, E. M. MACDONALD.	tVou 1 d my
hon. friend be good enough to indicate where he finds this theory of his that Mr. Doucet in his conversation with Mr. Lumsden, as referred to in Mr. Lumsden's letter, took any different position from that which he took in his letter of October 26 ?


Haughton Lennox: I have given the evidence and the references. I had some little experience of my hon. friend in the committee, where I had not as much support as I hope to have here, and I will endeavour to make this clear. My hon. friend can point out a distinction if he sees any between the letters to which I have referred. I have read a portion of this letter, and I have referred to the position which Mr. Doucet is said to have taken, as reported in the letter of 18th of October, and now I wish to add a sentence :
I have never had occasion to force my views on my assistants, all, to a man, have taken the same interpretation of the classification as I have.
So, as I intimated a moment ago, between the 12th and the 26th, for reasons which I cannot explain, Mr. Doucet seems to have advanced along the line on which the contractors were travelling. On the 24th of October there was an examination into this matter. Mr. Lumsden went down and in the letter of the 30th October, page 403, lie points out what was done ; he tells who was there. There were a number of contractors, among others. He points out what they did ; he refers to an interview with them after they had examined the work, and he points out that after this interview he requested Mr. Doucet, the district engineer, to procure statements as to the. interpretation of the specifications from the various engineers under charge of Mr. Doucet and to send these and his own interpretation of the specifications to Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer. This is a significant letter, the letter of the 30th of October ; it shows the position in which Mr. Lumsden stood on the 30th of October when he communicated with the Railway Commission, and it shows this fact, that at that time, notwithstanding hds subsequent attitude, he stood in comdemnation of Que-

bee classification. After referring to these various matters, and having had these letters from the various engineers on the Quebec section, including the statement of Mr. Doucet, he says :
I can only say that I do not concur with the interpretation placed on clauses 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications, by Mr. Doucet or the engineers under him. In my opinion solid rock excavation, clause 34, covers all material that should be classified as solid rock, etc.
He goes on to define for the purpose of pointing out that he does and will not agree with the classification prevailing in Quebec. What are you to say to the members of the committee? 'What are the members of this House to say to the members of the committee as to staying their hand now when we find that subsequently the chief engineer of this work, for reasons not appearing, now says that that bind of classification is to prevail, and that kind of classification is prevailing from one end of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway to the other at the present time? After pointing out what he regards as proper classification, he says :
Such being my views and as stated to you in my letter of the 18th instant, I must decide to certify to any future estimates, except upon classification in accordance with my interpretation of the specifications above mentioned, unless both parties to the contract agree to amend the contract formally, with due concurrence of t>he government, o,r until the estimates are corrected and conform with my interpretation. In any event, I ask that this correspondence be at once submitted to the government.	[DOT]
So the matter stands on the 30th October. The chief engineer, the gentleman by whose decision we are bound, the gentleman whose word is final, as has been said by a majority of this committee, the gentleman who is the sole arbitrator on the question of classification, stands firm with his back to the wall deifying all the subordinate engineers of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway. Yet strange to say, he changes his opinion later on. How does he do it? Well, he does it at the instance of an honourable class of men, but not the best class of men to invoke in a case of this kind. He has the engineers on the one hand, he holds them down ; he seems for the time being to be the strong man. Then a greater influence comes in, and lawyer after lawyer is introduced to argue this question-in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific xvho are complaining? Not at all. In the interest of the people whose money is being paid out? Not at all. But the ex-parte argument of the contractors who are clamouring for more is introduced to shape and guide the judgment of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


Mr. FOSTER.: Before whom did the lawyers argue?


Haughton Lennox: They are asked for opinions for which they are paid $500 each. That is all right.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Paid by whom ?


Haughton Lennox: By the contractors, I presume, but I am not going to swear to that


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who asked for that opinion?


Haughton Lennox: I presume the contractors asked for that opinion and the opinions rendered should have bean to the contractors and should have been reserved toy the contractors, but when these opinions were used as an argument ex parte, 'behind the backs of the people-and the Grand Trunk Pacific who were, incidentally, protecting the people -to shape and warp the judgment of the chief engineer, who was to have been independent judge in this matter, a great wrong was done to the people of Canada. Here we have Mr. Lafleur-all right; Charles H. Ritchie-all right; Mr. Lacoste-all right ; all good lawyers, all prominent men-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not Mr. Lacoste; Sir Alexander Lacoste.


Haughton Lennox: It is A. Lacoste here. I did not know that he had a title-Sir Alexander Lacoste, K.O. He is no better lawyer on that account. You see etiquette in it all the way through. I do not think the people are so much concerned in that matter as in the question whether or not they are, through fraud or otherwise, paying too much for the construction of this railway. Mr. Donald McMaster, Mr. George F. Shep-Igy-\yhave heard of him before and Messrs. Aylesworth & Company, inclosing the opinion of Mr. Wallace Nesbitt. What happens? We had the opinion of the chief engineer on the 18th October, a pretty strong opinion; we had the deliberate, considered opinion of the chief engineer, on the 30th October, sure, firm and defiant; we had a subsequent reiteration of that opinion slightly emphasized on the 16th December, which is found at page 426, and we have bis opinion on the 9th January.


John Graham Haggart: Did the Department of Justice give an opinion?


Haughton Lennox: That is what I am coming to. Before referring to that I may say that the matter was referred to the Justice Department and that Mr. Newcombe was asked for an opinion but Mr. Newcombe did not give one. I want that to be clearly borne in mind. It is alleged that Mr. New-combe gave an opinion, but Mr. Newcombe ' appears to have recognized this fact-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about bis letter on page 429?


Haughton Lennox: Page 429 is what I have here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is it if it is not an opinion?


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend can read it to the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You had better read it to show that it is an opinion and in that way contradict yourself.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Newcombe writes a letter which I say is not an opinion except in this that he tells the engineer : You are the party appointed to decide, you should decide and you should decide without outside interference. We know the position, and my hon. friend knows it as well as any one, of an architect or engineer who is made the sole referee with regard to a question of this kind ; he is not to yield to outside influence. He has to decide by reason of his professional knowledge and no outside or extraneous influences are to guide his judgment. X am glad that I have the concurrence of my hon. friend. On the 6th January, Mr. Newcombe writes and in the first paragraph of his letter he puts the matter alternatively. His letter will be found at page 429. He says if so-and-so is the case then so-and-so results.
Mr. CARVELTj. Read what so-and-so is.


Haughton Lennox: I will allow my hon. friend to read it if he sees fit.
Mr. CARVEIMj. Well, I will.


Haughton Lennox: All right, I will read a portion of it just to satisfy my hon. friend. I do not want to be too long over this.


Mr. OARVELL.: Just take the middle portion.


Haughton Lennox: This is what I will take :
I do not understand upon what principle the chief engineer limits the size to pieces extending one cubic foot.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Commence a little earlier in the letter.


Haughton Lennox: The specification speaks of rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard which in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting. If ' rock assembled ' may be regarded as a mass of rock, and if it may be best removed by blasting, I do not see why under the specification it is material whether the individual pieces exceed or are less than one cubic foot in size-
Putting it alternatively.
if 'rock assembled' is not regarded as a mass the minimum limit of size which can be classified as solid rock exceeds one cubic yard.


Haughton Lennox: That is by the specification. So that he says you have in the specification the means of determining and I determine nothing. Then he says :
It seems to me, however, that these questions are largely engineering questions, the solution of which depends principally upon the judgment of the engineer having regard to the terms used in the specifications.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I am glad that the hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear,' because I want to emphasize that point.
I must call your attention to clause 15 of the contract, which provides that the engineer (this term to be construed as defined to clause 2 of the contract) shall be the sole judge of work and material, and that his decision on all questions in dispute with regard to work and material shall be final, thus expressly stipulating that such questions as these shall be submitted to the decision of the chiaf engineer.
I say ' hear, hear.'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: From the inclosed list you will note that -Mr. Mann makes objections not only to clas-*sification in cuttings, but also to borrowed material. On mile -25, stations 1267 to 1280, there appears in this estimate a considerable amount of loose rock for the first time. Of the'25,000 cubic yards returned, 41 per cent is classified. Both Mr. Mann and Mr. Heaman claim that no classification should be given in this material.
And as I have already said no classification means common earth excavation:
We find that this question of over-classification must be settled in the near future. Many of the sub-contractors will soon be completing their work and undoubtedly will receive final payment for same, and if they are paid upon estimates as returned at present, general contractors will naturally object to any change in their estimates.
Pointing out, as we have endeavoured to point out in the committee that great danger exists of these people being paid and absolute loss resulting to the country, whereas the majority of the committee seems to pretend that no loss could result to the country :
While I have no list like the inclosed from district ' B,' reports from my assistant indicate there that east of the river objections lie to the .classification generally as returned. A very large amount of borrowed material through farming country has been returned as loose rock. Of the entire work done to date on this section 77 -6 per cent is classified material, nearly evenly divided between loose and solid rock.
That brings us down to the 21st of April, and on the 28th of April we have a deadlock between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the commissioners. And the very day on which this matter was referred to the committee (April 28) Mr. Woods writes to the chief engineer and says that no arbitration can go on by reason of the position that has been maintained by the chief engineer. He writes:
Montreal, Quebec, April 28, 1908. Mr. Hugh Lumsden,
Chief Engineer, eastern division,
National Transcontinental Railway, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sirs,-This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 24, in regard to classifications given on districts ' B ' and ' F,' wherein you say you could confer with me, either in Ottawa or Montreal,_ so as to arrange dates for. arbitrating the points in dispute and for the appointment of a third arbitrator. &c.
In reply thereto will say that the action'you propose cannot be taken until after you have complied with my request of October 7, which, as you will recall, has been several times repeated, that you and I personally make an inspection of those portions of the work on districts ' B ' and ' F ' where it is claimed improper classification has been made.


Mr LENNOX.: Kindly let me know when it will be convenient for you to make this inspection, and I will place myself at your disposal.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) H. A. WOODS,
Assistant Chief Engineer.
So that you will see that at the time when the right hon. gentleman referred this matter to the committee it had got to the position, although months and months had elapsed, that nothing had been done. Although the Grand Trunk Pacific assistant engineer had been insisting on something being done nothing had been done, and in the meantime the moneys were being paid out by the Transcontinental Commission to the contractors. I have referred to these matters as matters which were not known at the time that this committee was appointed but certain matter were known and certain matters were expressly dealt with. Major Hodgins had made his statement; the press had made wider statements-but bear in mind not so wide and not so damaging and not so damning as the statement made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway .Company through their engineers. I will not take time to read the comments and statements of the press, but I want to say that the press, and particularly the Ottawa ' Citizen ' took upon itself the responsibility to make certain specific charges, and charges which went beyond Major Hod-gins. Major Hodgins made charges which he was prepared to assume were errors which were made not by fraud or as the result of dishonesty; the Ottawa 'Citizen ' puts it on the basis of boodling and dishonesty.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


Haughton Lennox: I will. It says:
Troubles are coming fast and thick upon the Laurier administration.
You don't want a commission to find that out; every one knows that.


Mr. TALBOT.: That is just your opinion.
Mr. LE'NNOX. The country will care little about the hon. gentleman's opinion.
I continue to read:
The latest are the public charges made by Major Hodgins, late district engineer for 400 miles of the government end of the National Transcontinental Railway.
I want to point out, and I hope hon. gentlemen will note it that these are pretty strong charges, but the majority of the committee say they should not be investigated:
The essence of his statement is that millions of dollars are being boodled in connection with the construction of this government work.

Names and figures are given and the allegation is made that he was forced out of hrs position because he refused to be the tool of the boodlers.
There has been no explanation of why he was forced out; nothing has come to light.
His professional record and admitted ability give due weight to the assertions which he boldly makes. The charges cover not only his former division but apply to the construction of the whole line through Quebec. At the time of his dismissal, Major Hodgins says that he applied to Sir Wilfrid Laurier for an investigation into the scandalous condition which he alleges to prevail and that the investigation was refused. In the face of such charges made by a responsible professional man, who is apparently prepared to furnish the evidence to substantiate them, it will be very difficult for the government to inconsistently refuse to have the matter thoroughly probed.
If that is true and I think it is reasonable, to assume it is ; if then difficult for the government to refuse investigation, it ought to be more difficult for the right hon. gentleman who moved for the appointment of this commission to now say that this committee shall stay its hand in the face of the damaging disclosures that have so far cropped up during the investigation of the committee. But it may be possible- history does repeat itself most disastrously and disgracefully in some instances of this kind. We may have a repetition of what occurred in the case of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which, when it began to do things found it was not required any longer. I do not know whether this committee will be further required or not. The ' Colonist ' newspaper also makes statements. Mark you the 1 Colonist ' publishes Major Hodgins' letter. But the 'Colonist' makes statements of its own and it made them on the basis that Major Hodgins gave them the information. Major Hodgins says he will not stand for all these charges, and when he got into the hands of my hon. friend opposite he did not seem to stand at all so far as I could see. But the ' Colonist ' says that Major -Hodgins made the statements. The 'Free Press' also made very important and very serious charges, but I shall not trouble the House with reading these. However, I want to refer to a letter of Mr. Parent in which he sends forward the various letters, or almost all the letters, I have referred to this morning and the clippings from the press and his own request for an investigation. I need not read all this letter of Mr. Parent, dated the 2drd of April, he speaks of the insinuations and statements, and he speaks of the various items in the press and various other matters and he winds up in this way :
You will find attached newspaper clippings in reference to Major Hodgins' letter, and all correspondence relating to the circumstances
of his dismissal; also a letter from our chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, on the same subjeot.
In conclusion, the commissioners would respectfully request, as they do not wish to remain under the aspersion which such reports cast on them, that the whole matter be referred to and looked into by a committee ot the House and that Major Hodgins be assigned to appear before the same to repeat his charges in a specific manner in order to substantiate them if he can.
His request is touching the letters and touching the clippings from the newspapers, and he asks that the whole matter shall be referred to the committee to investigate. I am prepared to say that if the right hon. the Prime Minister did not adopt that letter that letter Is not binding, but I am prepared to argue that he did adopt it in whole and that he referred to us to investigate the whole of the matters which appeared not only in Major Hodgins' letter but in the several editorials and comments of the press. I shall read, in order that we may be clear upon this matter, the order of reference:
House of Commons,
Tuesday, April 28, 1908.
Oil motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was resolved, that the memorandum of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd April, and laid on the table ot this House on the 21th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public press, therein referred to, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be composed of -.-Messrs. Carvell, Macdonald (Pictou), Geoffrion, Barker and Lennox, and that they have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.
Does that make any distinction between the charges in the newspapers and those made by Major Hodgins ? Does that refer to the committee merely what Major Hodgins mentioned or does it refer to the committee the matters and charges specified in the several documents attached to the memo.? I understand that what was referred to the committee is this: The memorandum of the chairman of the Railway Commission, the papers attached to it and the letter of Major Hodgins. What then was the purpose of the reference ? It was to investigate-what ? Was it to investigate the question whether there was or was not an arbitration pending to determine the meaning of the contract between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific ? No, but to investigate the matters and charges mentioned in those several documents attached to the memo, of the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission and the letter of Major Hodgins, and the purpose was to

find out whether the people are paying too much money or not for that railway.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Was the letter of Major Hodgins made more significant or important than the statements in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' or the ' Colonist ' or the ' Free Press ? ' I submit it was not. As a matter of history, when the right hon. gentleman first moved there was no letter of Major Hodgins' on hand. The order of reference was at first in this form : ' That the memo, of the chairman of the Railway Commission, with the papers accompanying the same, be referred to a special committee.' And it was only when the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) said he thought it was not broad enough, and when the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and myself asked to have the letter of Major Hodgins specifically incorporated, that that letter was specifically enumerated. So that it is absolutely idle for the majority on the special committee to claim that we are to be controlled by the attitude or position taken by Major Hodgins. I care nothing for the position Major Hodgins takes. There are larger interests involved. There are the interests of the country at stake. What the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) pretended when he made this reference was that we should have a full inquiry as to whether this railway was costing the people an extravagant sum or not. How did the committee understood the reference ? They understood that every charge in the ' Citizen,' the ' Free Press ' and the ' Colonist ' should be investigated. They understood that Major Hodgins had absolutely no voice, pro or con, as to the scope or direction of the inquiry. And they understood that, with or without Major Hodgins, we were to find out whether the people's money was being wasted or stolen or not ; and that such was the unanimous understanding of the committee at the opening of the investigation is shown by the Record.
But what did the majority of the committee do ? They induced Major Hodgins to retire on the understanding that there was constituted at that time and then at work a special board of arbitration to investigate this matter, consisting of trained experts for whom Major Hodgins, as an engineer, had the greatest respect. I wish to say here and now that that was an absolute mis-representation. I do not say that it was intentionally a mis-representation, because I have too much respect for the other gentlemen on the committee to suggest anything of the kind ; but as a matter of fact, it was an absolute mis-representation of the true circumstances. Up to this day there lias been no arbitration board in existence investigating that matter under the terms of the contract we have with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Haughton Lennox: I have said that although the scope of the inquiry was as wide as I have indicated, the majority of the committee led Major Hodgins to believe that the matter was then pending before an arbitration of experts, for whom he had the greatest respect, and by this means induced him to retire from the field of inquiry before the committee. But after Mr. Hodgins had been induced in that adroit way, by the questions so adroitly put to him, to take that position, the majority of.the committee absolutely refused to go a step further. When we entered upon our labours, we did not so understand our duty. We understood that no attitude which Major Hodgins might- take could influence the committee, that it was immaterial what attitude he took. I shall read a few sentences for the purpose of proving that statement and to show that the majority of the committee went absolutely against the order of the House when they took the position that the committee should be guided by Major Hodgins and by him alone. At page 55 you will find the following :
Mr. Hodgins.-I think I read one of the cuttings some days ago.
. Mr. Carvel.-I presume you would admit, in case the formal charges which you may make here as representing Major Hodgins did not include everything in the reference to this committee that the committee would still have the right to go on and inquire into the foundation of the charges in the newspapers and in the reference?
Mr. Hodgins.

I did not quite catch your question.
Mr. Carvell.-In case the formal charges you will prefer do not include everything mentioned, you will admit the committee have the power to go further and investigate everything that is in the reference ?
Mr. Hodgins intimated that he did not know that his view of the matter would affect the question. And so it was dropped for the time. At page 56:
Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).-It being understood I think Mr. Parent has so understood and I understand Mr. Hodgins, K.C., to say so-that the memorandum he proposes to submit to us does not relate to anything outside of what has been already referred to the committee, in the papers, hut is only a summarization of the allegations contained in the newspapers.
Mr. Carvell.-And does not necessarily curtail our rights.
Then, on the same page:
Mr. Carvell.-I think it is in the minds of every member of the committee that we will not allow Mr; Hodgins to enlarge the charges as contained in the newspaper reports.
Mr. Barker.-Nor reduce them.
Mr. Carvell.-If he proposes to reduce them, theu so far as I am concerned, speaking for my own part, I would say we ought to stand by the reference to the committee and after Major Hodgins makes his charges then we will know what further course to pursue.

Then, further on :
Mr. Lennox.-The charges made by Major Hodgins will be to some extent, perhaps, of assistance to us; hut we have to travel exactly upon the lines of what has been referred to us, neither enlarging nor circumscribing them. The fact does not relieve us from tire duty of pursuing the matter just as it has been referred to us nor from investigating all the questions referred. I think every member of the committee understands that.
Mr. Carvell.-Yes.
However, I think you will find practically the whole matter at page 59. The point I am endeavouring to make clear is that at that time we were unanimous in the opinion -and I think it was the only logical position to take-that even if Major Hodgins refused to do anything, if Major Hodgins had died-nothing but impossibility should prevent us from going on and doing the work submitted to us. So I will submit to the House a few sentences from page 59 and leave it there, whether 1 have established the matter or not.
Mr. Parent.-We have been accused in the newspapers-
The Chairman.-Yes, it has been spread all over the country.
Mr. Parent.-If the gentleman is allowed to limit his charges, I suppose the evidence will be confined to that ?
Mr. Carvell.-Oh, no.
Mr. Macdonald. (Pictou).-Do not worry about that.	.
The Chairman.-We will have the right to examine Major Hodgins on the rest of the charges he may drop, even if he does not prefer them.
Mr. Parent.-As far as we are concerned we would like to go through the whole of the charges contained in these newspapers.
Mr. Hodgins.-Let me say that I have not asked to drop any charges.
Mr. Lennox.-It may happen that when Major Hodgins prefers his charges, there may he omitted, matters which have been referred to us. Nevertheless although ho may not claim to be able to establish it, we can investigate the matter, as it has been referred to us.
The Chairman.-I understand the fear entertained by Mr. Parent to he this : these charges having been printed in the newspapers and circulated all over the Dominion it would not be fair that any of the charges or points dealt with in the newspaper articles should be dropped altogether.
Mr. Parker.-Oh, no.
The Chairman.-I understand it to be the feeling of the committee that they should not be dropped.
Mr. Lennox.-We will allow nothing to be dropped.
And that was the conclusion of the whole matter, that was the definite position we took before the investigation had begun.
Now, what was the result ? After we had sat for many days, and after wearisome
days had been spent in a cross-examination which I do not care to characterize beyond saying that it was an absolute waste of time, after it had been impressed upon Major Hodgins time and again that this so-called arbitration was proceeding, and after he had been tired out by the expense he was being put to by being kept there day after day undergoing a useless and senseless cross examination, it was then that the neat little scene which the chairman of the committee read this morning was enacted and the examination of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) took place, the matter was amicably settled, and we were told to go home and not investigate any further. I do not think that was right. I am not anxious to spend my time there: but I think we had a duty to perform. Everything that was known the day we ended our labours was known on April 28, when the Prime Minister moved the reference to the committee. On April 28 we had the same statute, the same contract, the same provisions as to reference to arbitration, and we had the subsequent contract which was referred to in the committee. That being so, I fail to see why, after we had elicited a certain amount of information, and after it had abundantly appeared that a vast amount of information material to the country's interest could be elicited, we should he told that we should not proceed.
Now, just one more point, as I wish to close before one o'clock. I wish now to refer to the statute, and the point I want to make clear is that it was a misrepresentation to say to Major Hodgins that we had a board of arbitrators investigating this matter. The otlier day the Minister of Railways answered a question that I asked by saying that, under section 7 of the agreement between the country and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway the reference was taking place. What I want to submit is, thait, as a matter of fact, that inquiry, which is progressing now, has absolutely nothing whatever to do with this question of the cost of construction of the railway or with the question of classification or over classification-that is not a matter that can be investigated under the terms of section 7. Section 7 is a provision that the chief engineer of the railway company and the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission shall determine two things, two things only, and they shall determine them as experts. First, the kind of specifications that shall be adopted in reference to the building of this road, in other words, defining what class of road shall be built. Paragraph 7 of the agreement provides that before any work is done these two chief engineers shall determine the kind of road and the kind of specifications that shall be adopted. They provide, in addition, that when these specifications have been adopted by joint action of these two ex-

perts, the question whether the road is being built according to the terms of these specifications, in other words, whether the contractors are living up to the contract, shall also be determined by these two men, and in case they differ, the question shall be referred to the party selected by them, or if they do not agree, the third one shall be appointed by the court. But there is not one word in that clause 7 which justifies the argument that these men can determine the question of classification, or the cost of construction. That matter is defined by paragraph 15 of the contract, where the meaning of cost of construction is defined, and by paragraph 47, which deals with the question of cost of construction. Paragraph 47 I will read, because it covers exactly a difficulty of the kind which has arisen between the Transcontinental Railway (Commission and the railway company:
Any dispute which may arise as to the meaning or construction of this agreement, or as to the performance of any of the obligations of either of the parties to this agreement, or as to working expense or cost of construction, should, if not herein otherwise provided for, be determined by the award of a single arbitrator, if the parties concur in his appointment, or if not, by the award of three arbitrators, one of whom shall be appointed by the government, one by the company, and a third by the two so appointed, or, in the case of their being unable to agree, by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the award of a majority of such three arbitrators shall be final.
I wish to point out that no action has been taken, and only by action under section 47 can the question in dispute between the railway company and the commission be determined. This is important, because in this case they are not necessarily experts, and it was in view of the pretense that there was a pending arbitration that Major Hod-gins was compelled-I might almost use the word compelled-to retire. Now I argue this, because I think it is important to the country, because I think that inevitably an enormous loss will result to the country by the action taken by the majority of this commission. It is idle to say that the determination of this body, if it did determine it, would protect us from loss. In the meantime money is being paid out, and must be paid out, and an arbitration between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railway Commission cannot decide the matter of the contract. The matter has to be decided by the chief engineer. Once the money is paid, if it is improperly paid, it is lost to the country. Therefore it is all important that this matter should be investigated now. I therefore move :
That the retport now used be not adopted, but that the following be accepted in lieu thereof:
The special committee to whom was referred the memorandum of the chairman of the Mr. LENNOX.
Transcontinental Railway Commission of date April 23, 1908, and laid on the Table of the House on April 24, 1908, and the papers accompanying the same, together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public press therein referred to, with instructions to your committee to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine persons on oath or affirmation and to report from time to time, beg leave to report as follows:
Your committee met for organization on April 29, 1908, when Mr. Geoffrion was appointed chairman; it was resolved that Major Hodgins be notified to appear before the committee on May 8, 1908, for the purpose of preferring his charges -and to bring with him all papers, correspondence -and memoranda in his possession relative to the matters mentioned in the order or reference; and that the Board of Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway be notified that the committee would -meet on the said 8th day of May for the purpose of beginning the investigation; -and that the said commissioners he requested to submit any papers or information which they desired to lay before -the committee for their consideration; and that the said commissioners be notified to produce for the information of the committee all papers and correspondence (if any) relevant to the subject of inquiry, which may be in their possession or under their control, and which have not already been laid before the House, also all maps, plans, profiles, progress and other estimates, specifications, memoranda or other information regarding the classification of materials in cuttings and fillings and any alterations made therein, and also regarding any charges made in the location of the line within districts ' B ' and ' F ' of the railway subsequent to the fin-al location thereof.
Your committee met on May 12, 1S08, and on that day there was submitted to them in writting a statement of such of the charges made by Major Hodgins as he proposed to substantiate, reproduced and made by him more specific at the request of the committee. On May 13, 1908, your committee resolved: That the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners be required to produce to this committee all papers and records in the custody o*- control of the said commissioners relating to or affecting the matters referred to this committee.
That the First Minister, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Finance and any other ministers of departments, including the Auditor General, having papers or records in their custody or control relating to, or affecting the matters referred to this committee be requested to produce the same before this committee.
Thereupon the taking of evidence was proceeded with, and was continued from time to time until June 18, 1908, -and papers, records and documents relating to and affecting the subject matters under investigation were produced and submitted to the consideration of the committee; which proceedings, evidence, papers, records and documents are set forth in the printed minutes and proceedings ,pf the committee up to and inclusive of the said 18th -day of June herewith reported and submitted.	|

Ajs shown by the papers and documents produced by the said commissioners to your committee and set forth in the printed minutes of the proceedings of your committee now reported, many charges of over-classification, of excessive allowances, and undue payments by the said commissioners to the contractors, of a like description to those charged by Major Hodgins, have formally been made by and on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which charges involve and are examples of enormous overpayments out of the publio funds, and are of serious concern to this Dominion. They cover and include not only the charges made by Major Hodgins, but other specific and more serious complaints of the like nature and description; and not merely for the period dealt with by Major Hodgins but are continuous up to the time of the order of reference to your committee.
Such complaints and charges are within| the scope of the order under which your committee have been conducting this inquiry and should be investigated by them.
On June 16, 1908, certain statements and opinions having been elicited from Major Hodgins as to the attitude, he then assumed and his wishes in the premises as appears of record in the said printed evidence a majority of your committee despite the protest of the minority ruled and thereafter maintained that the matters and charges referred to your committee for investigation should not be further proceeded with by your committee.
Your committee, therefore, humbly make this interim report and recommend that the subject matter of the investigation be remitted to the committee with instructions to proceed therein until completion.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that I find it necessary to take up any portion of the time of the House at this late stage of the session in discussing a question which, I may say, was dead and buried something like three or four weeks ago, but as our hon. friends on the other side have decided to discuss it we find it necessary, in order to place the case fairly before the country, to take up some of the time and I will proceed to do so as speedily as possible. This question arises entirely on account of a letter which Major Hodgins, at one time district engineer in the employ of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, wrote to the Victoria ' Colonist,' somewhere about the 16th April last, followed by two interviews, I think, on the 17th and 19th April. When this letter and these interviews were brought to the attention of the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission he immediately sent a note to the right hon. the Premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) accompanied by all the correspondence bearing upon Major Hodgins' dismissal and asked that a parliamentary committee be appointed in order to have the matter thoroughly investigated. That was done and even before. the full text of Major Hodgins' letter had had time to come from Victoria here, a meeting of the committee was held, we took evidence for two or three weeks, interspersed with a good many adjournments and finally we were able to bring down a majority report with which I am very sorry to say two members of the committee were unable to agree. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) discussed this matter for an hour and a half and in the main, as far as he discussed it, he was very unfair. There were one or two instances, which 1 might almost call glaring instances, of unfairness to which I will be compelled to refer and then I will proceed, as I feel it to be my duty to do, to discuss this matter to some extent upon different lines from those followed by my hon. friend, or rather on lines in regard to which my hon. friend conveniently forgot to discuss it. My hon. friend forgot to discuss the charges made by Major Hodgins, and I do not wonder, because I would think that if there is a man in Christendom whom the Conservative party in Canada to-day want to forget and to imagine never existed it is Major Hodgins. We know the glee with which they looked forward to the investigation of these charges and we can appreciate to some extent their disappointment at the outcome. However, rather than let him die-I mean figuratively

or let his charges die, they have decided to bring the matter up in the House and they have devoted their whole attention to the question of classification and have attempted to make out the charge that a grave fraud is being committed upon the country by means of the classification in the construction of this railway. I must insist and I think I am logical when I do insist, that Major Hodgins' statements are the foundation of the whole case, and that but for this letter and these interviews, we never would have heard of the matter. The press comments upon the letter are only carrying out the |ame ideas as those which are embodied in the letter itself. The letter, as I understand it, practically charged four things. It did not raise the question of classification in any distinct instance excepting in district 1F ' which I will take occasion to refer to a little later on. The first portion of the letter charged that there was trouble in connection with the work in district ' F ' and that Mr. Young, one of the commissioners, suggested to Major Hodgins that he should go down to Quebec, take an object lesson and see how matters are run there. The second statement is that Major Hodgins went to Quebec, went to a certain cutting called La Tuque, a cutting originally intended to be a tunnel, but a cutting which they afterwards changed to an open cut, and he there saw that they classified material as 86 per cent soiid rock which, in his judgment, should only have been classified as 40 per cent. He at once came to the conclusion that all

the work in the province of Quebec was being classified upon that basis, or that there was about twice as much solid rock as there ought to be. When I point out to the House that under the contract of Mr. McArthur he was paid $1.70 per cubic yard for the removal of solid rock, 60 cents per cubic yard for loose rock and 30 cents per cubic yard for common excavation, it is not necessary to be an engineer to see what a huge fraud would be perpetrated upon the country if the facts alleged by Major Hod-gins were true, and if the classification of material in Quebec was as Major Hodgins claimed it was. The third statement is that if he had gone back to his district and had classified the work according to the Quebec classification it would have amounted to a difference of about $4,000,000 on the 400 miles of district ' F' and If applied to the whole line it would have amounted to a difference of $2S,000,000 in the cost. The fourth statement in the letter is that because he would not adopt the Quebec classification his services were dispensed with, and that Mr. Poulin, a friend of Mr. Parent, was appointed in his stead. If any person will take this letter, and these interviews and will read them over carefully he will agree with me that these are the salient points, in fact, that they are the only points contained in the letter and the interviews. They are the only things therefore which any ordinary man ought to consider or take up as being the substance of the letter. They are the very things which the Ottawa ' Citizen,' picked out as being the substance and they are the things which any newspaper or individual would pick out.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: There was also the statement about Mr. Poulin being a Frenchman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, there was something said about Mr. Poulin being a Frenchman. I do not propose to discuss that. I do not see why a Frenchman should not be as good an engineer as an Englishman. We had before the committee two gentlemen of the French nationality, Mr. Doucet and Mr. Poulin, who, while I am not picking them out and placing them over other engineers, will, I think, compare favourably with any engineers in the Dominion of Canada. However, that is beside the subject. There is no doubt that there had been considerable difficulty in the management of the work in district ' F.' District 1 F ' covers a distance of 400 miles, extending from Winnipeg eastward, but at that particular time the most important part of that work extended 250 miles from Winnipeg eastward to the junction between the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Lake Superior branch, and we all know that it was the object of the government, of the commission, of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and of everybody and in the interest of everybody that this branch Mr. CARVELL.
should be pushed forward to completion as rapidly as possible in order that the crop of the west of 1910, might, if possible, be handled in some degree over this line ; in fact it was confidently hoped at the time this Bill became law that the crop of 1909 would be handled over this line. In the year 1907 the commissioners, without doubt, saw that the work was not progressing as rapidly as it ought to, and I think it is very likely

and if so it is to their credit-that they were looking around to see if there was not some way in which they could hurry up this work and get it completed more expeditiously than it would be according to the indications at that time.
I am not going into details further than to say that the trouble was entirely a matter between Major Hodgins and his subordinate engineers. Let us look at the facts. There has been no time in my day when labour was as high as in the summer of 1907, and it appears from the evidence that when the contractors made the agreement with the commission they expected to get labour for 15 cents an hour, or $1.50 for a day of 10 hours, whereas it actually cost them from 20 cents to 25 cents an hour. We also know that when labour is scare and wages high it is almost impossible to get as much value from men's labour in 10 hours as when the conditions are reversed. There was no doubt that there was great difficulty in getting labour and carrying on the work as rapidly as was hoped for, and there is no doubt that Mr. Young and other members of the commission took every honourable means in their power to hurry up the work, and no doubt they questioned Major Hodgins as to why greater progress was not being made. I defy any one to point a single instance in the pages of this evidence in which Mr. Young or any other member of the commission even intimated or suggested any improper conduct on Major Hodgins' part. I have gone carefully over the evidence of Major Hodgins on this subject (pages 105, 106, 107), and I submit you cannot find even an insinuation by Mr. Young or any member of the commission against Major Hodgins. I have nothing to say against Major Hodgins ; he is a man for whom, in some ways, I have quite an admiration. I believe he is an honourable man, but unfortunately he did not seem to know how to get along with the engineers under him, and I do not think he knew much more about getting along with the contractors. So great was the trouble-it was practically altogether on District 1F '-that the commission found it necessary to appoint an inspecting engineer so that this particular work might have more supervision than it had been receiving. You must remember that the chief engineer has multitudinous duties to perform, and while he might go over a portion of the work he

could not be expected to go over all the work as thoroughly and as frequently as would be necessary. It seems unfortunate that neither Major Hodgins nor his assistant, Mr. Heaman, had ever been over the work except on some small portion of it. Major Hodgins deposed he had only been on the work in one instance for a few miles up to that time, and he also declares his assistant engineer had only been over a small portion of it. Then Mr. Grant was appointed, and Mr. Grant is an engineer of repute, and not one word has been stated against him, either in his personal or professional capacity. I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment of Mr. Grant is the real cause of all the trouble with Major Hodgins. It became simply a question of unreasoning jealousy on the part of Major Hodgins, and we all know that when the green-eyed monster takes possession of a man he ceases to be a reasonable being. Any one who reads the evidence must come to the conclusion that from the time Mr. Grant was appointed inspecting engineer Major Hodgins saw nothing but trouble in everything done by the engineers or by the commission. It is true that Major Hodgins went to Quebec. I will take the liberty of stating something which appears from the documents, although I do not know that it appears in the printed evidence. However, from a letter produced by the commissioners it appears that away back in 1906 the district engineer at St. John, Mr. Dunn, suggested a meeting of all the district engineers on the work in company with the chief engineer and the commissioners, in order that they might satisfy themselves how each was doing his work and, so far as possible, arrive at a uniform system. That suggestion was discussed, and it was not until the month of June, 1907, they were able to carry out this suggestion. Now, in the month of June of that year, instead of Major Hodgins having been sent to Quebec, as he would lead us to believe, for tlie purpose of taking these object lessons, every district engineer on the whole line from St. John to Winnipeg was sent to Quebec, the chief engineer went to Quebec and every commissioner went to Quebec, and they met the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific and all the engineers on the work in District ' B,' there being twenty-five or thirty officials present. We find that from the time this party left Ottawa until they separated at Quebec there never was an hour of the time when Major Hodgins was not finding fault with some one over the appointment of Mr. Grant.


Mr. BARKER.: There is not a word of evidence as to that.


Mr.   CARVEI@: Tj. I will not take up hours reading the evidence, but I will make this
submission to the House, and the House will take my word,


Samuel Barker: I have to contradict the hon. gentleman.
Mr. CAItVELL. The hon. gentleman has his right to contradict, but I will make no statement wllich I cannot back up by the evidence, and I will make no statement that my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) can contradict by the evidence. It is in evidence, and the hon. gentleman knows it, "that on the boat going to Quebec Mr. Hodgins was grumbling and Mr. Commissioner Reid, in the presence of others, remarked: Well, Mr. Grant is appointed and you cannot help it, or words to that effect. I repeat that the whole cause of Major Hodgins' trouble was jealousy over the appointment of Mr. Grant, and that at every opportunity Major Hodgins was finding fault with the appointment of Mr. Grant. Now, all these engineers met on the ground, and they discussed the question, and they tried to get benefit from the inspection, and I believe every man in the party did get some benefit from it except, possibly, Major Hodgins. Major Hodgins, when lie was there, in company with Mr. Doucet, visited a certain cutting, and Major Hodgins swears before the committee that Mr. Doucet told him that cutting was classified 86 per cent solid rock. There was an Italian contractor present and he described this cutting very minutely, and there cannot be any question that it was the same cutting to which Major Hodgins refers. Now, I do not mean to say that Major Hodgins is stating what is not true ; but I believe that Major Hodgins' mind was so warped at that time by jealousy that I do not think he was in a position to intelligently understand what was going on. The fact is that no matter what Major Hodgins may have believed, there is no possibility of getting away from the fact that while he himself would have classified that cutting at 40 per cent solid rock, at that very time that particular cutting was being classified only 32 per cent solid rock, and 10 per cent loose rock, and the balance common excavation. That was in the month of June, and there is no possible doubt that for the preceding month of May that particular cutting was classified only 29 per cent solid rock, 3 per cent loose rock and 61 per cent common excavation. It *would be the month of May which this gentleman would be discussing because the estimates are not made up until the end of the month and therefore any discussion of classification of any particular material in June would be with reference to May classification. I do not care how honest Major Hodgins may have been in his opinion, I do not care whether he was honest or dishonest, the fact remains he was wrong in his recollection of what happened, wrong in

to refer to this particularly, because, ^vhile it is a very small matter in itself it lias given food for a good deal of exaggerated political gossip all over Canada. The letter accompanying that changed estimate from Mr. McIntosh to Major Hodgins 11011 be found at page 132 of the evidence :
Wabigoon Falls, July 27, 1907.


Major A.   E.@: Hodgins,
District Engineer, N.T.C. Ry.,
Kenora, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-Inclosed herewith please find estimates for the month of July. I have made some changes in the classification, changing certain amounts which were returned as loose rock into solid, and common excavation into loose rock on residencies 25 and 26. A statement is attached to the estimates showing the amounts transferred. The amount transferred on residency 26 is 2,SOO cubic yards, from loose rock to solid, station 4,210.
Then, Sir, to make it even worse from the Conservative standpoint, Major Hodgins. by a letter dated August G, reported the same thing to Mr. Lumsden. Therefore, not only Major Hodgins but Mr. Lumsden knew from the beginning that these little changes were made amounting to between $6 000 and $7,000.
. I come now to what I consider the next important point in these letters and that is that Major Hodgins concluded that if the Quebec classification, as he chose to call It. were introduced into district ' F ' It would mean that it would -increase the cost of the work about $4,000,000. It seems that Mr. McArthur, some month or two before this, in an interview published in the Toronto ' World,' stated that the cost of district ' F,' instead of being between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000. at which Major Hodgins had estimated it, probably would be $16,000,000. Major Hodgins and the Conservative press at once came to the conclusion and heralded it all over the country that because they had introduced the Quebec classification the price bad jumped from $11,000,0000 to-$16,-< OO.OCO. 1 want to give some figures upon this question which. I think, pretty thoroughly answer that assertion. Mr. Poulin, the present district engineer, made a detailed statement of the cost of this work immediately after taking charge in September or October, 1907. He stated that he found that there had been about $6,000,000 of the cost of this part of the road actually omitted in the estimate made by Major Hodgins and which has been put forth to the world as being the true cost of this work. Major Hodgins told us his first estimate of cost was between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000, but that on account of>
changes in the plan and of revising his estimate by going over the work as he ought to-and I give him full credit for doing so, and on account of his good engineering he had reduced the cost down to between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000. We will put it at $12,000,-Mr. CARVELL.
000. I am going to read to the House the actual items which Major Hodgins had omitted in making his calculations of from $12,000,000 to $13,000,000. These items are as follows :
Right of Way	 $175,000
Ties	 672,798
Switch ties	 27,787
Tunnels	 189,750
Drainage tunnels	 16,700
Steel in concrete	 3,708
Steel bridges	 160,000
Rails	 1,336,608


Samuel Barker: None of these items were in Mr. McArthur's contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am aware of that and I am aware that these items are included in the work that Mr. McArthur is talking about. He is not talking about his own work.


Samuel Barker: Yes he is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know tills is the thing that pinches my hon. friend, but it is a fact just the same.
Angle bars	 100,172
Bolts	 22,776
Water stations	 103,500
Extra work	 76,500
Frogs and switches	 40,500
Track spikes	 "58,820
Then, there is another thing; in all rock cuttings they have to go one foot below the grade in order to give a chance to place the ballast under the sleepers. That one foot below grade amounts to $495,000. Extra width for sidings not estimated amounts to $850,000. Then these figures are only with respect to the actual cuts as figured out from the cross-sections on the plans. My hon. friend referred to the question of slopes. Any man who knows anything about rook work of any kind knows that there is no man who can take out a cut for a railway or for anything in the world and make the sides perfectly smooth as they will be figured out on paper. There must be a certain amount allowed for jagged edges. There must he certain places where you go in further than you ought to go. That is called the overbreak. I am told that this would increase the amount of the cutting by between 20 and 25 per cent. I am told that on the Canadian Pacific Railway work which has been completed between Toronto and North Bay in many cases it exceeds 25 per cent. But, taking it at 20 per cent it amounts to $1,857,080. If you add these items together you find a total amount, not included in Major Hod-gins estimate, of $6,192,699.


Haughton Lennox: Good !


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend did not refer to this.


Haughton Lennox: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he would not. The newspapers of hon. gentlemen opposite would not refer to it and my hon. friend and his friends would try to make the people believe that this work is going to cost $16,000,000 or $17,000,000 because of the increased classification. They are not fair enough to admit that this is not the case and that the reason that it is going to cost more than Major Hodgins' estimate is simply because unfortunately he had not included in his estimate certain items which he should have included. I have another statement here which will bear out my contention. When Major Hodgins made his estimates, of course, he made them by divisions. Now one division, No. 9, is practically completed, and therefore I am able to give the House some actual figures to show whether Major Hodgins was correct in his estimate or not. He estimated that in that division there would be removed 132,067 cubic yards of solid rock and 681,752 cubic yards of common excavation, and that there would be no loose rock whatever. He left the works in October, and we have the figures up to 30th September, which was his last estimate. Up to that daite there had been actually removed 126,224 cubic yards of solid rock or about 4,000 more than he had estimated altogether. Up to April 30, 1908, there had been removed 180,948 cubic yards, and it will take 4,000 more to complete the work. Therefore, instead of the proper estimate being 132,000 cubic yards of solid rock, it should have been 185,000. And this is not guesswork ; the work has been completed and measured, and the returns have been sent in to the commission. As I said, Major Hodgins estimated that there would be no loose rock. But the loose rock excavated up to April 30 amounted to 20,975 cubic yards. His estimate of the common excavation was 681,752 cubic yards. When he left, the actual quantity was 796,206 cubic yards, or a little over 100,000 cubic yards more than he estimated altogether. Up to April 30, the common excavation removed amounted to 899,040 cubic yards. When Mr. Poulin went on the work, as 1 said, he made a most careful estimate of what iit would cost to complete. His estimate was $17,534,175. To show you how correct his estimate was, I say that he estimated that in section 9 it would be necessary to remove 190,230 cubic yards of solid rock,-the actual quantity was 185,000. He estimated 20,332 yards of loose rock,-the actual quantity was 20,975. file estimated 970,000 cubic yards of common excavation- there was actually 899,040 yards. Therefore, the figures are practically the same. This is, (to my mind, the best evidence of the value of Mr. Poulin's estimate of the cost of this work. Now, if you take Major Hodgins' revised estimate of $12,000,000 and add the $6,000,000 of which I have spoken, you have $18,000,000 as the actual cost of 391
the work, whereas Mr. Poulin's estimate was $17,534,000-only half a million dollars between them. This, I submit, is why the work is costing more than Major Hodgins estimated

it is because they are removing more material and because in their estimate they include everything to make a completed railroad fit to run trains upon. Think of estimating the cost of a railroad without rails and ties. When you take everything into account, you find that the estimate is about $17,000,000, and that without changing the mode of classification or giving any contractor a dollar more for the work than he is entitled to. I think that in the face of this surely my hon. friend should have been fair enough to discuss this side of the question. He should have told the country and his political friends to whom he will send copies of his remarks that Major Hodgins was wrong in his estimate, that the ' Quebec classification ' was not introduced into district ' F ' because there was no such thing as ' Quebec classiScation.' I hope the people to whom the hon. gentleman is presenting his remarks will find out the facts. And I think they will. For, as I have said, if there ever was an issue dead and buried it is this Hodgins question. However, now that the hon. gentleman has seen fit to exhume it, we should have the facts.
Now, I come to the next question, on which the hon. gentleman spent an hour and a half, the question of classification. I am compelled to discuss this question ; not that I think it should enter into our consideration, not that I think there is anything wrong ; but my hon. friends have been driven from the main question they have been compelled to admit-by silence if in no other way-that Major Hodgins was not sent to Quebec for the purpose of taking object lessons in classification, that there was nothing wrong with the classification in Quebec, that there was no attempt to introduce what (they call the ' Quebec classification ' in district ' F ' and that Major Hodgins was not dismissed because he would not do something contrary to the law that the commissioners wanted him/to. They are compelled to admit all this, arid they are driven to the only thing that any person could bring forward, and that is to say : Oh, the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers have stated that you over-classified this work. For that reason, it is said, we should have brought these engineers before us; we should have constituted ourselves a court of engineers to make a pronouncement as to whether the classification was according to specifications or not. The hon. gentleman has read a letter of 7th October from Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am glad he has done this ; for it has the effect of pointing out to the people of Canada the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company are doing everything in their power-I think I can al-



most go so far as to say everything in their power, whether fair or unfair-to keep down the cost of this work. If the people of this country had suspicions that it would cost more than it should, the conduct of the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers should dispel all doubt. Hon. members of this House can go home perfectly satisfied that, whatever scandal may have arisen in Canada, there is no scandal over the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Mr. Woods sends a letter to the chief engineer on October 7, 1007, which was read by my hon. friend from Simcoe in full. There is also another letter of April 21, which my hon. friend referred to but did not read in full, which will be found at page 407 of the evidence. But before I take that up, I want to give the statement made by Mr. Armstrong. I said some time ago that Mr. Armstrong was assistant district engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific, whose duty it was to go over the work in district ' B ' and report to his chief what he found, and, if he found anything to his mind contrary to the contract, to say so. He was the man who did the reporting, the man who made the reports of the specific places where there was overclassification. We heard a great deal this forenoon of the amount of this over-classification. One would think from the remarks of my hon.. friend from South Simcoe that there must have been millions of dollars involved in this question. I am satisfied that the Conservative newspapers to-morrow will herald all over Canada that Mr. H. A. Woods had called the attention of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the facts that millions of dollars of improper classification had taken place on this work.


Haughton Lennox: I want to call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the inquiry is not completed, that Major Hod-gins' counsel retired on the understanding that nothing further was to be done, and the question came before the committee


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no objection to my hon. friend asking a question, but I object to his making a speech.


Haughton Lennox: I am only asking it by permission of the hon. gentleman. Was it not ruled in the committee that we would not hear Mr. Armstrong as a witness owing to the condition in which the case stood? Is it fair now to rend that statement


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was not so ruled- my hon. friend wants an answer.
'Mr. LENNOX. Well, I say it was.


Samuel Barker: That statement never was before the committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit it was not before the committee. But this is a statement of Mr. Armstrong under oath, and in this statement Mr. Armstrong says that all the work in dispute up to the 7th day Mr. CARVELL.
of October did not amount to $50,000. My hon. friend does not want this read ; I will not read it, but I will state here again that Mr. Armstrong said under oath that up to the 7th of October there was not $50,000 involved in the whole question.


Haughton Lennox: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman reading the statement if he wishes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Dominion of Canada, Province of Ontario, County of Carleton, to wit :
I,	John Armstrong, of the city of Quebec, in the province of Quebec, civil engineer, do
solemnly declare:
(lo. That if I had been permitted to testify as a witness before the Special Parliamentary Committee investigating Major Hodgins' charges I would have given the following
evidence:
(a)	That I was district engineer in district ' B ' (Quebec) for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company from August 1906 to April 1908;
(b)	That I never told Major Hodgins or any other person that the over classification in the Quebec district would amount to $2,000,000, and that 1 informed Major Hodgins before he submitted hi.s synopsis of charges to the special committee that I would not corroborate his statement in this regard ;
(c)	That when Major Hodgins visited the work in the Quebec district in June, 1907, there had been no objection to classification on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and in my opinion there was no ground at that time to justify any objection to classification ;
(d)	That in my opinion there were not more than $50,000 involved in the classification objected to by Mr. II. A. Woods in his letter to Mr. Hugh L. Lumsden, dated October 7, 1907,. and referring to the work inspected by Mr. Woods and myself a short time prior to the writing of the said letter;
2o. That after receiving a copy of Chief Engineer Lumsden's interpretation of the specifications I wrote to my superior, Mr. Woods, stating that according to Mr. Lumsden's interpretation the classification in district ' B ' could not be objected to and .in some eases might be increased. This condition prevailed up to the time I left the work in April, 1908.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Declared before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton, this 19th day of June, A.D., 1908.
(Sgd.) JOHN ARMSTRONG.
(Sgd.) Charles Murphy,
A Notary Public.
Now, Mr. Speaker, lie states that had he known of Mr. Lumsden's interpretation at that time, in his. opinion there would have been no question about classification, and in many instances the classification would be increased. I want to submit what

Mr. Woods said about the "classification and about Mr. Lumsden's interpretation of it. His letter is dated the 20th of February, 1908.


Samuel Barker: Is that paper before the committee?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That letter was before the committee.
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 17th instant, giving your interpretation of clauses 31, 35 and 36 of our specifications, with blue prints and explanations of same, also copy of your instructions to your engineers.
We are quite satisfied with your interpretation of the specifications and with your instructions, which are explicit.


Haughton Lennox: I read that this morning.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend did ; however, I have read it again. Now, I say in the first place, that Mr. Woods admits that Mr. Lumsden's interpretation of the specifications is correct, that is, his interpretation of the 10th of January, to which I will refer later on. In the second place, Mr. Armstrong says that had he known of Mr. Lumsden's interpretation there would not have been anything to discuss in regard to the classification in district * B,' and in some cases it should have been higher.


Samuel Barker: Does that letter refer to the interpretation of the specification after it was altered by the commissioners ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object to the hon. gentleman, under the guise of asking questions, making that statement. I tell him that the interpretation never was altered by the commissioners, and I am surprised that he stands up in this House and says so.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman will find a letter from Mr. Ryan, secretary of the commissioners, informing Mr. Lums-den that his modified interpretation had been approved.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But did the commissioners make the interpretation? My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was unfair enough to refer to that, he said that the commission made this interpretation. My hon. friends know they did not.


Haughton Lennox: I did not say anything of the kind ; I read the letter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend read the letter, and the only inference to be drawn from his statements was that the commission made this interpretation.


Haughton Lennox: I did not say so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend seeks to get away from it, and I do not blame 391i
him ; I would if I were in his piace. I was surprised this morning when he made' the statement, and I thought that we would see him try to crawl away from it before this debate was . through. All the commissioners did was to accept the interpretation put upon these clauses "by the chief engineer, and under the contract he had a right to make an interpretation for the commission. Who, under the statute and under the contract, is the man who decides all questions of classification? Is it not the chief engineer? Of course it is, and my hon. friends know it. My hon. friends know that under this law and under this contract, no matter what interpretation of the chief engineer decides to put upon any clause of this contract and of the specifications, the commission are bound by it. Therefore, when the commission state that they accepted it, they did what the law compelled them to do, and my hon. friends know it.
Now, to go on. After the receipt of this letter of the 7th otf October, the question naturally arose among the commissioners, the chief engineer, the assistant chief engineer, the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers, the contractors and everybody concerned as to what was the proper interpretation of this clause for classification. I suppose it would be considered elementary if I were to tell this House that railroads are not built by a lump sum contract. Railroads are built by a contractor agreeing to do certain work for certain prices. In these contracts there are something like a hundred different items on which a price is placed. The contractor agrees that he will furnish lumber for so much a thousand, no matter how much it takes ; that he will furnish concrete for so much a yard, no matter how much it requires ; that he will remove solid rock for so much a yard and loose rock and common excavation for so much a yard. That is the way in which railway contracts are drawn. I am going to refer to three items, solid rock, loose rock and common excavation, because they form the greater part of the value of the work done. When this letter of the 7th of October was received, the question naturally came up : What is the true interpretation of the specifications laid down by the commission under which the contract was signed? Remember, the contractors agreed to build this road at so much per cubic yard, and a cubic yard of solid rock meant just what the specification says it meant. Before you could tell what this work ought to cost you had to ascertain what it took to excavate a yard of solid rock or loose rock or common excavation. Everything in these specifications is incorporated in the contract and the definition of ' solid rock ' in the contract is as follows :
Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of more than one

cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting.
I want to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that in the punctuation of that, the comma is placed after the word * yard.' Section 35 says :
Loose rock.	_
35. All large stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock whether in situ or otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel, indurated clay and other materials that cannot, in the judgment of the engineer, be ploughed with a 10-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good horses, properly handled; and without the necessity of blasting, although blasting may be occasionally resorted to, shall be classified as loose rock.
Hon. gentlemeu opposite say there Is no trouble in arriving at what solid rock is, and certainly if in this contract it meant absolute rock In ledges there would be no question about it. But, it does not say that solid rock only means what is found in ledges and Mr. Lumsden's first interpretation was that solid rock only included rock actually found in ledges or In boulders of one cubic yard or upwards. Mr. Lumsden then started out to see what other people thought about it, although he had the absolute right to say what was the proper interpretation of these terms. I think any one who reads the contract, engineer or layman, cannot help but come to the conclusion that solid rock means a little more than rock in ledges or boulders measuring one cubic yard or upwards, because the contract uses the expression: Masses of more than one cubic yard. If it would occur in the shape of a mass greater than one cubic yard which in the judgment of the engineers could best be removed by blasting then you would have solid rock although you might have a mixture of all sorts of material. Mr. Lumsden started out to find what other people thought about it and he wrote to all his district engineers for their Interpretation of this clause In the specification. The first letter he received in reply was from Mr. Doueet, district engineer, -and it is as follows :
Quebec, October 26, 1907. Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-I have already had occasion to state to you verbally the interpretation the engineers in district ' B ' have placed on the classification of solid and loose rock, and in accordance with which the progress estimates have been returned since the inception of the work.
So that our viws of this interpretation may be put before you concisely and clearly, X beg now to state: 1. That we have classified as solid rock all ledge work, all boulders measuring more than one cubic yard, all masses of small boulders and cemented material which, in our judgment, were best removed by the Mr. CARVELL.
continual use of explosives. 2. We have classified as loose rock all detachable boulders of more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all material which, in our judgment, could not possibly be ploughed in the practical sense of the term.
I have never had occasion to force my views on my assistants as all, to a man, have taken the same interpretation of the classification as I have. We have all used the precautions possible to arrive at a fair classification of materials, and our -returns of explosives certainly show that the solid rock has not been over-classified. I have repeatedly conferred with my assistant district engineers on this matter, and they in their turn have gone over the work with the division and resident engineers and classified according to their convictions as to the interpretation of the classification. I attach herewith reports from my assistants on this important question.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) A. E. DOUCET, District Engineer.
Then there is another letter from H. F. Hu6stis, assistant district engineer, another from C. L. Hervey, assistant district engineer, another from Benjamin Bourgeois divisional engineer, another from Allan' R Matthews, resident engineer, all to the same effect as Mr. Doucet's letter. Then, we have the legal opinion of some of the most eminent lawyers in Canada. The question was put to these legal gentlemen how they would interpret these words in the specification, and we have printed in the evidence, first, a joint opinion from George F. Shep-ley and E. Lafleur, then the opinion of Mr. C. H. Ritchie, of Toronto, then the opinion of Sir Alexander I^acoste, then the opinion of Donald Macmaster, and also the opinion of Wallace Nesbitt. I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) would seriously dispute the legal opinion put forth by that array of counsel. I think we surely can put the opinions of these gentleman forward as at least equal to the opinion of any similar number of men in Canada, and they all agree in saying that ' solid rock ' does not mean what Mr. Lumsden said it meant. Thus we have every district engineer, every divisional engineer, every resident engineer, and we have the opinion of these legal gentlemen to say that ' solid rock ' means rock in ledges, rock in masses and boulders of one cubic yard or upwards, or any conglomeration or mass of rock no matter how small it might be so long as it Is in masses and in the opinion of the engineer could best be removed by blasting. These opinions were all submitted to Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Lumsden then submitted them to the Deputy Minister of Justice. I shall read what the Deputy Minister of Justice says. My hon. friend, after a good deal of barter, this morning read a portion of the letter. I was surprised that he did not read it with a little better grace because be might as well have admitted the facts as I would assume he would wish the people 'reading bis re-

marks to get the whole story. . After Mr. Lumsden received these opinions he made a second declaration of how he construed these clauses. The second declaration was broader than the first. He said that he would construe solid rock to be rock found in ledges or masses as specified, first, rock, second in ledge, conglomerate, boulders or ledge rock displaced in pieces exceeding one cubic yard in size, rock assembled, the individual pieces of such assembled rock exceeding one foot in size, also shale rock.
Then he said he construed solid rock to include rock in ledges, boulders of one yard and upwards, masses joined together, provided the individual pieces composing those masses were of one cubic foot up to one yard in size. That was handed to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the Deputy Minister of Justice said :
I do not understand upon what principal the chief engineer limits the size to pieces ex ceeding one cubic foot. The specification speaks of rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard which in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting. If ' rock assembled * may be regarded as a mass of rock, and if it may be best removed by blasting, I do not see why under the specification it is material whether the individual pieces exceed or are less than one cubio foot in size, and if ' rock assembled' is not regarded as a mass, the minimum limit of size which can be classified as solid rock exceeds one cubic yard.
After receiving this letter Mr. Lumsden again changes his opinion and sends out a third interpretation of this clause in the specification, and the third is practically the same as the second, excepting that he tells his engineers if they find rock in masses joined together, no matter what the sizes of the individual pieces may be, if, in the opinion of the engineers, it may be best to remove it by blasting, he classifies ic as solid rock.
This brings us down to the 10th of January, when that is finally decided as being the proper construction of these clauses in the contract, and from that forward every engineer was told to classify according to that interpretation. He even sent a blue print picturing out how the different things could be formed together in order to make solid rock, and from that down all this work has been classified according to that interpretation.
I want to go back just for a moment to what took place as to the amounts. We have in evidence, on page 415, a letter by Mr. Doucet written to Mr. Parent, discussing the question of the over-classification alleged by Mr.-Wood in his letter of October 7th, and he says that he and Mr. Armstrong went over the matter and they found that not more than 14 per cent of the classification was in question at all. and they figured out that if this 14 per cent had been classified entirely as the
Grand Trunk Pacific claims it should have been it. would amount to a difference of only $25,982. But later, at page 417, he says :
But on going over Mr. Armstrong's figures with him yesterday we found that several errors had crept into his calculations, so that the difference in the percentage is not 14 per cent but only 3 per cent.
And then he figures out that taking only 3 per cent, the only difference in dispute between July and August, would be $3,457, and it is upon this statement of affairs that these complaints of the Grand Trunk Pacific were made to the commission.
I wish now to direct your attention to District ' F.' We must remember that there was trouble all the time in District ' F ' between the district engineer. Major Hodgins, and his assistant Mr. Heaman, and the other engineers. I think it necessary to point this out particularly in order that there may be no question about it, because I consider that this question of trouble between the assistant district engineer, Heaman, and the other engineers is a very important element in this discussion. It is stated here that Mr. Grant went out there as inspecting engineer and made a report on the work which was not very complimentary to Major Hodgins. Major Hodgins was brought down to Ottawa on the last day of July, 1907, and he made a counter report, or reply, to Mr. Grant's report. In this reply to Mr. Grant, which will be found at page 25 of the evidence, we find :
Mr. Heaman spent a good deal of his time on the work, but not as much as he wished because some pf the divisional engineers did not consider that he should have got the appointment. I visited three divisions .myself. I am perfectly satisfied with Mr. Heaman, and have every confidence in his ability and judgment, and, if I find there is still any friction, I must ask for authority to discharge any division engineer who is inclined to make trouble.
I do not know what better evidence we could want of friction and difficulty between Mr. Heaman and those under him than we have in this report of Major Hodgins in reply to Mr. Grant's report on his work. At the time Major Hodgins was dismissed from the service Heaman was sent to another portion of the work further inland. In a few weeks he resigned and accepted a position with the Grand Trunk Pacific, and while I am not here to find fault with the Grand Trunk Pacific, I think if we want another evidence of the fact that the Grand Trunk Pacific is not in collusion with the commission in order to make this work cost more than it ought to, we have this absolute evidence in their conduct with regard to Heaman. Here Is a man who had quarrelled with all the en-
12315	COMMONS	12316
gineers under him, who had become so obnoxious that his chief, Major Hodgins, had reported to the chief engineer' that if these divisional engineers did not stop finding fault with him he would have to ask authority to dismiss them, yet within one month after Major Hodgins left this work this Mr. Heaman was taken hy the Grand Trunk Pacific and appointed to be their inspecting engineer over the very engineers with whom he had had the difficulty. If that is not an unfriendly act, I do not know what would constitute one; and you can depend upon it, that from that out it was Ileaman's busiaess to make things just as uncomfortable for the engineers as he could, and I think the future developments have shown that he performed his work to the very letter, because we find that he not only made report after report finding fault with the classification in that district-and it is on these reports that Mr. Wood's letter of April 21 was written -but that he betrayed the trust reposed in him and was in constant communication with Hodgins. Although he was sworn to secrecy, lie was the man who was furnishing the evidence to Major Hodgins and on whose statements Major Hodgins was able to make these charges. I do not know Mr. Heaman, never saw him, but if there is a man who has appeared to disadvantage in this matter, it is Mr. Heaman. And if the Grand Trunk Pacific want to be fair, if they want to carry out the work according to the spirit and as business men should, the only fair thing they can do is to remove Mr Heaman to another sphere of operation. If they want him as district engineer, let them send him to some district where he has not had quarrels with all the engineers working in the employ of the commission. I do not know that I need say anything further about the question of classification.
After the investigation had proceeded a certain distance, Major Hodgins came to the conclusion that he was wrong, and I give him credit for his honesty. He saw that he was in error about the classifications in the province of Quebec, and as these were the basis of the whole charge, he admitted that he was wrong. When he found that his premises were wrong, when he found that the increased cost was not due to wrong classification but was due to the conditions I have mentioned, of his own free will he withdrew his charges. My hon. friend from South Simcoe has contended that these admissions were drawn out of Major Hodgins by great ingenuity. No doubt the questioning of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was very searching, but . the withdrawal by Major Hodgins of his charges was the only thing left for him to do under the circumstances. At any rate he withdrew all charges. He said that he had not applied to the First Minister and had not been refused an in- 1 Mr. CARVELL.
vestigation. He said that neither Mr. Young nor any other member of the commission had tried to influence him improperly. He admitted that he was wrong. If you want confirmation of my statement, you will find it in the evidence. He unqualifiedly withdrew all charges of improper conduct on the part of the commissioners or the government and admitted that the only question left at issue was the purely scientific one of classification. Now I have read from the reports to show the difficulty of arriving at an agreement on this question of classification-so much depends on the judgment of the individual engineer, whose duty it may be to go on the work and determine whether a certain cut can be classified 50 per cent or 100 per cent solid rock. You can take tiwo engineers equally honest and efficient, put them on a work, and in nine cases out of ten you will find them differing in opinion as to the exact classification. There never was a railway built in which this difficulty of determining the classification has not arisen. It is an all important question in railway construction. The commission knew it and so did parliament;. and when the contract was drawn in 1903, it provided for the appointment of a third arbitrator in case of any differences between the engineers. My hon. friend has tried to argue that section 7 of the contract of 1903 does not provide for arbitration in ease differences may arise between the commission and the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Haughton Lennox: As to a matter of this kind.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am going to read that clause of the contract. It is as follows:
In order to insure, for the protection of the company as lessees of the eastern division of the said railway, the economical construction thereof in such a manner that it can he operated to the best advantage, it is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to, and approved of by the company before the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall he done according to the said specifications and shall he subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the government and the chief engineer of the company, and, in the event of differences as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.
That provides that the chief justice shall appoint the third arbitrator.
The solicitor of the commission sent a letter to the board in which he expressed doubt as to whether this clause of the contract provided for arbitration in case of a disagreement between the engineers. Well, while I have great regard for the legal attainments of that gentleman, having known

him maiiy years, I do not see how any one can come to that conclusion. An arbitration is stipulated in case of any difference regarding the supervision, inspection and acceptance of the works. If the question of classification does not come within those three expressions, then I do not know what they mean; and I do not see how you could better include classification unless you use the word itelf. But lest there should be any question about that, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the commission got together and by agreement dated January 10, 1908, they settled it. That memo, of agreement, signed by the different parties, is as follows:
Monthly estimates for contractors shall be submitted promptly from time to time by the chief engineer of the commissioners to the company's assistant chief engineer at Montreal for approval. If he has any objection to such estimate he shall promptly file the same with the chief engineer of the commissioners, and any objection from time to time filed shall thereupon be considered, and, if possible, determined by the said engineers, and in case of their failure to agree, may then or at any time before or at the time of final payment, at the option of either party, be considered and determined by arbitration as provided in the agreement of July 29, 1903, but in no case shall the payment of monthly estimates be delayed except with the consent of the commissioners.	.
In case the chief engineer of the commission; ers and the assistant chief engineer of the company disagree as to the final payment, the sanre shall be withheld until the matter is determined by arbitration, as provided in the said agreement of July 29, 1903.
In the face of that agreement I would like to know bow my hon. friend can have the assurance to say that there is no provision for an arbitration in case the parties dc not agree on the question of classification. I would not be so much surprised at a layman taking that view, hut I am surprised that a man who, in his heart, believes he is going to be Minister of Justice some day, should make such a statement. 1 do not think that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who we know is a good lawyer, will take the ridiculous position of saying that there is no reference to this question of arbitration.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman state as a fact that any such agreement is in existence?
Mr. 'CARVELL. I do most positively.


Samuel Barker: Where is the evidence ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At page 439 of the printed evidence.


Samuel Barker: That is contrary


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman may make his speech later. I have given him the answer: he can accept it or not as he pleases. But I would ask him if he thinks
that the commissioners of the Grand Trunk Pacific are such absolute scoundrels that they will bring forward a document bearing the initials of Mr. Hays and Mr. Parent and also of their engineers, and put it forward as an agreement solemnly entered into, if no agreement was ever entered into?
I do not need to argue that; I do not think my hon. friend will insult his own intelligence and that of the members of this House by making a statement of that kind.
I am not surprised that the only way he dare try to get it in is by asking a question.


Samuel Barker: I do not think that any gentleman would pretend that that was an agreement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If it comes to splitting hairs to that extent, I will leave it to hon. gentleman opposite. There is the evidence of the agreement as brought before the committee.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Who signed it ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have told you three times. I do not consider the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) in this at all. He was not on the committee; I do not suppose he has read a word of the evidence; he could not discuss the matter intelligently, even if he wanted to; so it would be only a waste of time to argue the matter with him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The people of the country may be more intelligent than the member for Lincoln, and they would like to know who signed the agreement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have told you three times.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It has not been signed by any officer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Rail-way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman will quiet down after a while. I was just going to say when my hon. friend got excited, that, in view of these facts and of the fact that Major Hodgins had unqualifiedly withdrawn all charges of improper conduct, what was there for this committee to do but to close this investigation unless these hon. gentlemen opposite wished to give more evidence on the ground of fraud or improper conduct on the part of the commissioners or their engineer or any person in their employ? My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) made what I thought was a very unfair statement when he alleged that the commissioners had forced their interpretation of the clauses of this contract upon the chief engineer. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that under the ruling which I gave in that committee-and I am going to refer him to it particularly-he had all the chance in the world to bring Mr. Lumsden before that committee, after Major Hodgins withdrew his charges, to prove whether the commissioners had forced their opinions upon him

or not; he had every chance to bring any man in the Dominion of Canada who could say that there was an act of fraud of wrong-doing on the part of the commissioners, or their engineers or servants. But, Mr. Speaker, with that staring them in the face, neither the hon. member for South Simcoe, or the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had the assurance to ask one solitary witness to be brought before them when they state that the committee refused to hear more evidence, they are stating what has no foundation in fact. And, when my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) this morning was reading what I had said, and what my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had said, at one meeting of the committee, in order to try to prove that at a certain time we wanted to investigate everything, and that, because we wanted to investigate everything, we should have investigated this question of classification, I sav he did not treat the subject fairly. Because he did not state what I said to the committee at page 62 of the evidence. And this was all the more unfair because the matter was specifically called to his attention when he made his argument before the committee. I want to put this on 'Hansard At the second meeting of the committee this question came up as to what was to be included in Major Hodgins' specific charges, and my hon. friend read one or two pages out of the evidence to show that my hon. friend from Pictou and myself at that time were anxious to have everything put in. At page 62, I said :
There are practically three or four branches to the charges contained in this letter. We are discussing entirely the question of classification which to my mind is a very unimportant part of the matter because that has to be settled later on by arbitration. To my mind the point in this charge is that Major Hodgins claims he was dismissed from the service of the Transcontinental Commission because he would not classify as the commissioner wanted him to do. He does not require documents in the possession of the commissioners to specify that. He can say whether it is true or not.
Following up that, the day Major Ho.l-gms withdrew his charges, the question came up as to the future conduct of the committee. I stated my view as to the proper course to be taken, and the distance to which I was willing to go in admitting evidence or shutting it out. My hon. friend will find what I said at page 438 and at page 450 of the evidence. I will refer first to what I said at page 438. The matter came up as to whether we would receive more evidence or not, and I made this statement from my position as a member of the committee, and as a member of the committee also I made the statement which appears at page 450. This was a committee of five, and my hon. friends from South Simcoe and East Hamilton and I, if we
joined together, could have carried


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Haughton Lennox: A great combination.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It made a majority. I made this statement at one meeting, and repeated It the next meeting. And I will read the statement and the repetition to the House. At page 438 is the following :
It is not for the committee to decide whether the engineers are exercising proper classification in different parts of' the work, the question is are they doing it honestly. As far as I am concerned if Mr. Hodgins, K.C., or Mr. Lennox here wishes to call witnesses to show anything that is improper or dishonest on the part of the commissioners or the engineers under the commissioners I have no objection to having it investigated; but when it gets down to a question of a difference of opinion, it has been stated here by Major Hodgins this afternoon that it is simply a question of opinion between the engineers, one-engineer saying I would classify that cut at 50 per cent of solid rock and another saying I would classify it at 60 per cent of solid rock. If there was no other tribunal possibly we would be in a position that we would have to decide, like many judges who are compelled' to listen to evidence about which they have no knowledge-I do not know anything about engineering, possibly Mr. Lennox does not, Mr. Barker may know a little more about railway engineering than any other member of the committee-but a tribunal has been provided, under the statute passed at the time the Transcontinental Commission was formed, and that tribunal consists of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Commission, and if they cannot agree they apply to the Chief Justice of Canada who appoints a third arbitrator, and that is the right tribunal to decide whether these engineers are properly exercising the duties and responsibilities placed upon them.
Now, I want to know if that was an attempt on my part to shut out evidence ? Was it not an offer to bring on all the evidence that showed wrong-doing on the part of the commissioners or their engineers ? At the next meeting of the committee, I followed this up. I referred first to the fact that Major Hodgins had withdrawn his charges and that the only thing left was the .question of classification which must be left to-the engineers.
All we can do, to be logical, is to close up the inquiry and report to the House. While I do not want to be put in the position of burking any investigation, if any evidence is produced to show that the commissioners eonf-mitted fraud, or asked Major Hodgins or anybody else to do what was wrong I do not think it ought to be excluded, but I think we ought to consider our position and let us understand where we are.
Now, Sir, there again I repeat the offer to allow them to bring on evidence.


Samuel Barker: Go on and read a few lines after that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So far as I am concerned, I am absolutely opposed to any evidence being given by anybody as to classification that has to be decided by another body.
X have always taken that ground.


Mr. LANCA  STER@: How would you prove your fraud?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, let me show this engineering light from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) what would happen. He is in for knowledge and I am going to give him some.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is time you started.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is time the hon. gentleman got the wax out of his ears so that he could hear and learn something. Suppose we had taken the course suggested by the hon. member for South Simcoe, and we had called 25 engineers from the Grand Trunk Pacific. I have here, but will not read them, letters written by Mr. McIntosh, by Mr. A. G. Macfarlane, by Mr. M. C. Macfarlane^ by Mr. Richard, and a dozen other engineers, stating that they had classified the work according to the interpretation of Mr. Lumsden. Now, suppose we had all those engineers here, and they all swore that they had classified this work exactly according to the interpretation of Mr. Lumsden. They were on the work ; they saw it being done; they exercised their judgment and they swear that they did it honestly and uprightly. Then suppose we brought this precious Mr. Heaman, the man who made the charges. Suppose Mr. Heaman was put up and said : These men classified too liberally. I ask my hon. friend from Lincoln in what kind of a position this committee would be ? What position would a committee of lawyers be in to decide whether they were over classifying or not?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman took the evidence without cross-examination he would probably have more information than he would be guessing at it, as he does now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After all it would only amount to a guess. How would any lawyer know? Suppose he said :	I am going to
believe one set of engineers and disbelieve another. What position would he be in ? Two months afterwards the legal tribunal, the arbitration provided by parliament, would sit, and suppose the arbitrators decided that we were wrong, what a position we would be in. Think for a moment the position we would place ourselves in by trying to decide an intricate and technical question like this by bringing on one set of witnesses saying that the work was classified wrongly, and another set of witnesses saying it was classified rightly. That
shows the absurdity of the whole contention.
Now, I have discussed this matter as far as I wish to. In conclusion, I say that there are two views to be taken of this question. One, I am sorry to say, is not a pleasant view, another one is an extremely pleasant view. The unpleasant side is the eagerness of my hon. frinds to search out scandals, after having been defeated in all their scandal mongerings this session. I will refer to only one to show, after they have been trying to find scandals and have been defeated, how anxious they are for a genuine scandal. Take, for instance, the committee that has been sitting in regard to timber lands in the Northwest. After we had the sworn evidence of different witnesses that everything that was alleged was untrue, and after the unfair statements made by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) and the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) we find the member for St. Antoine, instead of being in his place to face the music, is off down in Nova Scotia with his yatch and his moving pictures exhibiting pictures of a few clumps of good timber as a sample of all timber in the land that friends of the government have got hold of. After seaching in vain for scandals like this, and getting defeated, no doubt they would like to find a genuine scandal, and if they could prove that by the wrong-doing of somebody in the construction of this railway this country was going to pay $28,000,000 more than it ought to pay, what a glorious scandal they would have discovered. After their complete failure I am sorry they did not have the fairness to take the view that was taken by one of their leading organs in the province of Ontario, which stated that there was nothing wrong and they had better let the matter drop. Let me read a short extract from the Toronto ' News and I earnestly commend it to the perusal of my hon. friend from South Simcoe, who probably has not seen it. The article appeared in the ' News ' of the 29th of June, but I will read it as copied in the Halifax ' Herald,' and I may say that if my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had taken the fair view that the ' News ' has taken we would not now be discussing this matter :
Thus far nothing has been proved which refleets discredit upon the Transcontinental commissioners, or warrant any charge of impropriety. It is necessary, however, that the reports of the Grand Trunk engineers should receive attention, and that an authoritative replv thereto should be furnished by the commission through the government. Many millions of public money will be expended on the National Transcontinental Railway, and the country should have every assurance that the work will be honestly and economically constructed.
1232:

Questions have been raised which have still to be settled, but in the meantime, there should be no persistence in insinuations and charges which the facts disclosed do not warrant.
I commend that to the careful perusal of my hon. friends. I can only repeat that it is a lamentable thing that the Conservative party in parliament have not taken tlxe manly view of this thing which the Conservative editor of the Toronto ' News ' has taken. On the other hand, there is a pleasant feature of this question. The pleasant feature is that in a work involving- so many millions as this work does, extending over three or four years already, a work in which the commissioners are compelled to rely on the honesty and fidelity of hundreds of different officials, it is a great pleasure to find that there has not been one tittle of evidence produced which shows any suspicion of fraud, dishonesty or unfair dealing. On the contrary, it has been proven to the hilt that every part of this contract has been carried out to the very letter; it has been proven that these commissioners and engineers have honestly .endeavoured, and have actually succeeded in performing this work honestly, uprightly and according to the letter of the contract. Sir, I think the people of this country can well afford the time that it has taken parliament to investigate this matter in order to have the assurance that they have a body of men of such calibre as Mr. Parent, Mr. Reid, Mr. Young and Mr. Mclsaac, who are so efficiently carrying out a work involving millions of public money, in which work the searchlight of the opposition has not been able to find the least flaw. Therefore, I feel that the amendment should be voted down, and the report of the committee should be adopted.


Mr. WM. ROCHE.: I would like to ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Carveii) to tell us who this Major Hodgins is and who appointed him as engineer. There may be some members of the House who do not know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that so far as I know Mr. Hodgins is a gentleman. He was appointed, I presume, by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, who is, I understand, the officer invested with the authority to make appointments to the engineering staff.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the eloquent words of the last speaker, proclaiming aloud to the people of this country their good fortune that no evidence whatever had been brought out to implicate the commissioners of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in this whole Hodgins investigation, my memory went back to a scene in this chamber only a few years ago when the same hon. gentleman, with the same elo-Mr. CARVELL
quence, was supporting a report which I think was drawn by himself ; at all events was made by a committee of which he was a prominent member, when he called the attention of this House and of the people of this country to the gratification with which he had learned that no evidence had been brought forward to show any wrong-doing in connection 'with that famous steamer ' Arctic,' The fact was that every motion made by certain members of the committee in order to put themselves and the committee in a position to get ail the information was always voted down by the majority. I am willing to concede that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues in the committee, whose report is before the House a greater need of respect than apparently he is willing to pay to some lion, gentlemen on this side of the House. I am quite willing to admit that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) possesses the ability, legal experience and acumen which would enable that hon. gentleman to do great and glorious work in the interest of the country on such a committee, or on the Public Accounts Committee, or on similar committees. These hon. gentlemen have been afforded an opportunity in the Public Accounts Committee to show us what they can do, to show their willingness and anxiety to do something to ascertain the facts, to pry into the misdeeds of tile government and to lay before the people the information which will enable them to judge as to what becomes of their money. I have great respect for the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., and his colleague the hon. member for Pictou, but I venture to say that neither of these hon. gentlemen, in the use of their great abilities in discharging their duties in the Public Accounts Committee, or in this investigation, has been painfully conspicuous. Perhaps it was on account of that experience added to the manner of which liis followers were willing to employ the ability, which, I admit, they possess, that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) placed these hon. gentlemen upon the Hodgins committee. The hon. gentleman who lias just taken his seat spent a great deal of time in discussing this subject. I listened very carefully to him from beginning to end and I do not think 1 am far astray when I say that not more than ten or fifteen minutes of the time was spent by him in discussing the question before the House. We heard about the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we heard about the horrible character of some unfortunate engineer now in the pay of the company, we heard a great deal in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, we heard everything discussed but the question before the House. What is the question before the House ? Some time ago there was a reference to a committee. Certainly something must have been referred. We

have only to look at the first volume of the evidence brought down to show what was referred. We find that Major Hodgins, having made certain charges in a letter and certain newspapers have taken up, repeated and added to these charges, the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, whom the last speaker praised so highly, were so exercised by the reflections made upon them that they came to parliament and insisted that they should no longer be left under the stigma under which they were placed, by these, as they said, unfounded charges, flying over the country. Not at Major Hod-gins' request, but at the request of ithe commission the Prime Minister moved :
That the memorandum of the chairman of the Trancontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of April 23, and laid on the taible of this House on the 24th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public- press therein referred to, be referred to a [DOT] special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned.
So that parliament being seized of this material, referred It to a committee and instructed tliis committee to investigate the charges that were contained in these papers. As has'been well pointed out, it is a matter of indifference whether Major) Hodgins appeared or not except in so far as his absence might make more difficult the proof of these charges. The charges were referred to a committee, not Major' Hodgins, and the committee met to consider and discuss these charges. At the beginning of their conference there seemed to Ire some little difference as to what course the proceedings would -take and the majority were clear in their expression of fear that the charges would be limited-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to give a single quotation in which I said anything to warrant him in making that statement ?


William Barton Northrup: Page 59. The last speaker read it and I thought that it was not necessary for me to occupy the time of the House in reading it again.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not read anything from page 59.


William Barton Northrup: Page 50, was it ? You read it yourself ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I read nothing from page 50 either.


William Barton Northrup: It is here ; I have read it half a dozen times.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You will find what 1 read at page 02.


William Barton Northrup: I find at page 59 the following :


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is how I understand it, and the committee have the right to investigate everything contained in the order of reference.
That is very, plain English.


Mr. PARENT.: We have been accused in the newspapers-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Yes, it has been spread all over the country.


Georges Parent: If the gentleman is allowed to limit his charges, I suppose the evidence will he confined to that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, no.
If Major Hodgins was allowed to limit his charges Mr. Parent was afraid that evidence would only be given on the limited charges and Ills vindication would not be complete.


Mr. MACDONALD (Piotou).: Do not worry about that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is that the only evidence, because I hope to reply to my hon. friend, of my having made any such statement as he has indicated.


William Barton Northrup: I did not name the hon. gentleman in the first instance because I thought it was not necessary to do more tban refer to the statement which was read ito the House by the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) read it. I did not.


William Barton Northrup: I beg pardon. ' Hansard ' will show. There is a subsequent page in which it is referred to again. 1 do not propose to take up the time of the House reading more than that one passage. It is proved un to the hilt in that one passage that Mr. Parent was afraid that the charges would be limited, that if this gentleman was allowed to limit his charges the evidence would be confined to them and the Lon. member for Carleton, N.B., said ' oh, no.' Then the chairman of the committee added :
I understand it to be the feeling of the committee that they should not he dropped.
There Is no dissent on the part of any of the committee. These matters having been referred to the committee, I take the ground that Major Hodgins bad nothing to drop. Major Hodgins did not ask for this investigation. It was not given to Mr. Hodgins, but when this House, in the exercise of its authority, charged five or six of its members with the duty of investigating certain serious allegations, to say that this committee was deprived of its power to investigate because a witness said that lie did not take any further interest In the proceedings is tiie most monstrous proposition that was ever enunciated in this House. What did take place ? Major Hodgins lost his position in consequence of something with which

we are not concerned. He was out of a position and he was called as a witness to the city of Ottawa. It meant that he had to be absent from his home for forty-nine days. He had been undergoing examination day after day before the committee, he was entitled to be paid the ordinary witness fees and he was compelled to be represented by counsel day, after day retained at an enormous sum. When he first appeared before the committee with his counsel application was made that the committee should report to the House in favour of Major Hod-gins' counsel fees being paid. On the one hand there was the commission which was empowered to employ such legal assistance as' it saw fit, there was the commission, backed by the majority in parliament, assisted by the most learned counsel that could be obtained in the whole country, and on the other hand we had a gentleman called here as a witness who was obliged to remain here at great expense, losing money every day and who perhaps incurred a counsel fee that will hang a weight around his neck for years to come.
That is the position in which Major Hod-gins was put; that is the idea of fairness that filled the minds of that committee when this investigation began. Is it at all surprising what Major Hodgins did, after he had been before this committee for weeks and weeks, after he found that he was the man that was going to be the sufferer and after he found the committee coming to him with a bogus story of arbitration-because there will be no arbitration and there can be no arbitration and I say further that except from the members of the committee itself an arbitration was never suggested by anybody between the parties concerned. It was simply an attempt to draw a red herring across the scent to say that there would be an arbitration between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government. That about an arbitration between the contractors and the government. The real question was whether the contractors were robbing the government. It was only incidentally the Grand Trunk Pacific was interested at all. Had it not been for the fact that the statute provides the Grand Trunk shall rent a part of the line and pay interest on 3 per cent of the cost of construction the Grand Trunk Pacific would not have the slightest interest in the matter. The real question was between the commissioners who were building the road and the contractors, and the charges are clear and explicit. Whether or not they are proven is another question but the charges are clear and explicit that the contractors were robbing the commissioners. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to come here and talk about changes in specifications and to say that the chief engineer was trying to do what was right and all that. If they take the trouble to read the papers which Mr. NORTHRUP.
are laid on the table of the House they will find that the great difficulty came, not over any dispute as to what was the meaning of solid rock or loose rock, but that the charges made can only be based on deliberate and wilful fraud. These are the charges made originally by Major Hodgins and these charges are made by Mr. Woods, the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific in his famous letter. He charged that such and such things had been done that could not have been done as the result of any misunderstanding of the specifications but, as Mr. Woods said, they must have been done deliberately under instructions from above. Not only did Major Hodgins make these charges but Major Hodgins made certain charges that are a reflection on the commissioners. I am not here to say a word against the commissioners. The evidence was shut off, and what the evidence might have resulted in I do not know. Without casting the slightest aspersion on any person I can say that there was another investigation which is within the knowledge of members of this House and some members of that commission would have been just as well satisfied I have no doubt if that investigation about the purchase of some lands around Winn had not been held. Let us see what Major Hodgins has said in the way of making charges in the statement put in by him. I quote from page 112 of the evidence :
A. And Mr. Reid said that the appointment of (Grant) was made and it would have to go, that it was their intention, it was no slight on the district engineers, the appointing of a junior man above them, that it was the intention of the commissioners to have uniform classification all over the line and that Mr. Grant had been selected.
Q. They wanted ia -uniform classification?- A. They wanted a uniform classification.
Q. Did they say what the uniform classification, what the standard was.-A. No. They told me afterwards that the Quebec classification was to be taken as the standard.
Now, Major Hodgins in his evidence, whether truly or untruly, has stated what he himself saw in Quebec and he has sworn to what he says he was told by one of the engineers as to 86 per cent of rock being allowed in a certain cut which was mainly, sand. That would be a matter of evidence which the committee qould well consider, and the alleged fact being pointed out to the committee it would be their duty to make some inquiry to ascertain whether that statement was true.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the monthly estimates were put in evidence and they showed that that particular cut in the month of June was allowed at 32 per cent solid rock, and in the month of May preceding at 29 per cent solid rock.


William Barton Northrup: I am aware of that, but that does not touch the point, and in the first place it may or may not have been tlie same cutting.


Mr. OAR YELL.: 'Is not the best evidence you could get, the estimate on which the money was paid ?


William Barton Northrup: If my hon. friend would try to understand the argument he would not interrupt me. The duty of the committee was to receive what evidence it could get but the moment my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) got a piece of evidence that suited him he shut off inquiry and he announced that the committee would refuse to receive any further evidence unless members of the committee would take responsibility themselves of charging fraud.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Might I


William Barton Northrup: Excuse me, the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of speaking a little later and he can castigate me as much as he likes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not want to castigate you; I want to ask a question.


William Barton Northrup: It is impossible for me to make a connected speech if I am to be interrupted every minute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman confines himself to the facts there will not be any interruption.


William Barton Northrup: I am confining myself entirely to the facts and if I make a single statement which is incorrect I will be pleased to withdraw it.


Haughton Lennox: You are all right so far.


William Barton Northrup: And so the committee absolutely declined to take further evidence unless some hon. member of the committee would take the responsibility of saying he could prove fraud and if so he could go on and prove it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon friend is not sticking to the facts because that was not included in my conditions at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do not get excited; 1 will call him to order whenever he is not In accordance with the truth.


William Barton Northrup: Why, the hon gentleman (Mr. Carvell) forgets what he himself read to the House not more than ten minutes ago.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Read it and I will be obliged to you.


William Barton Northrup: You shall have it, but if I speak for two hours as the hon. gentleman did, I want it distinctly understood that three-fourths of the time was taken up by interruptions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you stick to the facts there won't be any interruptions.


William Barton Northrup: Well here Is what Mr. Carvell said as will be found at page 450 of the printed evidence :
Mr. Lennox.-Then as I understand it Mr. CarvelPs view is substantially as he stated it the other night.
Mr. Carvell.-About the same.
Mr. Lennox.-That is that it can be investigated only in the event that some member of this committee comes forward and says : I am prepared to establish fraud.
Mr. Carvell.-That is it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Go on. I submit the hon. gentleman should read what I said.


Haughton Lennox: Order, keep quiet.


William Barton Northrup: I will read every word of it if you like.
Mr. Carvell.-That is it, I take the ground
that supposing Mr. Barkers contention is correct, that there i9 evidence to establish the fact that the engineers are not exercising proper judgment in their mode of classification, that he should take the responsibility as a member of this House to rise in his place and say so on that responsibility, and ask for the matter to be investigated, if he should do that it is a new question entirely.
Do you want me to read any more?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


William Barton Northrup: I shall ;
We are not appointed to investigate whether these engineers are properly exercising the discretion conferred upon them-
We are not, eh ?
We are not appointed to investigate whether these engineers are properly exercising the discretion conferred upon them but whether there is fraud between them and somebody else, and that brings up the question suggested by Mr. Barker, supposing there is fraud between them and the Grand Trunk Pacific, that is a proper subject for inquiry if somebody takes the responsibility of making the charge, but until somebody does T do not see that we have any right or jurisdiction in it at all.
Now, I think my hon. friend will concede that my original statement about what lie said was correct. Every statement I make as to what the evidence contains will be and is correct, but at this late stage of the session and in this weather I do not think it fair to take up hours in reading the evidence. But let me point this out, that when the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) cannot remember what he said himself, is it surprising that the light he can give us on this or any other subject is very dim indeed. I repeat that the committee refused to allow any more evidence to be taken unless some Conservative member would jeopardize his

seat by charging fraud. But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) could not confine himself to the evidence. He had to hunt around the country to bring in outside information in the shape of a statutory declaration made by a man who perhaps under cross-examination would have told an entirely different story. I only heard that declaration read hurriedly by the hon. member, but I would direct the attention of the House to one point in it and I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) should Investigate this matter.
Armstrong, in this affidavit, speaks of the cuts referred to in the letter of Wood of the 7th of October, which refers to two different sections over which he had gone. The first, he said, was from 15 to 20 miles long, but he could not speak positively as he had not proper instruments ; the other section was for mile 315 to mile 332, a distance of 17 miles. As to the 17 miles, according to that statutory declaration. Armstrong completely vindicates the commissioners in the judgment of the hon. gentleman by pointing out that the overclassification would not amount to over $50,000. This railway is to be from 1,700 to 1,S00 miles long, but assuming that it is only 1,700, and supposing that the overclassification amounts to only $50,000 on the 17 miles, which is a subject of such delight and surprise to these gentlemen, supposing that the boodling or stupidity, or whatever you call it, of the engineers, amounts to only $50,000 in 17 miles, if you take that same proportion for the 1,700 miles, you have to multiply it by 100, and you find that for the whole line that it amounts to $5,000,000. So that under your evidence given as a climax to complete the vindication of the commissioners $5,000,000 is the shortage, provided the amount of rake-ofif is the same in every other mile of the line as in the sections dealt with by Mr. Armstrong. If that is the best evidence the commissioners can find after four weeks hunting up and down the country, it is no great wonder they objected to any further evidence being given in the committee, and that such witnesses should be asked to give their evidence by statutory declaration rather than by an examination followed by a cross-examination by men competent to elicit the facts. Among the last words spoken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) was a reference to an alleged agreement. I would not occupy time in referring to this agreement, for in my humble judgment it has nothing to do with the case, except that a justification was attempted to be set up by a majority of the committee for stopping this investigation on the ground that an arbitration was already going on and this matter might be better decided there than before the committee. I say, in the first place, that no arbitration has ever been suggested by anybody except members of the eommis-


William Barton Northrup: sion, or between the government commissioners and the contractors, and that is where the boodling is going on. I say, in the second place, that no agreement was ever drawn up so far as any evidence submitted to the House goes-I am not going to say that no agreement was drawn up, and then my hon. friend, who has access to documents to which I have not access, produced one of a different date, and possibly on a different subject, and says that is the agreement-but I say that the document referred to by him is not an agreement in any sense of the term, it does not purport to be an agreement; and if it was an agreement, it does not relate to arbitration in the slightest. All it does, as far as arbitration is concerned, is to point out that if the engineers cannot agree amicably they can fall back on the mode of arbitration provided in the statute. So if the hon. gentleman had taken the trouble to read the document he would have found that what he calls an agreement is a memorandum of an agreement to be drawn up between the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. And even that memorandum of agreement to be drawn up was not signed by anybody, a few initials appear on the side of it. My hon. friend is a learned, distinguished and successful lawyer. I wonder if he really would advise professionally that if something was done in the way of arbitration, or anything of the kind, under the alleged authority of that so-ealled agreement, and Mr. Hays, whose initials are supposed to be there, should pass away to his reward and someone else take his place who dissented from what had been done, that the Grand Trunk Pacific would be bound by the fact that an informal memorandum of agreement intended to be drawn up was produced with Mr. Hays' initials on it.


Mr. CARY ERL.: The chairman of the commission told the committee that the formal agreement was drawn up, and that they had it in their possession.


William Barton Northrup: I am discussing what is before the House, and X was careful to say that I did not deny the existence of an agreement, because a document which the hon. gentleman could see and read, but to which I had not access, might be produced. But I sa.v we are bound to discuss the matter upon the evidence before the House, and if the commissioners had an agreement of the kind to which the hon. gentleman refers, I think they were guilty of contempt of that committee in not putting it before the committee and in submitting in its stead a paltry memorandum of agreement intended to be drawn up with a few initials on the side. This particular memorandum of agreement merely provided that two engineers could go to the work, and if

they then and there agreed on what was being done, everything was lovely. That is simple enough. If they did not agree they could fall back on the statutory provision, which, of course, adds nothing to the powers then existing.
There are two clauses of the statement to which the hon. gentleman refers on which I need not spend any particular time, because they are so simple that I doubt if any lawyer would differ as to their meaning. Clause 7 is the first. Leaving out the earlier portions, I come to the operative section. It says :
And in the event of differences as to the specification

The day for that is past and gone, the specifications are settled on.
Or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the questions in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator, to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph four of this agreement.
I do not think any lawyer will contend that when the dispute was as to the interpretation of the specification it would come under that clause. When the question was whether or not a fraudulent amount was being paid for work that really was not done, the dispute would come under clause 47, which provides :
Any dispute which may arise as to the meaning or construction of this agreement, or as to the performance of any of the obligations of either of the parties to this agreement, or as to working expenditure or cost of construction.
That would be settled by arbitration. But where do you get your arbitration? You fall back on section 47. The statute provides that one of the arbitrators shall be appointed by the government. There is no reference to the commissioners at all ; the commissioners have no more authority to appoint an arbitrator under section 47 than my hon. friend or myself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not claim they had.


William Barton Northrup: Then where is the point of the argument about an arbitration going on?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The chief engineer is their arbitrator.


William Barton Northrup: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. My hon. friend is as far astray as one of the principal ministers who, after a debate on this original matter for months, disclosed the fact that he did not know half the different items that were to be allowed under the head ' Cost of Construction.' I may point out that the only clause under which there might be an arbitration is clause 47, and an arbitrator under that must be appointed by the government anu not by the commission at all.
so it is evident that when Major Hodgins was-I do not like to use the expression ' buncoed.' but led to believe it was undesirable that he should waste any time in the committee, because the whole matter would be threshed out by arbitration, he was misled, because there was no arbitration, there could not be any, and there never was any pretense of one except in the minds of the members of the committee.
I was going to call attention to some of the charges made by Major Hodgins in order that we might see whether or not he was in a position to withdraw those charges. The first I was going to refer to is on page 112. I was referring to the fact that the classification was to be made uniform along the line and that the Quebec classification was to govern. Take the statement made by Major Hodgins on page 115, a very important statement made under oath. Speaking of Mr. Armstrong, he said :
He said the classification was very high, and I said, ' what are you doing about it-' ? He said, ' I am reporting it to my people.' I said, ' what are they doing ' ? And he replied that he did not know, that they hadn't done anything just yet. I said, ' is there very much more classification of that kind ' ? And he said, ' it is pretty general, all over the district.' I said, ' are you going to dispute it ' ? And he said he presumed they would.
The engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific presumed that his company was going to dispute it.
I asked him what it was going to amount to in Quebec and he said he had not made a very close estimate of it, but he was pretty certain it would amount to nearly $2,000,000, that his company would object to.
Q. What did he say would amount to $2,000,000 ? -A. The difference in what we called over classification then.
There is a statement under oath by Major Hodgins that the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific had told him that in Quebec alone his company would claim that over $2,000,000 had been paid in excess of what should have been paid. He was only speaking of the wrong-doing up to that date, and he is the same gentleman who this present month has figured out an estimate of $5,000,000 for the whole line as being the amount of over classification. On pages 141 and 144 there is further evidence of complaints and there is Mr. Mann's letter. I shall not occupy the time reading that letter, dated September 6, 1907. In it Mr. Mann says :
I find that at many points on these divisions, the classification is too liberal, while at some points it is excessive. I cannot tell in some cases just what classification has been allowed, for the reason that there is no distinction made between solid rock in classification and in place-that is solid in boulders and in mass. In some cases, however, as between Canyon Lake and the Wabigoon, where

the solid in place in some of the cuts had not been touched at the time I saw it, an amount of solid has been allowed that quite evidently was not based on the measurement of boulders found that would class as solid under the specification. Loose rock has also been allowed in quantities that could not possibly be given if the specifications were followed as the only guide.
And so all through his letter. On page 142 he gives some twelve or fifteen illustrations of work in which wrong classification was made. There again is a charge over Mr. Mann's own signature, the district engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. How can Major Hodgins withdraw that? On page 148, we have Major Hodgins declaring under oath that McArthur, the contractor in Winnipeg, told him that Mr. Grant had been sent up to help him out. Surely that is a matter for the committee to investigate. Mr. Hodgins could not withdraw that charge. On page 154, Mr. Hodgins testified that Mr. Dutton said if he got some of the promises Mr. Grant made him, that was all he wanted, but if he did not he would pull out. On page 263, we have Major Hodgins swearing that Mr. Foss, one of the engineers, told him that something must be done to help McArthur, the contractor. On page 301, we find that Grant suggested to Hodgins that the classification should be increased. On page 307, Major Hodgins swears that loose rock had been classified as solid rock. And when asked how he knew it was not solid rock he replied:	'My eyes told me.'
I have given the House case after case in which evidence was adduced by Major Hodgins which could not be affected by his withdrawal of the charges, and his withdrawal after all had only reference to the honesty or dishonesty of the engineers.
A great deal of weight has been given to the opinions obtained from certain lawyers. As far as the individual lawyers are concerned, I agree that no more eminent men are to be found at the Canadian bar, and I have not the slightest fault to find with any of these gentlemen regarding what they did. But calmly considered what really did they do? Objections were being made by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers to the Railway Commissioners regarding the classification. Major Hodgins was dismissed, and about that time Mr. M. P. Davis, one of the contractors at the Quebec end, for some reason best known to himself, went to Montreal and obtained opinions from Mr. Mc-Master and Mr. Lafleur. Then he went to Toronto and obtained opinion from Mr. Shepley and Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Nesbitt, and no better men could be found. But after all what did he get? He got an ex parte opinion from lawyers on a statement presented by a man who wanted an opinion in his favour. It was of vital importance to Mr. Davis that he should get legal opinion that the classification should be as he wanted. So he went to the lawyers, and with-Mr. NORTHRUP.
out the other side being heard, his lawyers gave a certain opinion on Mr. Davis' own statement. That opinion may be very well as it goes, but would any one say the opinion would have the same authority as that of the same lawyers, if they sat on the bench and had heard the facts and the arguments on both sides? One would have thought that those opinions would have been held by Mr. Davis for his own protection. But no, they were fired at the commission. The chief engineer was doing his duty. When a particularly competent specialist is put at the head of a great national road and when parliament by statute decides that he is the man to decide these questions, that question of classification comes before him and he decides it. When the chief engineer appointed by parliament rules one way and the engineers another, they must give way. That is an excellent rule, but it does not apply when Mr. Davis happens to be contractor. Mr. Davis sent in the opinions he had obtained to the department and these were forwarded to the Minister of Justice, and in turn we have the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice which seems to be an admirable one. Those of us who are acquainted with Mr. New-combe will know that he is a distinguished lawyer whose opinions are entitled to the utmost respect, and there is nothing in this opinion given by him which could in the slightest degree detract from that respect. One not only admires his legal ability but his astuteness when reading this opinion. There are so many * ifs ' in it that it would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer to make out what it meant in any particular instance But then he winds up :
It seems to me, however, that these questions are largely engineering questions, the solution of which depends principally upon the judgment of the engineer, haying regard to the terms used in the specifications.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear.


William Barton Northrup: I must call your attention to clause 15 of the contract, which provides that the engineer (this term to be construed as defined in clause 2 of the contract) shall be the sole judge of work and material, and that his decision on all questions in dispute with regard to work and material shall be final, thus expressly-stipulating that such questions as these shall be submitted to the decision of the chief engineer.
Not of Mr. Davis' lawyers.
I wish to add that it is very difficult for me to advise generally upon the interpretation of these specifications, and a general ruling may not infrequently overlook the peculiar facts and circumstances of an individual case, which, if stated, might lead to an exception or modification. I would prefer to advise upon any special case as it may arise, having all the particulars and circumstances stated.

So that in the end the opinion amounts to this, that if such and such he the case, such shall be the result. And then he winds up by saying that it is a question for an engineer and that nobody's opinion, practically, is of value unless he is sure he has all the circumstances of the case before him. That opinion, in due course, reaches Mr. Lums-den, because we have a letter from Mr. Lumsden;-Now here is the chief' engineer of this railway, appointed by parliament to use his judgment in these matters, a man to whom the people of this country and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company-which company has to pay interest on the cost of construction-have a right to look to use his best judgment. He exercises his judgment and gives an interpretation of the specifications. But these legal opinions are given, and with this result:
Ottawa, January 9, 1908. The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, Ottawa, Ontario.
Sirs,-I have to-day been handed by the secretary a copy of a letter from the Deputy Minister of justice, dated the 6th instant, with respect to my interpretation of clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36 of our general specifications. After fully considering his remarks in regard to the words after * rock assembled ' (the individual pieces of such assembled rock exceeding one cubic foot in size), I have concluded in deference to his remarks these bracketed words might be omitted, as also the wor.ds ' not covered under clause 34 ' in items 1 and 2 under the heading ' loose rock.'
My interpretation of these clauses will now be as follows:
So here we have the chief engineer of the Transcontinental road deliberately writing to the commission that he has interpreted the specifications not as he himself would interpret them, or had interpreted them to his engineers, but to use his own language ' in deference to ' the remarks of the Deputy Minister of Justice-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to show me where the chief engineer had at any time previous to December 10, 1907, ever given any official interpretation of these specifications ?


Haughton Lennox: On October 30 he said definitely that he would not admit the specification-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That deals wdth a specific ease. But where are the instructions given by him to his sub-engineers to take a


William Barton Northrup: I did not say a word about instructions. It was a case of interpretation. There had been a conflict between himself and his subordinates and it was because of this interpretation by Mr. Lumsden of the specifications that Mr. Davis went around the country gathering these opinions, so that when he was fortified with these opinions, including that of the Deputy Minister of Justice, the chief engineer says that ' in reference to the remarks of the Deputy Minister of Justice his interpretation would be, so and so. We have the deliberate case of a chief engineer deliberately abandoning his own idea of how the contract, should be interpreted in deference to the opinion obtained by Mr. Davis one way and another. And the result was that the chief engineer virtually said :	Whereas I said' a while ago that
where the chief and subordinates differ the subordinates must give way, yet as Mr. Davis, the contractor in this case, has secured contrary opinion, the chief is obliged to give way. He seemed to have some suspicions as to the propriety of what he was doing, so he sent a memo, to the commissioners telling them what he has done, and the answer comes from the commissioners as follows :
Ottawa, January 14, 1908.


Hugh D.: Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer.
Dear Sir,-I beg to advise you that your letter of the 9th instant giving your interpretation of clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36, of the general specifications for construction, modified so as to conform with the opinion expressed by the Deputy Minister of Justice, was considered by the board on the 10th instant and approved.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) P. E. RYAN, Secretary.
Of all the farcical positions in the world surely this was the most farcical-that of a chief engineer of a great railway who is to be instructed by the contractors' lawyers and the Deputy Minister of Justice, and who, on sending word to the board that he has ' in deference ' to these certain remarks reached a certain opinion, the board graciously tells him that his decision is approved. Could the absurdity of government work be carried much further than in this comedy? When the hon. members consider that these serious charges were made, first in these letters and then under oath, and then that a strong committee was charged with the duty of investigating these charges, I think they will fee] that it was incumbent upon that committee to return with a report that they had investigated these charges as fully as possible. Can any one say that the committee did the best they could to ascertain whether or not improprieties had gone on in connection with the classification in the case referred to by the newspapers and by Major Hodgins? Can anybody say that the commission was in the slightest degree vindicated? I do not say that anything was given in evidence to impeach the character of the commission; I think it would be most unfair for any speaker to say that the char-



acter of the commission was blackened by the evidence that was given. But there is the evidence, the sworn statement of Major Hudgins, that contractors had made statements to him-there wras the statement of Mr. Grant, the statement of Mr. Dutton, the statement of Mr. Armstrong- that he himself has seen wrongdoing, and the letters put in showing that the Grand Trunk Pacific were complaining of it. Is it not rather an abdication of their powers when the committee, on so important a question, come back with nothing accomplished simply because Major Hodgins had got tired and wanted to go home? It was the direction of the House to the committee to get what information they could because this was a most important question. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to sneer at the small amount involved. I think it has been shown that a large amount may be involved. But the great thing is that it has gone out to the people, it has been published-truthfully or untruthfully does not affect the question-that there is rank dishonesty in the construction of the road. It is known to hon. gentlemen on the other side as well as on this side that when the road was first suggested, when the Bill for the incorporation of the company was before the House, all through the country the people were charging that the reason wThy the government were building the road at all was that it was a scheme to get contributions from rich contractors that the duration of the government's term in office might be extended.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: That was the old time.


William Barton Northrup: The old time of 1903, as the hon. gentleman Mr. Johnston) suggests. It seems a long time to the hon. gentleman and also to many people in this country


Alexander Johnston: It is the old days of 1873 that you have in mind.


William Barton Northrup: If the hon. gentleman W'ill confine his attention to the present, if instead of allowing his mind to be absorbed with the delightful, contemplation of the wrongs of thirty-five years ago- when the conscience of the people was so sensitive that because a minister of the Crown was willing to accept a contribution from the wealthiest man in Canada, a contribution which spread over the whole country was infinitesimally small, they rose in their might and hurled a great party from power-he will consider the state of'affairs to-day, when the charge is made that dishonest dealing is going on in the construction of this Transcontinental road by which the people are being plundered, and when this matter is referred to a committee, the committee refuses to investigate-viewing this contrast he will surely admit that there has been a wonderful change in public sentiment since 1873.


William Barton Northrup: 


Alexander Johnston: You admit it all.


William Barton Northrup: I admit every word I have stated. I am not in the habit of making statements that I am not prepared to stand by. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I hoipe the hon. gentleman who is now to address the House insead of wandering all over creation to tell us about matters in which wre are not interested, such as the character of individual engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific system, will tell why, when a certain charge was referred to a committee, that committee did not go on and investigate those charges. If hon. gentlemen opposite will vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox)) we will have an opportunity to learn the truth about these matters. No member on this side will take the responsibility, in these matters which we cannot be supposed to know, of saying that there has been any dishonesty in the classification. It would be monstrous for us to assume the responsibility of saying that this means dishonesty or that it means that the engineer is incompetent. All we say is that charges have been made and that they should be investigated. If they are untrue, all the better for the country that they should be proven untrue ; if true, the sooner the country learns the fact the better. Whatever may be the facts, it is in the interests of the country that they should be known. For these reasons I shall have much pleasure in voting for the amendment of the hon. member for South Simcoe.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The greater portion of this day has been occupied by reason of the desire of my hon. friends opposite, to cover if possible. their retreat upon this question of the Hodgins charges. The line of the abandonment of their position is one which is being successfully handled. One of the chief artificers of the position was put up to make a special argument in support of a report which was the result of several days deliberation on the part of the minority of the committee. It is true that when the gentleman who had made the charges had come before the committee and was asked to put those charges in a definite form, and had subsequently withdrawn them unreservedly, my hon. friend who spoke so cleverly this morning in defence of the theory that Major Hodgins did not withdraw his charges, argued that there was something more for the committee to consider. It is true that he and my hon. friend, the chief tactician who, I understand, is to follow me, were so impressed by the absolute certainty of their position that they favoured an adjournment of the committee in order to ascertain whether there was anything left for them to do. One would fancy, to have heard the eloquent remarks of the hon. gen-

Reman who has just preceded me (Mr. Northrop), that the members of that committee from his side of the House were so clear in their judgment that there was something more to be investigated, that the moment Major Hodgins had abandoned his position, these gentlemen at once said :	We
will go on and clear up these matters.


Haughton Lennox: So we did.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find that he and his colleagues almost quarrelled with my hon. friend the member for C'arleton (Mr. Carvell) who wanted to go on. They both wanted to delay the investigation until next day, in order to see whether there was anything left for them to do. They are endeavouring to cover their retreat to-day, and what they have done is what we would have expected, from these gentlemen. We have heard a great deal about scandals, rake-offs and graft, these words which hon. gentlemen opposite roll as sweet morsels under their tongue, we have seen the failures on their part all through this session to prove anything wrong, until to-day there is nothing left in the minds of the people of this country, not a single scintilla of all these wild stories they have been telling. When they saw the absolute abandonment of what their newspapers believed was going to be the piSce de resistance, when they saw this was all gone, they felt .that, even if they did at the close of the session take up a day in endeavouring to deceive their own people, it was the best that they could do. My hon. friend who just sat down wanted to know whether I thought this committee was doing right when they abandoned this investigation. I ventured to say at the time this matter came up that the idea of a committee on the Major Hod-gins charges, hearing evidence and considering charges, after Major Hodgins abandoned them, would be like an endeavour to play Hamlet on the boards without Hamlet being there to play. That statement was absolutely accurate. When Major Hodgins abandoned his charges and left the committee, when his counsel withdrew from the committee, who were left to be prosecutors of the charges ? Who were making the charges ? Where was the responsible man or company asking that committee to deliberate ? Where were the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) ? Did they ever .suggest that we should call a witness ? We had a few lengthy addresses from those gentlemen in which they were endeavouring to play the game, but they never moved that any witness should be subpoenaed, they never suggested that anybody should come. They made no charges. On the contrary, they completely followed the line which Mr. Hodgins has taken, and withdrew every possible imputation that 392i
had ever been miade against any one of the commissioners, individually or as a body.
Talk about classification. My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrop) read the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice as to whose business it was to classify, and the Deputy Minister of Justice said that the commission were not responsible for the classification, but the engineer was responsible. My hon, friend knows as a lawyer that under the terms of the contract and agreement, if the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission is an honest man, not one dollar has ever been received by any contractor, and not one dollar ever can be received by any contractor, improperly ; because not one dollar can be paid for any purpose in the construction of this road except upon the certificate of Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer. So if these gentlemen want to investigate Mr. Lumsden, let us investigate Mr. Lumsden, But do not let them attempt to befool the people any longer by talking about investigating the commission or investigating the government upon this matter of classification, because neither of these bodies have anything to do with the classification which rests solely with Mr. Hugh Lumsden, chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway. But that is not what we started out to do. Major Hodgins made certain charges in the Victoria ' Colonist,' they were repeated with great gusto by the Conservative press all over the country. They flew from city to city, and grew constantly bigger as they went, just like all the other scandals hatched by the Conservative party. When these charges reached the east they reflected upon the. commission, and iit was said this commiisslion had been going it wild, and the country was in danger of being mulcted in millions. When the commission asked the Prime Minister to appoint a committee of this House to investigate what Major Hodgins had said in the west, we were dared to investigate these charges reflecting upon the credit and reputation of the commission, and in regard to all the other questions mentioned in his letter.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, w'hen the House rose at six o'clock I was directing your attention to the fact that the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, in which they seemed to reflect upon the gentlemen composing the commission on account of what they called the over-classification, were entirely beside the mark, and I make the statement that the one man who was responsible to the people of Canada for the absolute correctness of the classification that is awarded the con-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Would you say that the wild talk of every Conservative newspaper in the country in regard to the Transcon-

tinental Railway Commission is before this committee ?


Haughton Lennox: No, I do not.


Haughton Lennox: What else did I say?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If I were to quote all my hon. friend did say we would never get through this debate to-night.


Haughton Lennox: I confined my remarks to the ' wild ' talk.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The one thing and the only thing we had before us was to consider these charges contained in that letter of Major Hodgins, and when we came to go into the question Major Hodgins discovered he was under a misapprehension. He was suffering under that sense of irritation which men who are dismissed from employment generally feel and he found he had been under a misapprehension and that his views in regard to the classification had been modified. He found that the chief engineer had in January issued explicit instructions as to how the specifications should be interpreted and he said, that while he still had his opinion, he would not proceed further on that line. In regard to any reflection upon the integrity of the Transcontinental Commission, Major Hodgins absolutely and completely withdrew all his imputations of his own accord.
Now, the issue here is simply whether or not in the light of these facts the majority' report of the committee is not a proper report and one which should be adopted by the House. That report says :
Your committee, therefore, find that Major Hodgins has not only failed to prove the charges as contained in the ' Colonist/ both in the letter and interviews, but has specifically withdrawn the same, and has unqualifiedly exonerated the commissioners and their engineers from any improper conduct or undue influence over officials under them, or of collusion with the contractors, and that if questions as to classification arise they should be decided by the tribunal previously provided therefor by the statute.
In the name of common sense, in the name of every precedent that can be invoked in this or any other parliament, how could it be seriously urged in this House- as gentlemen opposite seem to urge-that when the man who was the only man in this whole Dominion who could be found willing to take the responsibility of making a . charge against the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners absolutely and unreservedly withdraws that charge, that there may be other report from the committee except'that which the majority has presented. Has my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) or has his astute colleague from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) undertaken to say in this report of theirs that any one of the charges made by Major Hodgins is proven. On the contrary the report of the minority treats these charges as being absolutely disposed of ; it


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: treats them as being absolutely nullified and as not being before the committee at nil because in this minority report they say :
As shown by the papers and documents produced by the said commissioners to your committee and set forth in the printed Minutes of the Proceedings of your committee now reported, many charges of over-classification, of excessive allowances, and undue payments by the said commissioners to the contractors.
My hon. friends would appear to have worked overtime in order to find adjectives, and so they say : Over classification, excessive allowances and undue payments. If excessive allowances mean anything at all they mean over classification, because there never was a charge of excessive allowance except with respect to over classification, nor was there any charge made by the Grand Trunk Pacific or any body at any time that there was one dollar of excessive allowance. When my hon. friend from Hamilton addresses the House, I would like to know from him what evidence there is as to any over allowance. He may find disputes about classification, but he will find no reference whatever to over allowance notwithstanding the big adjectives which he and his colleague have put in their report.
Which charges involve and are examples of enormous overpayments.
Mark the word :
-enormous overpayments

When there is not a little of evidence to warrant the charge.
They cover and include not only the charges made by Major Hodgins, hut other specific and more serious complaints of a like nature and description

This is absolutely inaccurate and untrue, because there never was before us a single document or statement from any source to warrant any such language, and I leave it to the hon. member (Mr. Barker) to produce it If he can.
-and not merely for the period dealt with by Major Hodgins but are continuous up to the time of the order of reference to your committee.	[DOT]
You may search this report of theirs from end to end, but will not find a single word which evidences any belief on their part that there is extant to-day any charge by Major Hodgins. It is absolutely wiped off the slate, there is no such thing in existence ; there is no one willing to say :
I take the responsibility of fathering that statement. None of them do it. My hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) took a certain position as to the course which should be pursued by the committee and said that we should take further evidence along the lines of fraud if any there were.

These gentlemen would not take such a position then, and have not done so to-day. While they admit that the charges referred to the committee are abandoned and withdrawn, and while both are sufficiently experienced politicians to know that when a committee is seized of a particular fact which hag been abandoned before them and withdrawn from them by the gentleman who initiated the proceedings, that there is nothing more for the committee to do, yet they wish to take up the time of the House for the purpose of enabling them to beat a retreat on this question, and to let down their press in various portions of the country. Their papers have been talking in an irresponsible and erratic way, and they wish to save the faces of some of their friends in this matter. That is the whole story, that is all there is in it, because they do not say the committee should investigate Major Hodgins' charges any longer, but ask that the subject matter be recommitted to the committee to deal with other matters altogether.
I propose to deal with one or two matters referred to in this minority report, entirely irrelevant as they are, for the purpose of disposing of and wiping away completely the last remnants that remain of all tlie story of insinuation and fraud we have heard upon this subject. I said my hon. friends do not pretend that anything left here involved any imputation on the commission. My hon. friend from Hamilton was reading a number of letters which he put upon the record and at page 470 of the record I ventured to interject. I said :
You are not reading these letters with the idea of showing there is anything improper on the part of the commissioners?
These are the letters the hon. member for Simcoe was reading this morning. The answer was :
Mr. Barker.-These letters will not establish that.
In other words, the letters which my hon. friend from Simcoe was reading this morning to establish that there was something wrong, according to the hon. member for Hamilton before the committee, would not establish anything of the kind. On page 475 of the evidence it was stated :
I do not understand my hon. friends to urge that there is anything improper in the position of the commissioners in dealing with the engineers, so it is purely a question of a difference of opinion between these engineers as to what the classification will be.	.
Mr. Lennox.

I do not want you to misunderstand our position. I am not going to charge any wrong-doing without serious reason for so believing, but I do not feel that there is set out in these letters sufficient to make it very, very suspicious.


Haughton Lennox: The * not ' in that sentence should not be there.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: Do not laugh at me ; the laugh will be on my side. I have received a letter from one of the reporters calling attention to that fact. He calls my attention to the fact that in the original that 'not' did not occur, but when it was set in type it was there. It should read :
I do not understand my hon. friends to urge that there is anything improper in the position of the commissioners in dealing with the engineers, so it is purely a question of a difference of opinion between these engineers as to what the classification will be.
Mr. Lennox.-I do not want you to misunderstand our position. I am not going to charge any wrong-doing without serious reason for so believing, but I do feel that there is set out in these letters sufficient to -make it very, very suspicious.
That is what I said and that is what is iu the original report; that is what was sent to the printer, and without my intervention that is what will appear in the subsequent reports that will be printed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not responsible for any mistake in the record.


Haughton Lennox: Neither am I.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Even with the explanation of the hon. member for Simcoe he still stands for this, that he will not charge any wrong-doing without serious reason for so doing.


Haughton Lennox: Exactly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And he would not say, and I am sure my hon. friend would have gone to the very extreme that it was possible to go even after the correction, that there was anything suspicious about the classification.


Haughton Lennox: Very, very suspicious.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But that will not help my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). I said :
These letters

That was from Woods to Lumsden.
-are such as would pass between engineers representing different interests in connection with the construction of any railway in this country.
Mr. Barker.

We admit that.
Mr. Macdonald.-I do not know how one engineer could say to another that there was over classification in a particular district without he used language such as is found in these letters. There is no way in which he could say there was over-classification or that he differed in his opinion with the subordinate engineers as to the classification that had been made.
Tnen on page 449 I was very anxious to see where my hon. friends were on this question, whether they would take the responsibility after Major Hodgins had abso-

lutely abandoned and withdrawn all the imputations against anybody of standing by any charges. I ventured to ask my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker):
Mr. Macdonald.-What is your view in regard to the charges of improper conduct on the part of the commissioners, interference as to classification?
Mr. Barker.-That will be the result of the inquiry, whether there is over-classification or not. It is not perhaps material at present whether they intended them or not; the question at present is whether there is overclassification or not, whether from mistake or otherwise is a separate question.


Samuel Barker: That is the question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is the question, and I understand my hon. friend to confirm the position he took before the committee that there is no issue before this House involving any imputation upon the commissioners of any wrong-doing.


Samuel Barker: I do not say there is or is not. It is none of my busines to say that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend then takes the position that he is unable to say whether there is or not?


Samuel Barker: I say it is not a part of my business to say whether there is anything beyond over-classification.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a matter of satisfaction, that we have got the issue down to just one thing ; the issue is simply one of correct classification by engineers.


Haughton Lennox: No, it is not that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is it?


Haughton Lennox: The first issue is was there over-classification? That being established find out if you can whether it was improper or dishonest classification. These are the two points, but if you establish the first you have established the important point.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then my hon. friend takes this position that because two engineers who were working on this northern land of ours, several hundred miles away from this government and the commission and the chief engineer, one representing the Grand Trunk Pacific and one the Transcontinental Railway Commission took different views as to how a certain cutting should be classified, there may be fraud on the part of the commissioners and he would seriously suggest to this House by this minority report or rather ask this House now to stop at this busy season to consider such a flimsy proposition as that. If the opposition are'in this position to-night, if it is simply a question of classification, I submit that this House Mr. MACDONALD.
should "not be kept up with a question of that kind.
When we are dealing with the question of classification by the engineers, what are -we dealing with? We are dealing with two questions. There are certain specifications provided in every contract. In this case the specifications were drawn by Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer, in whom hon. gentlemen opposite have a great deal of confidence, against whom no one suggests anything . These contracts contain the specifications, and there are only two matters to be considered and determined in this question. First, what do those specifications mean when their technical language is reduced to plain Anglo-Saxon ; and, second, are they properly carried out. These are purely technical questions to be decided by the engineers absolutely. The only point is this. Shall this question, which does not involve anything but the determination of a simple engineering problem, be referred back to the committee for consideration, or left to the chief engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the Commission and the arbitrator provided under the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific in case the two engineers disagree? To that question there can be but one reply. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) rather attempted to lead the House to believe that the Deputy Minister of Justice had not given any opinion on this question of classification. My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. North-rup) read this afternoon the very opinion which the hon. member for Simcoe indicated had never been delivered.


Haughton Lennox: It was exactly the same as I read it this morning.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I had some difficulty in inducing you to read it.


Haughton Lennox: I always yield to my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is what the Deputy Minister of Justice said :
It seems to me however that these questions-
That is the question which was agitating the minds of our hon. friends opposite.

are largely engineering questions, the solution of which depends principally upon the judgment of the engineer, having regard to the terms used in the specification.
Now, if the chief engineer of the Transcontinental is competent to perform his duty, if he is able to define what specifications mean and what is required by those specifications, where is the necessity of this House going on and debating the matter? Even the press of our hon. friends opposite indicated some time ago that instead of this question being entertained by a par-

liamentary committee of inquiry, it ought to go to this very tribunal of engineers for determination. There is no newspaper in this country so extreme in its views as is the leading organ of the Conservative party in my province ; and on May 23rd, when our hon. friends opposite and ourselves were struggling with this question in the committee, that newspaper indicated in the clearest possible language, that it was a mistake for us to bother with the question at all. This is what it says:
In this connection it may he advisable to refer to a report in the Toronto ' News/ when it editorially says that there seems to be a probability that the charges preferred by Major Hodgins against the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway of over-classification may yet be investigated by a more impartial tribunal than the committee of the House of Commons now sitting at Ottawa.
And it explains this probability by adding that it has transpired that the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have been for some time disputing the Quebec system of over-classification and consequent overvaluation and cost of the railway excavation material approved and adopted by the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway on somewhat similar lines as they are disputed by Major Hodgins, with the result that the engineer's dispute is about to be referred to an expert tribunal composed of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and a third arbitrator to be chosen by the two engineers, or, if they disagree, by the Chief Justice of Canada.
It will be matter for public satisfaction if this important case cannot be finally disposed of by the report of the majority of a partisan committee, but will come up for full investigation before ' a more impartial tribunal/
So that my hon. friends have been engaged in a work entirely of supererogation. Their friends throughout the country look upon Major Hodgins' charges as dead and buried, and anticipated the result of the committee's investigation by suggesting that whatever there was to be considered at all should be dealt with by this tribunal of engineers. I am only surprised that my hon. friends do not appreciate the facts, which are patent to everybody, better than to raise this great hullabaloo over the charges of Major Hodgins, which are now so effectually exploded that a thousand debates such as we have had would not resurrect them anywhere in the minds of the people.
I want to show you conclusively how the interests of the people were safeguarded when the Act was passed in 1893. We have heard a grea t deal about the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Let me draw your attention to a point not referred to my hon. friends. In the Act providing for the construction of the Transcontinental Railway, section 16 provides :
The commissioners shall let the work of constructing the eastern division by tender and contract after the plans and specifications therefor have been duly advertised, and they shall accept the lowest tender put in by a contractor who, in the judgment of the commissioners, is possessed of sufficient skill, experience and resources to carry on the work or such portion thereof as he has tendered for.
Thus it is provided that the commissioners shall let the work by tender and contract to the lowest tenderer, and every contract has been let to the lowest tenderer, and section 17 provides that:
The contract so entered into shall be guarded by such security, and contain such provision for retaining a portion of the contract moneys, to be held as a reserve fund for such periods of time, and on such conditions as appear to be necessary for the protection of the public and for securing the due performance of such contracts respectively.
When the souls of my hon. friends are being vexed and their press throughout the country is exclaiming about the millions of Canadian money which is being imperilled, they never venture to tell the public that the statute of 1903, providing for the construction of this road, anticipated disputes and provided that the contractors should be required to give security for the due performance of their contracts, and provided also for a retention of money, so that if any dispute should arise it would be settled in the interests of the Canadian people. Here is another provision safeguarding the public interest :
No money shall be paid to any contractor until the chief engineer has certified that the work for or on account of which it is claimed has been duly executed and that such money is due and payable, nor until such certificate has been approved by the commissioners.
So that the people of Canada have, first, the absolute responsibility of the chief engineer, whose integrity does not seem to be questioned by hon. gentlemen opposite, and over and above that there must be the approval of the commissioners to the chief engineer's certificates. I have said that this Act contemplated that every precaution should be taken to safeguard the interests of the people. These precautions were taken in every contract. Section 15 of each and every contract, including the contract of Mr. Davis, to whom my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) rather sneeringly referred, provides that the chief engineer shall be the sole judge of work and material in respect of both quantity and quality, and his decision on all questions in dispute with regard to work and material shall be final. It goes on to say :
Works or extra or additional works or changes shall be deemed to have been executed, nor shall the contractor be entitled to payment for the same, unless the same shall have been executed to the satisfaction of the

engineer, as evidenced by a certificate in writing, which certificate shall be a condition precedent to the right of the contractor to be paid therefor.
What is the use of talking about the question of classification and about a committee of this House investigating what the chief engineer of the Transcontinental did or did not do, especially in the absence of any suggestion of any wrong-doing on his part, or of anybody taking the responsibility of indicating that any wrong has been done? If the chief engineer has certified to payments to which he ought not to have certified, let us deal with that question. But if there are disputes between the engineers as to what is proper classification, and if the one to decide is Mr. Lumsden, no one has any right to pass him over. He stands in the path, and only on his certificate and only by his direction can money be paid. Further, let me direct your attention to section 33 of this contract, which contains the covenant to pay :
In consideration of the faithful performance by the contractor of all and singular the covenants and agreements herein contained, the commissioners hereby covenant and agree with the contractor that they will well and truly pay him on the full completion by him of all the work herein specified within the time specified and limited for the completion thereof to the satisfaction and subject to acceptance by their chief engineer and subject also as herein provided



certain schedule prices fixed in the contract. Then comes a section under which It is provided that the contractors are not entitled to receive payment until the completion of the work.
34. Cash payments equal to about ninety per cent of the value of the work done, approximately made up from returns of progress measurements and computed at the prices agreed upon, or determined under the provisions of this agreement, will be made to the contractor monthly, on the written certificate of the engineer that the work for, or on account of which, the certificate is granted has been duly executed to his satisfaction, and stating the value of such work computed as mentioned, and upon approval of such certificate by the commissioners; and the said certificate and such approval thereof shall be a condition precedent to the right of the contractor to be paid the said ninety per cent, or any part thereof. The remaining ten per cent shall be retained until the final completion of the whole work to the satisfaction of the chief engineer for the time being having control over the work;

iSo that, at all times, there is 10 per cent ot the progress estimates retained in the hands of the chief engineer. And, besides, as an hon. friend beside me reminds me, there is the deposit of 10 per cent of the estimated cost of the contact which had to he advanced by the contractor and which


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: is a further guarantee against any mistake made by an engineer.
And section 39 of the contract provides :
The progress measurements and progress certificates shall not in any respect be taken as binding upon the commissioners, or as final measurements or as fixing final amounts; they are to be subject to the revision of the engineer in making up his final certificate, and they shall not in any respect be taken as an acceptance for the work or release of the contractor from responsibility in respect thereof, but he shall at the conclusion of the works deliver over the same in good order, according to the true intent and meaning of this agreement.
ISo, the commissioners have absolutely7 safeguarded the interests of the people by these provisions. There is this further check, which is contained in the agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. There is the provision of section 7, which has been quoted, and there is that of section 47. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which company is to pay interest on the cost of construction, where any dispute arises between their engineer and the engineer of the Transcontinental, can have the matter determined first under section where it was referred to a board of arbitrators composed of the chief engineers of each road, and in the event of disagreement b/ the appointee of the chief justice, and finally under section 47, which provides that when you come to the end of the enterprise, if any dispute arises between the company and the commission as to the elements that enter into the cost, it can all be reviewed by an entirely independent tribunal. In the face of all this, are hon. gentlemen opposite serious when they ask that a committee of this House be asked to investigate whether two engineers away in the north country on district ' F ' of this road are correct in their opinions on a question of classification ? And when hon. gentlemen opposite talk about arbitration, and as to whether it can legally be carried on under this section or not, the fact remains that these gentlemen are already at work on the arbitration. It was intimated that no request for arbitration has been made. I would direct the attention of the House to page 467 where we find the letter of Mr. Woods, dated April 28 of this year, where he asks ;
Dear Sirs,-This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 24, in regard to classifications given on districts ' B ' and ' F/ wherein you say you could confer with me, either in Ottawa or Montreal, so as to arrange dates for arbitrating the points in dispute and for the appointment of a third arbitrator, &c.
In reply thereto will say that the action you propose cannot be taken


Samuel Barker: Cannot be taken.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -until after you have complied with my request of October 7, which, as you will recall, has been several times repeated, that you and I personally make an inspection of those portions of the work on districts ' B J and ' F ' where it is claimed improper classification has been made.
.1 will let my hon. friend know, if ho is not already aware of it, that the commission came to the conclusion, before a third arbitrator was appointed, that it would be proper for the chief engineer of the company and the chief engineer of the contractors to agree as far as they could, with a third to be appointed in case of dispute. And these gentlemen have been engaged for a month in settling the classification. I happened to come up from Nova Scotia with the chief engineer who was going to look into some of these quesetions on his return. When these gentlemen agree, the classification will be fixed. If Mr. Davis, Mr. McArthur or any other person, or if the sub-contractors-because they are the ones primarily interested and not the large contractors-[DOT] if these contractors have at any time, as a result of wrong classification, received more than they were entitled to, then by virtue or the ten per cent retained on the progress estimates, and the ten per cent of the wnole contract in the hands of the commission, every error can be rectified. Mr. Ritchie, who, I understand, is a counsel of great eminence and a peculiar fliiend of my hon. friends opposite, says in his letter on this subject, page 415 :
Having regard to paragraph 39 and other paragraphs of the contract, I am inclined to think it would not be successfully contended that the engineer in case of a mistake in measurement or classification could not rectify the error when making up his full certificate, and that he would not be precluded by progress measurements and certificates from so doing unless indeed it should turn out to be practically impossible after the work had been completed to determine the kind and characteristics of the material in the cut, so as to bo in a position to make a proper classification.
The country has the advantage of the judgment of the chief engineer in the first instance. Then it has the advantage of the arbitration going on with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) with great adroitness for which I congratulate him, having a bad case to deal with, attempted to make the point that the engineer was induced to take a certain course. There is not the suggestion of a tittle of evidence to that effect before the committee. It exists in imagination only. And when the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Banker) intimated, in interruption of my hon. friend from Carle-tc-n, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) that the specifications were altered, he knew that they were not


Samuel Barker: The interpretation I said.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The interpretation is another thing, but that was not what you said. It is one thing to alter a solemn contract duly drawn up and signed, and it is quite a different thing to take a different interpretation of what that document means. This afternoou the hon. gentleman intimated that the document itself had been altered. Such a thing never occurred. There never was an interpretation of the specifications issued by the chief engineer until the 9th day of January last. Each engineer had the specifications and every engineer took his own view of it. The result was necessarily that there were variances in the classification. I think the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, should, long before January last, have sent out instructions to indicate what his view of the specifications was in order that there might be uniformity in classification on the Transcontinental. But he did not arrange to do so, and I am here to say that I think if he had sent out those Instructions last summer, possibly Major Hodgins would never have got into the difficulty which has occurred. I think the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway should have been more explicit when he went up to district ' F in telling the engineers there just what his views were, and what his interpretation was. But he never made any interpretation until January 9, of this year. Will my hon. friends venture to say that this is any fault of the commissioners? There are documents and letters on record which indicate that they asked that this should be done long ago, and they show that the district engineer in the eastern division had applied for that uniform system of classification. So when the hon. member for Hamilton now ventures to say that the specifications were not altered, bat the interpretation of them was altered, he is still incorrect, because he cannot find on record any official statement made toy the chief engineer in which any interpretation was put upon them.


Samuel Barker: The commissioners writing toy their secretary to the chief engineer approved of his modification of his previous interpretation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, my hon. friend and his associates are doing what they usually do when dealing with any question of which they are trying to make a scandal, they are confusing language. Supposing Mr. Lumsden took a certain view of a certain cut down in the province of Quebec, his view as to whether that cutting should be classified as so much solid rock or so much loose rock, that would have nothing whatever to do with the language in the specifications or their general interpretation.


Samuel Barker: What were all these legal letters about and letters of opinion?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Legal letters, because they were dealing with a concrete case. These legal gentlemen were undertaking to deal with the question as to the proper interpretation of the specifications, because the question of classification was entirely in the hands of the chief engineer. Sir Alexander Lacoste, who I understand is one of the legal gentlemen our hon. friends have consulted, is not a gentleman who, as insinuated, would give an opinion merely to please a client. I am sorry the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not in his seat, because 1 would like to commend him the task of reading the opinion of Sir Alexander Lacoste, to find out in it how little there is in all the squabble over this question, because when Sir Alexander Lacoste deals with these questions, it is in such a clear manner that it makes my hon. friend's argument absolutely untenable. Therefore; we have established now that even if the allegation is that interpretation of these specifications was altered it does not avail them, because there was never any original interpretation to alter. But finally, on .January 9, Mr. Lumsden Issues a document in which he finds there were six conditions under which you can class solid rock: First, rock and ledges; second, rock and boulders over one cubic yard; third, conglomerate rock or plumb pudding stone; fourth, detached ledge rock in mass over one cubic yard; fifth, rock in masses of over one cubic yard; sixth, shale rock; six different defined conditions which can be classified as solid rock, and since that time they have been interpreted in that way. My hon. friend from Hastings undertook again to distort language with a view of endeavouring to show that Mr. Lumsden took that position under pressure. There is not any evidence of that. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, pointed out when the matter was referred to him, that Mr. Lumsden had evidently overlooked the use of the words ' cubic foot ' instead of the words ' cubic yard.' As a result, Mr. Lumsden corrected his interpretation which he had previously given on December 9, and used the words ' cubic yard ' in deference to the suggestion of the Deputy Minister of Justice. But in no other respect did his interpretation differ from that made on December 9, as he stated at the end of it that he had made it after consultation with Mr. Schreiiber, who was the consulting engineer in the western country. Now this is what the chief engineer did, and since January 9 of this year these uniform instructions as to interpretation have been in existence all over the Transcontinental. There never was any complaint made by the Grand Trunk Pacific in regard to classification previous to October 7 of last year, when Mr. Woods wrote on that subject. The hon. member Mr. BARKER.
for Simcoe endeavoured to deduce some argument from the statement in Mr. Lums-den's letter that Mr. Doucet at one time had taken a position in which he agreed with Mr. Woods. My hon. friend from Simcoe was not fair, or he overlooked the letter of Mr. Doucet which is to be found on page 399, in which he expressly states that he affirms the very position he took in the verbal discussion he had with Mr. Lumsden. But this letter of Mr. Woods, which has been made so much use of by the Conservative press, has been completely disposed of. It is disposed of by the letter of Mr. Doucet on page 398, it is disposed of by the letter of Mr. Huestis, on page 400, in which Mr. Huestis says:
Although Mr. Woods distinctly stated on the trip to La Tuque just completed that his interpretation was different to that as expressed by me, yet Mr. Armstrong told me that when he and Mr. Woods visited the work in the early part of October cut from station 59505969 which is classified by Mr. Bourgeois to be 88 per cent solid rock, 12 per cent loose rock was judged by Mr. Woods to be 100 per cent solid rock, which he could not possibly state on his declared interpretation of the specifications, as the eastern end sho.ws a cut where masses of material rather than ledge rock occurs.
Also by Mr. Bourgeois' letter on page 402, where Mr. Bourgeois, who is the local engineer, states that he had kept gangs of men in these cuts measuring the boulders that came out in order to verify their size, and to make it clear whether or not they should be classified as solid rock. As a matter of fact, I am prepared to state that Mr. Woods does not pretend to suggest that this error in classification, which he claims existed in October, occurred through any instructions that came from any superior.


Haughton Lennox: All the more reason why that should have been done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr: Lumsden was there, who could speedily correct it. My hon. friend from Simcoe knows as well as X do that the decision of an absolutely technical question as to whether any cut should be classified one way or another, is a matter peculiarly for engineers, and not for lawyers or members of parliament. Not only that, but you will find Mr. Woods' letter written in February 20 of this year, on page 469, in which he absolutely accepts the interpretation which was put upon the specifications by Mr. Lumsden in the previous January, and in which he says:
We are quite satisfied with your interpretation of the specifications and with your instructions, which are explicit. I do not know the date of these instructions or when they are supposed to become effective, but from reports from my assistants at Winnipeg and Quebec, there does not seem to have been any change in classification of work previous-

ly estimated was not classified according to your recent instructions being over estimated in both loose and solid rock.
Mr. Woods and Mr. Lumsden know better than the member for Simcoe and the member for Hamilton what is right, and they will so decide, if they are honest men. I do not think it is necessary to detain the house any longer. The conference between these arbitrators is now going on. If any interpretation of the classification upon any portion of this railway should, upon investigation by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, appear to be incorrect, he will deal with the matter. There is no use talking moonshine about the people of Canada losing thousands and thousands of dollars. There is not a contractor who has not got 20 per cent, or 10 per cent of all the money that can possibly be given to him and 10 per cent of the whole value of his contract in the hands of the commission. Not one of the commissioners, not Mr. Mclsaac, not Mr. Eeid, not Mr. Young, not Mr. Parent, not one of them, can give to any one of these contractors a five cent piece unless Mr. Lums-den, the chief engineer, says so, and if any one of these men has got a five cent piece as a result of any incorrect classification, every five cent piece, every dollar, every thousand dollars that he has got incorrectly can be got back from him in consequence of the required certification of the chief engineer. The whole tiling is in his own hands ; the responsibility is his. It is part of the political game of hon. gentlemen opposite, as they play it, to make the people believe that the gentlemen composing this commission have something to do with the question of classification. I do not know that I could conclude very much better than by asking1 the hon. member for Hamilton to show how a member of the commission, or a member of the government, could give to a contractor, or a sub-contractor, one dollar unless the chief engineer said not only that he should have it but that if he had got it he had a right to keep it. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while we have had under the consideration of this House and of the committees various absurd and ridiculous charges which have emanated from hon. gentlemen opposite, who have deserted every tradition of their party, abandoned every alleged policy, the absolute fiasco which has followed their attack upon the management of the Transcontinental Railway is the worst that has marked their whole career, and this fact is so apparent that I need not argue further. My hon. friends are simply covering their retreat, and I should apologize to the House for detaining it so long.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of pleasure to the hon. member (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) who has just sat
down. I give him credit for making a very ingenious speech on this subject and evading as carefully as possible any of tbe questions that are really involved in the report and the amended report now before the House. In rising to second the amendment I do not intend to follow the very able speech of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who went so fully, elaborately and completely into the facts of the case that it would be more than useless to occupy the time of the House in repeating what he has said. I wish to make a few remarks upon the argument of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell). That gentleman has a peculiar faculty of putting facts wrong end foremost. He is noted for that and he does it with all the apparent sincerity in the world, but he has only to be watched closely to see where the art comes in and how far he departs from the real facts. For example, he started off by asserting that Major Hodgins charged that if what he saw in Quebec were followed by Mr. Poulin, his successor, it would make a differencce of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 in the cost of district ' F.' No such language was ever used by Major Hodgins. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B., simply reverses the facts and puts upon Major Hodgins' language that was used by the contractor. The contractor, in an interview with a newspaper, had made certain statements in regard to the increase in the cost of his work and in referring to that he had eulogized the changes made in the work and had said that the increase was a proper one and would produce a fine piece of work. It was in reference to that that Major Hodgins made his statement. Major Hodgins never said anything like what was asserted by the hon. memebr for Carleton, N.B., and I think that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., must have known that at the time. I shall show in a moment exactly what Major Hodgins did say and how he came to refer to the contractor's statement. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B., also said that Major Hodgins signed the estimate for September. Major Hodgins had been dismissed before the estimate for September was prepared and Major Hodgins, on the contrary, said that some one had signed that estimate who did not know anything about the facts. I do complain somewhat of one thing done by the hon. member for Carleton. In the committee an effort was made by Mr. Murphy, counsel for the commissioners, after the case had been closed, to call Mr. Armstrong. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat objected to that. He was against Mr. Armstrong being called. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and I did not object to Mr. Armstrong being colled provided the case was opened, but we did object to Mr. Murphy calling one or two witnesses when the case was closed if we were to be barred from calling such wit-

nesses. It was a very plain position. There is not an lion, gentleman on the opposite side of the House who will say that we were not perfectly reasonable in that. We would not have objected, we were trying our best to go on with the inquiry and to call further witnesses, but they having closed the inquiry and then desiring to put in more witnesses of their own, we said :	If you
open it you must open the whole case and we will call further witnesses. That ended Mr. Armstrong.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) denied that this afternoon and contradicted me.


Samuel Barker: The facts are as I have stated them. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) strongly objected to Mr. Armstrong being called because he knew it would open the case and give us an opportunity of calling witnesses if we desired to do so. It was most unfair, It appears to me, and 1 hope hon. gentlemen opposite will not regard it as right or proper, that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., failing to call that witness because of the case being closed, should read to the House a statement made by Armstrong, when we have no opportunity of cross-examining him or bringing him face to face with any other witnesses. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B., took credit to himself that he had invited us to prove anything more after the closing of the case. Over and over again he repeated that they had challenged us to call witnesses to prove any fraud, but the hon. gentleman carefully kept back from the House what he really did say. How could we, he said, be allowed to call witnesses to prove fraud if no member of the House would take it upon himself to charge fraud ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) was very prudent in his offer. He was quite willing that we should go into a case of fraud provided one of us got up and formally charged the commissioners with fraud. He knew perfectly well that no member of the committee could with propriety make any such charge. We were not there as prosecutors. We were there under the order of this House to investigate, and it would have been improper for any member of the committee to make a -eharge of fraud against any person. We were there to receive testimony, and the proposal of the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) that we should make a charge of fraud was simply humbug and he knows It. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) said, as showing how defective Major Hodgins was in his knowledge of what passed on section ' B ' that Hodgins represented that at La Tuque cutting, he was told certain work was classified at 86 per cent solid rock, and the hon. member said that Major Hodgins himself conceded that it ought to have been classified at 40 per Mr. BARKER.
cent. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) went on to add that in fact it was not classified at so much as 40 per cent but at only 32 per cent and had been on a previous occasion classified at 29 per cent. The facts about that are very simple and the hon. gentleman knew them as well as any member of tlie committee. Major Hodgins was taken down to section ' B ' in Quebec; he knew nothing about the country, he had no plans and no profiles; he was just taken there to look at the work. He was shown a particular piece of work, and asking how it had been classified he was told by one of the men on the spot that it had been classified at 86 per cent solid rock. Major Hodgins may or may not have been correct in his recollection of that. He left shortly after for Ottawa, he had no memoranda about him, but nobody who knows Major Hodgins believes that he would wilfully misrepresent. I would not say that Major Hodgins may not have been mistaken; he may have made a mistake in describing the exact location of the piece of work he was speaking about.


Jacob Thomas Schell: That cutting is the only cutting on the eastern division of the Transcontinental that has 100 feet in depth. I know well what I am speaking about and I may say that the cutting is not all out yet and they were only working upon a very small portion of it at that time.


Samuel Barker: La Tuque is a general designation of the place Major Hodgins went to, but he went over several places in the neighbourhood and he did not confine his walk to that particular cutting. He had firmly in his mind one spot which was represented as being classified at 86 per cent.


Jacob Thomas Schell: He specially mentions a cutting 100 feet deep and La Tuque is only one of that depth.


Samuel Barker: It is clear that Major Hodgins is not alone in referring to 86 per cent classification in that neighbourhood, because the Grand Trunk engineers find a similar classification, and what Major Hodgins says is that it was quite possible for him to have made an error as to the exact spot when he was speaking several months afterwards. I assert, that when the member for Carleton ((Mr. Carr veil) tells us that Major Hodgins is an honourable man and a straightforward and a truthful man, it is neither fair nor right for that hon. gentleman at the same time to represent him as wilfully misrepresenting the classification. That is all I have to say on that subject.
The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) went on to refer to force account, and he very strongly condemns Major Hodgins for the advice he gave with regard to it. But Mr. Lumsdeu the chief engineer expressly stated that he did not find fault with Major

Hodgins as to his advice about force account nor was he dismissed on that ground, and I shall show later that Major Hodgins was treated most unfairly and most unjustly by the commission with regard to that matter. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr* Macdonald) claims that Major Hodgins unreservedly withdrew his charges. That is putting it very strongly indeed as any one who has heard or read the evidence of Major Hodgins must nd-of Major Hodgins was confronted, with these legal opinions that we have heard so much about and. in reply to the member for Pictou he said lie did not know of those opinions when he wrote his letter. He was then asked if he would have modified his own judgment as to what he said in his letter, had he known of these legal opinions. Major Hodgins confessed that it would have had an effect upon his mind and might have altered his opinion as to the acts of others, but as to his own division and as to the cases in which he found fault with classification he never withdrew one he had uttered, aud he had remained of precisely the same opinion. He was manly enough to say that if the engineers acted upon legal advice, accepted by the chief engineer, that certainly would modify his opinion as to the conduct of these engineers. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) carefully concealed the fact that the over classification as to which Major Hodgins gave evidence was all done before the change was made in the interpretation. The action taken by McIntosh had altered the estimates from January to June and July, 1907, but the legal opinion were later so they could not affect the charges made by Major Hodgins himself. The hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) went on to speak of obstructors and the press, but there is no question of obstruction before us here and it would be useless to follow him in that line of argument. The simple question is : The House having referred a certain subject to the committee, whether the committee should deal with it or whether they should take the opinion of Major Hodgins that another body could deal with it better than the committee. It is not for the committee, it is not for Major Hodgins to decide that. The House, knowing the facts, knowing the statute which provided for arbitrators, the government knowing all about that agreement of January 10, 1908, knowing every fact that we know today, appointed the committee and directed us to investigate. By what authority does the committee accept from Major Hodgins who is a mere witness the opinion that some other body can deal with it more satisfactorily than a committee appointed by this House. Then the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) tries to make out there is some excessive verbiage and he says we charge over classification, excessive allowance, and undue payments. There might be over
classification by the resident engineer and it might go no further, but still that might be a matter for proper inquiry. But there was not only over-classification, it was allowed, and undue payments given.
Those are the specific charges made and the amendment urges that we ought to continue the investigation of these subjects.
The hon. member also comments upon the fact that in putting in before the committee the various letters that have been referred to to-day I had said that those letters did not charge or prove fraud against the commissioners ; I say so still. There is nothing in those letters that indicates any fraudulent conduct on the part of the commissioners. That has never been pretended. The letters do not say there was any fraud, but they prove what is on their face, that over-classification was allowed by the resident engineers. That is all the letters say, and that is all we put them in to show. If the inquiry had gone on, the committee would not have rested with those letters ; we would have sent for those Grand Trunk engineers, would have sent for Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Woods, and would have heard all the evidence, we would have brought these witnesses face to face with the government engineers, and would have found out what the truth is about all this. But when the committee got to that point, and with those letters before them, showing most grievous errors apparently, certainly enormous amounts at stake far beyond anything that Major Hodgins knew as to his own division, tiie committee shut down and said they would investigate no more, although they were ordered to investigate by the House. That is all I have to say in answer to the speech of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. K. M. Macdonald).
I propose to take up what I -understand to be the real questions submitted to us and to deal with them in as brief a manner as I possibly can. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) says : What is the question which was submitted to us? That can be answered very simply. In April, 1908, certain letters, interviews and comments appeared in the newspapers commenting upon charges affecting the commissioners of the National Transcontinental Railway, and these were of such a character that the commissioners considered it their duty to bring the matter before parliament, which they did by memorandum to the First Minister, appearing at page 15 of the printed evidence. That is the starting point, the bringing up of that memorandum of Mr. Parent by the First Minister. The First Minister made a motion to refer that memorandum and other papers to a committee. The motion is printed at page 5 of the evidence, and as it appears here is somewhat altered from the form in which it was at first introduced by the Prime Min-

ister, the words ' together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public press thereto referred to,' haying being Inserted before the motion passed. It is dated 28th April, 1008, and reads :
Resolved, that the memorandum of the chairman of the Transcontinental _ Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of April 23, and laid on the table of this House on the 24th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, 'together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public press therein referred to, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be composd of:	_
Messrs. Carvell, Macdonald (Pictou), Geof-frion, Barker, and Lennox-; and that they have power to send-
Not to send for Major Hodgins, but
-to send for persons, papers and records, to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.
That was the reference, but when you come to the papers themselves which were referred to the committee you find that to the memorandum were appended Major Hodgins' letter and various newspapers and other papers. For the letter Major Hodgins of course accepted full responsibility. As to the interviews he did not repudiate them to the sense that the repudiation has been represented here. He simply said that he had an interview with a newspaper reporter ; that the newspaper reporter took a short memorandum from him, perhaps as he described it, it would occupy a space of two or three inches, and having got, in newspaper reporter fashion, the substance of what he wanted, the reporter elaborated that out into a rather lengthy article, and so Major Hodgins says : I do not accept responsibility for the elaboration, I only accept responsibility for what I told him. That is not withdrawing the charge, that is not repudiating anything he said; he over and over again repeated that he stood by whatever he said, and especially he stood by the letter. In that letter Major Hodgins made very distinct charges about which there could he no mistake. First of ail he said that the root of all the trouble between the commissioners and himself was the question of over-classification ; that is, his refusal to certify work done as of a higher and more costly class than the facts justified. There was a distinct charge that he had been in trouble with the commissioners, and because be refussed to certify for a higher class of work than the facts justified. That charge would be confined to his own district. He had, he said, refused to be more liberal in classification than he was allowing, and he had suggested that the commissioners, not being railroad men, should leave the engineering department alone. That was charge No.


Mr. BARKER.: 2. He also said that one of the commissioners had advised him to go to Quebec and see how things were managed in that respect where the (contractors were not kicking and get an object lesson. That was charge or statement No. 3.	*
In his letter he alluded to the interview of Mr. McArthur, and this brings up the statement with which I find fault to the speech of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. McArthur was the contractor for 250 miles of district ' F ' near Winnipeg. A statement had appeared in the Toronto 'World' of March 14, as coming from McArthur, that whereas the first estimate of the cost of the 230 miles had been $13,000,000, the actual cost would be close to $16,000,000, because so many changes had been made. That was the statement of Major Hodgins, as the member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) put it, but it was a statement made by McArthur, the contractor. As to this Major Hodgins replied, in his letter, that changes in location had really reduced the probable outlay by almost $1,000,000. So that the total cost should be reduced to about $12,000,000 instead of being increased to about $16,000,000. He did not say, and did not pretend to say, that the probable cost had increased to $16,000,000 ; that was Mr. McArthur's statement. All that Major Hodgins said was that the alterations in location really reduced the $13,000,000 by about a million and that there should be a reduction to about $12,000,000 instead of an increase to $16,000,000. Commenting upon the McArthur interview, Major Hodgins in his letter said :
If Mir. Poulin, the engineer appointed by Mr. Parent to replace me on the western district, has allowed the introduction of classification similar to that in the province of Quebec, this will account for an increase in the estimated cost of the line.
He did not say that Mr. Poulin had allowed that, but that if he had, that would
account for an increase.
If this increase amounts to three or four million dollars '(33J per cent), it is time the public demanded some explanation from the government.
Mr. Hodgins made no assertion there except based upon what had been said by Mr. McArthur. What he said was that if the increase was caused by using the Quebec classification, as it was termed, it was about time the government should inquire into it. Major Hodgins, in his letter, went on to say :
The quickest way for the government to find out if the classification allowed ,is extravagant or not will he for the. Minister of Railways to ask for the monthly reports of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway engineers, who

are stationed on the Winnipeg district and the Quebec district, Messrs. Mann, Heaman and Armstrong; these reports are, I think, sent to the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific in Montreal. These engineers are well known in the west, and their reports contain much more information on the subject than I have.
Here we have a clear statement involving, not merely district ' By near Winnipeg, but district ' B,' in the province of Quebec. Major Hodgins made no pretense of knowing anything of district ' B ' of his own knowledge, but he did know about district ' F.' It must be borne in mind that Major Hodgins did not know what Messrs. Heaman, Armstrong and Mann could prove; and he could not, by this statement, have expected anybody to believe that he was himself in a position to prove anything about excessive classification in the province of Quebec. But the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific could give that evidence. Major Hodgins could give evidence as to district ' F.' It was as to these charges among others, appearing in the papers appended to the memo, which the chief commissioner wrote to the First Minister, that an inquiry was ordered. These charges involve, not merely the Winnipeg end, but district ' B '-not merely information within the knowledge of Major Hodgins but information that could only be obtained from the Grand Trunk Pacific and their engineers.
Now the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission used these words at the close of his letter to the Prime Minister :
In conclusion, the commissioners would respectfully request, as they do not wish to remain under the aspersion which such reports cast on them

Those reports include not Major Hodgins' district alone but district ' B ' as well.
-that the whole matter be referred to and looked into by a committee of the House and that Major Hodgins be assigned to appear before the same to repeat his charges in a specific manner in order to substantiate them if he can.
Thereupon the House, on April 28, referred all those papers to a special committee with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned. I have stated the matters contained in that letter, not with the view of discussing whether they have been proven or not but to bring clearly before the House what was the subject matter referred to the committee. It is absolutely clear that what was recognized by the commissioners as affecting their reputation was not merely the charges as to district ' F,' not merely things within the personal knowledge of Major Hodgins, but the matters also referred to re-393
garding district 1 B,' and the evidence that could be given by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers. It must be quite clear to hon. members, when they have read the evidence, that it was absolutely impossible for Major Hodgins to have known all the facts contained in these charges. He had reason to suppose there was foundation for the charges when he made them, but he could no more prove them on oath than he could prove what was going on in China. He had nothing to do with district * B,' but he had reason to believe that things were not going on as they should in that district ? He knew that the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers were finding fault with the classification there, but he knew none of these things of his own personal knowledge.
If the House desire to understand exactly what occurred with regard to Major Hodgins, they should know precisely what his position was and what were the relations between him and his chief and the commissioners. He had been district engineer, at first in charge of location, and then of the construction of about 380 miles lying immediately east of Winnipeg, known as district ' F.' He had under him the usual staff of engineers, and they apparently were quite satisfactory to him until the troubles arose to which I shall refer. Mr. McArthur was contractor for 250 miles of that district and had sub-let portions to other contractors. The classifications on which the contract prices were based were ordinary excavation, loose rock, and solid rock, and the prices were solid rock, $1.70 per cubic yard, loose rock, 60 cents and ordinary excavation, 30 cents. Mr Hodgins was under the impression-and I think that was generally understood-that McArthur had taken his contract for ordinary excavation at too low a price, and no doubt the sub-contractors were lower still. After McArthur began his work labour became scarce and wages increased which made it harder for all of them as regards common excavation. There are some gentlemen in this House who have had some practical experience of this sort of thing; but anybody who knows anything about it is quite aware that these conditions are sure to breed trouble, and the position both of the district and subordinate engineers became an exceedingly difficult one. That was the position of Major Hodgins. The progress of Mr. McArthur and his sub-contractors was very unsatisfactory. Major Hodgins seems to have found serious fault with him, but he rather sympathized with the difficulties Mr. McArthur was in. It was very difficult to get labour, the prices were known to be low, and it was supposed that some of the sub-contractors were losing money.
In December, 1906, and again a few months later, Major Hodgins had formally notified the contractor that he must increase his force, and had forwarded this notice to



the chief who had also given similar notice. In May or June, 1907, the chief engineer met Major Hodgins in Winnipeg. The commissioners were there, all of them, and it is curious to see how soon these commissioners began to meddle with the engineers. I shall not take the time to read these letters. The evidence shows the conversations with the commissioners, and the hints received by Major Hodgins that he should try and relieve matters, and the difficulties he had generally, so that he finally said to one of the commissioners, ' You don't understand the matter; you had better let the engineers alone.' I mention that as indicating that there was an interference by the commissioners that was certainly likely to lead to insubordination. Anybody who knows anything about these matters must see that it was a most improper thing for these commissioners to meddle between the contractors and engineers. It should have been left for the chief engineer. Nobody would expect to see the board of directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk going out and interviewing contractors, engineers and subordinate engineers, consulting with or directing them apart from or otherwise than through the chief engineer.
Then, in June, Mr. Gordon Grant was sent up to Major Hodgins' district, as it was said, to report. Apparently, he was sent as an inspecting engineer over the whole district ' F,' but it was not intended that he should do more than inspect and report to headquarters. In fact, at page 116, Major Hodgins is asked :
Q. Did Mr. Lumsden tell you what instructions he had given to Mr. Grant?-A. I asked him whether we were to take instructions from Mr. Grant and he said no. Mr. Grant had been appointed against his wish and he would see that he did not give any instructions to the engineers.
Now, it has been said that there was a feeling of hostility on the part of Major Hodgins towards Mr. Grant. I think that is not improbable. Major Hodgins was in charge of District ' F.' Mr. Gordon Grant, without any communication to Major Hodgins, was sent up to be inspector of the whole district in Major Hodgins' charge. And it is here in evidence that the chief engineer said that Mr. Grant had been appointed against his wish and that he was not to interfere with the engineer, but to report direct to bim, the chiet. This is confirmed in a rather singular way by a letter which appears at page 93, a very significant letter, showing how, at that date at all events, the commissioners or some of them had begun to intermeddle with engineering matters, going behind the back of the chipf. This letter is from Mr. C. A. Young, one of the commissioners:


Samuel Barker: Commissioners of Transcontinental Railway.
Ottawa, Ont., June 4, 1907.
(Personal.)
A. E. Hodgins, Esq.,
District Engineer,
Kenora, Ont.
My Dear Major,-I am in receipt of yours of the 1st instant, and note fully the bundle of reports that Mann

Mr. Mann was inspecting engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Or, at that time, he may have been with the commissioners, but afterwards with the Grand Trunk.
-has brought up concerning the appointment of an inspector. The position _ of inspector was one that I had been working on for a long time.
Here is the commissioner writing to a district engineer a personal letter behind the back of the chief, telling him that this position of inspector for District ' F ' was one that he, the commissioner had been working on for a long time.
I realize that, both at the head office and the district offices, there was so much office work to be done when construction was going on that it made it impossible for the engineer and staff we had to devote the time that they should devote to going over the work.
One would have thought that this was a matter for the chief engineer to consider, at all events that Mr. Young, instead of working on it for a long time, would have advised the chief and allowed the chief to make his own selection. But the commissioner worked on it, and the chief said that Mr. Grant was chosen against his will.
Finally we decided to appoint a man whose duty it wou-ld be to remain on the work constantly and not have any office work whatever. I may tell you privately that in the selection of a man for this work, it was considered by some of the board

Not the chief engineer.
-that we should have a high class and a high priced man, and Mr. Barclay (who no doubt you know) was offered the position, but be did not consider the remuneration sufficient, and' declined. It was never offered to any of our district engineers, for the reason we did not wish to disturb them in their present positions; and in looking around, Mr. Grant- who was represented as a very good -man- was suggested; I think the suggestion came, in the first place, from Doucet, and Grant was appointed.
There is the connection of Mr. Grant with District ' B ' in Quebec. Mr. Doucet, who was in charge of District ' B ' in Quebec, recommends Mr. Grant, who was to go up as inspector of District ' F.' Mr. Young goes on:
The appointment of this man cannot possibly be considered a reflection on our dis-

trict engineers. Tlie position was not offered to Doucet, Hoare or any one else, outside of Barclay. It is certainly promotion for Grant,

'Mr. Grant was junior to Major Hodgins ami was practically put over his head.
-and might have the appearance of his being promoted over your head, from a minor position, but, as stated, did not wish to disturb the district engineers in their positions, and we preferred taking a man, if at all suitable, already in our employ rather than bring in an outsider.
'Mr. J. T. SCHELL. Was any evidence given to show the status of Mr. Grant as compared with Major Hodgins?


Samuel Barker: I think it was said that he was a junior engineer to Major Hodgins. That seems to be clear from the letter.


Mr.   .T. T. SCHELL@: I do not ask the question with reference to his standing before, but after his appointment.


Samuel Barker: You will see what comes presently within that month of June :
The question of his being a western or an eastern man of course cuts no figure; as a matter of fact, Grant was brought from British Columbia to take the position in Quebec in the first place. As for any complaints regarding classification

There has been some discussion about classification.
-we have not heard them, and do not think there is anything in the report. I expect to see you when I go west, and will discuss the matter more fully with you. In the meantime, keep your shirt on. Would it not be well that both yourself and inspector go over the work with Mann.
Now, I submit to the business men of this House that here was a highly improper letter for a commissioner to take upon himself to write to a subordinate of the chief engineer. I have already mentioned the meeting of the commissioners with Mr. Hodgins at Winnipeg. 'All the commissioners were there. I may say that Mr. Young, the commissioner who wrote this letter, is a Winnipeg man, and McArthur, the contractor, lives at Winnipeg also. Mr. Young spoke to Mr. Hodgins about the trouble with McArthur, that something ought to be done, that McArthur complained he was not getting enough classification. Mr. Young referred to the prices in Quebec which he said, were lowest there, yet the contractors all seemed to be satisfied. There was a row on in District ' P ' and no trouble in Quebec. And Mr. Young said: Why do you not do as Quebec does ? There again you see meddling, which was most improper. Mr. Hodgins replied : That was an engineering matter, and that he (Mr. Young) had better leave the en-393i
gineering question alone. Mr. Young said Mr. Hodgins had better go to Quebec and get an object lesson. Well, following that, Mr. Hodgins, as has been stated here today, was taken to Quebec to section ' B,' and the commissioners, the chief and a batch of engineers went along. Now, I say again as to this visit to section ' B,' in the province of Quebec, to give an object lesson, that I think these commissioners would have been doing better service to the country if they had attended to their own particular duties and allowed the chief to take his subordinates to visit these works if he thought it necessary, to show them how things were managed in Quebec. Why should five commissioners travel all the way from Winnipeg to Quebec upon such business as that? What could they do? The chief was there; had they any right to interfere with the chief ? Apparently they could, but not openly, and the only supposition I can draw from it is that they went there in order to see that what they wanted done should be done. Now, I have already referred to the possible mistake at La Tuque. I will not go into that any further. It is quite true, as has been said here, that a witness called by the commissioners said that what he alleged to be the material referred to by Mr. Hodgins in section ' B ' had been originally classified as 29 per cent, and I think it is quite possible there was an error. But I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Hodgins did not wilfully misstate- anything. Anybody acquainted with Mr. Hodgins knows that he would not do such a thing. The whole of his testimony before the committee showed that he was always trying to keep within the mark and avoid exaggeration. I repeat that Mr. Woods, the assistant engineer of the Grand Trunk, more than confirms, in his letters written to the tspmmission, all that Mr. Hodgins has said as to over-classification.
Now note this : Hodgins says that the chief engineer being present on section ' B,' in Quebec, during that ' schooling,' held aloof and took no part.
The chief, who was the man who ought to have been taking an active part, held aloof and took no part. What does that mean? Evidently he objected to this intermeddling of the commissioners between him and his staff. Mr. Hodgins went over to speak to him, the chief turned away. He received no help, no guidance, no instructions from the chief. So, he says, having looked at what was going on he made up his mind that he would stand by what his own experience and judgment taught him, and he would not follow what he saw in Quebec.
It was immediately after that trip to Quebec that Grant was sent up, by the commissioners in fact, though nominally by the chief, as inspector of District ' F,' and within a month,-although Mr. Young wrote that let-

ter in which he represented that Grant would have nothing to do with the engineers along the line, and would have to report only to the chief as to his inspection *-within a month, on the 26th of June, I think it was, Grant wrote a most drastic condemnation of everything that Hodgins was doing, condemned him all along the line, everything was wrong, he was neglecting the work, not getting it ready for the contractors, doing nothing that he ought to have done. The report is one of the most severe that a man could write and I would ask the House : Is it possible to conceive that Grant, a junior to Mr. Hod-gins, being sent up, as he was supposed to be sent up, merely as a travelling inspector, not to interfere with Mr. Hodgins or his staff-can we conceive that he would have written such a report as that unless he had been told to do it? There can be no doubt that he was told by the commissioner to write a report on Mr. Hodgins and Grant knew what was wanted.
But matters got worse with the contractors. McArthur, so far as one can make out, was probably not a very good contractor, not a man of experience, he was not pushing the work as it ought to be pushed, his sub-contractors were in trouble, they were complaining they were not getting sufficient classification, and everything was going wrong. Major Hodgins was found fault with, and everybody was in trouble. Some of the sub-contractors were threatening to throw up the job. That would have been very serious at the time. Whether they meant to throw it up or not, they were talking that way and Major Hodgins could not fail to see the danger and what a disaster it would be to everybody concerned if Mr. McArthur or any of these men did throw up the job. So the chief engineer having gone up to Kenora to look over the line, Major Hodgins had an interview with him and got his own subordinate engineers about him. He pointed out to the chief what the difficulty was, that the contractors were dissatisfied, that they said they were losing money on the ordinary excavation and that something would have to toe done to relieve the situation. Mr. Hodgins reminded the chief that on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and some other railways that he mentioned, a force account had been allowed in a similar situation, and he suggested to the chief that they might allow ' force account' to Mr. McArthur and his subcontractors. That meant that they would keep a particular account of the force employed, an actual account of the cost of the ordinary excavation and of the loose rock and allow, instead of the contract figures, that cost, plus 10 per cent profit. That was not to include solid rock. It was to be confined to what was called mixed material and he suggested it only as a means of relieving the sitaution and avoiding a stoppage Mr. BARKER.
of the work. Mr. Lumsden immediately said he had no authority, that he could not do it. In the presence of the sub-engineers Major Hodgins urged that something of that kind ought to be done at once, tout Air. 'Lumsden declined to take the responsibility. Major Hodgins then said to him: You go back to Ottawa and you can within five days stop me; in the meantime I can make preparations; you can stop me within five days and no harm will toe done. If the commissioners say that it is all right you will have saved a great risk and the contractors will push on with their work. Mr. Lumsden went away then, telling Major Hodgins again that he would take no responsibility. But he was acting upon Major Hodgins' recommendation, for he went back immediately to Ottawa and laid that proposition before the commissioners. The commissioners declined' it. They then wrote that most remarkable letter, that the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., thinks is one of the finest pieces of business he ever got his eyes upon, in which they condemned Major Hodgins for making this most awful suggestion of allowing force account, in connection with the common excavation and loose rock in order to prevent a disaster. All Major Hodgins had said was submit the matter to the commissioners and if they do not approve stop me; you can do that by wire within five days. This most marvellous letter, which evoked the admiration of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., condemned Major Hodgins for that and the man, insofar as the commission was concerned, was practically dismissed for making that proposal.


Haughton Lennox: Or something else.


Samuel Barker: Including something else. The man did not propose to do it without authority, tout feeling that it was a case of emergency, he asked his chief to go to Ottawa, saying to him: You can stop me in five days and no harm will be done. Yet, because he dared to make such a suggestion he w7as condemned. The commissioners who wrote that latter which received the admiration of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., wrote it with an object. He was not writing to educate or reprimand the engineer. He was putting himself on record for such a gentleman as the hon. member for Carleton, N.B.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Would the hon. member tell me if, as a member of the committee, he called Air. Lumsden to have his statement in reference to this matter?


Samuel Barker: No, Air. Lumsden was never called. We were stopped from doing anything of the kind. The whole thing was wound up with Major Hodgins in the witness box. We would have heard Mr. Lumsden and all these other engineers tout

this thing was all choked off by the majority of the committee. At page 153 will be found the letter of Major Hodgins to his chief, dated the 4th September, 1907, in which Major Hodgins gives fully to the chief the grounds on which he had made this suggestion in regard to a force account and in that letter he puts it practically as I have said-a little more at length, but he gives his reasons for, explains everything fully and confirms parts of his story by memoranda from the sub-engineers. If the chief engineer had thought there was anything improper in the suggestion of his district engineer why did he not tell him so promptly? Why did he not say: You must not do that; I forbid it. Surely, if he thought there was anything wrong, that would have been the manly course and the one he should have pursued. But, he showed clearly that while he did not wish to take the responsibility, while he was willing to leave the responsibility upon poor Major Hodgins, he so far felt that it was the right thing to do that he went back to Ottawa, all the way from Kenora, to lay the suggestion before the commissioners. I do not think we could have any better justification of the good faith and common sense of Major Hodgins than that.
Now, I think the House will see that Major Hodgins was in a pretty bad corner just about August, 1907. His fate was practically decided. The sending of Grant up as inspector, the condemnation for daring to suggest force account, the bringing Major Hodgins down to Quebec to see how work was classified there, his refusal to change his own opinion-all this condemned the man, and it was not long before he found it out.
I now propose to take up the question of the over-classification that occurred on Major Hodgins' division. That over-classification occurred, while Major Hodgins was on the work, only in the case of a man named McIntosh who had been in charge of the residency from the beginning and this man had, so far as Hodgins knew, always classified properly and in strict accordance with the judgment of Hodgins himself. Grant went over the district and made his report on the 26th of June, and on the 27th of July, 1907, McIntosh writes to Hodgins:
Dear Sir,-Inclosed herewith please find estimates for the month of July. I have made some changes in the classification

He makes no pretense that he had asked the consent of his chief or anybody else unless it may be Grant:
-changing certain amounts which were returned as loose rock into solid and common excavation into loose rock on residencies 25 and 26.
There is the very beginning of anything of that kind on district ' F ' under Hodgins:
On residency 25 the items are shown on memorandum attached. These transfers I have deemed advisable to make at the present time as having regard to the cost of working and material they should be promptly classed as rock excavation.
Could there be anything more satisfactory to the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) than that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Nothing except Major Hodgin's letter to the chief engineer endorsing it.
Mr. BARKER I will show what kind of an endorsation that was. At page 133 he gives the changes made in residency 25 and he shows there 875 yards deducted from common excavation and 4,980 yards deducted from loose rock, and both added to solid rock 5,055 cubic yards. On 6th August, Mr. Hodgins writes to the chief engineer:
Dear Sir,-I send you to-day per Dominion Express A. D. McArthur's progress estimate
for month of July. 

 I inclose herewith a
copy of a letter from Mr. McIntosh relating to an error of 100 cubic yards of loose rock on residency 25. This item was erroneously entered in June and has been deducted in the current estimate.
A statement is attached to form 4, residency 25, showing certain amounts, which were previously returned as loose rock and common excavation, now returned as solid rock.
Mr. McIntosh writes to same :
These transfers I have deemed it advisable to make at the present time, as, having regard to the cost of working and material, they should be properly classed as rock excavation.
You will also notice on residency 26, that 33 cubic yards of dry masonry have been deducted, and a like amount has been a'dded to item 17, paying.
Now I would ask just here whether having regard to the facts that he, Hodgins, had refused to change classification, and that Grant had been there for a month was it unreasonable for Hodgins to suspect that Grant had interfered in this. Any man in Hodgins' position would have suspected that and that would account for some of that feeling that seems to he regarded as a crime on the part of Hodgins. Mr. McIntosh made that change off his own bat unless Grant had interfered, and Hodgins sends it on to the chief engineer with an exact copy of what Mr. McIntosh said. I quote from page 135 of the evidence:
Q. Well. I understand that Mr. Lumsden went up there about August 12 or 13?-A. I saw Mr. Lumsden up there. It would be about the time he was in Winnipeg.
Q. About August 6?-A. And I spoke to him about it, and told him I had sent it to him.
Q. What discussion took place between you and him as to these July estimates?-A. I said I had noticed that there were several cases where the solid rock estimates had jumped in that month out of the usual average, and the only way I could account for it was that somebody had suggested to the men, the en-

gineers on the line, to return solid rock with more liberality than I was inclined to do.
Q. Did you mention to him to whom you referred?-A. Yes. I said to him, 'Mr. Grant has just been over the line and the solid rock estimate has jumped.'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think my hon. friend is in error, he is talking about Mr. Foss who was transferred there from St. John for a week or two after Major Hodgins left, not Mr. Grant.
That was not confirming Mr. McIntosh's over-classification :
Q. Did you get any instructions from him? -A. He told me to go over the work with reference to these

Q. Now I will fix the date of that interview accurately a little later?-A. ' Mr. Lumsden,' I said, ' I do not like the look of that sudden jump and McIntosh lias not given me a very satisfactory answer.'
Q. What did the chief engineer tell you to dob-A. When I told him I was going he said ' Yes, you had better go as soon as possible.'
It appears form the evidence that month after month from January to June, 1907, Mr. McIntosh had been regularly making his estimates and classifying everything precisely according to Hodgins' view of what ought to be done. But in this July estimate he went back over the different estimates all the way to January and for the five or six months rolled up that 5,055 yards of solid rock, previously certified as either common excavation or loose rock.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Could the hon. gentleman state or does he know whether Hodgins had been in the habit of going over the line to Inspect the work of his different residents 7


Samuel Barker: I think he had not been going as often as perhaps would have been prudent. He had full confidence In these men, who were experienced men, and In McIntosh among the rest. He had also a great deal of work to do. He had been locating engineer and was making changes in location and the commissioners seem to have recognized that he had too much work to do, because they took Major Hodgins away and put Mr. Poulin in his place, they left Mr. Grant there along with Mr. Poulin, so there were two men to do the work Major Hodgins had been doing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend mean they left Gordon Grant, the inspecting engineer, there 7


Samuel Barker: He was there for some time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no recollection to that effect.


Samuel Barker: He was certainly there in July.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But Poulin did not go there until September.


Samuel Barker: But somebody was acting. The hon. gentleman makes a mistake in saying that Hodgins certified the September work. Hodgins said somebody had certified that estimate who did not know anything about the facts.


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: At page 139 Major Hodgins reports after be bad got through part of his examination of McIntosh's work at the chief's request :
Private and confidential.
Kenora, Ontario, September 9, 1907. H. D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-In looking over Mr. McIntosh's estimate I notice that his monthly return for common excavation amounted to very little over 385 cubic yards for July estimate, the estimate immediately following Mr. Grant's inspection, and then jumped to 14,005 cubic yards during August.
Common excavation, McIntosh's division, to end-
Cubic yards.
January	 5,287
February		5,742
March	 6,672
April	 9,326
May	 13,334
June	 25,276
July	 25,661
August	 39,666
He gives there all the common excavation on McIntosh's division, and shows how it progressed. There was an increase in April of 2,654 yards of common excavation above the quantity from January to end of March, In May there was a further quantity of 4.008 cubic yards and in June a further 11,542. Of course at that season the work was progressing, but in July, that is the estimate after Grant's first month on the line, the common excavation went down to 385 yards. The next month, August, it went up to 14,005 yards. It was in that July estimate that the common excavation and loose rock were turned Into solid rock. Major Hodgins' letter goes on :
The amount of common excavation returned in July as solid rock, it having previously been returned as common excavation, and which 1 altered on the August estimate, is only 875, so that it does not account for the large falling off of common excavation in July.
I went over Mr. McIntosh s division just before the August estimate was put in, and I told Mr. McIntosh I would not allow some of his classification. I did not go closely into discussion in each cut, as resident engineers were busy on their estimates. I told Mr. McIntosh Ms classification was Mgh generally.
I am now going up to go over the 13 cuttings where common excavation and loose rock were transferred to solid 15,055 yards) in July, and am taking Mr. Heaman to go over the whole division with Mr. McIntosh and report. I canot understand why 12,942 cubic yards common excavation were moved in month of June 385 cubic yards common excavation were moved

in month of July, and 14,003 cubic yards common excavation were moved in month of August.	, X
I may not be able to prove it, but 1 am inclined to believe that McIntosh was influenced by Grant's ideas of classification, which in my opinion are extravagant.
Previous to July estimate, Mr. McIntosh s classification was not alarmingly high. I will report to you later.
That letter was written and sent to Ottawa September 9, calling clear attention to the facts and mentioning his suspicion that Grant had influenced McIntosh's mind. Three days afterwards, on September 12, 1908, the following personal and confidential letter was written by the chief from Ottawa :
Personal and confidential.
The Commissioners, Transcontinental Railway.
Ottawa, September 12, 1907.
My Dear Hodgins,-Owing to the state of feeling in regard to the work under your charge I have come to the conclusion that it will he necessary for me to recommend that a change he made and some one else put in charge, but before doing so I am dropping you these few lines, and would suggest to you that you at once make application for a month s leave of absence, so as to give you time to look round.	.
Please wire me in cipher on receipt of this if you concur in my suggestion.
That was the response he received to that letter of the 9th calling attention to those changes in classification By McIntosh and intimating that they were due to Mr. Grant.
Now as to confining the inquiry to Major Hodgin's evidence. I have already said that Major Hodgins could not of his own knowledge have known anything about any over classification, except that between July and his dismissal. No doubt over-classification continued, and no doubt at all such overclassification was charged in the letter, but all that Major Hodgins could possibly give evidence about was as to the two estimates of July and August and would it not be absurd for this committee to examine Major Hodgins about those two months and then to refuse examination of the Grand Trunk Pacific officials? He could not prove what occurred after he was dismissed and yet, according to the contention of the majority of the committee, Major Hodgins was bound to prove, out of his own mouth, all the charges he made or if he could not prove them they must be dropped. I do not see how there could be a more absurd conclusion than that and yet it is the only conclusion from the contention of these gentlemen, repeated over and over again, in the committee, that Major Hodgins should not have made a charge unless he could prove it. That was told him to his face over and over again and by no one more frequently than
by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell); before you made the charge you should have known that you could prove it. All Hodgins could know about were those two cases concerning McIntosh and he reported these instantly to his chief. He had no doubt, I have no doubt, that these overclassifications continued and no doubt the charges covered the subsequent cases. Major Hodgins could only prove later cases by calling the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers or some of the staff of the commisson. Yet the contention of the majority of the committee was that unless he could make the proof himself, none should Be allowed. Precisely the same with regard to section ' B.' Hodgins could not prove out of his own mouth the charges of over-classification there. All he could do was to say: I have no doubt from what I saw when I was taken to Quebec, but if it is to be proved before this committee, I must ask you to call the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and, as I said in my letter, you must get from them their reports. However the majority of the committee ruled otherwise. AVe were not allowed to call in the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers and go into their reports, in spite of the fact that when the committee ordered the Transcontinental Commission to produce all the paprs relating to the subject-matter of inquiry, they themselves produced letters they had received from the Grand Trunk Pacific complaining of over-classification in section ' B.' Although these letters were there before us we were not allowed to call witnesses to prove anything in respect of them. Was that common sense ? Was that carrying out the order of the House to investigate? We had positive charges in the reports of the assistant engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific of over-classification outrageously larger than anything Major Hodgins knew of his own knowledge, yet we were not allowed to call the engineers to prove them.
With all this evidence, with all the letters read here to-day showing charges of overclassification. showing that Mr. Lumsdeu himself wrote to the commission that he would pass no more of these certificates, that he would not sign another certificate for payment unless the commission got a classification agreed to by both parties in the face of all these letters, we were not allowed to go on because Major Hodgins did not think that the committee was as good a tribunal to inquire into this evidence as a board of arbitration. Therefore, the majority of the committee decided not to obey the order of the House, not to go on and complete the investigation. That is what the majority of the committee thought was their duty. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked why should we inquire into a thing that may be settled by arbitration ? But are we to allow this thing to go on as long as it suits the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the com-

missioners? Are we to let the public money be wasted and trust to an arbitration setting it right by and by? I wonder would my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) do that in his own affairs. Suppose some one were acting for him, would he go on paying until there was a settlement by arbitration when he had reason to believe he was paying improper charges?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would do exactly what is provided by the agreement of the 10th January. I would call on this arbitration and have it settled within reasonable time.	*


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman knows that on the 7th October, 1907, Mr Wood, of the Grand Trunk Pacific, wrote to the commissioners and to Mr. Lumsden finding fault with these classifications and requesting Mr. Lumsden to go over the line with him and see if they could not agree on a proper method. On the 28th April, the very day this special committee was appointed, he was still continuing to urge Mr. Lumsden to go over the line with him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And they have since gone over the line.


Samuel Barker: I do not suppose they would have done so if the committee had not got to work. But are we to disobey the order of the House and refuse to investigate on that account? Suppose the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific are content to let this thing go on a couple of years, are the people of Canada willing that we should go on paying and trust to an arbitration by and by? Are they willing to trust to a settlement by arbitration after a large amount of the money has been spent and paid to the contractors and subcontractors, and when there will be but little chance if any of getting it back again. One of the reasons why this committee was appointed was that there should be prompt inquiry, and yet no action has been taken. 1 do not want to charge anything improper against the Grand Trunk Pacific. No doubt they are as honourable as their neighbours, but the Grand Trunk Pacific may have other interests conflicting somewhat with their interests in this McArthur business. Suppose the Grand Trunk Pacific would like to do a little McArthur business themselves and get some over-classification on their own contracts? They might be well content to set off the over-classification in the McArthur contract against a larger amount of over-classification in their own case. I find in the last report of the Transcontinental Railway Commission that the Grand Trunk Pacific are contractors for 245 miles of this railway. It may suit the Grand Trunk Pacific to get a little over-classification themselves, and I can quite understand if they got many thousands of yards of 30 cent work paid for at


Samuel Barker: $1.70 they could stand a good deal of overclassification being paid by the country.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The Grand Trunk Pacific are only the nominal contractors.


Samuel Barker: In the commissioners' report the Grand Trunk Pacific have got that contract.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman not know that all this work is sublet?


Samuel Barker: I do not care whether it is sublet or not. Here are three distinct contracts reported in the last report of the commissioners, namely, 150 miles about 8 miles west of the Abitibi river, crossing easterly a distance of 150 miles, let to the Grand Trunk Pacific of Montreal; district ' B ', from a point designated on. the plan of the commissioners, about 150 miles west of Quebec, proceeding westerly a distance of about 45 miles, let to the Grand Trunk Pacific of Montreal; district 'A', from a point designated on the plans of the commissioners, at or near Moncton, N.B., westerly for a distance of 50 miles, let to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Here you have this company on both sides of the question. In the one case it may be willing to pay a little interest in the way of rent on what McArthur could get too much, and so on the other hand it would get a big increase directly into its own pockets. As I said before. I do not want to charge that company with any impropriety ;
I do not say they w;ould do that sort of thing. But it is not business-like to overlook these things in matters of such importance. That company has its contracts for 245 miles of railway, (just as Mr. McArthur, (Mr. Davis and other gentlemen have, and if they were to consent to a generous, liberal classification to Mr. McArthur and Mr. Davis, of course, they would get a generous, liberal classfication for the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Jacob Thomas Schell: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) will allow me to make a statement, so far as that is concerned, the Grand Trunk Pacific have not got the contract to-day, nor have they kept them in their hands, any of them at any time in the same way that McArthur, Davis and the other contractors have. They have simply sold them out.
Mr. LEiNNOX. We have these cloaks all the way through with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific; we never know where we are at.


Samuel Barker: I say it is not businesslike for this country to have disputes unsettled for over a year with these people on the McArthur and Davis contracts.
Now, after what I have said, perhaps I should remind the House of some of the remarks made by an engineer who has already been quoted here. Let me refer to



S, 1908

[Stage Direction]
the letter of October 7, 1907, from the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Mr. Lumsden, p. 393, regarding District ' B.'
He here makes complaints that were hanging over and unsettled when this committee w,as appointed :
' At the request of District Engineer Armstrong

'	*
That is the gentleman whose affidavit was read. He did not come before the committee-the committee would not call him. But the member for Carleton, N.B., used his affidavit.
r-he was furnished recently with a statement of classification for the heavier work on the above section, which were, when given in detail, so different from his expectations that he requested the writer to visit the work/
That is hardly consistent with the affidavit of this gentleman, Armstrong .
' During the post week we passed over portions of the work from the Batiscan river west for fifteen or twenty tniles, and later from 115 to 132/
This seems to be the very place Armstrong was talking about in that affidavit.
' With reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances of from three to five miles, and as we did not have total quantities of graduation, could not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although percentages for entire distance seemed excessively heavy in both loose and solid rock.
With the latter portion we had detailed percentage for each cut, and were greatly surprised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case where the cuttings were not entirely all ledge the _ estimate given for solid rock is double, or more than double, what it should be. In fact, the specifications had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not by reason of an error in judgment, hut, as I understand, by special instructions from the assistant district engineer.
Let me give you some illustrations:
Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5826, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29^ per cent loose rock, slopes taken out li to 1/	,
That was explained to-day, and I do not need to go into it.
' Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders, but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Station 5812 to 5860.-Classified 91 per cent solid rock, 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1. Solid rock over-classified at least 100 per cent/
That is, instead of being ninety-four it should have been forty-seven.
These were before the committee, and the committee did not think it was necessary to investigate. Now, I call particular attention to this next case. It will be remembered that it is from Mr. Armstrong from whom came the wonderful affidavit.
' Station 5882 to 5901.-Estimated 78 per cent solid rock, 22 per cent loose rock. A large amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers, and ploughing being done with two horses. There are hundreds of yards of earth here without a stone, large or small/
' Station 6030 to 6016-Estimated 10 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August 31 in this cut, at least 80,000 yards were pure sand/
I give these to show what value can be placed on an affidavit from Mr. Armstrong who joined in making this examination. Has not he been dismissed from the Grand Trunk Pacific?
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he has not.


Samuel Barker: I do not think he is there now. Now, it was said that Mr. Lumsden was supposed to have approved of these estimates. On Octobe 18, he writes : p. 395.
Sirs,-Referring to the September estimates in district ' B/ which I now beg to hand you, I may say that from the complaint made by the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in a letter to me of the 7th instant, and from a verbal statement made to me on the 12th instant, by Mr. Dou-cet

The engineer in charge of district 1 B.'
-it would appear to me some material may be classified as rock which should be classified otherwise, still as the amount -of security held by you for the completion of the wrork seems to me ample, and the holding hack of the estimate at this date without notice to the contractors might be a serious matter, I have approved of these estimates, on the distinct understanding that before any further estimates are passed time be given and full investigation made into the matter of classification throughout district ' B/
I do not wish at this late hour to quote further from letters appearing in the evidence. but let me refer to that wonderful agreement of January 10, 1908. I deny that the document read by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., is a reference to arbitration.
Memo, of agreement to be drawn up between the commissioners of the Transcontinental Kailway and the Grand Trunk Pacific ComP Monthly estimates for contractors should be submitted promptly from time to time by the chief engineer of the commissioners to the company's assistant chief engineer at Montreal for approval. If he has any ob]ection to such estimate he shall promptly file the same with the chief engineer of the commissioners, and any objection from time to time bled shall thereupon he considered, and, if possible determined by the said engineers and in case of their failure to agree, may then or at any time before or at the time of final payment at the option of either party be considered and determined by arbitration as provided m the agreement of July 29, 1903, but in no case shall the payment of monthly estimates be delayed except with the consent of the commissioners

In case the chief engineer of the commissioners and the assistant chief engineer of the company disagree as to the final payment, the same shall be withheld until the matter is determined by arbitration.
The paper is initialled ' C.M.H.' ' H.D.L.' ' S.N.P.'
It is absolutely clear that the whole purport of that agreement is to keep these disputes in suspense, open, that neither party shall be prejudiced by inaction. Accounts are to be passed through or paid, but either party can from time to time call them up again for consideration. That is the agreement, not to arbitrate, but to postpone an investigation, and that agreement was entered into while this House was in session. I leave the House to infer what was the object of that. I will make one more remark. On April 6, 1908. I put this question in the House,
1.	Are there any matters in dispute or question between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the government, or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, respecting the route or the right of way or the works of construction, or cost thereof, upon the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway?
2.	What is the nature of such disputes or questions, if any ?
3.	Has the consideration or settlement of any such disputes or questions been postponed or suspended? If so, at whose request, and until what time or event?


Hon. G. R. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: There is no matter in dispute or question between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the National Transcontinental Railway Company respecting the route, or the right-of-way, or the works of construction, or the cost thereof, upon the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway.
Now, that agreement of January was in existence when that answer was given, all this correspondence had been going on since October 7, about these disputes, and what is the answer by the government, formally given to a formal question? It was that there were no such disputes, no such agreement, no question between the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific. That is an astounding reply. There are only two ways of looking at it: Either the government knew the facts, and misled the House by an untruthful reply; or they were deceived by the commissioners; I do not care which way they put it. I was not satisfied with that reply, and I put this further question on April 13 : 1
1.	Has either the government or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission received from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, or from any person on behalf of either such company, any protests or objections respecting the acquisition of lands for the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, or as to the cost Mr. BARKER.
thereof, or respecting any works of construction upon the said division, or as to the cost thereof ?
2.	What was the nature of such protests or objections, if any?
3.	Have all such protests or objections, if any, been finally disposed of and settled?
f. If not disposed of and settled, has any and what arrangement been made to postpone or suspend the matters involved?


George Perry Graham: As to the first part of the question, no; or as to the cost thereof, no. As to the third part of the question no dispute has arisen as to any work of construction. Mr. H. A. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, by a letter dated October 7, 1907, objected to the classification, as to grading material on certain portions of the work in district ' B.J The matter was investigated by the chief engineer of the commissioners, who gave his ruling as to the interpretation of the clauses of the specifications relating to the classification; and Mr. Woods' objections were found not to be correct. Nothing further has been heard by the commissioners of such objections.
And yet from October 7, 1908, down to the day this committee was appointed, 28th April, 1908, there were continuous letters from Mr. Woods repeating these objections. What are we to think of answers of that kind in the House about the most inportant matters that can be brought before parliament ? I say that either the government knew the facts, in which that answer was false, or the commissioners deceived the government. I do not care which way you take it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many important matters dealt with in this evidence. But I think I have shown that there were many very important matters properly before that committee, which required that. the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific be called to prove them. But the majority of the committee prematurely closed the" inquiry, and dismissed nine witnesses that had been called but not examined. I beg to second the amendment.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Lennox).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Earker,
Barr,
Beattie,
Bennett,
Bergeron,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Boyce,
Brabazon,
Bristol,
Broder,
Chisholm (Huron), Christie,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lewis,
MacLaren,
McCarthy (Calgary), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Martin
(Queens, P.E.I.), Morin,
Northrup,
Owen,
Paquet,
Perley,
Porter,
Pringle,

Clare,
Coekshutt,
Crocket,
Daniel,
Elson,
Ganong,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes (Victoria), Jackson (Elgin), Kemp,
Lake,
Reid (Grenville), Schaffner,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor,
Walsh (Huntingdon), Ward,
White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington,
Wright (Mnskoka)-53.
NAYS :
Aylesworth,
Beland,
Borden
(Sir Frederick!, Bourbonnais,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Caldwell,
Calvert,
Carney,
Caron,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Conmee,
Copp,
Crawford,
Cyr,
Delisle,
Demers,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Finlay,
Finlayson,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Girard,
Gordon,
Graham,
Harty,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), Hunt,
Jackson (Selkirk), Johnston,
Kennedy,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg)
Maclean (York, S.), Macpherson,
McCarthy (Simcoe), McColl,
McCool,
McCraney,
McIntyre (Perth), McKenzie,
McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Miller,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Parent,
Pickup,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Ratz,
Reid (Restigouche), Rivet,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Cape Breton), Rousseau,
Savoie,
Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford), Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Oxford), Stewart,
Talbot,
Telford,
Templeman,
Tolmie,
Turgeon,
Verville,
, Walsh (Montreal, St.
Anne),
W atson,
Wilson (Russell), Wright (Renfrew),
, Zimmerman.-98.
PAIRS:
Ministerial.
Logan,
Boyer,
Turriff,
Messieurs
Opposition.
Lefurgey,
Monk,
Roche (Marquette),
LeBlanc,
Clarke,
Bickerdike,
Sifton,
Greenway,
Fisher,
Guthrie,
Tobin,
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Grant,
Galliher,
Sloan,
Hall,
Black,
Ethier,
Gervais,
Devlin,
Knowles.
Foster,
Sproule,
Wilmot,
Haggart,
Tisdale,
Maclean (York, S.). Seagram,
Osier,
Fowler,
Leonard,
Smith (Wentworth), Marshall,
Lalor,
Clements,
Forget,
Macdonell.
Ames,
Thompson.
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived. Motion (Mr. Geoffrion) agreed to.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. DUBEAU asked :: 1.	Has the government taken steps to authorize manufacturers to make use of the black stamps on the cigars in bond since June 1 last?
2.	If so, what are the conditions on which the manufacturers may take advantage of that privilege?


Hon. W. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue):: 1.	Yes.
2.	That the cigars are entered ex-warehouse for consumption prior to the 15th of August next.



MR. JOSEPH NIXON.

Mr. HERRON asked :: Is Mr. Jos. Nixon, formerly sub-land agent at Macleod, Alberta, employed in any capacity by the government or Transcontinental Railway Commission? If so, in what position and at what place and salary?


George Perry Graham: Joseph Nixon is not in the employ of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. He has been employed as time-keeper, but left in June, 1907.



FISHERY INSPECTORS IN ALBERTA.

Mr. HERRON asked :: 1.	Who are the fishery inspectors employed by the government in the territory south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the international boundary line, in the province of Alberta?
2.	What is the date of their respective appointments, their salaries and allowances?


Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of
Marine and Fisheries) :
1. The special fishery guardians employed in that section of Alberta for the year ended 31st March, 1908, were :

DisWages. bursements.
W. A.	Dunlop	$139	50	$351	75T. G.	Brown	
4G	50	54	95H. A.	Donovan	
138	00	297	85
2. Such guardians are not permanently appointed, but are employed from year to year at per diem rates, for periods when their services are required.



DIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CANADA AND TRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Has a contract been entered into by the government in order to secure direct communication between Canada and Prance, during the present season?
2.	If so, with whom has such contract been executed, and for what number of trips has provision been made?
3.	What is the cost to Canada a trip?
i. What amount has been /paid on account of said contract by the government?
5. Is there a provision in the contract for the contingency of non-ratification of the proposed treaty with Prance? If so, what are the terms of the said provision ?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIEiR (Prime Minister). 1. No. The Department of Trade and Commerce is now in correspondence with Messrs. H. & A. Allan with a view to an extension of the contract with Messrs. Allan, which expired on the 9th of February last. Of course, until the terms are decided upon no announcement can be made.

Mr. LAKE asked :: What sums have been received by the government on account of royalty on coal mined in each of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan during each of the financial yearns ending June 30, 1906 and 1907?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: During the financial year ending the 30th June, 1906 :
Alberta	$3,828	20Saskatchewan	
175	71
During the financial year ending the 30th June, 1907 :
Alberta	$7,597	12Saskatchewan	
329	20



PURCHASES OP SEED OATS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Were seed oats purchased in Prince Edward Island for the western farmers under the Act for the distribution of seed grain? If so, who made the purchases on behalf of the government?
2.	What prices were paid far the oats per bushel, how many bushels were purchased, and what was the total sum paid for said oats, exclusive of other expenses incurred in their purchase?
Mr. BRODEUR.: 


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	Yes. O. C. Castle, purchasing agent.
2.	65 cents per bushel, free on board at I'ictou, N.S. There were 100,712 bushels purchased at a cost of $65,462.80, delivered at Pictou, N.S.



PURCHASE OF SEED OATS IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Is the government aware that the firm of Rattenbury & Company is said to have purchased seed oats for the west in Prince Edward Island, as agents of the government?
2.	Is the government also aware that the said Rattenbury & Company is said to have bought these oats on credit, and have since assigned for the benefit of their creditors, leaving the oats unpaid for?
3.	If this statement is true, is it the intention of the government' to pay for these oats ?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	No. Ail the Island oats were purchased from J. Read & Company.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by repealing section 958 and substituting therefor,
958. The Governor in Council may from time time-
(a) by order in council declare that the foregoing provisions of this part shall not, while such order in council is in force, apply, either throughout Canada or in any specified waters of Canada, to the ships or vessels, or to any specified ascertained or ascertainable class or number of the ships or vessels of any foreign country in which British ships are admitted to the coasting trade of such country, and to carry goods or passengers from one port or place to -another in such country; and
-(b) revoke or vary such order in council.
2. That the Act founded on this resolution shall not come into force until His Majesty's pleasure thereon has been signified by publication in the ' Canada Gazette.'
He said: His Excellency having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of tbe House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:

Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is expedient to provide for the payment to one additional county court judge in the province of Manitoba, and two additional dist-trict court judges in the province of Ontario, each $2,500 per annum during the first three years of service, and after three years of service each $3,000 per annum.
He said: I beg to state, that the subject matter of this resolution having been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General, he approves the same and commends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 198) respecting a certain patent of William B. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 130) to amend the Naturalization Act.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 162) to amend the Post Office Act.
Mr. BERGERON.: What are the amendments ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Briefly, the radius enjoyed by the weekly press for free circulation is extended from 40 miles to 60 miles. Some years ago, Sir William Mulock established for the daily press a zone of 300 miles from the place of publication within which zone the rate was a quarter cent per pound and outside of that zone the rate was half a cent a pound. In future we will have one flat rate on newspapers of one quarter of a cent per pound without respect to distance.
Amendments read a second time and concurred in.



BOARDS OF TRADE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 133) to amend the Boards of Trade Act.-Mr. Fielding.
Mr. FIELDING.: When this Bill'was last before the committee attention was called to the fact that it seemed to prevent a man being a member of two boards of trade. Acting on the suggestion made then I am proposing to make the changes that would be necessary to permit a man to be a member of the board of trade in the district in which he resides, and also a member of the board of trade in the district in which he is doing business, if there is such a board of trade, and if he chooses to be a member.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, Bill reported the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Oliver for the third reading of Bill (No. 181) to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting the public lands in the Dominion and the proposed amendment of Mr. Lake thereto.
Mr. SPEAKER.: Since Saturday I have considered whether the amendment then moved by the member for Qu'Appelle to the motion for the third reading of Bill (No. 181), is in order or not. The said amendment plainly contemplates the setting aside, appropriation and transferring to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan of certain of the Dominion lands.
In the last edition of Mr. Bourinot's work on Parliamentary Procedure at page 628, in a foot note, it is stated that since 1874 all grants of public lands are initiated in the Commons. This is upon the theory that public lands are in the same position as public revenues. (See page 627).
At page 56S of the same work it is expressly stated that:
No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the Crown through a minister to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional application that rests upon the executive government of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
I must, therefore, rule the amendment as out of order.
In connection with the same point of order a question was raised on the Bill, which I might as well dispose of now.
A discussion also arose as to whether in view of certain clauses in the Bill a previous sanction of the Governor General should not have been obtained and announced to the House before its introduction, and such Introduction preceded by a resolution.
Having regard to the precedents in the House, I find that this has not been considered necessary. In the year 1883, a similar Bill was passed, which now appears in the statutes for that year as chapter 17, intituled: 'An Act further to amend and to consolidate, as so amended, the several Acts respecting the Public Lands of the Dominion therein mentioned.' This Bill was introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald. No consent of the Governor General was announced at any stage nor was any resolution passed previously to the introduction of the Bill. This seems to be a precedent exactly in point.
This Bill is a consolidating and amending Bill and in the case of such Bills it is only when there are clauses imposing new burdens that it is necessary to consider these first in a Committee of the Whole.
The object aimed at in such Bills is to give the old law a new and more convenient form.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: This Bill is not only an amending and consolidating Bill, but distinctly provides for the granting of preemptions and purchased homesteads not provided for by the Act as it stood before. It is in part an amending and consolidating Bill but it is in many respects, an entirely new Bill and contains entirely new provisions for alineation of the public domain.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not find that it provides for the setting apart for the purposes of the Bill of any wider area of lands and I think it will be found that the Bill of 1883 to which I referred, also provided for an extra homestead in certain cases as this one appears to do. I cannot find any very substantial difference and following the rule laid down by Dr. Bourinot in his work, relating to consolidating and amending Acts, I would rule that this Bill does not require any preliminary resolution or consent.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it is true that the Bill does not cover a wider area of land than was provided in the enactments previously on the statute-book. The same observation is also true of the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake). It does not propose to go outside the area of land previously dealt with (by the enactments on the statute-book.


Richard Stuart Lake: I beg to move then, seconded by Mr. Chisholm


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have ruled, of course, that the first amendment is out of order, and now this, I assume, is a new amendment.


Richard Stuart Lake: I beg to move :
That the said Bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by providing,
That the Governor m Council shall forthwith institute such proper inquiries as may he necessary for the purpose of ascertaining what quantity of Dominion Lands in each of the provinces of Alherta and Saskatchewan should he set aside and appropriated for the purposes of higher education with a view to setting aside, appropriating and transferring to the said respective provinces the said lands so ascertained for the purposes aforesaid.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that probably that amendment is in order although it comes close to the line too.
House divided upon amendment (Mr. Lake).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Barker,
Barr,
Beattie,
Bennett,
Bergeron,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Mr. SPEAKER.
Lancaster,
Lennox,
Lewis,
MacLaren,
McCarthy (Calgary), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Martin
(Queens, P.E.I.),
Boyce,
Brahazon,
Christie,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Daniel,
Ganong,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes (Victoria), Kemp,
Lake,
Morin,
Owen,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Sehaffner,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor,
Walsh (Huntingdon), White,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington).-39.
NAYS:
Aylesworth, Bourbonnais, ' Brodeur,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carvell,
Conmee,
Crawford,
Delisle,
Demers,
Dubeau,
Fielding,
Finlayson,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Girard,
Graham,
Harty,
.Jackson (Selkirk), Johnston,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
McCarthy (Simcoe), McCool,
McCraney,
McIntyre (Perth), McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal, St.
Mary's),
Mayrand,
Miller,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouehe), Rivet,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Cape Breton), Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford), Sinclair,
Smith (Nanimo), Stewart,
Talbot,
Telford,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turgeon.
Verville,
Zimmerman.-65.
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Parmelee,
Logan,
Clarke,
LeBlanc,
Turrifl,
Boyer,
Black,
Emmerson,
Sifton,
Greenway,
Laver gne,
Copp,
Beland,
McColl,
Law,
Gordon,
Rivet,
Carney,
Sloan,
Hall,
Devlin,
Messieurs
Opposition.
Worthington,
Lefurgey,
Sproule,
Foster,
Roche (Marquette), Monk,
Clements,
Wilmot,
Haggart,
Tisdale,
Maclean (York, S.), Northrup,
Seagram,
Osier,
Ward,
Fowler,
Elson,
Avery,
Leonard,
Broder,
Wright (Muskoka),

McKenzie,
Watson,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Finlay,
Major,
Wilson (Russell), Lennox,
Savoie,
Dyment,
Katz,
Caron,
Kennedy.
Pringle,
Clare,
Marshall,
Chisholm (Huron), Lalor,
Forget,
Macdonell,
Ames,
Parley,
Bristol,
Jackson (Elgin), Paquet,
Thompson.
Amendment negatived.


John Herron: Before the Bill receives its third reading, I wish to draw attention to clause 16. That clause provides :
16. Every entrant .for a homestead shall, except as hereafter otherwise provided, he required, before the issue of letters patent therefor (a) to have held the homestead for his own exclusive use and benefit for three years from the date of entry, (b) to have resided thereon at least six months in each of the three years from the date of entry, or the date of commencement of residence, (c) to have erected a habitable house theron, (d) to have cultivated such an area of land in each year upon the homestead as is satisfactory to the minister, and (e) to be a British subject.
I would draw attention to the fifth line of this clause : ' to have resided thereon at least six months in each of three years from the date of entry, or the date of commencement of residence.' 1 have seen a good many cases of great hardship to settlers coming from any part of the empire or even from foreign countries to the Northwest owing to this particular clause. I have always considered it a great mistake to have this clause dealt with in the arbitrary manner in which it is. The head of a family has to reside on the homestead six months of each year during three years before he can obtain his patent. But what better proof can you have of the good faith of the homesteader than in the fact that he has left a foreign country or even some portion of our own land, and has gone out to the prairies and taken up a homestead there in order to provide a home for his family. It may be argued that if you allow any leniency in the regulations, he may sell the land just as soon as he obtains his patent and go back to the country from which he came. But I would draw attention to the letter of the law which provides that the head of the family must reside on the land during six months of each year for three years before he can obtain a patent. A man might leave his family and come even from a foreign country, enter for a homestead in our country, to which he was attracted by the prospects of bettering himself ; he might leave his family in a foreign country, enter for a homestead, comply with the letter of the law by living on the homestead
six months in each year for three years and perform homestead duties, and then he might sell his homestead, put the money in his pocket and go back to his own country. So that there is nothing under this clause to prevent his selling out any more than there would be if this residence obligation were not required. I admit that it is necessary to impose some restrictions so as to have some evidence that a homesteader has the neces-ary qualifications to entitle him to a patent. But I claim that we often work out hardship by insisting that the head of the family must reside on the land the precise time of six months each year during three years. That same point has been drawn to the attention of this House before now and has been considerably discussed in the country. I would recommend a change in the regulations to this effect. If you were to provide by your regulations that either the entrant for a homestead or his family should reside continuously on the land for three years, I would see no objection to that. What I object to is that the man himself must reside on the land so that even if he left his family on it, while he himself was working elsewhere, he could not obtain his patent. What better evidence could you have of his sincerity than the fact that he has put his family on the land. He might be so situatetd that he could not comply with the condition of personally residing on it himself.
But I say that the very fact of having the head of the family live on the homestead for six months in each year has worked great hardship in many cases in our new country. There is- another very important factor in this question. There is a great portion of our population which should be seriously considered in this relation-the female population of our country. If the law which I suggest were put in operation, it would encourage young men to marry and would give our young women opportunities to assist in providing homes for themselves, their husbands and their children. This is a very important subject as every intelligent person will agree. In my observation of conditions in the west for the last thirty or thirty-five years, I have known men. even from outside our own Dominion, enter for homesteads, erect homes for their families, bring their families to this country and place them on the homestead. Then, through unforeseen and unavoidable misfortune they found themselves unable to maintain their families on the homestead, and so were compelled to go to the town, perhaps a short distance, perhaps a long distance away, to get employment. Perhaps they get into debt, perhaps further into debt, as I have suggested, through circumstances beyond their own control, and so were unable to go back and live on the homestead as required by the regulations and the law

providing that they had to live on the homestead for six months of every year. The result being that his homestead was cancelled and thus Canada lost a good citizen, settler and his family. I agree that the government, in days gone by, has. been lenient in many cases. Still, there was a limit to what could be done under the law. I consider there never was a more iniquitous law upon the Canadian statute-book than this clause 16 which provides that the head of the family must reside upon the homestead for six months in each year for three years before he can obtain a patent. For these reasons, I move, seconded by Mr. Staples :
That the said Bill he not now read the third time, hut that it he referred hack to Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of amending section 16 and other relevant sections of the said Bill by providing that the residence of the wife and family of any entrant for a homestead shall he accepted as equivalent to the residence of the entrant himself, subject to such regulations necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing actual permanent settlers.
Amendment negatived on the same division last recorded.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 190) respecting Juvenile Delinquents-Mr. Ayiesworth-was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. It.' L. BORDEN. We passed the second time, and House went into committee I presume because it comes from the Senate. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will be good enough to state the purport of the Bill and explain what its effect will be.
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: The general effect of this Bill I think I may summarize by saying that it is intended to obviate the necessity for children, when accused of crime, being tried before the ordinary tribunals. The provision at the conclusion of the Bill is that the Act may be put in force in any province, or any portion of a province, by proclamation after the passing by such province of a Bill providing for the establishment of juvenile courts. And the intention is that wherever any province has established, or may hereafter establish, a special court for the trial of young persons, under the age of sixteen years, all offences against the criminal law by children under that age shall be disposed of by these juvenile courts. The case of an indictable offence committed by a young person over fourteen is excepted, but with that exception the provision of the Bill is in short, that all infractions of the criminal statutes, whether of the Dominion, of the province or Mr. HERRON
municipal by-laws, shall be dealt with by this special court, instead of being tried in the ordinary way. There are many details, which are self explanatory, governing the trial. It is to be of a summary character. Notice is to be given to the parent or guardian and to the probation officer, he being an officer appointed under the provisions of the provincial statute in that behalf, or, where there is no provincial statute on the subject, he may be appointed under the provisions of this Act. Instead of the juvenile court imposing sentence of imprisonment, as of necessity under the existing criminal law, the child may be released on probation.
Under no circumstances is it to be sent to jail, but if not released on probation, or a home found for it, either in some public institution or with some private family, provision is made with regard to the disposition that the court can make of the child. The court is empowered to appoint in any community a small committee, to be called the juvenile court committee, the duty of which is to assist the court in the way of suggestion, advice, and looking after the child, who is treated, from the time when found guilty of an offence, as a ward of the court, with the idea of being reclaimed rather than punished by imprisonment. In some of the provinces there is already legislation with regard to the care of neglected or abandoned children, to which this legislation is necessarily of an ancillary character. In the province of Ontario there is elaborate statutory provision designed for the protection and reformation of neglected children, and an officer of the government, a superintendent, having charge of such matters appointed by the government, and children's aid societies established in a great number of communities. These children's aid societies have felt the necessity of legislation of this character. I want to prevent the possibility of children who might be reclaimed if treated otherwise than as criminals, being sent to the ordinary prisons of the country with the older and possibly hardened offenders.
On section 17,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am going to protest against the passing of a serious law like this in this hasty way. Here is a statute which is going to affect the character and the liberty of every little child, and I protest most seriously against the levity that is going on in this chamber.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. member for Simcoe is the only one who made a joke about it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This levity is altogether out of place. Just because the Minister of Justice, who cannot hear a word, wants this Bill to go through it is to be laughed through as a joke. Here is an Act resepeeting juvenile delinquents, a brand new law, brought in during the dying

hours of the session by the Minister of Justice, containing thirty-five sections, and after midnight we are asked to pass, but not consider it. It affects the liberty, the character and the treatment of every little child in this country. I am not going to stand for this Bill going through with this most uncalled for haste, and I think the Minister of Justice is not doing his duty in trying to rush it through in this way.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I was the one who asked the chairman to read the side notes instead of the clauses, because I had been looking at the Bill -and I saw there was no amendment to it. I supposed it was well considered by the Senate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the Senate passed this Bill, that is all the more reason why we should consider it carefully. Are we going to rush a law through this House simply because it has come from the Senate? I think that is a reason why it should be twice considered instead of being put through with this undue haste. My experience of legislation which has come from the Senate would lead me to the conclusion that it should be kicked out body and bones.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Has the hon. gentleman any amendment to propose?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman will tell me what the Bill is, I will tell him what amendments I have to propose.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Read it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman had better read it himself and not try to laugh the Bill through the House. I want, to understand every clause of this Bill before it passes.


Alexander Johnston: Then it will never be passed.	_


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say that it never will pass with the majority that the government has to force it through, but, speaking for myself, it never will pass if It is going to be put through in this ill-advised, hasty and deplorable way in which it is attempted to put it through to-night. It is an outrage upon common decency and upon the respect that we should have for the little boys and girls of this country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Will the hon. gentleman explain his anger about the matter?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman -chooses to call it anger, my anger is caused, if it is anger, by the fact that the so-called Minister of Justice brings into this House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is he not called the Minister of Justice?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: That tern should not be used.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If he is not called the Minister of Justice I will withdraw it.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think that should be withdrawn.


Charles Marcil: He has withdrawn it.


William Pugsley: He has not withdrawn it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have withdrawn the word 'so-called.' This Bill may be all right, but I am not going to allow the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) to assume that this Bill is all right and to swallow it holus bolus because It is brought in by the Minister of Justice or anybody else. I am responsible to my constituents for what goes on here. This Bill is dealing with <x most serious matter. I do not see one word in it, for instance, in the hurried glance which I have been able to give to it, providing for the protection of the child or as to how he is to be defended. He seems to be entirely at the mercy of a person called a probation officer. There should be some provision for the child being -able to say he is not guilty If he is not guilty. Whatever the probation officer chooses to do with the child is to be done. It mav be all right if we had time to consider it carefully, but what I am pleading for, and I do not care if the whole House gets angry with me for doing so -


Alexander Johnston: You are the one who is angry.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not care whether the hon. member for Cape Breton is angry or not.


Alexander Johnston: He may be sorry for you but he is not angry.
' Mr. LANCASTER. The hon. gentleman's sorrow does not amount to anything. His are crocodile tears. 1 am going to protest against this Bill going through without being carefully considered. We might do it In five or six hours but we cannot in five or six minutes. I think the Minister of Justice will be well advised if he moves that the committee rise and report progres and let us take it up when we have more time. Is there any provision in this -Act corresponding to the amendment made by a Bill Introduced by me some years ago, providing that when a child was charged with any indictable offence no election for trial could be made without the parent or guardian being notified so as to advise the child.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: -Section 8 provides for that.


Mr. ALCORN.: Is this Bill modelled on some other law as to which there has been experience ? I presume that a Bill of this kind consisting of a mass of detail Is not
REVISE!} EDITION

put upon the statute book simply as an experiment.	'


Mr AYLESWORTH.: I can only answer in a very general way as I have not prepared the Bill myself. The whole subject is one to which those interested have given a great deal of attention and I have been favoured during the past 12 months with a mass of literature dealing with this question. It is stated by writers on the subject that Canada is almost alone among civilized nations in being without legislation of this character. That assertion is too sweeping because there is in Ontario a very elaborate statute going no doubt as far in the direction of this legislation as the provincial legislature felt itself constitutionally empowered to go. There is legislation of a more or less similar character in other provinces. I understand this measure has received very careful consideration from the Senate and has been passed with a view to filling a need, in order that the provincial legislation might have its full effect. The enactment goes into only as and when it is proclaimed in respect of some section of the country which asks for it and where there will be some general feeling of the necessity if it. It must be borne in mind that where this Act is not in force, if any one under the age of 16 years commits an offence, the only recourse under the present law is prosecution leading to fine and imprisonment. This statute will confer upon the court a much wider discretion so as to avoid going the length of imprisonment where it is a young offender.


George Oscar Alcorn: Probably sections 34 and 35 will remove any objection to the Act that I am aware of.
since Magna Charta, and which cannot be denied to even a hardened criminal. The right to elect as to trial by jury should be vested in the person accused and not in some other person, in this case this levelheaded judge.	[DOT]


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend is right in the view that this Bill would prevent the advantage of trial by jury, but possibly there are countervailing advantages to the person accused which would be of even greater value. The provision is distinctly made that a child is not to be sent jto a, common gaol before or after sentence. That in itself is a greater privilege and protection against the danger of the child being destroyed by what is perhaps a comparatively venial offence than the privilege of trial by jury. Cases are continually arising, I have one in mind which has occasioned a great deal of anxious consideration to officials in the Justice Department and actual distress to the judge before whom the child was convicted. A child of some twelve years of age killed another while at play. The jury convicted of manslaughter and there was no other recourse to the judge than to sentence, and feeling that he was obliged to sentence he felt he could not do otherwise than sentence to a substantial term of imprisonment and that youngster is possibly having its life destroyed at the present time in a penitentiary because it was impossible to treat it otherwise than as if it had been a grown man.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In such a case you could provide for a less severe penalty without depriving the child of the advantage of trial by jury.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is there any discretion left to the magistrate as to whether proceedings shall be taken under this Act or under the general criminal law.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When it is an indictable offence and if the child is over 14 then by section 7 the court may in its discretion order the child to be proceeded with in the ordinary way, but unless such an order as that is made all offences of a criminal nature by children under 16 will be tried under the provisions of this Act and not in an ordinary public court.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If section 7 means that the child is deprived of the right' to have a trial by jury I protest against it. That is although it is an indictable offence and the child is over fourteen years, the court may in its discretion let the case go to the criminal court with a jury, to the assizes or to the sessions. That magistrate ought not to have the discretion to say a' child shall not have the right to a jury when it is over fourteen. My objection is to denying to that child the inherent right to trial by jury which we have all enjoyed


George Oscar Alcorn: 


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The objection to trial by jury is the publicity; the whole idea is to avoid that. There is even a provision to prohibit the publication of offences of young people in the newspapers.


George Perry Graham: This clause 7 is at the discretion, of course, of the magistrate and the enforcement of the law will depend altogether on his judgment. The Act strikes me as one which will be of great benefit. Any one who has read the record of Judge Lindsay's court at Denver cannot but bie impressed with the great good he has done for boys and girls of that city, in fact he is known the world over as the children's judge. It is just on the lines of this Bill that he acts, but of course the usefulness of such Acts depends altogether on the men enforcing them. He must be a man who is trying to reclaim rather than to condemn the child. In Ontario we have Mr. Kelso the head of a department and the work of the department has resulted in the emptying of at least one institution for boys in the province, these boys have all been placed in homes and the latest reports I have is that only two have turned out badly. The

Act will accomplish as much good comparatively as Judge Lindsay has in his vicinity.


Mr. LEIGHTON MCCARTHY.: If the child is allowed the inherent right of trial by jury, which he undoubtedly has under the British constitution, it is put in the hands of the child to do away with the entire benefit of the Act. We are passing extraordinary legislation for the protection of the child, and to amend that as my hon. friend suggests would be to do away with the benefit of the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are providing that the parents shall be notified. On being notified, if the case is a serious one, the parent will employ counsel, and the child will have the advice of both the parents and the counsel, and the decision can be safely left to them. But you are leaving the decision entirely in the hands of some one who has no direct interest in the child's welfare.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It is the converse of the case which the hon. gentleman puts. We are passing an enactment for the benefit of the juvenile delinquent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How do you know it is ?


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: W the hon. gentleman thinks it is not, he should have moved the six months' hoist on the second leading. Having read the Bill the second time, we have admitted the principle and we are providing a special court where the juvenile delinquent will be guarded against publicity and from being sent to the common jail. We are providing a special place for his incarceration. Assuming that this is for the benefit of the juvenile delinquent, we still provide-which is the converse of the case the hon. gentleman puts -that the magistrate shall have the discretion of giving a trial by jury where he thinks the seriousness of the case demands it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By section 7 you are taking away the very thing which my hon. friend says is such a wonderful benefit that this wonderful Bill is going to accomplish. Instead of leaving the discretion to the whim of the magistrate, who has no experience of trials by jury and consequently knows nothing about them, I would leave the election to the parent of the child assisted by counsel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend assumes that every criminal case in the Dominion is tried by jury. We have heard him declaim about this inherent right of trial by jury conferred by Magna Charta, but does he not know that ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, where youths of fourteen years and under are brought before the court, they are tried by the magistrate without a jury? There are numberless instances all 394J
over Canada of criminal cases tried without a jury.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the accused elect for summary trial?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Without any election at all. The hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. For the last hour he has been trying to get his friends to help him out of his wrangling over this matter. Does he not know that more than three-quarters of the cases of assault tried in this country are tried by a magistrate without a jury and the accused has no right to a jury?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They are not indictable offences.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know they are not. The hon. gentleman is simply talking against time, and I want him to try and have a little sense.
On section 35, any city or town may ask for this law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Taking section 35 in conjunction with section 34, it would strike me as being rather repugnant. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will explain how it would work out. Section 34, apparently, makes it a condition precedent that the province shall issue a proclamation bringing the Act into force. But under section 35 the Act may be brought into force by proclamation, notwithstanding that the provincial legislature has not passed an Act, if the Governor in Council is satisfied. The Governor in Council would be the Governor in Council of the Dominion, I presume, and the proclamation under the section would be the proclamation of the Dominion government.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) is going to move a section to meet that.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I move that the following section be added, in these words :
This Act shall go into force only when, and as, proclamations declaring the same m force in any province, city, town or other portion of a province, are issued and published in the ' Canada Gazette.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the bounty of one and one-half cent per imperial gallon payable on crude petroleum from Canadian wells authorized by chapter 28 of the Act of 1901 shall apply also to crude petroleum produced from shales or other substances mined in Canada.
William Stevens Fielding: The existing bounty legislation respecting crude petroleum covers the case of petroleum drawn from Canadian wells. In the province of New Brunswick they are proposing to produce petroleum not by drawing It from wells but by mirking shale and manufacturing petroleum from the shale. The object of the change is simply that the bounty shall apply to any oil produced in that way.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 199) to provide for the payment of bounties on crude petroleum.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Superintendent of Insurance he paid such salary, not exceeding five thousand dollars per annum, as the Governor in Council may from time to time fix and determine.
William Stevens Fielding: In the legislation of many years ago, $4,000 was fixed as the maximum salary of the Superintendent of Insurance. We propose to fix the maximum now at $5,000. The Bill to be founded on this resolution will repeal the old clause and Insert a new one, simply changing the figures.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 200) respecting the salary of the Superintendent of Insurance.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to continue for a further period the granting of aid towards the maintenance of an independent and efficient service of telgraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press, and that for such purpose it is expedient to provide for the payment of a sum not exceeding $9,000 for the period from July 1, 1908, to March 31, 1909, both days inclusive; for the payment of a sum not exeeding $12,000 for the fiscal year terminating March 31, 1910; and for the payment of a sum not exceeding $3,000 dollars for the period from April 1, 1910 to June 30, 1910, both days inclusive.
Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Is it the intention that this news shall come entirely through British and Canadian channels ?	'	'


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: 


William Stevens Fielding: This is a continuation for two years of the existing arrangement. The old arrangement provided that we might pay to an organization of Canadian newspapers sums of. money from time to time, aggregating in five years $60,000, or $12,000 per annum, on the average. The association desires that we should continue that for a further period of five years. There was some difference of opinion as to the wisdom of binding the government for so long a period, and we concluded to continue the promise for ,two years, at $12,000 each. It is practically a continuance of the present arrangement whereby an association iu Canada, with an agent in London, supplies every day cable news affecting Canadian affairs.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is it to a news company ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it is to an association of Canadian newspapers entirely.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 201) to assist in maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 193) to amend the Timber Marking Act-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Edward Arthur Lancaster: What will be the effect of the change.


Mr. FISHER.: To apply the Timber Marking Act to the province of New Brunswick. It now only applies to Ontario and Quebec.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-


[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, with the authority of the Governor in Council, construct a branch line railway from Harmony, on the Souris branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway, to Elmira, in Kings county.-Mr. Graham.
George Perry Graham: If the House will kindly advance the resolution through the successive stages the discussion can take place upon the Bill.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: I noticed that some days ago the minister had a notice- on the Order Paper providing for the construction of two branch railways in place of one as

proposed in this resolution. X do not know whether it is an oversight that he has omitted one. Perhaps on second thoughts this one will disappear also and then we will have none at all. I suppose this means a sop for the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes) who, I am sorry is not in his seat. If the minister wishes to delay the discussion on this Bill we should know when it is coming up for the second reading.


George Perry Graham: I will be ready to take it up just the moment I will be allowed to, but I think we will all have to stay in our seats to get the business through.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I presume the minister will give notice when he proposes bringing on the second reading ?


George Perry Graham: I will be glad to tell my hon. friend if I have the Opportunity.
Mr, A. MARTIN. Will I and the members from Prince Edward Island get notice as to when the Bill will be taken up ?


George Perry Graham: Suppose we take it up on Friday.


Alexander Martin: All right.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 202) to authorize the construction of a branch line of the Prince Edward Island Railway from Harmony on the Souris branch to Elmira.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: Will the leader of the House inform us what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: To-day, I presume my hon. friend means.


George Taylor: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution concerning the All Red Line will be the first order, then the motion will be made for Supply upon which my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) wishes to make a statement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 9, 1908. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.

Mr. MACKENZIE moved :: That the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This had better stand as a notice of motion for Monday next.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBITAILLE-by Mr. Morin-ask' ed :
1.	What is the length in feet of the present supporting wall at the Falls of Montmorency?
2.	What is its width?
3.	How many cubic feet of wood are in that wharf ?
4.	What kind of wood is it?
5.	How many cubic feet of stone?
G. What sort of stone?
7. Was the last money voted for that wharf after the outlay already made?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	1,325 feet.
2.	12 feet.
3.	27,000 cubic feet.
4.	Pine and spruce.
5.	203,000 cubic feet.
6.	Ballast stones.
7.	No work was started before money had been voted by parliament.


THE CORBY DISTILLERY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBITAILLE-by Mr. Morin-asked :
1.	Has the Corby firm ever had a deficiency in their spirit production from the still? If so, how many and in what years?
2.	What amount in proof gallons and in money represented the respective deficits?
3.	How were said deficits adjusted with the Excise Department?
4.	For the last deficit, how many days were given in order that the production in that distillery be computed on the whole quantity of grain used during that given period in order that over-production would reduce deficiency ?
5.	For any deficit, has the Excise Department pressed a demand of payment from the Guarantee Company?
6.	Has any official demand been made upon the principals by the department through their legal representatives?
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	Yes. One in the year 1906-7.
2.	o,52ST3 proof gallons. Duty $10,503.45.
3.	The period was extended to the end of the fiscal year.
4.	89 days.
5.	No, the deficiency being more than overcome by surplus production in the balance of year.
6.	No, for the reason given in answer to
question 5.

GOODERHAM & WORTS DISTILLERY.
Mr. ROBITAILLE-by Mr. Morin-asked :
1.	Has tlie Gooderham & Worts distillery ever Lad a deficiency in their spirit production from the still? If so, how many and in what years?
2.	What amount in proof gallons and in money represented the respective deficits?
3.	How were said deficits adjusted with the Excise Department?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: No deficiencies of the character referred to have arisen in the distillery of Messrs. Gooderham and Worts.	[DOT]


SUPERINTENDENT OP PRINTING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBITAILLE-by Mr. Morin-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint a French Superintendent of Printing?
2.	If it be not advisable to make a principal appointment, would the government consider the appointment of French Assistant Superintendent ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to this question and the matter is under consideration.


THE 'BESSIE BUTLER.'
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government a boat on the Trent canal named the ' Bessie Butler,' or a similar name? If so, what are its dimensions, cost, material and uses?
2.	In what service was the boat engaged on July 1, instant, Dominion Day?
3.	Does the government or its officers ever lease or hire out this steamer?
i. Was the boat used by the Roman Catholic Bishop and priests of Peterborough locality on July 1, during the greater part or any considerably part of the day? If so, at whose cost?
5.	Is the boat placed at the disposal of the clergy of all other denominations for picnics or other entertainments?
6.	If so, will the government be good enough to order it up to Victoria county waters for the entertainment of the clergy of that county and for picnic purposes?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes. The government has a tug, called the ' Bessie Butler ' on the Trent canal; her dimensions are : Length 78 feet, beam 17 feet 0 inches ; length of engine room 22 feet; gross tonnage, 70-99; registered tonnage, 52-36. Cost in the neighbourhood of $1S,500. The tug is used for towing and inspection purposes.
2.	The tug ' Bessie Butler,' went to Hastings to bring up to Peterborough a drag -scow which was being used by the engin-


William Templeman: eer's department. On the same day Julyl, the St. Peter's Total Abstinence Society were holding their annual picnic at a point about two miles below the city. When passing the street railway wharf at the south end of the city, the superintendent found that several hundred persons were in an awkward predicament. The society, which had arranged the picnic, had chartered two boats, the ' Rainbow ' and the ' Beaver,' the latter boat, through unforeseen difficulties could not fill its contract, and did not put in an appearance. There were as a result, about two or three hundred people who had taken the street car to the railway terminal, but were unable to obtain boat transportation to the picnic grounds, two or three miles distant. They hailed the government boat and explained their position. The superintendent took as many on board as he could, and conveyed them to the picnic grounds. About the same number returned on the government boat. There was a number of women and children, who otherwise would have had no means of getting up that evening. The superintendent states, that his action is nothing more than it would have been under like circumstances, had the picnic been under the auspices of any other church, society, lodge or other organization. The tug made its trip to Hastings and returned to Peterborough, with the scow as originally arranged.
3.	No, it does not
4.	The boat was used in the manner above set out for a few hours on July 1. The department was offered pay, for the service in this connection ; but did not accept any, as the superintendent felt that he had only done a friendly act when the excursionists were placed in an awkward position.
5.	The boat is not placed at the disposal of the clergy of any denomination.
6.	Under similar conditions the superintendent would feel that he wras not doing anything wrong in according similar treatment.


RICHIBUCTO WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What is the length of the tvharf at Riehibucto, New Brunswick, for which the amount of $2,000 is included in the main estimates, and what depth of water will be obtained at this wharf at low water ?
2.	Has this wharf been purchased ? If so, when, from whom, and at what price ?
3.	Is the wharf now in good repair ? If not, what amount will be required for repairs P
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of
Railways and Canals) :
1.	(a) 680 feet, (b) 13 feet of water at L.W.O.S.T. along the outer face.
2.	The municipal council of Riehibucto offered to sell its wharf to the government

for $1,500; the offer is now under consideration.
3. (a) No. (b) Resident engineer estimates the cost of rebuilding approach at $4,500. The addition of a pierhead would cost $7,000.
2. Arrangements were some time ago made for haring the judicial work of the district attended to, and such arrangements seem to have been satisfactory.


QUEBEC TERCENTENARY POSTAGE STAMPS.
Mr. McCOLL asked :: Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	What is the amount claimed for his services and expenses by commissioner L. Boyer in connection with the inquiry into matters on the Soulanges canal ?
2.	What action has the government taken upon the report of said commissioner ?
3.	Why was not said inquiry conducted by the Railways and Canals department itself ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Mr. Boyer's remuneration was fixed
by order in council at $25 per day, and his account was rendered in accordance therewith and paid ;	$485 for services and
$47.85 for expenses.
2.	Mr. Sauve, superintendent, has been suspended without pay.
3.	Mr. Boyer was appointed by order in council as commissioner in pursuance of the provisions of Part II. of the ' Inquiries Act,' chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, to investigate for the Department of Railways and Canals and report to that department.


MR. F. T. CONGDON.
George Eulas Foster: Will the Minister of the Interior instruct the commissioner of the Yukon by telegraph to wire him what steps, if any, have been taken to make investigation into and audit of the accounts involved in the estates and trusts that came into the hands of F. T. Congdon, as publio administrator of the Yukon; and forward to him, to be laid on the table of the House, a list of those estates and trusts, with the disposition made of the same ?


Frank Oliver: The Commissioner of the Yukon Territory is being communicated with by wire.
SUDBURY COUNTY COURT JUDGE. Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	When is the government going to provide a county court judge for the district of Sudbury ?	.
2.	Is the government aware that its failure to appoint the said judge is said to be causing inconvenience in the said district ?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1. When parliament has provided for payment of a salary to such judge the question of an appointment to the position will have careful consideration.
1 Is it the intention of the Postmaster-General to have a special issue of postage stamps in commemoration of the Quebec Tercentenary ?	,	.	..	...
2. If so, what different denominations will be issued, and what number of each denomination ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 
THE ALL-RED LINE.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER rose to move the following resolution ;
That at the Imperial Conference lately held in the city of London, England, the following resolution was unanimously passed:
That -in the opinion of this conference the interests of the empire demand that m so far as practicable, its different portions should be connected by the best possible means of mail communications, travel and transportation ; and that to this end it is advisable that Great Britain shoud be connected with Canada, and through Canada with Australia and New Zealand, by the best service available within reasonable cost; that for the purpose of carrying the above project into effect, such financial support as may lie necessary should be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in equitable proportions.
That it is desirable that steps should be taken with all convenient speed to achieve the results aimed at in the said resolution.
That this House doth hereby endorse the terms of the said resolution, affirming that Canada is prepared to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations.
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand should, with as little delay as possible, agree upon a definite plan for carrying into effect the terms of the said resolution of the Imperial Conference, the same to be submitted for the consideration of the imperial and colonial parliaments.
He said : Of the advantages which would accrue to Canada if such a scheme as is here outlined were to go into effect I do not propose to speak. I have followed pretty carefully the expressions of public opinion
[Stage Direction]
on this subject from the time, now twelve months ago, when it was first brought to the attention not only of Canada, but of the whole British empire; and, so far as my own observations have gone, I may say that though there have been some carping criticism, on the whole the scheme seems to have commanded universal approbation-I do not say unanimous, because I must recognize that some expressions of dissent have been heard. But while the expressions of opinion have not been unanimous, they have been pretty generally in favour of such a scheme. One thing at all events seemed to be certain: if such a scheme were to become a fact, its advantages to Canada would not be disputed. Canada would undoubtedly be on the highway, not only between Great Britain and her distant possessions on the other side of the globe, but also between Europe generally and the Orient. This scheme, which would primarily affect the British empire, would not in its usefulness be confined at all to the British empire ; but all the countries of Europe and all the countries of the Orient would necessarily seek this route as a means of communication between each other. Canada has the advantage of geography in this matter. We have the shortest route, I believe, both on the Pacific and on the Atlantic. At present the only available route between Great Britain and Australasia is by way of the Suez canal, and the disadvantages of this route as compared with the Canadian route are manifest. First of all, the duration of a trip from London to New Zealand by the Suez canal is no less than 29 days, and the discomfort of the trip to one of European blood is pretty severe. A trip through the Suez canal, and then through the Red sea and then east by way of Colombo is a very trying one to Europeans. A similar trip by way of Canada would certainly obviate all these discomforts. There is, I may say, an alternative route by way of San Francisco, and at the time of the conference Sir Joseph Ward, the Prime Minister New Zealand, who spoke with authority on this subject, stated that he had made a trip from New Zealand to England by way of San Francisco in 29 days. I think, however, that this route is practically no longer in existence ; since the earthquake at San Francisco some two years ago, I believe it has been abandoned. I speak under correction on this point, but I think I am correct. At all events, if that route is not now in existence, it may be revived at any moment. So that, in all our calculations, wo have to take into consideration not only the route by way of the Suez canal, but also the possibility of having a line of communication at any time from Liverpool, by way of New York and San Francisco to Australasia in 29 days. Therefore, it behooves us, if we are to attain what we have In mind, to make the journey by thv, line we have organized inside of 29 days and some days Sir WILFRID LAUEIER.
more. The line may be divided into three parts-the Atlantic part, the continental part and the Pacific part. When we speak of the Atlantic part, we know exactly what we can do; we know the conditions that prevail to-day between Europe and the American continent; and we know that it is possible, with a line of steamers of the highest type afloat, such as the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania,' to cross the Atlantic from British territory to Canadian territory within four days. We have the advantage on our side of distance to the extent of some about 1,000 miles, which would enable us to have easy communication from land to land with vessels of that type in four days. I do not, however, lose sight of the fact that vessels of the type of the ' Mauretania ' and 1 Lusitania ' are still in the experimental stage, commercially speaking. So far as navigation is concerned, the stage of experiment is past. These vessels have proved their adaptability to the service in which they are engaged; but, so far as the commercial aspect of the case is concerned, we are still in the dark, and no one can say yet that these two vessels, which have been heavily subsidized by the British government, will prove a success commercially. It is a well-known fact that all such high-class steamers have not been a success commercially, and it is an essential in all countries that they should be assisted out of the public treasury. The Germans do it, the Americans have done it, the English have done it, and the Canadians have done it. But although all these high-class steamers have been subsidized by their respective countries, there is a limit beyond which such assistance is not possible, and it is a question whether or not vessels of the type of the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania,' even with the assistance they have received from the British government, can be called a commercial success. Their owners say that the time will never come when they can dispense with such assistance.
Even if at the present moment we are not prepared to provide vesels like the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania ' it is possible for us to entertain the hope that we can have twenty knot or twenty-one knot steamers and these will easily cross the Atlantic within five days. Assuming that even it should take five days to cross the Atlantic I think I can hopefully if not confidently say that we can secure a train service which will cross the continent in at least five days ; may be in four days but as to that I would not speak positively. We are, however, on absolutely safe ground when we say that the train journey across the continent can be accomplished in five days. There then remains the service on the Pacific and as to that we are to a large extent in the dark. At present there are two Pacific services subsidized by the Canadian government, one to China and Japan, and the other to Australasia. The Pacific service by

the Empresses is in every respect excellent, but the steamers have a speed only of thirteen knots and consequently the voyage from Vancouver to Hong Kong is considered somewhat slow in these days of fast transportation. The service between Vancouver and Australasia has not up to the present time given the satisfaction we had reason to hope for, and we are now negotiating for its improvement. For this service we have been paying something like $40,000 a year. The mail service on the Atlantic costs us at the present time about $500,000 a year, and, therefore, for the ocean mail service on the Atlantic and the Pacific we are paying about $540,000. It is for us to consider to what extent we will have to implement the present service in order to achieve what we r.ow contemplate. Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister of New Zealand, expressed at the conference his decided preference for a Pacific service equal to the service now on the Atlantic, namely, steamers of twenty-knots or twenty-two knots, in order that Auckland may be made in ten or twelve days from Vancouver. Such a scheme is perhaps too ambitious for us now. I wish for my part I could view the matter with the same enthusiasm as my friend Sir Joseph Ward, who stated that New Zealand would be prepared to pay a subsidy of £100,000 sterling to such a line as that. This is a very large subsidy, indeed, for a country Ike New Zealand with a population of less than 1,000,000, but Sir Joseph Ward attached so much importance to a fast allBritish line that he was prepared- to advise the parliament of his country to grant this very handsome subsidy to secure it. Whether or not it is possible to have such a service on the Pacific seems to me of somewhat doubtful possibility. We must recognize that these mail subsidies have to be calculated largely upon the basis of the population which is served. The population of New Zealand is about 1,000,000, the population of Australia is under 5,000,000 and the population of our Pacific coast is not much more than 200,000. It may be that this population is not so large as to justify a twenty knot or twenty-two knot service on the Pacific, and so we have to consider if we cannot do with less. It is quite possible I think that we might have an eighteen knot service from Vancouver to Auckland and from Auckland to Sydney, and with steamers of that speed they ought to make the voyage from Vancouver to Auckland in about sixteen days. From Vancouver to Auckland is about 6,355 miles, from Vancouver to Sydney the distance is 6,824 miles and from Auckland to Sydney the nautical distance is about 1,200 miles. That means that the voyage between Vancouver and Australia could not be covered in less than twenty-two days by eighteen knot steamers and this is not entirely satisfactory from the point of view of Australia which has perhaps the right to ask for a more expeditious service. It is, therefore, for us to consider whether it is possible to come to an agreement for a twenty knot service on the Pacific. I am not prepared now to give an opinion as to whether or not such a service cannot be attained ; it is a question which has to be very carefully considered and so for the present we do not propose to ask the House to give us endorsation to this scheme in any concrete form. The only thing we ask the House now to do is to authorize us to approach the subject with the governments of Australia and New Zealand so as to give the best possible consideration to the question and at a later day to come before the House with some concrete proposition if that be possible. That the idea is an excellent one every one admits ; that the idea is one which will commend itself to the best judgment of every pne in this country we all recognize, but at the same time the government does not close its eyes to the fact that the scheme may present so many difficulties as to render it impossible of absolute accomplishment.
And so the question has to be considered very carefully and looked into in all its details. We know where we are on the Atlantic, we know where we are with regard to the train service across the continent, but so far as the Pacific is concerned, the matter is still in the dark and, although the idea is one which should be exploited, we do not say that it is absolutely sure or feasible. That is the reason why we are asking the House to ratify the idea of the resolution which was passed by the conference. We have no intention of saying that the thing is absolutely beyond per-adventure, that it is an absolute certainty. We do not want, in approaching this subject, to give to the House more confidence than we have ourselves ; we do not want to lead the House to understand that we are sure that the project is absolutely feasible, because there are things which have to be taken into consideration, which have to be determined and which must engage our best attention. There are on the Pacific ocean physical conditions which have to be looked into very carefully and which, if possible, have to be overcome. The climatic conditions are such that it is perhaps possible that the complete execution of the idea may not be feasible. I understand that vessels have the same difficulty there that we have in winter in making steam, that climatic conditions exercise nearly the same influence over the making of steam on the equator as on the frozen ocean, and, for all these considerations, whilst we bespeak the sympathetic attention of the House to the scheme, we do not in any measure commit ourselves to it as a scheme as to which we may have an absolute condition of certainty. The House will remember that all we are asking is that it shall endorse the
[Stage Direction]
terms of the resolution. All we are asking it to do at the present time is to authorize us to enter into negotiations with our fellow subjects of Australasia in order if possible to find the means of having such a line as is now contemplated, and if it is feasible then to bring it before parliament for its consideration.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who introduced this resolution. I think the House and the country will agree with me that the mover of the resolution has not been at all as positive in his statements in this House as he was in the imperial conference of 1907 when he moved, not this resolution, but a certain resolution with the same object in view. At that time my right hon. friend had no doubts. He was not only in favour of the idea, he not only believed that the idea was practicable, but, if I mistake not, his demand upon the conference at that time was to at once establish a service between Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand through Canada. I think it is of sufficient importance that, just at this point, in view of certain expressions and of the assumption that has been made, to take up a little time In presenting the history of the growth of the idea of improved steamship communication between Canada and Great Britain, between Canada and Australia and between Great Britain and Australia through Canada as a land route. It is not true that the idea, which was broached to the conference in 1907 and which the right hon. gentleman spoke of when he came to Quebec in the latter part of that year, was a newly discovered idea. It is well just here to quote what the right hon. gentleman said in his Quebec speech. He said :
During the last five days of the conference I announced a new idea which has almost become historic-the All-Red Dine. My proposition was the establishment at once -of fast boats on the Atlantic and the Pacific. I am thoroughly convinced that my ideas are in the interest of Canada and the empire and, although I have grown old and white in the service of the country, I am prepared to work with all my energy to further the cause.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-tou), who made a very exceedingly comprehensive statement in reference to this idea a few months ago in this House, also declared, iu express terms, that the resolution of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the conference of 1907 included the genesis and included the history of this idea of intercommunication between Great Britain and the overseas dominions. Another point I want to call the attention of the House to in connection with it is the extremely different imsition which my right hon. friend occupied in the conference of 1907 and oc-


Wilfrid Laurier: Of which we, at that time, were officially advised. To-day, my right hon. friend cannot put his finger on a single pound that Great Britain will give or that any colony will give towards the general plan.
3.	That it regards such an uninterrupted through line of swift and superior communi-ation between Australasia and Great Britain as is above contemplated as of paramount importance to the development of inter-colonial trade and communication, and to the unity and stability of the empire as a whole.
Every idea is taken in that my right hon. friend contemplates in the resolution which the Prime Minister has moved to-day.
i. That as the imperial post office contributes towards the cost of the mail service


George Eulas Foster: conference of 1907. The Prime Minister said : Without experts, without the information required for the establishment of the service, he would pledge Canada to take her share even up to a million and a half a year. We have information by actual experience of what the country has spent and is likely to spend by reason of taking my hon. friend at his own estimation in 1903. He estimated that the total money cost to this country of the National Transcontinental Railway would be $13,000,000. The Minister of Customs followed in his wake and used the argument throughout Ontario. The Minister of Finance made a carefully revised statement of the cost and placed it at $52,000,000. The Minister of Railways comes down today and leaving out terminals and interest and a lot of other things, he tells us it will cost at least $114,000,000. My friend to my right (Mr. R. L. Borden) by a most temperate and I think careful statement, placed the cost of that completed road from Moncton up to the city of Winnipeg at $170,000,000 or $180,000,000. Leaving out of account $11,000,000 which he has calculated for, which might be disputed by some, although 1 do not think it is at all liable to any dispute, and basing the figures on government records and information, that line of railway will cost us from $160,000,000 up to $170,000,000. We are therefore suspicious and we would not like to and do not propose to vote for any scheme that my right hon. friend brings down in this eight month of the session involving the laying of a possible $15,000,000 additional burden upon the people without making sure that no contract will be signed in the recess, and that when we meet next year we may not have the Prime Minister present to us, as he has done in the Yukon and other cases, a hard and fast contract and say to his followers : We are pledged to that, pledged to Australia, pledged to New Zealand, pledged to Great Britain, you are to see us through-and his obedient following would see him through as they have done heretofore. The financial conditions of this country are such that it is necessary to scan with the very greatest particularity any scheme by which it is proposed to place on the shoulders of an already overburdened people an additional possible tax of $15,000,000 during the next 10 years. The Finance Minister knows something of the condition of the London money market. He boasted the other day that we got our money but he was not very particular in explaining that we got it because the promoters had to put up the money, and now to hold 50 per cent of the whole subscription. Although we got our money from the underwriters, then, does he think that he has made it easier for us to go on the London market and ask for another loan of four, six or eight millions as he will have to in the course of this Mr. FOSTER.
and the early part of next year ? To-day the revenues of Canada are falling off by over a million dollars a month ; to-day the taxes are rising at the rate of 16- per cent in ten years and other obligations in addition to what we already have are promised to be loaded upon the people sometime during the few remaining days of this session, some of them may be necessary, some of them I am bound to say not at all necessary. With all this in prospect we do not propose as an opposition to pin ourselves down to a position where we will be met with an added obligation of $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 facing us when the next parliament assembles at Ottawa.


Robert Laird Borden: The unusually late date at which this motion has been brought down, when it is anticipated that parliament shall prorogue on a week from Saturday next, is an indication that the government do not expect any very lengthy or adequate discussion of so grave and important a proposal. However, if the Prime Minister had followed the exact analogy of his course at the Imperial Conference of last year, he would have brought it down on the very last day of the session. So, I think, we may be thankful that it has not been postponed until a still later date.
There is not the slightest doubt as to the absolute importance of better means of intercommunication between the different parts of the empire. That has been an article of Conservative faith and Conservative policy for many years. I need not go over the ground already traversed by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who has pointed out that what is now known as the ' All-Red route ' in Canada is practically that which for many years had borne the same name in Australia and New Zealand, and is but the ordinary development of ideas and proposals that were debated in this House long before the right hon. gentleman came into power in 1896.
I do not desire to detain the House at any length, but let me point out that since 1896 conditions have changed a great deal in this country. What were essential and necessary features of any policy in 1896 may not be so essential and so important to-day. The Conservative government of this country in 1895 looked forward to a 20-knot service on the Atlantic. (Since 1896, the service on the Atlantic has advanced from 14 or 15 knots to 18 knots. We have to-day on the Pacific, as well, a 14-knot service.' My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in speaking on this question a few years ago in Montreal used some language which is singularly like that what the Prime Minister used to-day, but singularly different from the attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman at the imperial conference and from the view expressed

in very forcible and eloquent terms by the bon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) when he addressed this House on this subject during the budget debate. The Prime Minister's proposal at the imperial conference was for a 24 or 25 knot service ; and X think the hon. member for Brandon put the case for a service of that kind as strongly as it could be put when he addressed the House during the debate to which X have just alluded. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, speaking on this subject not long ago, in Montreal on the occasion of a banquet to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Minister of Justice, said :
Personally, as far as the fast line is concerned, I would like to see a line of ships built to steam 18 or 20 knots, carrying 10,000 or 12,000 tons of freight, and accommodating about 250 passengers with comfort. That type of boat is both profitable and comfortable. I would rather travel across the Atlantic in a steady commodious boat than in the speedy ones. The record breakers made good time, but there is more ease and comfort in crossing on the cargo boat. I think these boats could touch at some coast port for the convenience of passengers who were travelling in haste, after which the journey could be continued to an inland port. It is easy enough to get a fast line, but it costs a lot of money, and I do not see why we should be held by the nose for such a service. At present, there is an inclination on the part of some Canadians to plunge into any expense, and this must not be allowed to go too far.
That would seem to have been a rather severe stroke in advance at the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister at the imperial conference, and at the same time a somewhat forcible retort to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Brandon during the present session.
I should pause to mention the great interest which the High Commissioner for Canada has taken in this project of better communication between parts of the empire; and whether we accept or do not accept all the views which have been put forward by Lord Strathcoua with regard to the rate of speed which is practically attainable under present conditions between Canada and the mother country, we must all acknowledge with gratitude and appreciation the great services which that gentleman has rendered to the empire in this and many respects, and the deep interest he at all times has shown in everything that tends to the welfare of this great country and of the empire as a whole.
My hon. friend the member for Brandon, in debating this matter during the present session, and the right hon. Prime Minister in' his speech to-day, have touched this question solely from the standpoint of passenger and mail service, except in one respect to which I will allude for a moment, In which my hon. friend from Brandon did mention the subject of freight. I regard that 395
as a rather serious omission. I am not inclined for one moment to minimize the importance of the best service for passengers and mails that can reasonably be attained, within the resources of this country, between Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I appreciate to the full what has been said in support of that view, especially what has been said by the hon. member for Brandon. There is a great deal of force in all that he has urged upon our attention on that subject. As a matter of sentiment, as a matter of bringing together citizens from different parts of the empire, as a means of enabling them to discover the enormous resources of this country, and, in that way, to promote the development of these resources-for all these considerations and many others that time does not permit me to dwell upon, I acknowledge the importance of that aspect of this great question. But let us remember

and it seems to me that this point has been entirely overlooked- that, after all, the transmission of passengers and mails does not constitute what is really commerce between. Canada and Great Britain or Canada and the other parts of the empire. When you analyse what is meant by the promotion of trade and commerce between the different parts of the empire, you must acknowledge that, in the end, it depends upon the free interchange of commodities and upon our being able to transmit to their market in the mother country and in Europe the rapidly increasing, and already very great, natural products and manufactures of this country. It is in this that trade and commerce consists. And, without for one moment minimizing the other considerations that have been urged, I venture to regret that those who have at heart this great project do not seem to have taken that aspect of the subject sufficiently into consideration.
Jf you put aside sentimental considerations and the possibilities of attracting capital to this country to which I have just now alluded, what do we find to be the chief benefit that can be derived by the people of this country from better communication between different parts of the empire? How many farmers and producers of this country have occasion to cross the Atlantic in any year? But how many farmers and producers are there who are not vitally interested every year in the transmission, by the cheapest and most expeditious modes of transportation of their products to the mother country? Seventy dive per cent to eighty per cent and perhaps eighty-five per cent to ninety per cent of our people are vitally Interested in that question; and any proposal which neglects to give due and proper consideration to that particular problem ought not to command the assent of parliament or the approval of the people. We know that, under modern conditions, we are obliged to compete in the market of the mother country, not only with the farmers



and producers of the United States, but also with the farmers and producers of Europe as well as those of New Zealand and Australia. It will be impossible for us to compete with them unless we have a modern and efficient cold storage system, and that system can never be thoroughly efficient so long as there is a single broken link in the chain of connection from thq point of production to the markets in the old country. Therefore these essential features, more favourable freight rates, better means of transporting freights, and a system of cold storage seem to me to have been entirely overlooked by this government.
There is another consideration, and my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has dwelt on it. It cannot be denied that the very prosperous times through which Canada in common with the rest of the world, has been passing until within a year ago, have led this government to indulge in enormous expenditures and obligations, the true measure of which is only beginning to be realized. When we find an expenditure of from $175,000,000 to $200,000000 facing us in respect of the construction of the Transcontinental Railway alone, when we see the enormous demands made upon the public treasury from all parts of the country and the somewhat prodigal promises of gentlemen on the treasury benches, when we realize that up to the present we have not developed in their true sense our national ports and that we are only on the threshold of the real development of our inland waterways; when we consider the thousand and one demands for purposes of real national development which must be met within the next few years, we begin to realize that the resources of Canada, great as they are, may be strained, and strained unduly, in the immediate future if we are not careful how far we commit the country to increased expenditure. Look at the estimates of the present year. The government have already brought down estimates amounting to $127,412,724, and if rumour be true we are yet to be confronted with an enormous amount of Supplementary Estimates and perhaps a still more enormous amount for railway subsidies. We are also face to face with this huge expenditure not only on the National Transcontinental, but in almost every department we must be careful how far we commit ourselves in advance. Look for a moment at the terms of this resolution :
That at the Imperial Conference lately held in the city of London, England, the following resolution was unanimously passed:-
That in the opinion of this conference the interests of the empire demand that in so far as practicable, its different portions should be connected by the best possible means of mail communications, travel and transportation; and that to this end it is advisable that Great Britain should he connected with Canada and through Canada with Australia and New Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Zealand, by the best service available within reasonable cost; that for the purpose of carrying the above project into effect, such financial support as may be necessary should be contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in equitable proportions.
I do not believe that there is any bon. gentleman In this House who dbes not heartily sympathize with the object aimed at. So far as the terms of the resolution are concerned therefore, we need not have any special concern at the moment because our liability is guarded by the expression ' within reasonable cost ' and the whole matter is thus left open. The right hon. gentleman did not mention what be would regard as a reasonable amount this country should contribute. He did not give us any Information as to the amount to which be would be prepared to pledge the credit of the country for the purpose of obtaining a twenty or twenty-one knot service. But even if he did, perhaps we could not place much dependence on it, for if we apply our experience in connection with his estimate of the cost of the Transcontinental, we would be obliged to multiply by fifteen any estimate he would offer. However, the resolution proceeds as follows ;
That it is desirable that steps should be taken with all convenient speed to achieve the results aimed at in the said resolution.
That particular paragraph seems to be entirely unnecessary because it simply states what is proposed in more definite form in the concluding paragraph. The next paragraph is as follows ;
That this House doth hereby endorse the terms of the said resolution, affirming that Canada is prepared to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations.
I would have been fairly well satisfied with that paragraph except for the circumstances I have already mentioned, namely, that the Prime Minister and the able advocate of this proposal, my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), have carefully omitted any reference whatever to improvement in the transportation of freight. True, my bon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), in the concluding part of his speech this session, said this :
So far as Canada is concerned, what may he said to be the argument in favour of it from a commercial standpoint. You can put it in two or three words. At the present time, mail, passenger and freight service of the best and quickest character from here to Great Britain goes through the United States-and from Australia and New Zealand goes across the continent of Europe. It does not go by our own ports or our own territory. In other words, so far as travel and transportation are concerned Canada is on the side street instead of on the main thoroughfare.
He did make allusion to the transportation of freight, but the difficulty I find with his-

proposal is that throughout his speech he strenuously advocates the expenditure of an enormous sum for the improvement of the passenger and mail service but says not one word as to the appropriation of any expenditure whatever for the improvement of the freight service or the establishment of any system of cold storage.
This paragraph of the resolution pledges Canada to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations. I see no particular advantage in our pledging ourselves to obligations, the exact nature and extent of which we do not know at present. It has all to come before parliament again in so far as I understand. Even the Prime Minister, in so far as I have been able to comprehend his remarks, did not propose to enter into any definite engagement or to commit Canada to any definite proposal until the project-the plan, as it is called in the last paragraph of the resolution- shall have been submitted to the imperial and colonial parliaments. Of what advantage is .it that the country should pledge itself to an absolutely indefinite and unknown obligation which, if the last paragraph of the resolution means anything, must be submitted to parliament before it can be entered into. There may be some sentimental purpose aimed' at in the paragraph to which I have alluded, but in so far as any practical object is concerned, it seems to me that the resolution might with advantage be modified by omitting it.
At one o'clock, House took recess. '
House resumed at three o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose I had been considering the individual paragraphs of the proposed resolution. I had pointed out that the second paragraph seems to serve no purpose which is not equally fulfilled by the last paragraph. The second paragraph declares :
That it is desirable that steps should be taken with all convenient speed to achieve the results aimed at in the said resolution.
The last paragraph declares that it is desirable that the several governments should with as little delay as possible agree upon a definite plan for that purpose. This paragraph, therefore, is superfluous.
So far as the third paragraph is concerned, I have pointed out that it is a pledge of financial support to an indefinite expenditure, and is entirely useless unless it is intended to justify the government in committing the country in advance. For that reason I would think that no good purpose would be served by the third paragraph. If everything is to be open to the consideration of parliament when the proposal is eventually submitted, of what value is it to say in this paragraph that Canada is prepared to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations ? The necessary financial obligations are to be with-3951
in reasonable cost ; therefore the whole matter, I would suppose, is to be left entirely to the discretion and judgment of parliament when the proposal comes to be submitted. Therefore of what value is it to say in advance that Canada is prepared to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations unless the government is now prepared to inform parliament what they consider to be Canada's fair share or the reasonable cost?
I will quote the fourth paragraph :
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand should, with as little delay as possible, agree upon a definite plan for carrying into effect the terms of the resolution of the Imperial Conference, the same to be submitted for the consideration of the imperial and colonial parliaments.
I have no objections to the terms of that paragraph, provided a rider, to which I will refer in a moment, is added which will make it absolutely clear and certain, beyond peradventure, that the government will not take the course of committing the country to some huge expenditure before it comes to this parliament for the purpose of procuring its ratification of that which has been done in advance. The wording of this paragraph leads me to consider for a moment just what the plan may be which the government will eventually propose. I have already pointed out the extreme importance, from my point of view, of fair consideration to lower freight rates and to a system of cold storage, and I am glad to observe that, at the recent Imperial Conference, Mr. Lloyd George apparently took the same view. At page 568 of the report of the Conference I find this :


Mr.   DEAKIN@: May I add that at present our connection with this country is by the alternative routes round the cape or through
the Suez oanal ? These are omr princ.ip'T routes and must always remain our great cargo routes, because there is no transhipment.


Mr. LLOYD  GEORGE@: And, from the point of view of developing trade, they are much more important.
These words indicate his view, of which I was not aware when I spoke on this subject about a year ago. He emphasizes his opinion that one important, perhaps the most important, consideration is the development of trade by the carriage of commodities from one part of the empire to another. Again, at page 577 of the same report, I find Mr. Lloyd George using the following language :
We cannot examine it apart from the question of the carriage of goods too. We must take that into account. It is not only a matter of a fast mail service, but also a question of the cheaper transport of goods and materials from the colonies. I consider that to be a very important item, so far as we are concerned.

Speaking for myself, I consider it to be a very important item indeed, so far as Canada is concerned. Our chief market for our agricultural products is the British market, and is likely to remain the British market for many years to come. To save a cent a bushel on the transportation of 100,000,000 bushels of wheat is to put $1,000,000 into the pockets of the farmers of this country. If by a system of cold storage you enable our perishable products to reach the British market in perfect condition, you confer a corresponding advantage on the producers of these products.
In this connection might I be permitted to make another observation ? It is apparently intended to negotiate for only a 20 or 21 knot service on the Atlantic. As the hon. member for North Toronto has pointed out, the government are only proposing now what their predecessors actually accomplished twelve years ago before they went out of office ; and the proposal of the Prime Minister is subject to this further observation, that if unassisted private enterprise has so improved the service on the Atlantic that instead of a 14 or 15 knot service we now have an 18-knot service, might we not reasonably rely upon the same unassisted private enterprise to bring about in the immediate or early future a 20 or 21-knot service? I will not take up the time of the House further in discussing this subject, but I will conclude by moving the following amendment to the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister :
That the said resolution be amended by striking out the second and third paragraphs and substituting the following
' That this House in expressing its strong sympathy with the object of the said resolution desires to record its opinion that more favourable freight rates and a thoroughly efficient system of cold storage are essential features of any such transportation project.'
And by adding the following paragraph at the end of the said resolution :-
' That, having regard to the very heavy expenditures and obligations in which the present administration has involved the country, the government should not commit Canada to any such plan, or to any contract or expenditure for such purpose until after the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the parliament of Canada.'


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Brandon).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words upon the resolution which has been proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister. I wish in the first place to express my pleasure at seeing the resolution on the paper. Personally I would have been pleased if the resolution had appeared sooner in the session, for reasons which I will refer to later on ; but I am pleased that the government has been able to see its way clear to make the proposal which the Prime Minister has made. I am not especially concerned in the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
historical retrospect of my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) ; at least, in so far as it dealt in criticism of the past action of members of the present government party. In matters of this kind we can at least afford to leave to one side what happened twenty or twenty-five years ago. Conditions have so changed that he would be a strange man indeed whose views in regard to some of these things had not altered with the altering circumstances. I am quite willing to admit that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did one service to the resolution when he proved-his remarks were conclusive upon the subject as were also the remarks of the leader of the opposition-that it has been the traditional policy of the Conservative party to favour better means of communication between the different parts of the British empire. That unquestionably has been a part of the policy of the Conservative party, and I trust it is a part of the policy of the party which is now in power. I am satisfied that if this resolution is adopted by this House and if due aud legitimate and proper diligence is shown that in the course of time we shall be able to meet the desires of those loyal British subjects and loyal Canadians who are anxious to see such a project carried into full and effective fruition. I think, however, that our friends on the opposite side of the House in pursuance of the traditional policy of their party should give 'us a little more enthusiastic support than they are giving us upon the present occasion, because while the leader of the opposition may very properly say that there is much in favour of his amendment, yet that amendment can be taken as meaning nothing else than, for the present at least, a negative to the resolution which has been moved by the right lion, the Prime Minister. After all, the position we are in to-day is this :	That the
Prime Minister and his colleagues having attended the imperial conference, and the representatives of all the colonies having passed a certain resolution in regard to improving the transportation system between the different portions of the empire mentioned in the resolution, the question now before the parliament of Canada is : Will the parliament of Canada endorse the action of the imperial conference or will it not ? That is the definite question we have to settle. I am inclined to think that it will be seen upon full consideration that the whole subject is so surrounded with difficulties that it is not possible for the government at the present stage to go into such matters of detail as those to which the leader of the oppositon refers in the first portion of his amendment-the second portion of his amendment, of course, has to do with an entirely different phase of the question. tit will been seen that the effective factors of the problem are such that it is not

possible for the government to come before parliament In regard to a scheme of this kind in the same way as if it were a scheme relating to the internal development of Canada and which was solely and entirely within the jurisdiction of the government and parliament of Canada. We have before us a proposition which has to do with various portions of the empire : Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. You have first to get some kind of a statement of views, some kind of a general proposition to which the parties will agree. The general proposition we have in the resolution of the imperial conference, but then the parties have to find out what can be done ; they have to find out how much it will cost, they have to discuss the question, they have to settle details and arrive at a scheme which each government will be prepared to recommend to its parliament. All that has to be done before you can get any further with the project than it is at present..


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: Might I point out that my amendment does not touch that part of the resolution.


Clifford Sifton: The position therefore is altered to a considerable extent since the time of the Imperial Confernce. Discussions have taken place and information has been disseminated. It has come to the knowledge of all parties concerned that in all probability such a service as I have deseriDed is a practicable service which could be made and would be the best service that could be obtained for any reasonable expenditure.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would such a service include the transportation of any of the products of Canada ?


Mr. SIFT  ON@: Freight, yes. The ships
on which the estimates were made provided for a capacity of 1,000 tons freight for the Atlantic boats and 3,000 tons for the Pacific boats. I may say that experience shows that a larger capacity than 1,000 tons upon fast Atlantic boats would not be of much service, because taking the year around, the probability is that that is about as much of the class of freight they would take as they could succeed in contracting for. As a matter of fact the very fast boats running from New York do not take anything like 1,000 tons on the average. The Canadian Pacific Railway boats running from Quebec and St. John do somewhat better. Therefore the conference resolution having been passed, as much information as can be gathered has been gathered upon the subject, and if we are able to infer anything as to the attitude of Great Britain, it is that if the colonies are desirous that this plan should be carried out, the colonies should get together, settle upon a definite plan and present it to the imperial government for their acceptance. That obviously is a reasonable position for the British government to take, and therefore it becomes essential that somebody should take the initiative and obviously from Canada's position in relation to the whole scheme and her great interest in successfully carrying it out, it is the logical position that Canada should become the chief promoter in carrying this into effect. Thus what the Prime Minister is asking is that, the resolution having been passed, the general features of the scheme having been accepted in so far as they can be before a definite business proposition is arrived at, the government of Canada should be authorized to take the matter up with Australia and New Zealand, arrive at a definite proposition and then go to the imperial government, get them to agree to the scheme and carry it into definite effect. I cannot see myself that any other plan could be practically proposed or would give any probability of arriving at a successful conclusion.
At the risk of repeating what I have said In this House I shall discuss briefly the cost. Expert shipping men in London were employed for the purpose of arriving at as close an estimate as possible of the cost of such a service upon the Atlantic and


Clifford Sifton: what answer can we make when we are told that, while Canada is developing very rapidly, while she is improving her internal transportation system tremendously, she is still satisfied to remain on a side street, still satisfied to remain dependent for the ordinary interests of business upon the courtesy and good will of our neighbours to the south? It ought not to be so. It seems to me the time has come when Canada can afford what is, in this respect, a necessity for her national growth and development.
And it should be done now. Mr. Speaker, even if you allow, that everything will be done that can be done, and done with all reasonable speed, it will he impossible to bring this service about inside of four years, probably five years. You have to get the several governments together ; there are the interminable discussions between the members of the several governments; the British government has been brought in; the four parliaments have to be consulted. In view of all that is to be done, it is not to be expected that this can be brought into effect inside of four or five years. Then if we are going to do it for this generation, the time has arrived when we ought to make a beginning. Temporary financial difficulties which afflict us at the present time, will not, we hope, remain to trouble us four or five years from now. This temporary financial depression will pass away ; it was a natural thing ; a necessary thing ; a good thing. For, it is as necessary in connection with the business corpus that it should have periods of recuperation as it is in connection with our physical bodies. We cannot keep going at full speed all the time. This necessary lull in business had to come. It has come. It has not hurt Canada seriously. In a year or two we shall have emerged from it, and I think that, if we have then been afraid to begin the steps necessary to bring this great project into effect, every one will feel that we have made a very serious mistake. I do not desire to be understood as advocating a reckless financial policy. I am not on my feet for the purpose of critising the financial policy of the government ; but I am free to say that if. at the end of four or five years, in consequence of arrangements made in pursuance of this resolution, we shall be called upon to pay the subsidy for the purpose of securing this service, I think that some of the expenditures which this parliament is authorizing might well be cut out for the purposes of furnishing the means for this subsidy. Under any circumstances, many of the things we are called upon to do now, we shall not be called on to do then. We are accomplishing great works, they are passing into the region of things accomplished, and what we have to do is look to the future. For my part I am satisfied that my hon. friends opposite can hardly expect the House to take the position that after the representatives of Canada Mr. SIFTON.
have gone to the imperial conference and become parties to the resolution adopted by that conference, the House should decline to endorse the position they took. And I am convinced my right hon. friend, the First Minister, can confidently ask the House to stand by the position he took at the conference.


William Foster Cockshutt: Moved by Mr. E. Wilson-Smith, Montreal-Resolved, that this congress hereby reaffirms the following resolution, adopted at the last congress held in Montreal, in August, 1903: ' That this congress considers it of the utmost importance, to the interests of the empire, that the United Kingdom and her colonies should adopt >a policy under which lines of steamships will be secured and retained for-
1.	The provision of fast mail services on the several routes; and
2.	The development and control of trade between the mother country and her possessions, ana between the colonies themselves.
These resolutions were passed almost unanimously in these meetings of commercial men assembled from all parts of the empire. So that the proposition which the government brings down is not a new one. It is true that it is a somewhat advanced position for this government to take. It is to be regretted that this is not a very opportune time to talk of devoting large sums to be taken out of the public treasury to any enterprises at all. I could only wish that a fraction of the amount that is being sunk, for the present, at all events in the Grand Trunk Pacific, could have been withheld in order that w7e might have a subsidized line of steamships to carry the products of Canada to different parts of the British empire. That is a project that is worthy of the greatest consideration, and as a citizen of Canada and of the empire I desire to discuss this question entirely free from all party prejudice as I believe that this side of the House has always held the banner in regard to being the imperialistic party, if there is such in Canada, and that it has always desired to improve the relations between the mother country and the colonies. That being the case, we could not oppose the spirit of the resolution as brought down and which embodies the view of the late Colonial Conference. The amendment moved by my hon. friend tbe leader ol' tbe opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden)
I think does not change the resolution in any particular. It is not a negative at all! as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton) has stated, but it is simply saying that in any sucli arrangement as is contemplated we must have full regard to the possibilities of tbe carrying trade with reference to products of ail kinds to and from the various parts of the empire, that they must be carried in cold storage where necessary and that all possible consideration must be given to the development of the trade of the country rather than to the carrying of passengers upon either tile Atlantic or Pacific. Very few7 of our ow7n citizens who go across the ocean want to go in very fast ships, hut the proper transportation of the products which are daily going out of Canada means dollars and cents in the pocket of every farmer iu Canada. So that the first consideration should he given to the transportation of our products in a cheap, efficient and safe way. in a way that will


William Foster Cockshutt: preserve them in the best condition so that when they arrive on the British market, or on any of the colonial markets, it will be found that they will bring the highest prices. Therefore, I think the rider that has been proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is one that we might w7ell adopt. I trust that the right hon. leader of the government will see his way to join with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in this and that we may have a united House on w7hat is really an imperial question. Ret this resolution, as amended by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition he the unanimous voice of this House. I think it would have a great effect throughout the empire. It would he doing something to consolidate the empire and in my opinion it would be a great step iu advance for the commercial interests of Canada and of the1 empire as a whole. It is my intention to support the resolution as amended by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I trust that the right hon. leader of the House will see his way to incorporate these few words in the resolution so that it may go out to the world, to Great Britain and the colonies, that we are on this empire matter comparatively" a unit in this country and that when it comes to discussing these broad imperial questions in a business way we do not allow small-minded politics to creep In, but are prepared to do our utmost to further the object which we all have so much at heart-the unification, consolidation and development of the greatest empire that the world has ever seen. If it is the desire of this House to contribute to that end I hope that the resolution, as amended by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, will he adopted, and I trust that the same spirit that has been displayed iu the discussion so far may characterize it up to the finish and that we may present a united front 'upon this question. I have spoken of the chambers of commerce of the empire. They held their fifth meeting in Montreal and their sixth in London. Only yesterday I saw heralded in the press that the seventh has been called and where has it been called? Away out in the Antipodes, in Australia. The next meeting of the chambers of commerce of the empire will he held in Australia. The limelight will then be turned on the transportation facilities of the empire. Business men from all over the world, from all parts of the empire. will be going to Australia to take part in that great congress and the very question that is before this House to-day will be one that will be agitating every business man, every board of trade, every chamber of commerce throughout the empire because they have all to get there. They will want to get there in the best possible way, they will want to get there expeditiously, safely and in comfort. But I say that we should not sacrifice the con-

sideration of material advantage to that of speed. It is all very well to travel in very fast ships, but it Is a great deal better to travel in comfort and safety. The interests of the navy of Great Britain cannot be any more advanced than by the extension of the mercantile marine to all the seas that couple the various parts of the empire, placing upon them a class of ships that will carry safely and expeditiously both the passengers and trade of the great British empire. It is well known that in times of war the mercantile marine is the first adjunct of the navy and that fact should not be lost sight of in the consideration of a question of this kind. It is a matter that presents itself to the advanced man as one of importance. Every ship that you place upon the ocean not only carries mails, passengers and cargo from one part of the empire to another but is also a source of strength and help in time of stress and danger because it affords safe transport for troops, a means of getting supplies to any part of the earth in a short time, and it is one of the most valuable adjuncts that can be given a nation for its safety, prosperity and welfare. When the vote is taken on this resolution I trust it will be found that both sides of the House with united voice will give their support to what I conceive to be one of the greatest factors for the advancement and consolidation of the British empire in its various constituent parts.


William Roche: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) that we should have unanimity on this resolution, for this certainly is a question which is not controversial. The people of Canada are not so much interested in the contest as to who applied the epithet ' All-Red ' to this project, or as to who were the best friends of this enterprise in the past, as they are in the question :	Who are the
best friends of the enterprise now? He who will demonstrate that fact in this House and in the country will do more to enlist the gratitude of Canadians than one who, for the sake of political controversy, endeavours to make out that one political party was more interested in the project than w7as the other. I regret that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) imparted a political tinge to this debate. It may be that his combative energies have been so exercised lately that unconsciously polemic controversy comes upwards in his mind-anyhow, the leader of the opposition dispelled the idea that we were to have entire unanimity. I looked to him for moderate counsel so that the House might be united on the question in the manner prayed for by my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), but instead of coalescence the leader of the opposition introduced an amendment which practically will have the effect of making this a
party question, although in its opening paragraph the amendment does speak of acquiescence in the principle, but not in practical details or in the operation of it as a practical measure. There has been throughout the country-there certainly has been in the maritime ports, where the subject was originally of more Interest than it was in the interior of the country-a difference of opinion as to whether a comparatively slow service of 1G or 17 knots would not better serve the exigencies of the country than a more rapid service of 20 knots or over. That controversy waged in parliament. However, the discussion on that point as a practical issue has almost passed, because of the fact that a 17-knot service has been tried and has been successfully established along commercial lines. Such a service does not require so much of government aid in the way of subsidy, and it may be fairly left to achieve its own part in the commerce of the country. That controversy was not confined to politicians in the Canadian parliament or to opposing views in our commercial centres, but it was taken up by the steamboat companies themselves, and some of these companies which are esteemed to be the most highly advanced and most in touch with the freight and passenger traffic of the Atlantic have rather retrograded from the very fast service of 20, 22 and 23 knots to a service of 1G and 17 knots. The controversy existed between the directors of leading steamship lines who had experience in both directions. The White Star line, which has the largest ships in the Atlantic service, have gone back from the ' Oceanic ' of 20 or 21 knots to the ' Republic ' of 16 or 17 knots, and they are building monster ships which are not intended to attain a very high speed. The Hamburg-American line, which was the first to produce a fast ship, have also retrograded and they have built four enormous boats which make a speed of 17 or 18 knots. The ' Kaiserin Augusta,' 25,000 tons and accommodation for 3,000 passengers, is an 18-knot boat, and the ' Amerika,' the ' President Grant ' and the 'President Lincoln' are of similar speed. Some of the White Star boats now run to Southampton instead of to Liverpool ; they have enormous capacity with moderate speed and large passenger accommodation fitted up with all the adjuncts to luxury which modern travel requires. I may say that the experience of this present year has to a large extent justified those who build large ships of great capacity and comparatively slow, because the reflux of passenger traffic in the immense number of continental Europeans who have gone from the United States back to their native land has, on the return voyages filled all the space that was previously occupied by light cargo, and great difficulty has been found even on those enor-

moils boats in providing accommodation for the middle class and steerage passengers. In the minds of a number of gentlemen in this House, and in the mind of the public generally, the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania ' have set up the standard of what a fast Atlantic ship should be. The British government furnished the Cunard Company with a large amount of money at a low rate of interest, and also gave them a large subsidy, so that they might obtain the prestige of having the fastest ships on the Atlantic, the German builders having wrested from the British builders the reputation for constructing the fastest, best appointed and most luxuriously fitted passenger i-jjiips. But it was not only sentiment that prompted the British people to the desire to have the fastest ships, nor was it altogether that these fast ships would be a powerful adjunct in war. There was the further inducement that the prestige of building the very fastest ships was of immense advantage to the British shipbuilders, whose trade was waning and who, in consequence of regaining their reputation, would have the advantage of securing orders from foreign owners who wanted vessels of that class. The competition was between the British and German builders as to the cost of production as well as to the turning out of the fastest and most economical ships. The ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania ' are of great size, of great speed, of luxurious furnishing, hut they are very costly. Many who would otherwise advocate a fast Canadian line have been deterred from this advocacy through the belief that vessels equal to the ' Lusitania ' and the ' Mauretania ' would be necessary for the Canadian trade. It is a fallacy to suppose that we need vessels of that extremely costly type. The Cunard Company have, in addition to these steamers, vessels of less speed and power and cost, but of greater capacity for the carriage of freight. I believe the great lines usually run cargo boats in conjunction with their fast boats. The North German Lloyds has been spoken of. They were the pioneers in using very fast steamers. They have on the Atlantic to-day four steamers of 23 knots, which are fitted equal to the Cunard steamers, have all the modern appliances for comfort, and make the trip from Cherbourg to New York In six days. They are interchangeable with regard to berths and accommodation, the one with the other, which gives them an immense advantage. They have lately put on the New York route a steamer called the ' Kronprintzessin Cecile,' about 700 feet in length by about 70 feet broad. A ship with a little more horse-power, say 5,000, would make the passage from Halifax to a port on the western coast of England in four days, summer and winter, and there is no other port in America from which a service of that kind could Mr. WM. ROCHE.
be maintained. Four steamers of that size and power would be sufficient to maintain such a service continuously summer and winter, because at Halifax they would not be delayed by the tides, but could proceed at any time to the ocean. Therefore this question is not one of vague cost, as was intimated by my hon. friend from North Toronto, but is confined within narrow limits of eost. The success of these large ships is very largely governed by the amount of subsidy that will he available.


Robert Laird Borden: About how much would these boats cost ?


William Roche: About $3,000,000 each. The New York lines obtain irom the southern and western states a large passenger list of wealthy people who pay for suites of rooms and other special accommodation. It will not be necessary to incur such large expense on our boats; nor will it be necessary to furnish them so luxuriously as the New York boats. An immense advantage will accrue from diverting to the Canadian line British passengers who now go for the sake of speed to New York. Passing through Canada, they will become acquainted with the resources and possibilities of mr country. And this is not a remote thing that is to he catered for 25 years hence, or even 10 years hence; but it is something to be catered for now, when public opinion Is formative, when people are making their calculations, when business men are making their connections, and studying how and where they can best extend their business. I do not need to go in greater detail into a comparison of boats and routes. We know that both New York and Liverpool are bar harbours. New York dominates Liverpool. If I were asked for advice, I would say, go to a port on the west coast of England in direct communication with London and the contieut. Where speed is the prime factor, there is no route between Halifax and a southern port on the west coast of England. A remark made by the hon. leader of the opposition has been enlarged upon

that these boats could not carry perishable freight. I think that is the substance of the hon. gentleman's amendment.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN If the hon gentleman will pardon me. I was not speaking of ships of any particular kind. I was merely desiring to emphasize the point, which the hon. gentleman has already remarked upon, that there should be facilities for carrying freight.


William Roche: I listened attentively to my hon friend the leader of the opposition. and although he did not expressly state it, the whole course of his remarks, and also of his amendment, tended to the position that this is a comparative question, not an absolute one, and therefore it would

be better to do something else than to do immediately what is proposed by the government. And one of the stated reasons was that the farmers might have the advantage of shipping their ordinary agricultural products, and also their perishable goods. Now, there is nothing to prevent cold storage accommodation being provided on these ships. If that were done, fancy products, such as fruit and other things, could be carried in these ships much better than by any line of freight steamers that could be subsidized or invented; because the great element would be speed. A great many products that could not be sent by an ordinary freight line, even with cold storage, could be sent by a fast line. Merchants and others passing over the line would see opportunities for increasing business, and the English market for our products would be very much extended, because they could be carried by this fast line to the best market in the world, which they have not hitherto been able to reach because of the want of rapid transit. With regard to the remark of the premier of New Zealand, that he stipulated that freight should be carried on the Pacific steamers, I am not going to speak in regard to the Pacific end of this project, as some of our friends from British Columbia are going to deal with that feature of the subject. I will merely say that if a fast line were maintained for so long a voyage as from Vancouver to Australia, it would be impossible for it to carry any great burden of freight. The amount of coal that would be necessary to maintain a vessel at a speed of 18 or 20 knots on the Pacific, would exclude any amount of heavy freight, and only a small space could be reserved for the more valuable and compact goods. Therefore for the future heavy freight would have to be carried by another kind of ship.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) this afternoon expressed anxiety for our fellow citizens of the empire in South Africa. It is a good way out of the line of travel from Vancouver to Australia, but it shows his cosmopolitan regard for sentiment and his love for the old flag ; but I can assure him that the British public have well provided for the trade of South Africa and onwards from there to Australia ; they have steamers of very large size, with good passenger accommodation and that is a trade which they intend to build to its utmost capacity. There is in that country a very strong English sentiment, a sentiment to deal with the mother country. That has been well provided for and the lines well established. I think my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and I can afford to leave our co-citizens of the empire in South Africa to the kindness of the people of England and to the care of those companies which are at present engaged in the South African trade.
It was hoped that the introduction of the turbine engine would solve a great many questions, but unfortunately the turbine engine is not more economical in the consumption of coal than the old style of engine. It is only on vessels of very high power that there is economy in the turbine and therefore the anticipation that the turbines would permit of longer voyages with the same supply of coal has not been fulfilled. Various comjDanles have been experimenting ; the German companies have adhered to the old reciprocating type, some of the British lines have adopted the turbine and the British government has been experimenting with oil fuel. But these experiments are not yet completed and it is not possible to state any results. Many interested people thought that the turbine engine would solve the problem of coal carrying capacity but as yet that has not been accomplished.
Great Britain has a great interest in this project. The leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) called that a sentimental interest. I cannot say where the bounds between sentiment and material interest lie, but it is surely true that the amount of advantage to' Great Britain will determine the amount which Great Britain will contribute to this joint project. It is not merely a question of distance but it is also a question of safety. Great Britain is looking constantly to securing fast merchant ships to supplement the navy, as was well remarked by my hon. friend from Brantford, and this line will afford useful ships for this purpose when required. It is also of great advantage to the British government to have a safe and rapid line of communication available in time of exigency, away from Europe, which would not be menaced by the navy of hostile powers. There is great rivalry as to which shall be the predominant naval power and the further the line of communication is carried away from Europe and the passage of the Suez canal, the safer are the British possessions in the east and the wide stretching British commerce to be found in every sea. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) have perhaps not looked up the statistics of the immense damage inflicted on British commerce in the short war of independence with the United States and the war with the United States in 1812, when American privateers pushed right up to the British channel and captured whole fleets ) of merchantmen owing to their speed. I recommend my friends to study these subjects at their leisure and give their views at some later stage because they tend to show the immense importance of this subject to the British empire, and also that a liberal participation in this plan is essential to the efficient government and holding of British

colonial possessions. We are not looking for war. The leader of the oppposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) said it was extremely necessary that the farmers should have cheap and rapid accommodation on ships equipped with cold storage and lower rates of freight for their products. The rates of freight from Canada to Great Britain to-day are extremely low on heavy goods. My friends will remember that there are hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping laid up in England at the present time because the vessels are not able to obtain remunerative rates of freights. This government also has subsidized lines of steamers to carry freight with some regularity to compete with freight carried on the great lines from the United States. The government has been liberal in providing for this service, and there has been no complaint, by the leader of the opposition or anybody else, on the ground of excessive freights from Canada to the old country. I would like to see our shipments to Great Britain increase, I would like to see every facility afforded to the farmers, I would like to see cold storages established at every point where it would be of advantage. But the government has not protected that particular interest. I would also like ito see the farmers of Ontario make more frequent passages to the old country and establish agencies under then' own control for the distribution of their products there so that they would reap the whole advantage from their sale. I had remarked that this project must be dealt with comparatively. Well, we know the cost of this somewhat definitely ; also there are limitations under which it will be necessary for Canada to assent to any proposals that are not fair or adequate. Only the other day, we passed a measure to extend a railway to Hudson bay, involving an expenditure of about a hundred millions. I did not hear any of these eloquent voices on the other side raised against that. We had the project of the Georgian bay canal involving a sum, we are told, of a hundred millions.


George Eulas Foster: I did not hear about that.


William Roche: Did not the hon. gentleman hear it stated that it would cost a hundred millions for the Georgian Bay canal ?


George Eulas Foster: I did not hear the Minister of Railways say it was going through.


William Roche: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was out. But I am only speaking in round numbers. I have understood that the Hudson Bay proposal would cost something like a hundred millions.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, my no ! I did not hear that.


William Roche: 


William Roche: I heard no objection to the building of the Hudson Bay Railway.


George Eulas Foster: I was in favour of it for my part.


William Roche: Very well, then the hon. gentleman is committed to it whatever it may cost. And it was supposed to cost a large amount of money. And there was no opposition to that proposal. But here is a proposal within extremely small limitations. Formerly it was supposed to involve an expenditure of $500,000 to $700,000 annually. This proposal as stated by my hon. friend will not involve more than $1,000,000. This affects the interests of eastern Canada, it affects the interests of all the continent through which this line of communication passes ; it affects the interests of the people on the western ocean ; all are interested in this proposal, and nobody, up to the present time, has shown that any disadvantages are to accrue from it. When the expenditure is so limited, why should we have an amendment declaring that this is injudicious or inexpedient at the present time, especially when we have embarked upon proposals that will cost a large amount of money, and more especially when one of the routes to be provided, that by Hudson bay, is open it is said by some, for two months in the year, and by some for four. Here is a route that is opened the whole year round. It opens possibilities greater than any body has been able to prophesy. If we consider the possibilities of the development of Canada we shall give to a project which helps in the realization of those possibilities the hearty and unanimous assent of this House, backed by the enthusiasm of a growing and progressive people.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I do not intend to go into this subject in great detail, as we are trying to end this debate and close the session with as little delay as possible. Nor do I intend to go into the historical phase of the question of the fast Atlantic service. It is pretty well known to the people of Canada that during the past twelve or fifteen years, or perhaps more, this question has been fully discussed. I shall discuss the question from the standpoint of to-day, and consider it in the light of conditions as they exist. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) says he is sorry that the government is not receiving the enthusiastic support in this measure which he would expect it to receive. Well, it did not occur to me, while the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was addressing the House upon this project, that that right hon. gentleman was over-enthusiastic with regard to it himself. If ever I saw the Prime Minister handle a question with a pair of tongs I saw him do so to-day. The

hon. member for Brandon, I notice, differed -with the Prime Minister with respect to the speed of these vessels upon the Atlantic. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, that right hon. gentleman advocated a 20-kuot service. But the hon. member for Brandon still insists that this service should be by vessels of 24 knots an hour. This is a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and member for Brandon with regard to one of the most important things in this scheme. It seems to me also that the hon. member (Mr. Sif-ton) has not been able to convert certain other members of the cabinet. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) read an extract from a speech made on this subject by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). And I have every reason to believe that the Minister of Agriculture entertains the same view with regard to this service as he did when he made that speech. So, the hon. member for Brandon need not complain about the attitude of the opposition when he lias not been able to win even members of the cabinet to his own view upon this project which lies so near his heart. I said that I did not.intend to go into the historical aspect of this question. But it is necessary that I should refer briefly to the fact that the sum of $750,000 was voted, I believe, by the former administration to aid this fast Atlantic service. At that time, the service on the Atlantic was very poor. The time occupied between Liverpool and Canada was about double the time taken by the steamers of to-day. During these years, private enterprise, with the improvement of conditions, has given us pretty nearly what was laid out in the terms and conditions of the contract it was then desired to enter into. But, more than that, I would point out that this government, as stated by the hon. member for Brandon, is paying out pretty nearly the amount which the former administration proposed to provide for the fast Atlantic service. According to the figures given by the hon. gentleman, this government is paying $680,000 per annum to carry the mails, and, I suppose, subsidize the steamship service upon the Atlantic, which is pretty nearly as much as the amount voted under the former administration. I am glad that through the enterprise of two corporations, we have to-day an efficient service on the Atlantic without the expenditure of an enormous sum. That could hardly have been expected at the time the contract I referred to, as made by a former adminis-tation. was voted upon in this House.
This question we are discussing not only embodies a fast Atlantic service on the Atlantic, which is the most important from our standpoint, but it also embodies the putting of faster trains on the railways crossing the continent-that would apply
to the Canadian Pacific Railway-and a better steamship service on the Pacific ocean between Vancouver, New Zealand and Australia. We have to look at this matter entirely from the standpoint of carrying mails and passengers, and cannot expect that vessels, such as we intend to put on the Atlantic, which have a speed of 24 knots an hour, will be of the slightest advantage to the people as far as freights are concerned.
I shall not take up the time of this House referring at any length to the sentimental aspect of the question. I wish to endorse the words uttered by Premier Deakin, of Australia, and telegraphed to 'this country via London by the Associated Press a day or two ago :
London, July 7.-A despatch from Melbourne says that Premier Deakin, commenting on Sir Wilfrid Laurier's request for Australia's cooperation as to the All-Red route, says the Commonwealth must have a definite financial proposal before he can advise action. The whole question had now narrowed down to cost, as the sentimental benefits were admitted long ago.
That is the position I take. The sentimental benefits which would arise from the bringing closer together the various parts of the empire are admitted. And while I am prepared to criticise the resolution submitted to this House, I do not want to be considered any the less a loyal subject of the empire ; I do not think I will he, and, in fact, I do not care whether I am so considered or not. So far as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is concerned, what he proposes is a different scheme from what the Prime Minister brings down. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thinks that $1,000,000 is a very small thing with which to charge the country for all time to come. Well, considering all the heavy expenditure to which the government has committed us, in view of the excellent service we have on the Atlantic at preseut, I think this proposed extra expenditure of $1,000,000 per year is a very serious one. Capitalize that amount of interest at 3j) per cent and you have a capital expenditure of $30,000,000, besides the subsidy we are now paying of $680,000 per year. If this government is going into a project which will involve the borrowing of $30,000,000, I think the project is one not to be at all likely lightly considered.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) referred to the great development in Germany, which he attributed to their enterprise in subsidizing fast steamships. My own view is that the great development of Germany is not due to her fast Atlantic steamships, although that service may have been a factor to some small extent. But the fact is that some years ago, when the craze was on, each country was competing with the other as to which should have the

fastest Atlantic service. Tlie 1 Lucania ' and the ' Campania ' were built by the Cunarcl line and were the fastest steamers afloat. Then the Germans came on with faster steamers. A few years ago the great financier, Mr. Plerpout Morgan, appeared on the scene and attempted to consolidate certain British and American lines. That caused a sort of spasm in Great Britain, and for fear that the competition created by this great amalgamation would drive British passenger vessels of the fastest type fi-om the Atlantic, and under the influence of that alarm, the British government subsidized two steamers bu'ilt by the Cunard line, the ' Mauretania ' and ' Lusitania,' hut that these vessels have been an unqualified success is questioned. While we have the ' Campania ' and ' Lucania ' on the Atlantic it has been demonstrated that a great many people prefer to travel by slower vessels. From what I have been able to learn, this fast Atlantic travel is more of a fad than anything else. Where two vessels, such as the 'Mauretania' and 'Lusitania,' have been built, there have been twenty-five or thirty others built, more commodious and comfortable vessels, which run seventeen or eighteen knots an hour, and these have taken the business. The Cunard line, many years after they had the ' Campania ' and ' Lucania ' on the Atlantic, built two steamers, the ' Caronia ' and ' Carmania,' which are always crowded with passengers. To suppose that every one who travels on the Atlantic wants to save half a day or a day is simply a fad. W hile some may think the saving of a day of great importance, a great number of the traveling public do not. I have said what the Cunard line have done ; other lines have done the same. The Ham-burg-American owns the ' Deutschland,' built for the New York to Liverpool business. She has been put on the New York and Mediterranian service during the winter time. Then the company have built and worked successfully vessels of great capacity which make slower time, such as the ' President Lincoln,' ' President Grant ' and 'Amerika.' Probably the ' Amerlka ' is the most popular, and of the White Star line the ' Cedric ' and ' Baltic ' and ' Arabic ' are among the most popular. Other companies have not pinned their faith to the extreme type of fast Atlantic vessels. Comfort and security count for something with certain people who travel on the Atlantic.
My right hon. friend the First Minister figured out that a 20-knot service would make the trip in five days across the Atlantic. Well, steamships plying to Great Britain at present take five and a-half days from Liverpool to Rimousk'i and six to Montreal. Are we going to pay this extra $1,000,000 for the purpose of saving half a day or a day? In my opinion, the scheme is not practicable. There is no demand for It. The time is not opportune for consider-Mr. KEMP.
ing it. Twelve years ago the conditions were entirely different. Since then we have been able to secure, on a commercial basis, a service, furnished voluntarily by people well posted in the trade, which is certainly as good as the desired service in many respects.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton) said it would take time, after passing the resolution, to bring all the parties together and decide on a joint agreement, and that it would be five years before we can have the ships on the ocean. I believe that in three years, or in four years at any rate, we will have a 20-knot service on the Atlantic. We have at the present time an all-red route, so called. 1 will not quarrel with the premier or any one else who wishes to have the credit of having invented that name. It is a matter of very little importance to me what you call it, but we have an all-red line from Great Britain to Canada and from Canada to Australia and New Zealand. Only to-day I saw a gentleman who had recently come from Australia on the steamers which are plying on the Pacific which service is being improved. He came across in a ship of 7,000 tons, he had a pleasant voyage and the passengers were well satisfied with the treatment they received and the accommodation they had on that vessel. I endorse what has been said by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) regarding the importance of freight traffic. If we have this amount of money to spend and if we feel that we ought to spend it in this way we would be doing something which would be of far greater service to this country if we did something in the direction of obtaining better freight rates for the products of Canada and of extending the cold storage facilities in a way that will make them of greater benefit to producers than they are at the present time. I do not want to be stampeded into endorsing the vague plan suggested by this resolution. I do not understand how the premier expected this resolution to go through the House unanimously. The time has come when we should stop this sort of thing. The time has come when we should get estimates accompanied by a little more information with respect to matters of this kind. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) states that some steps ought to be taken but I would like to ask that hon. gentleman as I would like to ask the premier what steps have been taken by the government of Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia. I do not know why we should be expected to take the initiative any more than these other governments. I think that the advantage it would be to save a day or possibly only half a day in the voyage across the ocean has been very much over-estimated. Viewing it from the standpoint that these vessels will be entirely

for the purpose of carrying passengers, that a very small portion of the people travel by the Atlantic or travel at all, and that a great many people prefer such vessels as are on the Atlantic at the present time,
I think we should encourage the people who have had the enterprise to do what has been done upon the Atlantic, who have given such a splendid service, rather than create competition by government aid which would discourage men from going on in the future and continuing the splendid work which they have done in the past. I believe that if we are ,iust a little cautious in regard to this matter, a little more sensible, we will have, in the next five years, upon the Atlantic, a far better service than we will have by the voting of $1,000,000, as is proposed by the hon. member for Brandon. Therefore. I will have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, if there be some possible differenceof opinion on this side of the House on details of this question, as suggested, it is quite evident that there must be larger and greater differences of opinion among hon. gentlemen opposite. I take it that the speech of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) was made in support of this fast line scheme, possibly with some modification of the words, the changing of the phraseology here and there, the dotting of the i's or the crossing of the t's, but the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Kemp) has given us his reasons for voting against the whole scheme. Therefore, we must assume, if he is going to vote with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) on this question, that they have a common ground and that they are really placing themselves in opposition to this whole scheme. If that is not the meaning of the proposition of my. hon. friends opposite I must confess that 4 am unable to see what their purpose is by the amendment which they have presented to the House, because a certain portion of the amendment distinctly declares that you must do nothing immediately. You must not commit yourself to anything, you must come back and tell the House what you have in your mind before you agree to anything. Let us suppose that delegates from this government go to meet the government of New Zealand or of Australia and that they do as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition suggests; they would go there with instructions that they could agree to nothing, commit the government to nothing, bind Canada to nothing, and that would mean the absolute obstruction of this whole scheme. If the whole scheme is a dream and a bad one that position is justifiable, but I do not think that my hon. friends would like to take that position, and certainly that was not the line 396


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
of action taken by hon. gentlemen opposite
Robert Laird Borden: Was it the intention of the resolution as proposed that the country should be committed to a definite plan and to an expenditure without coming back to parliament ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, what was intended to he accomplished was that this House should first declare its approval of the principle of the fast line service forming part of the All-Red line between England and Australia and New Zealand. My hon. friends opposite say that there is a difference of opinion on this side as to whether that should be a 24 knot or a 20 knot service. I do not see any difficulty on that score. Every one of us, I am sure, would be glad to get a 24-knot service if we could get it at a price which would he reasonably within our ability to pay, but if we cannot get a 24-knot service without paying a price that would seem to us to be excessive then I suppose we would all be very pleased to have, at a moderate price, a substantial improvement upon the service that we already have. Whether you have a 20-knot service, a 21. a 23, or a 24-knot service is a matter of detail and a question of price.
I do not see why there should be this division of opinion in the House to-day. My hon friend from Brantford expressed the view very strongly that we should be unanimous, that there should be no difference whatever. He wishes to be counted among the enthusiastic advocates of this All-Red scheme. I share his feeling that there is no good reason for a difference of opinion. If the principle generally that it is desirable to have a faster service on the Atlantic and . a faster service on the Pacific is a principle which we all recognize to be a good one, then I see no reason for the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
We are told that this is not a new question. Very true; and if it is not a new question, if it be one that the House has considered again and again, there can be no reason for complaining that there is not ample time to consider it. If we had brought forward something that was entirely new there might be just cause for complaint on that score. This is not a case in which we are called upon to deal with details. Why should my hon. friend the leaden of the opposition think it necessary or expedient to import into this discussion and into an amendment the question of cold storage or freight rates ? These are important questions, truly, but they are not necessarily part of the present side of the discussion; certainly, they are not necessary in the form of an amendment to a resolution which does not profess to deal with details but in which we are content to ask parliament to assert the general principle of the approval of this policy. So, I think
EDITION	|

my hon. friend has made a mistake, from our point of view, in insisting that this matter shall be dealt with now as one of detail. As far as the question of a freight service is concerned no one disputes for a moment that the transportation question, in relation to the products of the country, is more important than the question of a passenger service. My hon. friend's amendment would imply that no attention had been given to the question of the freight business of the country. On the contrary, everybody knows that this government has liberally supported the establishment of lines for the development of the freight business of the country. A number of steamship lines are to-day engaged in that very line of business under grants in aid given by this government with the approval of parliament.
The question of freight has been considered, the question of freight will continue to be considered and therefore it is not necessary to assume, when we ask that the principle of a fast line should be affirmed, that we are ignoring or neglecting or not considering the development of the freight business of the country. There has been great progress made on Canadian railways in the separation of passenger and freight traffic and we can see similar development in our ocean carrying trade. It is not many years since the very best railways in the country ran mixed trains where you would have a passenger car and a cattle car following the same engine, but to-day the cattle car is to be found on a cattle train, the lumber and the coarser freight is carried on a train specially intended for that pur. pose, and the passenger train is operated as a passenger train absolutely distinct from the freight business. A further development is that on many trains there are only first-class cars, and although we have not yet come to it to any extent in Canada it is a quite common thing in the United States to see passenger trains made up entirely of pullmans. I have seen a cattle steamer leaving the port of Halifax which carried His Excellency the Governor General of the day.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Nothing wrong in that.


William Stevens Fielding: Nothing wrong at all except to point to the fact that the passenger steamer of to-day does not as a rule carry cattle. It was the only ship His Excellency could avail of in these days, and like a sensible man he took it and no doubt he .would do so to-day under similar conditions. But the point I am making is that owing to the development in the steamship service these conditions do not now exist. The passenger business is being separated from the coarser freight business, and even in what might be called moderately fast steamers comparatively small quantities of freight are carried. I remember crossing I Mr. FIELDING.
on the ' Campania ' which was then the crack boat of the Cunard fleet, and the commander told me he did not want more than 1,500 tons of freight, because anything more interfered with his coal capacity for attaining high speed, and the comfort of his passengers. And so on these fast ships will not carry low grade freight at all, although of course cold storage accommodation will be necessary because that is a specialized freight which can stand a higher rate. It is possible to combine cold storage freight with a fast steamship service, but it is not possible to combine with a fast service the carriage of low grade and bulky commodities. There is a tendency to-day. as we know, for many passengers to take what might be called moderately fast steamers.


Samuel Hughes: Large ships.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. There is no doubt that a great many transatlantic passengers prefer boats like the ' Baltic,' the ' Car-mania,' and the ' Caronia, which are of moderate speed and which while carrying passengers with a high degree of comfort also carry a considerable quantity of freight. But the steamship line which will have its ' Car-mania,' ' Caronia ' and ' Baltic ' will have also other very fast boats and without which the line could hardly keep up its reputation. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said that these very fast boats act as an advertisement, and from that point of view it is desirable that we should have them on the Canadian service. A nation, no less than an individual engaged in business, must attend to its advertising, and if we have steamers of not less than 20 knots, or possibly of 22 knots or 23 or 24 knots if we can get them, I feel satisfied that by bringing through Canada a large stream of first-class passengers who now go to New York, it will have the effect of advertising Canada amongst the people whom we desire should know the vast resources of our country. My hon. friends who are in business advertise in newspapers and speqd their money freely, but they seldom can associate a given customer with a given advertisement although they do know that business comes and that if they cease to advertise business will also cease. I believe that even from the point of view of the advertisement it would be well for Canada to have a few of these moderately fast steamers, as fast as we can get. I feel interested in the matter naturally from the point of view of the lower provinces. I sympathize most heartily with my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Roche) in his remarks about the great advantages of the port of Halifax.
I have always felt that in all probability, if some day we are to have one port all the year, that port would be Halifax. I have felt that if in the meantime we are to have a winter port probably Halifax would be found the most advantageous, and that the

summer port would undoubtedly have to be Quebec if tbe ships are of too great draft to permit of them going to Montreal. But while I warmly advocate the claims of Halifax I recognize frankly that this is a question which we must leave to be considered from a broad national point of view. I would be perfectly content, speaking for myself, that if a company should be found to take up this enterprise they should settle for themselves on commercial lines the point of departure in Europe and the point at which their steamers should arrive in Canada. If as a result these steamers should come to my own home in Halifax, well and good, but if. because of the application of sound commercial principles to the enterprise, the ships, will go to some other port, then we shall have to be content.
I shall not detain the House further, but naturally feeling a great deal of interest in the question. I thought I might say a few words. I believe that the time is not ripe for this parliament to deal with it as a question of detail, and that all that remains for us to do at the present time is to reaffirm the resolution of the imperial conference. I am sorry my hon. friend the leader of the opposition feels it necessary to introduce that amendment. It seems to me to be unnecessary and I would hope that he could see his way to withdraw it.
As to the financial side of the question, I regret that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken such a pessimistic view. Either they want this service or they do not, and if they do want it is is a pity they should seek to alarm financiers by the story that this is a gross extravagance and that Canada cannot afford it. Canada undoubtedly has many obligations; we have great works in hand, and we have other great works which have claims upon hs. This is a time toi Canada to exercise all due caution, but it is not a time for timidity. It is a time for Canada to have faith in herself, and while we should hesitate to spend any money wastefully on services which are not calculated to advance tlie best interests of the country, let us say to ourselves and to the people abroad : we have faith in Canada, we believe she is going to pass quickly through this little temporary depression which is less here than in any other part of the civilized world ; we believe that Canada is able to undertake the various responsibilities which her condition calls for.
and tnat the credit of Canada in the future will be upheld as it has been in the past.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John, N.B.).: It is gratifying to be able in this parliament to speak to a question which cannot m anv sense of the term be called a party question. We have already heard of the inception of what is called the All-Red route, which was conceived and tried to be started many years ago ; and we all know that even at the present time we have
39Gi
an all-red route from England to Australia and Hong Kong through this country.
I listened very carefully to-day to the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister I have also read very carefully the resolution which he proposed at the imperial conference and the remarks which he made in support of that resolution. As it gives in a short space and rather definitely the scheme which he urged, I will read it:
That in the opinion of this conference the interests of the empire demand that in so tar as possible its different portions should be connected by the best possible means of mail communication, travel and transportation; that to this end steps should immediately be taken to establish a fast service from Great Britain to Canada, and through Canada to Australia and New Zealand, and also to China, and Japan; that such service on the Atlantic, ocean should be carried on by means of steamships, equal in speed and character to the-best now in existence, and upon the Pacific.-ocean by steamships of a speed of not less-than 18 'knots, and in other respects as nearly equal to the Atlantic ships as circumstances-will permit; that for the purpose of carrying, the above project into effect, such financial support as may be necessary should he contributed by Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in equitable proportions.
This resolution, which, with slight modifications, was endorsed and carried by that imperial conference, was not for a service of twenty or twenty-one knots across the Atlantic. It was for a service equal to the best on the Atlantic at the present time. Therefore, 1 was very much puzzled when I heard the right hon. the Prime Minister in introducing these resolutions to-day, speak, not of a twenty-four or twenty-five knot service across the Atlantic, but of a twenty or twenty-one knot service, and I asked myself why we should go through all this formality for a twenty or a twenty-one knot service ? Already we have an eighteen knot service on the Atlantic, and in a very few years we shall probably have a twenty knot service at the hands of the same companies who now give us an eighteen knot service, and at very little if any extra cost to this country. So that it appears to me that if we are looking forward to a twenty knot service on the Atlantic ocean, the members of that imperial conference who endorsed the resolution introduced by our Prime Minister, when they come to read the statement of the Prime Minister in this House to-day that he is only seeking to promote a twenty knot service across the Atlantic, must come to the conclusion that we as a parliament are not keeping faith with the other members of that conference, who voted not for a twenty knot service, but for a twenty-four knot service across the Atlantic ocean. The eighteen knot service applied wholly to the Pacific ocean. Therefore it seems

to me that the Prime Minister has put us rather in a quandary.
Speaking personally, I am quite in accord with the resolution which was passed at the imperial conference, and which is brought before us to-day ; and, for the reasons which have already been given, we can only tell by experiment whether such a service on the Atlantic would be justified or not. We all know that such a service cannot be commercially successful. It is not commercially successful at the present time, even with the steamships running to the port of New York and having the SO,-000,000 people of the United States to draw upon. But if we are going to carry out the resolution of the imperial conference, we have to put on the Atlantic ocean a service equal to the best at present plying on that ocean anywhere. That means a twenty-four knot service, or all our work will be of no effect, and we cannot be considered as carrying out in good faith the undertaking of our representative. Then comes the question of freight. We all know that so far as this country is concerned, the freight business is more important than the' passenger business ; and I may say in passing that the greatest usefulness of speed in crossing the Atlantic is neither for freight nor passengers, but for the mails, and there is no doubt that it is of very great advantage to have a quick mail service. Except with regard to certain classes of freight, like express freight and perishable goods, the matter of speed need not be taken into consideration in connection with freight ; it is not a matter of importance. I am speaking, of course, in a comparative sense ; therefore when we speak of bringing into force a twenty-four knot service, we cannot consider freight at all, but onlv mails and passengers. I would like to call the attention of the House to a remark made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-tonj when referring to this matter. He says that we already pay about $600,000. and we have our service on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and that to pay $1,000,000 or a little more for a twenty-four knot service imply llleau tlle addition of say $400,000 a year. Weil, Sir, I entirely dissent from that view of the matter. I say that if you pass a vote for a twenty-four knot service, which it is said will be likely to cost this country a million or a million and a half, you will have to keep up your freight service independently of this service; lor that is the most important service for the business of the country, while the other is moie in the nature of an advertisement or a pleasant thing for the people of this countiy to say that we have coming from England to Canada the fastest steamers on the Atlantic ocean. That is a pleasant thing to say, but it is not entirely business. The freight matter is business which must be looked after whether we have this fast line Mr. DANIEL.
or not. I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) that it would be adding only about $400,000 to the present expense of the country in regard to steamship subsidies as you have to maintain the freight service in as good a condition as at present, so that the fast service will be entirely additional.	,
Personally, I would be very glad indeed to see a 24-knot service across the Atlantic! I was a little amused at the argument of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. W. Itoche) with regard to ways and means. He referred to our heavy obligations for the National Transcontinental Railway and the probable expense of improving the Welland canal, possibly building the Georgian Bay canal and constructing a line of railway to Hudson bay. Then he said, naturally, what difference does a million or two more make under those circumstances? Perhaps that is excusable, but at the same time I think, whether it costs only a million or a million and a half, we should consider thoroughly as to whether the fun of having this service would pay us, although personally I believe in having a fast line to this country, the fastest we can get. In saying that I cannot be accused of speaking from a personal interest in the matter, because the Minister of Finance has just stated that Halifax would be very sure to be the port of call on the Atlantic. As a resident of St. John, I will be quite content to leave the choice of ports to any company that undertakes the service, to those who are particularly interested in the business. The present scheme, as introduced by the Prime Minister, is most indefinite. No one in the House or out of It knows when we vote for this resolution what we are voting for or what it will entail. The Prime Minister should have been a little more definite in his statement and have taken parliament and the country a little more clearly and thoroughly into his confidence ; he should have told us what it is intended to do, so that we can vote intelligently.


Mr.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there can be two opinions in the province of British Columbia, where we have seen some fairly rapid strides made in navigation, as to the advantage of this project to the western part of Canada and our own Pacific province. We have to-day operating from British Columbia ports to Australia, New Zealand, Yokohama and- Hong Ivong a number of lines, and the question of a much better Pacific service is one of great importance. The line of demarcation between the speeches of hon. gentlemen on this side and hon. gentlemen opposite on this question is well drawn. The resolution of the Prime Minister means action immediately upon a question which is of

importance to all parts of Canada, while our hon. friends opposite say to wait, or if not to wait, that a cold storage route is the proper route. The difference between the two propositions is that one is all red, which means fast, and the other is an ice cream route, which means anything going slow. Our hon. friends opposite are prepared to accept the cold storage route, but that is not the route which is wanted at present in Canada. From British Columbia we ship all kinds of produce to Australian and Asiatic ports, but we carry very few passengers indeed. 1 believe that Canada is shipping from her ports less than 6 per cent of the passengers carried from North America to European ports and to Australian and Asiatic ports. At present we have the Union Steamship Company from Vancouver and Victoria to Sydney and we have the Australian servi.ce from Vancouver and Victoria to Auckland, both very poor services, with the result that very few people travel by that line. Last summer X saw with my own eyes many people who were not able to secure transportation on the boats leaving Vancouver for Australia; they had either to go via San Francisco or wait for another boat. I talk with people arriving from Australia by every boat and ask them about the Union Steamship Company, the present line between Australia and British Columbia, and they are all of one mind in saying that it is as poor a service as is operated on salt water to-day. In face of the fact that it is a very poor service the boats are usually full, both first-class and second-class, and they are carrying a considerable line of freight. I trust that the All-Red route will consist also of a line of steamers from British Columbia ports to Yokohama, Nagasaki, Manilla or wherever it may be on the Asiatic side. We have at present the Canadian Pacific Railway ' Empress ' line, which has done very good work indeed. There is also the Pacific Mail Steamship line. There never was a time in the history of any country in matters of transportation when it was so urgent that a first-class line of steamers should be established. We should have them from Canada to all ports on the Pacific coast. There is not a good up-to-date line of steamers operating there to-day. The Canadian Pacific Railway have beautiful boats, but they are not doing the trade there they should do. They should have much larger and faster boats, and any Canadian Pacific Rail way official operating out of Vancouver will say as I do, that we cannot afford to wait, as the member for East Toronto suggested, if we are to hold our supremacy on the sea. Now is the time to act, and now is the time for this resolution to be carried into effect. What does the resolution of the leader of the opposition mean? That nothing can be done, not even a telegram
can be sent, not an emissary can be sent to Australia, New Zealand or Great Britain to work up this All-Red route plan until parliament sanctions it.
Now, we are sanctioning the principle of it, and I trust we shall go so far as to not only sanction the principle-for that principle is accepted and admitted by all-but shall take practical steps which, in a short time, will result in a better service on the Pacific; concerning the Atlantic I do not speak. What does it mean, this carrying of passengers from British ports to Canada, across Canada and from our Pacific ports to Australia and New Zealand? It means that thousands of people will come into our country and will have the opportunity of seeing for themselves the possibilities of our country. It means that these people coming into our country will spend thousands and millions of dollars. There is no better trade in the world than the tourist trade of the world. We have demonstrated that conclusively in Vancouver, where our tourist trade has been the means of very considerable advancement for our city. So, I say, we cannot afford to take the position laid down by the leader of the opposition when he says: You should not consider this question until you have further data


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say anything of the kind, nor does the amendment say anything of the kind.
Mr. MACPHERiSON. I do not wish to misrepresent the case or to do the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) a particle of injustice. If I have read the amendment wrong


Robert Laird Borden: You certainly have.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I understood the hon. gentleman's amendment to declare that Canada must not do anything further, that the country must not be committed to anything at the present time, which, I take it, means that nothing shall be done.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment leaves untouched the words of the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister:
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand should, with as little delay as possible, agree upon a definite plan for carrying into effect the terms of the said resolution of the Imperial Conference, the same to be submitted for the consideration of the imperial and colonial parliaments.
That is left untouched by my amendment.


Robert George Macpherson: I have the amendment here. It reads:
That having regard to the very heavy expenditures and obligations in which the present administration has involved the country,

the government should not commit Canada to any such plan

I think that is plain English.


Robert Laird Borden: Go on.


Robert George Macpherson: -or to a contract or expenditure for such purpose until after the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the parliament '[DOT]of Canada.
If I understand anything about business, In the first place we must negotiate.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Robert George Macpherson: If we are to accomplish anything we must take the first step. Now, the first step means entering into arrangements with Australia, New Zealand and the mother country. There must be some considerable expenditure in order even to accomplish that. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) says that nothing shall be done for the present. If he says he is prepared- to accept fully and without qualification the resolution brought in by the Prime .Minister, well and good. But he qualifies that. And the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) says, ' Time enough the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) says, ' Time enougn ' ; the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says, 'Time enough'; nothing can be done; take what you have for the present, and do nothing for the future.


George Eulas Foster: I did not mean to say that, and I do not think I said anything that could be construed in that way.


Robert George Macpherson: We have a searching of hearts now; and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) says he does not mean that. Then, what does he mean?


George Eulas Foster: I go further; I say I did not say that.


Robert George Macpherson: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has a way of so clothing his ideas in words that almost any suggestion can be taken from them. He is very clever at that. He must take either one course or the other-either he is prepared to go on with this fast Atlantic trans-Canada Pacific route or he is not.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman allow me one question? Will he ask his own leader whether he proposes, under this resolution, to enter into any contract or agreement involving financial obligation with these countries without first coming to parliament to gets its authority and approval?


Robert George Macpherson: Let me read the resolution. I think I understand it,-I am over twenty-one years of age and understand English fairly well. The resolution says:


Robert George Macpherson: That it is desirable that steps shall be taken with all convenient speed

I do not need to ask my leader what it means. There it is, 'It is desirable.' Will my hon. friend (Mr Foster) say it is not desirable ? Well, he strikes that out, that is, hon gentlemen opposite have taken the position that it is not desirable at the present time to do anything further than to allow us to drift. The people of Canada will not allow its government to drift. If the government is to be found worthy of its place, it must be in advance of public opinion. The people of Canada are no longer going to do business on a back street. Whether it is transportation by land or transportation by water, Canada must be on one of the main thoroughfares of the world's trade. The people of Canada have an opportunity, at the expenditure of very little money, to greatly advance their own interest. And, after all, dollars and cents do not count so much when it is a question of the advancement of our country. We are doing a .much bigger trade than we used to do, and with better facilities our trade will grow; still greater. I declare my belief that the people expect the government to take advantage of every opportunity to make broader and deeper the channels of our country's trade.


William Barton Northrup: I would not have spoken on this subject at all considering the stage of the session, had it not been for one remark made by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) which has been so conspicuously accentuated and illustrated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McPherson) who has just taken his seat. In voting on this motion and amendment, I occupy this position: I have the honour to represent a constituency which, I venture to say, is as strongly imperialistic in its opinions and ideas as any constituency in the Dominion of Canada; I feel very strongly that, no matter what else I may do in this House, if in any way by any action or vote of mine I should show want of confidence that this union would continue, or any unwillingness on my part to do all in my power to continue to' perpetuate and strengthen this union, it would be utterly futile for me to appear again before my constituents. Therefore, it is that, when such a motion is before the House, and when such an amendment is moved by the leader of the opposition, and when the hon. member for Brandon, who has been supposed throughout the country to be the father of this scheme -though it appears most unjustly supposed, because, as shown by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the scheme is older than its reputed father, but at any rate he must be admitted to be a father-inlaw of the scheme-when that hon. gentleman was careful to define the position occupied by the government on this scheme,

I think it necessary to give the reason why I cannot vote for the motion and why I am compelled to support the amendment.
In my humble judgment, the whole question is in a nutshell. Both sides of this House are in thorough accord as to the propriety, the necessity and duty of doing everything we can to bind the empire together. One side of the House say it is to be done in one way and the other side says another way. I believe the government is entirely wrong. I shall give my vote simply on the ground that hon. gentlemen opposite are entirely mistaken in their choice of the way to bind the empire together and that the mode they have adopted is exactly the one which an enemy of the empire, one desiring to see it dismembered, would prefer.
The resolution submitted by the leader of the government is ambiguous. It may be read one way or the other. But the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has kindly instructed this House as to the true meaning of that motion, and it is solely on the speech of that hon. gentleman that I feel compelled to vote against the original resolution. Discussing the various advan tages which the proposed line would give the empire, the hon. gentleman was good enough to tell us that the freight and. cold storage service was a mere matter of detail to be looked after later on. To my mind the freight and storage service is the crucial point of the whole case, and there is nothing more to be said in favour of the resolution after this expression of opinion from the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton).
If we are to spend one and a half million dollars, we should get something in return, and when the hon. member for Brandon says that freight and cold storage are simply matters of detail, we must conclude that the expenditure of SI,500,000 a year is for a fast passenger service.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, on the other hand, says that whatever we are to give should have for its primary object the best means of bringing the products of the empire to the markets of the empire. Incidentally the passenger question must of course arise, and in the ships which primarily are to bring our products to the markets of the empire, we will do the best we can for the passengers. But the hon. member for Brandon ignores freight and cold storage altogether as,the primary object of the resolution. The $1,500,000 per year is to secure a fast passenger service. Incidentally he will do the best he can to secure freight; and if the rosiest dreams of the hon. friend should be realized, we will be able to carry 1,000 tons of freight on each of these mammoth steamers. Canada at the present time, with all the obligations she has to bear, is to be asked to pay $1,500,000 per year for. its fast steamship service for passenger traffic. Well as an imperialist, I am not going to pay that
for a passenger service. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to bring the empire closer together by facilitating a better interchange of products, but I am not going to pay that amount simply for a faster passenger service.
My hon. friend from Brandon pointed out that we are at present paying $679,000 a year for the service we have. I presume the greater part is paid under the guise of postal subsidies, and therefore, he. says, all we are asked to pay is $1,000,000 additional per year. But if we are to subtract the $679,000 on the one hand, we must subtract whatever advantage and service we are getting for that on the other hand, because it is not to be presumed that we are paying that $679,000 per year for nothing.
I have always understood that the mail subsidies were practically subsidies to enable the steamship lines to give us a last service which they could not do without such, assistance. No one will pretend that we are paying all this money merely toi the carriage of our mail bags. If we are, we are paying a great deal too much and are being robbed. What we are paying for is not merely the carriage of the mails but indirectly to subsidize these steamship lines which have improved so much in the last ten or fifteen years. If we were to stop the payment of that $679,000 a year, does any one suppose we would have the same efficient steamship service ? It is not to be supposed that we are going to withdraw our present subsidies from those lines which have done so much to promote trade between this country and the motherland. We are asked now by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton)-and that is his interpretation of the resolution submitted to the House-to pay annually $1,500,000 to some company, without knowing to what company or of whom, it will be composed or what service it will give. All we know is that $1,500,000 per year we shall pay tor passenger service, and incidentally a little freight, and the maximum freight which the hon. member for Brandon can suggest is 1,000 tons to each ship.
Then what kind of a steam service are we to have? The First Minister and the hon. member for Brandon are contradictory in their views. The one says that 20 knots per hour will do, but the other insists on 25 knots per hour; and should we vote this resolution, we will not know whether this annual subsidy of $1,500,000 is to be for a 20-knot or a 25-knot service. If a 20-knot service, that will not smt my hon. friend from Brandon. If a 25-knot service, that is beyond anything the First Minister dreams of. When these gentlemen differ so much, we are justified in asking that the government should decide what it wants and adjust its domestic differences before asking the House to vote. But suppose the scheme should be estab-

lished and suppose we are given the best steamships that can be got, running* at 25 knots an hour across the Atlantic and Pacific, what do we get in return for our $1,500,000 annual subsidy? How many Canadians are going to travel on these fast steamers? Is it not a fact that the faster the steamer the higher the rates? The majority of the people who will pay the particularly high rates will come from the neighbouring republic; and the practical result will be that we will be paying $1,500,000 a year in order that our neighbours to the south may have an opportunity of travelling through the beautiful route down the St. Lawrence to reach the old country by a class of steamers which the people of Canada cannot afford to patronize. In my constituency, you will get very few men who can afford to travel on these expensive boats. I find there are very few of my constituents who will ever be able to send any of their products to the old country by these boats which are limited, as a maximum, to 1,000 tons a trip. Therefore, as representing one constituency, I feel that I am bound to ask what the people of that constituency are going to get in consideration of this grant of a million and a half to which every one who is the head of a family must contribute his share. I am as anxious as any one to support anything that will tend to bind the empire together, but I want some common sense basis for an expenditure of $1,500,000. If any man is an enemy to the maintenance of the empire, if any man wishes to see this empire dismembered, if any man wishes to create a feeling throughout this Dominion of Canada, into which people are pouring from all corners of the earth, that will cause Canadians, including this conglomerate population, to become dissatisfied with the present conditions, he will bring resolutions before this House that will compel the people to pay large sums of money for considerations the value of which we do not know.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The resolution says that it shall be a fair sum.


William Barton Northrup: 
Mr. HANCE .: 1. LOGAN (Cumberland). Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of regret that the resolution now before the House and which was moved by the right hon. the hirst Minister; a resolution of extreme importance to all Canada, should meet with the opposition of our friends on the other side of the House. The 'All-Red route' so called, important though it is to every part of the British empire is surely of special importance to our Dominion. Were I an Australian I do not know that I would be so enthusiastic over a proposal to give a large subvention for this steamship service, but as a Canadian living in Canada which is so to speak the half-way house of the empire, I feel that interests vital to our country are wrapt up in the successful accomplishment of the policy enunciated by the right hon. gentleman. It is a matter of common knowledge and I may add a matter of general disappointment to Canadians that travellers to the American continent from the motherland do not patronize to any great extent the existing Canadian seamship lines.
I venture to say that not three per cent of all the travelling Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen who come to Canada enter the Dominion by a Canadian port. They reach us by the gateway of New York ; thev first see a great city; their eyes first rest on a foreign land teeming with millions of people, and finally they get to Canada by a side door. It is a good deal like viewing a small chapel when one has seen the vast cathedral of St. Peters at Rome. One reason therefore why I support this project so cordially is, that it will be an advertisement for Canada and that it may exert an educative influence upon the people of the old land to-

help them to a correct understanding of the actual conditions of our country, and in some degree to a knowledge of our people and our aspirations as British subjects. Ask nine Englishmen out of ten if the Halifax route or the St. Lawrence route is as safe as the New York route, and their answers will be that our ports are set in dense fog banks, that the ice coming down from the Arctic fields constitutes a danger to navigation. and that the River St. Lawrence is full of hazards. And yet, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) proved conclusively by the facts which he gave us in the budget debate that the Canadian route is far safer than any other and that so far as absence of danger to navigation is concerned it is incomparatively the best.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: We have not had a single accident on the St. Lawrence route for three years.


Mr. LOGAN.: As my hon. friend remarks there has not been an accident on the St. Lawrence route for three years and the same remark is true of the Halifas route. Speaking on a former occasion in this House, I cited as an illustration of the inexcusable ignorance of people on the other side of the Atlantic with regard to Canadian ports, that a merchant in this city who had ordered goods in England to be sent to him by the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers for his Christmas trade, received word from the British manufacturers that they were sending the goods via New York as the Canadian ports were all frozen up. 1 regret that this is not an isolated instance and that it merely expresses the general opinion to be found on the other side. Such has been my experience when travelling in England and such has been the experience of others. The people of the old land seem to think that while we have a magnificent country in the summer, and while we have great seaports in Halifax, St. John. Montreal and elsewhere, yet in winter these ports are frozen and inaccessible from the ocean. Hence it is that had we this ' All-Red ' route with great vessels plying on the Atlantic subsidized by the imperial government, by the Canadian government, and by the Australian and New Zealand governments, it would be the best advertisement in the world that Canada is not a land of ice and snow, and that even in winter there are Canadian ports to which these magnificent steamers can ply successfully. I quite appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that this late hour of the session is not a time for long speeches, and so I shall be brief. I have already expressed my regret that the members of the great Conservative party in this House did not rise to the occasion, and pledge to the government the assurance of their support in the carrying out of this imperial project. It will be difficult enough to secure the All-Red route and to get subventions from the different governments even if
we had unanimity here, but how much more difficult will it be to bring the scheme to successful fruition when it is proclaimed to the other governments of the great colonies that His Majesty's opposition in Canada have moved in opposition to this scheme. I am honoured Sir, to be the successor in the representation of Cumberland, of Sir Charles Tupper, one of Canada's greatest sons, and the thought occurs to me to-night that were Sir Charles Tupper at this moment leading the opposition, the .attitude of his followers on this great imperial question would be far different from what it is. When the present government came to power in 1896, Sir Charles Tupper wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister, that, if he as Prime Minister of Canada would strive for the fast Atlantic service which had been initiated by the Conservative government then he might count on cordial assistance from the Conservative party. In 1897, when this government completed a contract for a fast steamship service with Peterson, Tate & Co., the first man who spoke from the opposition benches was Sir Charles Tupper, and although he expressed himself .as not agreeing wiith the contract in all its, details he declared that he did not want to have it understood for a moment that he was opposing this scheme which he had so much at heart.


Mr. SPROULE.: He should have waited for three years and then presented his congratulations.


Hance James Logan: Sir Charles Tupper was too big a man and too patriotic a Canadian not to congratulate his political opponents when he thought they deserved congratulation and hence he did not wait for three years. Sir Charles Tupper had his heart and soul in this project of a fast Atlantic service and when he introduced his scheme to the parliament of Canada there was no question raised as to his presenting it in all its detail. I read in the debates of 1896, some interesting remarks made by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Let me hark back to his words of that slate to contrast them with his words of this afternoon. He was criticising Mr. Dobell, then a minister of the Crown, in connection with this very subject, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) said :
He is opposed to the fast line because it is costly and it cannot be given to the government cheap. Yet the hon. gentleman himself and thousands of Canadians almost every year go down to New York and take the best berths in the fast steamers from that port to Liverpool, and they do not get them cheap.
I would commend these words to my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) in the light of his statement this afternoon that Canadians travel by the existing Canadian routes. The statement was made this afternoon, and it has not been contradicted, that only 6 per cent of the travel between Liverpool and Canada

is on Canadian ships. Is not that a lamentable state of affairs? My hon. friend the member for North Toronto, contending that they knew a good thing and wanted it and were prepared to pay for it, said :
They know a good thing, they want it, and they are prepared to pay for it. Would they not be willing to pay an equal price, if they sailed by a fast steamer from Quebec as by New York? But the hon. gentleman is opposed to a 20-knot service, chiefly because the people would not be able to get a $75 passage.
Let me quote some further words of the hon. member, a. question had been raised in reference to the carrying of freight, and the hon. member spoke as follows :
The hon. gentleman, as a result of his investigations, will not be able to avoid the extreme difficulty of providing ample freight capacity and a rapid service in the same vessel. The more closely the hon. gentleman inquires into the matter, the more he will be satisfied that the government have only a limited range of choice as to the quantity of freight that can be carried, if the main idea of having a fast service is maintained.
And further on :
I think lie will find out that unless he is prepared to very nearly double the tonnage of the vessels as compared with the tonnage of tenders for which we called, he will not he able to accomplish any very much larger scope of freight combined with the speed that is necessary for making it in reality a fast service. So much with reference to that. But 1,500 tons or 2,000 tons per vessel is still a very respectable quantity of freight of the kind that this will be.
The hon. gentleman went on to speak on the same lines on which the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) spoke this afternoon, saying that if we established this fast service^ for passengers and for certain kinds of freight and for mails, it would not be long before tbe freight service would follow the passenger service. What he said was this :
But, I think what takes place is this, and what takes place under these peculiar conditions where these tenders are now, is that fast freight vessels follow in the wake of a fast line such as we are contemplating to put on.
The hon. gentleman at that time was arguing without having the present resolution before him, and it seems to me that his words are a condemnation of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition, and which I presume he will be called on to vote for. Let us take this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that it is a little confusing. It reads thus :
Mr. Borden moves in amendment that the said resolution he amended by striking out the second and third paragraphs.


Hance James Logan: i '[DOT]	:
Now, the second and third paragraphs of the resolution are as follows :
That it is desirable that steps be taken with all convenient speed to achieve the results aimed at in the said resolution.
That this House doth hereby endorse the terms of the said resolution, affirming that Canada is prepared to assume her fair share of the necessary financial obligations.
These are the two paragraphs which go to the root of the matter, and which the hon. leader of the opposition Wishes by bis amendment to eliminate. Then he proposes to substitute for them the following :
That this House, in expressing its strong sympathy with the object of the said resolution, desires to record its opinion that more favourable freight rates and a thoroughly efficient system of cold storage are essential features of any such transportation project.
Yet we find that the hon. member for North Toronto ten years ago argued that these two things could not be successfully combined. Then the bon. leader of the opposition, by bis amendment, would say further, what to my mind is unnecessary :
That, having regard to the very heavy expenditures and obligations in which the present administration has involved the country, the government should not commit Canada to any such plan, or to any contract or expenditure for such purpose, until after the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the parliament of Canada.
That is practically what is set out in the resolution of the right hon. the First Minister, which says :
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand should, with as little delay as possible, agree upon a definite plan for carrying into effect the terms of the said resolution of the Imperial Conference, the same to fee submitted for the consideration of the imperial and colonial parliaments.
So that, to my mind, the main part of the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition is that we shall inquire into the question of obtaining ' more favourable freight rates and a thoroughly effective system of cold storage.' These are details of the question. What we are asked to do here to-night is to endorse the position taken by the right bon. the First Minister at the Imperial Conference in favour of an All-Red route throughout the empire.
I have before me an interview given to the ' Canadian Gazette ' by tbe distinguished statesman, Sir Charles Tupper, immediately after the First Minister placed Ms resolution before the Imperial Conference. Did Sir Charles Tupper greet it with captious criticism? Did he say : We must have a certain amount of room for freight and a certain amount of room for cold stox-age? No. As a big Canadian, he expressed himself as very strongly in favour of the
124(85

scheme. It was a matter in which he had always taken the greatest possible interest, as he naturally would, having been a pioneer in the movement. He said that the All-Red route as now put forward was simply completing the carrying out of an arrangement that was made by his government when he was Premier of Canada; but the contract then made with the Allan line was prevented from coming Into operation by the refusal of the Earl of Aberdeen. then Governor General of Canada, to authorize the signature to the contract. The contract was made by a government of which the hon. member for North Toronto was a member-actually made to be signed by the Governor General without submission to parliament, and Sir Charles Tupper said Lord Aberdeen refused to ratify It.
The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) is very frank in this matter. He is against this scheme absolutely, without any qualification. He seems to think that fast travel is a fad, saying that the fast steamers of the German lines were put on at a time when everybody had a fad for fast travelling. I will undertake to say that he could not book a berth on any of those steamers within three months. Everybody knows that they are the most popular steamers that cross the Atlantic to-day. He says the time will come when people will go back to the slower vessels. He might as well talk of abandoning fast trains and going back to slow freightt trains or stage coaches. The tendency of the age is for faster travel, whether on land or sea, and my hon. friend must know that. I know that he knows it, because before taking his seat he said : Our present service is an 18-knot service ; leave it alone, and in three or four years the companies will give us a 21-knot service. If that is going out of style, if this fast travel is only a fad, if people are going back to the old slow travel, why are the Canadian companies going to put on 21-knot steamers Inside of four years ?
This scheme appeals to us in many ways. As a great imperial proposition, it brings the different parts of the empire closer together. I do not agree with those gentleman who say that we can do greater service to the empire by being able to sell our products to the different parts of the empire ; we can become greater imperialists by coming in closer touch with the rest of the people in the empire. This All-Red route will put Canada upon the main postroad of empire. Thousands of people travelling from England away to the east, or from the east to the motherland will pass through this magnificent country, will see the great harbours on the Pacific, the unequalled scenery of the Rockies, the oceans of wheat growing on the prairies of the west, will see the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec ;
in summer they will pass down the magnificent St. Lawrence river and in winter will go through the maritime provinces with their magnificent resources and potentialities and will sail out of a harbour unequalled in the world. This will be an advertisement for our country to our friends at home, and not only will it bring us nearer the man in London, but it will bring us nearer to the man who lives in Sydney or in Melbourne or in Auckland. To-day almost 99 per cent of those who travel between New Zealand or Australia and England go by the way of the Suez canal, and not via the Canadian route. If tills line is established in such a way as we hope, it will mean that not only will we become better acquainted with people in the motherland but we will become better acquainted with our brothers in the more distant parts of the empire.
I regret very much that the proposition is not definite enough to establish Halifax, or St. John if you like, as the Canadian port for use all the year around. Then people would not wonder when travelling whether they were going to Quebec or Halifax or to St. John, tliey would know that they would go to one port all the year around. It would be : All aboard for Halifax or all aboard for St. John at Liverpool at all seasons of the year. It may not be possible to do this but it will at any rate mean that during a great portion of the year this magnificent service will be through the maritime provinces. The maritime provinces will no longer be reached by a switchback railway, they will be on the main line from the old land to the far east. We will be able to show travellers when they enter Halifax the great harbour which is the pride of our province. They will be able to sec the little province of Nova Scotia of which we, its sons, are so justly proud. They will be able to see the great province of New Brunswick and to realize that away down east of the great provinces in which we are to-day, there are provinces well worthy the admiration of* every true friend of the empire.
We spend $680,000 a year in subsidies. I am not here to say that that money is thrown away. I think a considerable portion of it is well spent. Some of it, I am afraid, is not, but is it not better to spend a million and a half and get a sure benefit than to spend $680,000 for doubtful benefit ? We are sure that if this All-Red route is established it will be a great benefit to every province of Canada. There will, no doubt, be accommodation for certain lines of freight but we cannot, as shown by the hon. member for Toronto ten yeaTS ago, make it a freight and passenger service at the same time, although we may provide for some classes of fast freight, express parcels and mails. For these reasons I am very heartily in favour of the resolution

which has been moved by the First Minister.
Our friends opposite are the most slireik-ing imperialists that have ever been known to live until they have to pay for-it. When it comes down to giving a preference on British goods entering Canada they take it with a wry face and in private and on public platforms in some parts of the country, they deprecate giving that preference. They are immense imperialists, but when it comes to giving a million and a half dollars out of the taxes to establish an All-Red route to bring all parts of the empire closer together, to cement the heart and the outlying limbs of the empire, these gentlemen throw in resolutions about cheaper freight, cold storage and one thing and another, all for the one purpose, to defeat the resolution introduced by the First Minister.
I congratulate the First Minister on the scheme which he had the honour of introducing at the imperial conference. It matters not whether he is the author of the name ' All-Red route,' or the author of the scheme, he moved the resolution before the imperial conference of this empire and to him should be given that credit. I can only say in conclusion that if our hon. friends opposite had met this resolution as Sir Charles Tupper would have met it, as the big men who were at the head of that party twenty or twenty-five years ago would have received it, they would have strengthened the hands of the government of Canada, they would have strengthened the hands of the imperial government, and their action would have been a great inducements to the governments of New Zealand and Australia to grant their subventions towards this scheme which means so much not only to Great Britain but to all parts of the empire.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution of the right hon. the Prime Minister because I believe it to be commercially important to the Dominion of Canada. The subject-matter of the resolution has been treated under different phases, along different lines. Some have viewed it as an imperial question and others as a commercial proposition. I take it that it is solely in the interests of the different parts of the empire and that it will mean a great deal in the building up of the Dominion. The time has come when water routes are to be given their proper place in the consideration of the great national questions. I have already in this House declared myself strongly in favour of the improvement of the water routes of Canada. I believe that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal is a very live question /or the parliament and people of Canada and I trust that before many months, or years at most have elapsed, we will have some definite announcement with reference to the construc-


Hance James Logan: *
tion of water routes in this Diminion. It is also of vital interest to the Dominion of Canada that we should improve in the best possible way the transportation facilities between Europe and the Dominion.
In connection with this resolution,I would add a word in favour of a project, that is receiving the attention of the British parliament. that is to include a port in Ireland as one of the features in the All-Red route. I do this not simply because I am proud to say a word on behalf of Ireland, not only as an Irish Canadian, but because I believe the project can not be successfully carried out without a thorough, studied consideration of the advantages of a port in Ireland as a means of shortening the Atlantic passage. Therefore, I have double pleasure in suporting this motion, because ultimately Ireland will receive a great measure of justice in the consideration of this question. I am opposed to the amendment because I believe that its main object is to defeat the motion before the House.


George Eulas Foster: Before the vote is taken, I wish to claim the attention of the House for a short time; and I do it because of certain things that have transpired since the right hon. gentleman introduced the resolution this morning, and also because of certain differences of opinion as to the meaning of the resolution and the amendment. I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton). But the House 'could not but ask: What scheme is it we are asked to endorse? My hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made a very strong appeal to the opposition to support the government scheme. The vital question with me is: What is, at the present moment, the gov eminent scheme? I know that the scheme was as proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the imperial conference. That was a scheme of 24-knot service on the Atlantic and 22-knot service on the Pacific. I know what the scheme was as proposed by my right hon. friend this morning-it was a scheme of 20 knots or 21 knots for the Atlantic and IS knots, if it could be had, on the Pacific. But, when the master of ceremonies came upon the scene and gave the only authoritative pronouncement, and with greater, though limited, information, the scheme he outlined was one of 24 knots on the Atlantic and 22 knots on the Pacific. Now, when heated appeals are made to this side of the House to support the government scheme, I ask myself: Which is the government scheme? Who is the master of this craft? The hon. member for Brandon gave us what may be called a matured opinion. In the speech he delivered a few months ago in this House, he declared that he had been commissioned by the Prime Minister to take this matter up in England and gather

information. To-day, he told us that he had gathered that informaion. He knew exactly the scheme that was proposed. It was the scheme of 24 knots on the Atlantic and 22 knots on the Pacific: it involved a subsidy of $5,000,000 a year, and Canada's contribution to that subsidy was to be from $500,000 to $700,000 in round figures. He declared that he had gone over to the old country, and, as no one else seemed to be doing anything about it from the public point of view, he had set himself to make these inquiries; he had talked with members of the government, with financial men, with shipbuilding experts; he had had computations made of revenue, of cost, of deficit; and had arrived at the conclusion which he announced here to-day without an if or an an as the scheme which was known to everybody who was intimately connected with it. And yet, the Prime Minister this morning did not know of that. He had not taken counsel with the hon. member for Brandon, and made the mistake of coming down to a 20-knot service on the Atlantic and 18-knot service on the Pacific. Again I ask myself: Who is the authority and what is the scheme?	.
Now, why was there nobody to get in formation? If the thing was not to go absolutely by default why was it necessary that the hou. member for Brandon should go across the water and make these investigations? One of the schemes of the imperial conference of last year was the establishment of a secretariat, under Lord Elgin, whose duty it was to take up unfinished resolutions and unfinished proceedings, pursue the investigations and report the information to the different governments, so that these governments would have the duty of placing this information before their councils, and, if thought necessary, before their parliaments. That secretariat has been organized; I cannot but think that that secretariat has been at work. Is the hon. member for Brandon a member of that secretariat? Or is it that that part of the organization of the imperial conference of last year, heralded to us as having been established by Lord Elgin in connection with the colonial office, has done nothing in reference to this, the largest piece of unfinished business which was before the conference? I cannot but think that that secretariat has done its duty; that it has been making investigations; that it has been taking the opinion of experts, and that it is giving this information to the imperial government, for every once in a while we see intimations that the imperial government is considering the matter, is taking counsel with reference to it, and we are told, time and time again, that it is more favourably inclined to it on account of the information it has received. Now, the Prime Minister should have done what the j hon. member for Brandon did, only more '
so. They have employed him, they have authorized him, and he-as shown by his own statement to-day-having made the inquiries, the Prime Minister should have placed the information before us and given us such facts and calculations of cost, revenue and expenditure, of such commercial avenues as would be opened up by this scheme, as have been gathered by the hon. gentleman into whose hands he committed the matter and the secretariat whose duty it was to follow out this unfinished business in the way I have described. And yet my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) did nothing of that kind when he came before us to-day.
Now, that is the first thing I wish to call tile attention of the House to; and the second thing is this: We have had rather a remarkable change within the last few hours in the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite. In the 1907 conference, my right hon. friend never made a plea for freight, or cold storage, or reasonable freight rates. I have read his whole speech through-it does not take long to do it-and there is not a suggestion in favour of any consideration of these important points. He does not recognize their importance. He gives way to the statement made by Sir Joseph Ward that the 22-knot service on the Pacific is necessary in order to satisfy New Zealand's -wants, and, by implication, cuts out the employment of the service for fruits and perishable commodities of any kind.
When he brought this matter before the House this morning, he never mentioned, he never thought of the immense importance to this country of the cheap transport of its products. He never seemed to have had sympathy with or to have thought of the matter until it was brought up by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. K. L. Borden). Then it certainly developed into a most important thing under the manipulation of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Then it became the word for every speaker on the other side that we must have regard to the moving of the products of the country, to the cheapening of rates and the furnishing of cold storage facilities. The resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has done this much. It has wakened hon. gentleman opposite to a realization of the fact that there is a farmers and producers side to this question as well as the side of the nabob and millionaire who travel and pay large sums for every luxury and comfort on their passage.
)But there is another strange difference of opinion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) blurted it out and so did the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). What was the plain statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) ? Each of these gentlemen wanted-what ? The

approval of this House to the resolution of the right hon. the First Minister, or, as they put it, the approval of the scheme of the government. It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to tell what is the scheme of the government. Who has the best of it ? Is it the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) or the Prime 'Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurer) ? The one speaks as Prime Minister but the other speaks with a voice which sounds very much like a solid and supported authority. The Minister of Finance and the member for Vancouver say : Support the scheme of the government; give it your endorsation. For what purpose ? As the Minister of Finance says, you could not bind Canada to anything unless parliament gave its sanction to this resolution. The member for Vancouver said : What is the use of going over there and talking to the delegates of Australia or New Zealand, you would not be liable to make any binding agreement with them. What these gentlemen believe is that if the resolution passes, the Prime Minister will have the authority to go to Australia and New Zealand and Great Britain and make hard and fast contracts and bring them down to this House-make these contracts with the authority of this parliament behind him and quoting the support of this parliament in his negotiations with these countries. But if I understood the Prime Minister at all rightly this morning, he declared in so many words that it was not a part of his resolution to make it possible for any contract to be agreed upon between Canada and the other parties, that all these things must be brought down to parliament, and be subject to the open and free discussion and approval of parliament. Did I understand my right hon. friend aright ? He nods his assent. Then we may have been a little over cautious, as far as he is concerned, when we wanted to make it still more binding that we should not be bound to any financial responsibility and be prevented from obtaining the consent of the House before being bound. But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has an absolutely different idea. He cried out with indignation : Unless you give your approval, we could not bind Canada to anything. Well it is the opinion of this side that we shall have to back up the First Minister in opposition to the Minister of Finance and his followers and help the First Minster to insist on the point that this parliament shall not be bound by any agreement or contract, that we shall be free, from the compulsion of a contract, and that the government shall not be in the position of coming down to this House and forcing its supporters to carry through the contract because this bad authorized the government to make it and make it final. We are supporting the First Minister against the Minister of Finance and those who look upon the adoption of this resolution as necessary


George Eulas Foster: to bind Canada. I think that is a fair criticism. We must have things clear in our minds.
Wjth reference to the resolution itself, my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Mac-pherson) was in a dense fog. No darkness ever encompassed the Pacific ocean, so dramatically alluded to by the hon. gentleman this morning, so dense as that which enveloped him when he was trying to grasp the meaning of the resolution introduced by the right hon. the First Minister. He seemed to be impressed with the idea that you could not speak to Australia at all, that you could not pay two cents for postage to carry a document to Australia, that no steps could be taken and no expenditures made unless this resolution of the First Minister, as he intepreted it, was passed. Why, the hon. gentleman surely can read English. What do you find ? You find this expressly stated in the resolution of the First Minister :
That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand should, with as little delay as possible, agree upon a definite plan for carrying into effect the terms of the said resolution of the imperial conference, the same to be submitted for the consideration of -the imperial and colonial -parliaments.
That is to be found in the Prime Minister's resolution-this resolution, one-third of which is supported by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). Therefore the opposition and the First Minister, whatever the hon. member for Vancouver may say, are agreed entirely in saying that the government should not delay, that the government should negotiate with Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain, and as soon as possible agree upon a definite plan, and then bring it to this parliament and let us discuss it. But the member for Vancouver says: Ah, you you should show sympathy with this. You should be more enthusiastic, says the member for Brandon, What can we do more ? The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) who has been making his eulogy, long past date, of that great Canadian Sir Charles Tupper, said that if Sir Charles Tupper were here, you would not find him talking this kind of politics. Well, Sir Charles Tupper would be supporting the Prime Minister against some of his recalcitrant followers who want to push him further than he says he is willing to go. 'Sir Charles Tupper expressed his strong agreement with the Prime Minister in the idea which the latter brought before the imperial conference. That is what Sir Charles Tupper, that large Canadian would do were he here. That is what he did in London by interview. But what does my hon. friend the leader of the opposition propose ? He proposes :

That this House, in expressing its strong sympathy with the object of the said resolution-
Do you want anything more ? Even the big Canadian, Sir Charles Tupper, used almost the same words. He said . strong support.' My hon. friend says ' strong sympathy.' That is better than strong support. It takes in the heart and vital organs. It is sentiment as well as force, and it is therefore stronger than the other. Let the member for Vancouver possess his soul with patience, let the member for Cumberland do likewise-if the resolution passes as amended by my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden), you have a strong expression of sympathy with the resolution of my right hon. friend and you have the imperative command of this House not to delay negotiations, to make them as speedily as possible, to settle on a definite plan, to bring it as quickly as possible to this parliament, and we will take it into consideration. What the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) does is this :	It calls to mind,
and it was a timely calling to mind, that in the midst of this lavish expenditure which lias been, the lavish expenditure which is now going on and the lavish expenditure which is in contemplation it is well, if you propose to spend so many millions more, that you shall heed the great imperative necessity of this country which is to get the producer, within the smallest cost and at the greatest speed, to the market where lie must sell his products. To do that you have to have cold storage, and you have to have reasonable freight rates and that is all that this amendment in that respect calls for. It does call for that and why you should not call for that ? To my mind it was not necessary for the right hon. gentleman to put that resolution before the House. He had just as much authority-he and his government-to go into the closest negotiations with the parties to this matter, to get a definite plan, to get all information, all results, all consequences, all the advantages from the plan so concerted between the contracting parties, as far as the plan was concerned then he had a perfect right to bring that to this parliament and then parliament would have something to devote its attention to instead of the airy and contraditory nothings which are banded about between the right hon. gentleman and some of his followers. I would not give a doit, or anything in the way of heavy expenditures, if we are not going to get something which was really excellent for the money. The Prime Minister seems to be willing to take a twenty knot service, or may be a little less than a 20-knot service or any old thing that he can get, and pay well for it. This is a very important crisis with reference to what I consider the greatest of all elements in the permanence and progress of the British empire. This is the
first attempt at co-operation amongst the great members of the British family. What is involved ? Forty or fifty million dollars is involved. John Bull & Co., represented by the old country, by Canada, by Australia and by New Zealand, have in contemplation the putting of $50,000,000 of their good money into a certain scheme, I say it is of the utmost importance that all the strength of investigation, of business talents, of clean cut judgment and the most serious consideration should be given to the bases of the project into which John Bull and these parts of the company propose to put $50,000,000 of their good money. Rush into a scheme that shall be unfortunate, rush into a scheme that shall be unsuccessful and you damn for ever co-operation between John Bull & Co. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that time for investigation, that the clearest expert opinion, the best commercial opinion and the best statesmanship should be lavished upon the foundations and building up of the plan upon which we propose to get into this new venture with $50,000,000 of our good money. It is because it is not in that position that I am opposed to having this country bound any more than it is to-day until we have these foundations and until we have this superstructure as well. The hon. Minister of Finance with jaunty courage as some men would call it, but which I would not designate as courage but rather as temerity, is willing to go into any expenditures at all and he piteously appeals to this side of the House and says that it would be a pity if we gave a black eye>
to the credit of this country. My hon. friend would have done better if he had thought of that every year in the last six years of his financial administration. He would have done well to have thought of that when, at first with reluctance, but afterwards with heels that clipped it as quickly as those of any of his supporters, he rushed into expenditures for all kinds of inexcusable things in order that patronage and political strength might be given to the party [DOT] which he is trying to lead.


Alexander Johnston: What are they ?
Mr. FOSTER, One of the most comical things I think I ever witnessed in parliament I witnessed this afternoon when this learned, responsible and accomplished expert in the line of expenditures and steamship building hardened his face like flint and shouted out: We will take the responsibility, when $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 was spoken of. It is courage like that, based upon strength and stability like that, that helps us over the steep and difficult places in parliament and keeps our abiding faith in our country still within our bosoms when oftentimes we *would be discouraged. But let the Finance Minister not turn to this side of the House if he is so anxious not

to give to the credit of this country a black eye. He must think of his own misdeeds. He did preach economy in the days of his novitiate, he did, in the maritime provinces declare aganst the extreme extravagance of the party that he wished to dispose, but that hon. gentleman repudiated, the very moment he got into the saddle, the professions of his novitiate and entered upon a course of reckless public expenditure which has brought the credit of Canada close up to the breaking point. The Finance Minister, as the financial head of this country, for the time being in control, should have known his business better, should have had something to do with experts' and something to do with foundation processes when he came, in 1903. before this parliament and pledged his faith as a minister, and pledged this country as the Finance Minister, that it would cost, for building the Transcontinental Railway from Winnipeg down to Moncton, the sum of $52,000,000. To-da.v he is face to face, with a market which is none too favourable, with an expenditure for that same line of railway of $160,000,000 or $170,000,000. That is something which gives Canadian credit not the best standing in the markets of London where moneys are to be raised, where financial men look keenly and carefully into the resources and into the prospectus and statements which are made by the government and especially by the financial head of the government in Canada. My hon. frind the Minister of Finance said he thousht that we wanted to be solid against the scheme. We were once the imperialists ; where are we now ? Does he not know the obivious retort ? Once he was a repealer ; where is he now ? Once he advocated a commercial policy which opened the arms of Canada to the United States and which barred with all the power of a discriminative tariff Great Britain and every colony of Great Britain out of this country as far as trade privileges were concerned. That is the hon. gentleman who thinks it safe and prudent to raise a question as to the loyalty of this great Dominion ; to raise a question as to imperial preference and the imperial relations. I do not wish to take up the time of the House longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I am very glad that hon. gentlemen opposite show by their applause that they would like me to continue, and on some other occasion and in cooler climatic conditions I will afford these gentlemen the pleasure they desire.


Rt.   H@: It were comical, were it not so serious, to note the efforts of my hon. friends opposite to kill this project while they pretend to be in favour of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: That's all the thanks we get for supporting you.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster! is perhaps not aware that in his verbose extravagance he does not weigh his own words, and probably he does not remember that not five minutes ago he used these very words : I am opposed to have this country saddled with this new burden.


George Eulas Foster: I did say that, but I coupled with it the condition that I was opposed to having the country burdened with the financial responsibility contemplated unless we had the definite plans and the basis for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let my hon. friend have whatever comfort he can take from that. The hon. gentleman is opposed to this project unless we have a definite plan, but I had understood that hon. gentlemen opposite were in favour of the idea and that they were anxious to have it investigated, although now they say they are opposed to it.


George Eulas Foster: Do you say we are opposed to investigation?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) has all along shown that he does not want this scheme, but, if he will permit me to say so, he has not had the manliness to come forward and declare it boldly. The hon. gentleman wants to know what is the scheme before the House. Well, I spoke with perfect candour, and I stated that there were more ways than one to approach the subject, and that there was more than one kind of steamer afloat on the ocean. The hon. gentleman asks : Is this the scheme of the member for Brandon or is it the scheme of the Prime Minister, as if there was any difference whatever between the scheme of the member for Brandon and the scheme of the Prime Minister. My hon. friend knows the English language even better than I, and here are the words of the resolution :
That we are in favour of a steamship service by the best service available within reasonable cost.
Mark, with reasonable cost. If we can have a 24-knot service we are in favour of it if we can have it within reasonable cost ; if we can have a 25-lmot service, or a 26-knot service, or a 27-knot service, or the best service on the ocean, we are in favour of it, provided we can get it at reasonable cost.


George Eulas Foster: That's right.


Wilfrid Laurier: I referred this afternoon to the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania,' and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) spoke as if that was the type of steamer we had in mind at the conference.

The memory of the hon. gentleman is defective ; he knows that the conference sat in May, 1907, and the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania ' were not then launched, so that we could not have had them before us for purposes of comparison. I stated to-day that if we could have steamers like the ' Mauretania ' and the ' Lusitania ' that is what we would desire, but I spoke honestly as to the difficulty, and I said that it had* not yet been proven that these two great steamers were a commercial success.
I pointed out that while steamers of this type were what we aimed at, we might not be able to have them if they could not be obtained within reasonable cost. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see, and there is no one who can be so blind as my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) on occasion. No one will accuse him of being naturally dense, but when he does want to be d^ense he will not exercise his power of discernment, and he can be denser than anybody I know of. Let us judge the policy of the opposition by the amendment they have moved. There are two propositions in that amendment, the last of which means nothing, because the difference between it and the proposition of the government is merely the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. But there is another idea in the amendment, and I will mention it as an example of how ridiculous sensible men can sometimes be. This All-Ited route is acknowledged to be a splendid project, a project which excites the pride of all Canadians and of all British subjects. What does the opposition say with regard to it? They say : Stop here ; do not go any further in this imperial project until you have made arrangements for cold storage. Never was there such a big beginning and such a small ending. Is it possible that these gentlemen opposite, who claim that their party has attained to dignified statesmanship, should came down to resolve that in a project so vast you must not undertake it until you have provided for cold storage? Why do they not ask us to provide that the steamers shall have funnels and boilers? Is there any well equipped steamer to-day that is not provided with cold storage facilities as well as with a rudder and a mast? Do these hon. gentlemen opposite really believe that when we were contemplating this imperial steamship service, which is calculated to bind the British empire together, we ever thought the steamers would not be equipped with cold storage? Has it come to this? Is not such an idea too small for grown up men? Let me comfort my hon. friends opposite by telling them that it certainly does mean cold storage, for does not the resolution say in so many words that it means the best service available? Is there any kind of first-class service afloat on the Atlantic which is not provided with cold storage?
Why, cold storage accommodation is just as necessary as the boilers in the ships. But my hon. friend from North Toronto, and the hon. leader of the opposition as well, have let the cat out of the bag and have -given us the true intent which moved them to this amendment. The leader of the opposition told us in his speech that there was something in this project not very pleasant for the farmers of Ontario and of the country generally, who do not travel in these luxurious steamers, but who want cheap freight rates for their products.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I notice that the sentiment is responded to on the other side of the House. There are more ways than one of providing cheap freight for the producers of this country. It is not altogether a matter of affording cheap transportation rates. The farmers will realize that whetn we provide the steamship service we have In mind we will be doing something to benefit the farmers of Canada. And here let me say that if there is one thing men should be ashamed of it is to endeavour to introduce class prejudices into a question of this kind. Let me point out that when we have these great steamers afloat on the ocean, and when we are carrying people from all parts of the world to our shores, we will be doing a good deal for the farmers of Canada.
I do not always agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto, but I must give credit to whom credit is due. We must give credit even to some persons whom I will not name, though it is not due; therefore I give credit to my hon. friend from North Toronto. My hon. friend during the present session made use of an expression which at the time seemed to me a little audacious, but which on the whole was correct. He said that in Switzerland they exported scenery. The expression was audacious, but there is merit in it. It meant that the scenery of Switzerland attracted to that country every year thousands of tourists. This is what he calls exporting scenery, and this is what we want to do-export the scenery of Canada. We are going to export it to Europe; we are also_going to export it to the Orient: and this is in accordance with the views of my hon. friend. My hon. friend this morning made it a reproach to me that I brought this resolution before the imperial conference on the last day of the sitting. I do not know that it matters very much, as to the merits of this resolution, whether it was brought on the first day or the last day of the conference. Does my hon. friend want to make that an argument against the resolution ? Did it occur to my hon. friend that, because the matter was brought before the conference on the last day of its sitting, it took the conference by surprise? Who expressed any surprise that the matter was brought up ?


George Eulas Foster: Llo.vd George.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Lloyd George did not express any surprise; lie only complained that he had not seen the resolution. He did not say that the idea was new to him. Does anybody suppose that at a conference of that kind, when members were meeting each other day after day, this matter had not been discussed informally between them? Does anybody suppose that this matter was brought before the conference suddenly, without a word of discussion or explanation, beforehand? If the matter had not already been discussed, the moment the resolution was brought before the conference, everybody would have said: This is new to us; we must have time to consider it. Mr. Lloyd George complained only that he had not seen the resolution; but neither he nor anybody else complained that they were taken by surprise. No, Sir; the resolution was presented at the right moment: and. what we want now is to have the assurance of the Canadian parliament that it will do its share when called on. I do not pretend to say for one moment, if we are authorized by this parliament to ask Australia and New Zealand for their co-operation in this scheme, that we can bind the Canadian parliament to do this or that; but we want to go to Australia and New Zealand with the moral certainty, affirmed by the Canadian parliament, that we have behind us the whole Canadian people.
House divided on amendment of Mr. R. L. Borden.
YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,	Kemp,
Armstrong,	Lake,
Avery,	Lancaster,
Barr,	Lennox,
Beattie,	Leonard,
Bennett,	Lewis,
Bergeron,	MacLaren,
Blain,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Borden (Carleton),	Martin
Brabazon,	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Bristol,	Northrup,
Broder,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter,
Christie,	Reid (Grenville),
Clare,	Schaffner,
Cockshutt,	Sproule,
Crocket,	Staples,
Daniel,	Taylor,
Elson,	Walsh (Huntingdon).
Foster,	White, '
Ganong,	Wilmot,
Henderson,	Wilson (Lennox &
Herron,	Addington),
Hughes (Victoria),	Worthington.
Jackson (Elgin),	Wright (Muskoka)-18.
	NAYS :
Messieurs	
Arohambault,	Lemieux,
Aylesworth,	Loggie,
Beauparlant,	Lovell,
Sir WILFRID	LAURIER.
Beland,	Macdonald,
Black,	Maclean (Lunenburg),
Borden	Macpherson,
(Sir Frederick),	McCarthy (Simcoe),
Bourbonnais,	McCool,
Boyer,	McCraney,
Brodeur.	McIntyre (Perth),
Brown,	McKenzie,
Burrows, Caldwell,	McLean (Huron),
	McLennan,
Calvert,	Major,
Carney,	Marcile (Bagot),
Carvel],	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Cash,	Martin (Montreal, St.
Clarke,	Mary's),
Conmee,	Martin (Wellington),
Copp,	Ma.yrand,
Crawford,	Michaud,
Cyr,	Miller,
Delisle,	Oliver,
Demers,	Pardee,
Desjardins,	Parmelee,
Devlin,	Paterson,
Dubeau,	Pickup,
Dugas,	Power,
Dyment,	Proulx,
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Finlay,	Ratz,
Finlay son,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Rivet,
Fortier,	Roche (Halifax),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Cape Breton),
German,	Ross (Rimouski),
Girard,	Rousseau,
Gordon,	Savoie,
Graham,	Schell (Oxford),
Harty,	Sifton.
Hughes	Sinclair,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Smith (Nanaimo),
Hunt,	Smith (Oxford),
Jackson (Selkirk),	Stewart,
Johnston,	Talbot.
Kennedy,	Telford,
Knowles,	Templeman,
Lachance,	Tobin,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Tolmie,
Napierville),	Tureotte,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Turgeon,
Lapointe,	Turriff,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Verville,
Laurier	Watson,
(LAssomption),	Wright (Renfrew),
Lavergne,	Zimmerman.-108.
LeBlanc.	
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Parmelee,	Worthington.
Galliher,	Clements,
McColl,	Ward,
Lemieux,	Haggart,
Adamson,	Maclean (York, S.),
Caron,	Seagram,
Bureau,	Osier,
Emmerson,	Monk,
Grant,	Barker,
Hall,	Fowler,
Law,	Roche (Marquette),
Carrier,	Morin,
Ross (Yale-Cariboo),	McLean (Queens, P.E.I.),
Schell (Glengarry),	Pringle.

Sloan, '
Walsh (Montreal, St.
Anne),
Bickerdike,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Gervais.
Ethier,
Guthrie,
Greenway,
McIntyre
(Stratheona),
Meigs,
McLean (York. C.), Wilson (Bussell).
Smith (Wentworth), Marshall,
Lalor.
Forget,
Ames.
Paquet,
Boyce,
Tisdale,
Owen.
Stanfield.
Macdonell,
Thompson.
Amendment negatived.
House divided on motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
YEAS : Messieurs
Archambault,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Black,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais,
Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Burrows,
Caldwell,
Calvert,
Carney,
Carveil,
Cash,
Clarke,
Conmee.
Copp,
Crawford,
Cyr,
Delisle,
Demers.
Desjardins,
Devlin,
Dubeau,
Dugas.
Dyment,
Fielding,
Finlay,
Finlayson.
Fisher,
Fortier,
Gauvreau,
German,
Girard.
Gordon,
Graham,
Harty,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), Hunt,
Jackson (Selkirk), Johnston,
Kennedy,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald.
Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
McCarthy (Simcoe), McCool,
McCraney,
McIntyre (Perth), McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Michaud.
Miller,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Paterson,
Paquet,
Pickup,
Power,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Batz,
Reid (Bestigouche), Bivet,
Boche (Halifax),
Boss (Cape Breton), Boss (Eimouski), Bousseau,
Savoie.	*
Schell (Oxford), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Oxford), Stewart,
Talbot,
Telford,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte,
Turriff,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Verville.
Laurier	Watson,
(L'Assomption),	Wright (Renfrew),
Lavergne	Zimmerman.-109.
LeBlanc,	
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Alcorn,	Lake,
Armstrong,	Lancaster,
Avery,	Lennox,
Barr,	Leonard,
Beattie,	Lewis,
Bennett,	MacLaren,
Bergeron,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Blain,	Martin
Borden (Carleton),	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Brabazon,	Xorthrup,
Bristol,	Owen,
Broder,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter.
Christie,	Reid (Grenville),
Clare,	Schaffner,
Crocket,	Sproule,
Daniel,	Staples,
lllson.	Taylor,
Foster,	Walsh (Huntingdon),
Ganong,	White,
Henderson,	Wilmot,
Herron,	Wilson (Lennox &
Hughes (Victoria),	Addington),
[DOT]lackson (Elgin), [DOT]	Wright (Muskoka)-47.
Kemp,	
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Adamson,	Ames,
Bickerdike,	Barker,
Bureau,	Bovee,
Caron,	Forget,
Chisholm	Cockshutt,
* (Antigonish),	
Galliher,	Clements,
Emmerson,	Maclean (York, S.)*
Ethier,	Morin,
Grant,	Fowler,
Greenway.	Tisdale,
Guthrie,	Haggart,
Hall,	Lalor,
Law,	Macdonell,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
McColl,	Ward,
McIntyre	McLean
(Stratheona),	(Queens, P.E.I.),
Walsh (Montreal, St.	Marshall,
Anne),	
Meig9,	Monk,
Ross (Yale-Cariboo).	Osier,
Parmelee,	Worthington,
Schell (Glengarry),	Pringle,
Sloan, Gladu,	Boche (Marquette),
	Seagram.
Bole,	Stanfield,
Carrier,	Thompson,
Gervais.	Smith (Wentworth).
Motion agreed to.


AUDITOR GENERAL.
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Com-
397J

mittee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Auditor General be paid a salary of five thousand dollars per annum.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to morrow to consider the following proposed rtsolution:
_ Resolved, that it is expedient to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows:
Gkey.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending March 31, 1909, and, in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, July 9, 1908.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the message of His Excellency together with the Supplementary Estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the Minister of Finance if the Supplementary Estimates that have just been brought down are all the supplementaries or whether there will be others?


William Stevens Fielding: At the present moment I have no reason to believe that there will be anything further; but if it should be found that any item-has inadvertently been omitted, we shall feel free to bring it down.


Robert Laird Borden: But no others are contemplated ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to ask the Prime Minister when the railway subsidies which have been spoken of will be brought down?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed that they are ready for printing, and will probably be brought down to-morrow or the day after.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember whether or not all the legislation which has been spoken of by the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is now before us. Is there anything else?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think there is nothing more, with the exception of a certain amendment to the criminal code, with regard to the railway men, which was foreshadowed some time ago.


Frederick William Borden: There is to be a Bill for the transfer or sale of certain military properties at Toronto and at Montreal-simply to carry out the terms of arrangements made some time ago for which statutory authority is necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: When will that be brought down?


Frederick William Borden: I believe the Bill is ready now.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not contentious?


Frederick William Borden: No, it is non-contentious. It relates to matters which have been discussed before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Whether it is contentious or non-contentious, everything should be brought before the House at the earliest possible moment with a view to facilitating the business. We have been here nearly seven months and a half, and any legislation necessary, it seems to me, should have been down long ago.



SUPPLY-OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['There are several Bills on the Order Paper-the Gold and Silver Marking Act, the bounty to South African volunteers, the Canada Shipping Act, and at a later stage we may take up the Election Bill and then Supply.\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 1.05 a.m., Friday.', 'Friday, July 10, 1908.']
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Before we go into Supply I would call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the fact that a report of the Debates Committee was brought before the House on April 23rd last, but no motion has been made to have that report adopted by the House. If I am well informed, it was delayed because of an expression of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), but it was to have beeu brought forward later on. Since then, a later report, made by the same com-

mittee, and involving exactly the same principle, has been brought before the House and adopted. I would now ask my right hon. friend if nothing can be done to have the pending report also adopted by the House. This is one of these reports of committees which are generally treated with respect by this House, and I think it is due to the Committee on Debates that this report should be brought before the House and acted upon. I imagine that the answer to my question will be that the chairman of the Debates Committee should bring the matter forward. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Gervais) is not here to-day. I do not know whether he will be here before the end of the session or not. I call the attention of my right hon. friend to the fact that it will seem like a slur on the Debates Committee if its report is not acted upon before the end of the session.


Right Hon.   S@: I must say, in justice to the chairman of the Debates Committee, that he has called my attention to this report more than once, but I have always understood that the matter was enngaging the attention of the Committee on Internal Economy.


William Stevens Fielding: The matter is engaging the attention of the Committee on Internal Economy, and in one form or other it will be brought to the notice of the House, either by the report of the committee being called up or by some other proposition, at an early day. The session will not pass without the matter being dealt with.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would remind my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that, as I have already stated, since this report was brought down, a later and analogous report from the very same committee has been adopted by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Militia and Defence, chargeable to capital- for purchase of ordnance, arms, lands for military purposes, reserve stores of clothing, equipment, &c., and to pay for construction of new rifle ranges, $1,300,000.
['I would remind my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that, as I have already stated, since this report was brought down, a later and analogous report from the very same committee has been adopted by the House.']
Robert Laird Borden: Has any printed statement of the Inspector General been distributed?


Right Hon.   S@: I am about to distribute it now. 1 could not do it before because it required a motion of the House, but I am going to read the document and shall ask permission of the committee to lay the report on the table and it will be immediately distributed.
I regret very much that I shall be obliged to detain the committee for some little time at such a late period of the session, but I think the committee will agree with nje that
I should not allow this session to close without making reference to the report of the Civil Service Commission, so far as it affects the Department of Militia, especially as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) saw flt to give force to this report by reading very extensively from it those portions which refer to the Militia Department, thereby, I suppose, adopting the views therein expressed. I might have brought the matter up on the occasion when the report of that commission was under discussion ; but as I did not wish to discuss it generally, I thought it would be better that I should do so on the motion to go into supply upon the estimates for civil government. It so happened however that the estimates for civil government of my department were passed at a moment when, by agreement on both sides, there was no debate, when it was desirable to get the estimates through in order to facilitate the payment of the clerks in the service. Therefore I must ask, Mr. Chairman, your indulgence while I refer to that portion of the civil service report which deals with the Department of Militia. I believe it was understood that this item was reserved in order that any matter pertinent to the Militia Department should be open for discussion. I do not intend to go into a general discussion of the work of the Civil Service Commission, but I cannot help thinking that commission did not do its work in as workmanlike 'manner ias was the work of the commission of 1892. I have carefully read the report and the evidence of the commission-the evidence taken by the commission of 1892 as well as that taken by the commission of 1907 and the report now under consideration. I observe that in 1892 the commission was very careful to prepare a list of the questions which were submitted to all the leading officials of the various departments some time before they were to be examined in order to give them every opportunity of being prepared to answer those questions. Perhaps I had better read a short extract from the report of the Civil Service Commission of 1892 because the idea is better expressed there than I can do it. It reads as follows :
In order to fully carry out the duties entrusted to them, the first step which the commissioners took, after electing Mr. Hague chairman, was the preparation of a carefully considered schedule of questions on the above subject. A copy of these was transmitted to the deputy head or other responsible officer of each department with the request that answers shall, he prepared and submitted when the officers in question shall be called on to give evidence before the commission. This method of procedure had the eSect of obtaining accurate information in matters of detail and also of shortening to some extent the time occupied in the inquiry.
Nothing of this kind was done by the recent commission. On the contrary, it seems

to me, from reading the questions which were put, that there was frequently an evident intention to take the officers by surprise. At any rate no opportunity to prepare was given them. It seems to me that the questions were frequently leading and that there is every indication that the commissioners approached their task with their minds made up and not with the desire or expectation of learning anything from the evidence they were taking, which would enable them to reach a sound conclusion. It impresses me in that way, and in reading over the evidence taken in the different departments, I cannot but observe how differently the different departments were treated. I cannot help thinking that, perhaps without intention-we will hope without intention-the chairman of that commission was. let us say. unconsciously influenced by the fact that he had Keen an officer of the Dominion government for thirty or forty years and had been Deputy Finance Minister for something over thirty years and had thereby been brought in contact with the Important officers in the different departments. This, one would have thought, would have' given him possibly more special qualifications for judging tile condition of the civil service, and undoubtedly it did. But, on the other hand, there were the jealousies and the difficulties which had arisen during those thirty years of office between him and other officials, and I presume that the chairman, being human, went into the work of chairmanship of this commission with a good many prejudices and possibly with some old grudges wdiich have found vent in the report laid before the House in the manner of the questions put to the different witnesses.
I am not going to quote generally from the evidence, but I want to accentuate the observations which I have just made, by referring the committee to the evidence to be found in the first volume of the evidence, at pages 180, 183 and 184. I would suggest to any lion, gentleman who wishes to spend an amusing half hour that he read the evidence taken by the commission from the officers of the Department of Finance. It will not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of this commission had been for thirty years Deputy Minister of Finance. I will give you tw7o or three sample questions to show you how gently he treated his own department, the department in which he was formerly deputy minister. At page 180 I find this question put by the chairman to the present Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Boville :
Q. You worked your way up through every grade by promotion examination until you became deputy minister?-A. Yes.
Then, Mr. Fyshe says :
Q. Have you passed several promotion examinations?-A. One was all I had to take.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
Then, at page 183, this question is asked by the chairman :
Q. As a rule your employees are all healthy ? -A. Yes.
Q. And scarcely without exception they are of good character?-A. The employees of the Department of Finance are of the highest character.
By Mr. Fyshe:
Q. Are you more careful in your selection? -A. We are very careful in selection.
Q. And your political head does not give you any trouble?-A. None whatever. He is very reasonable and very careful to give us as good material as he possibly can obtain.
A little later on; the chairman-the exDeputy Minister of Finance-says :


Samuel Hughes: Who is being examined?


Frederick William Borden: The present deputy minister, Mr. Boville, who had grown up in the department.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who appointed the chairman?


Frederick William Borden: Well, I did not, but I am responsible.
Q. In consequence of the training they received many former officials of the Finance Department have succeeded in outside life?- A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Ross left the department?-A. Yes, Mr. Chipman left the department.
Q. To become chief factor for the Hudson Bay Company?-A. Mr. Baker left the department in your time, Mr. Courtney.
The Chairman.-Yes. The Finance Department has trained up a lot of men.
The Witness.-Mr. Tabor is now a lawyer in Dawson.
A regular mutual admiration society. Here was Paul sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. I had a little curiosity to look up the length of time that these gentlemen had been in this wonderful department in which so many men have been trained for such important positions and this is what I found : Mr. Chipman was in the Finance Department from July 1, 1880, to February 7, 1881. and you will see what miracles were per-pormed in that short time. I find that Mr. Ross, who was taken out of this department and given the position of general manager of a bank, was in the department exactly eighteen months, from July 1, 1901, to January 1. 1903. So you will observe that the department is able almost to perform miracles, that it is a wonderful training school. A man goes in, remains six months and is eligible for any position ! But there is one question from which probably a different meaning was intended to be taken from that which might be taken. The chairman says:
Q. And while men have constantly left the department you have had no applications from any who have retired to come back again?-[DOT] A. No.

No, oiice having escaped they never want to return. However, I do not intend to deal with the matter in this way. I have simply given the committee this as a sample brick to indicate the method of investigation and the kind of frivolous questions with which these gentlemen occupied themselves in dealing with a serious question.


Samuel Hughes: Were they as gentle with the Department of Militia and Defence?


Frederick William Borden: Not quite, as I shall show you. The Militia Department can, I suppose, fairly be called a technical department. It is a department in which the expenditure of money is based upon the policy of the country. Parliament deliberately decides how large the militia shall be, what amount of money shall be expended upon it, and what shall be the policy with regard to the development and carrying out of the defence of this country. 1 have read over the orders in council by which this commission was appointed and I have looked in vain for any authority given by that order in council to these gentlemen to constitute themselves a committee to investigate and criticise the policy deliberately adopted by the parliament of this country. It is not their's. Therefore, I venture to think that these gentlemen have made a very grave mistake in arrogating to themselves the right to make such an investigation, particularly as they are notoriously, absolutely and utterly ignorant of the first principles which govern military matters. But, they rushed in and we have before us, in the report of the commission, portions of which have been read to this House, from the bottom of page 37 down to the middle of page 42. what might be fairly described,
I think, as an indictment against the administration of the militia services, beginning I with the criticism of the policy of parliament in increasing the vote from $3,500,000 to $6,500,000 between the years 1903-4 and the years 1907-8 and ending with the conclusion that the efficiency of the militia is less than it was ten or fifteen years ago. I propose, as briefly as may be, to deal with some of the matters referred to in this report.
As I shall quote to some extent from the memorandum of Major General Lake, Inspector General upon that portion of the report of the Civil iService Commission. 1908. which deals with the administration of the militia, I propose with the consent of the committee to lay this memorandum on the table, and I shall distribute copies to hon. gentlemen. I may say that when the report of the Civil Service Commissioners appeared, General Lake was very much surprised and he at once came to see me and he said he would be very glad indeed to prepare an answer which I gave him authority to do. Everybody knows who General Lake
is, and everybody will agree with me that his opinion on the militia of Canada is worth more than perhaps that of any other living man. General Lake has served in Canada now about 9 years; he served as Quarter-Master General under the late government from 1893 until that government went out of power, and then on till 1898 under the present administration. Since 1904 he has been chief of the General Staff. He has served in India and he has served for a number of years in the war office. He was assistant quarter-master general at the war office during the whole of the South African war and he had under his control and was responsible for the transport of that great army which left the shores of Great Britain and which was safely landed, I believe, without the loss of a single man. I think I am correct in saying that his department of the War Office is the only one that has not been criticised in connection with the South African war. I think I may venture to put forward the memorandum of General Lake on a military matter as against the report of the Civil Service Commissioners. While the Civil Service Commission was sitting I called upon the chairman of the commission and suggested to him that as military work was somewhat technical perhaps he would like to examine some other officers-he had then examined General Lake and the present deputy minister who had only at that time been four months in office as deptuy although he had previously been in the department as director of medical service-and I said I would like very much. if the commissioners would do me the favour of allowing me to see the questions and answers which they had received. I was received very pleasantly by Mr. Courtney and while he did not promise absolutely to do so he gave me to understand that he would. But a day or two afterwards I received from him the following letter :
Civil Service Commission,
October 24, 1907.
Dear Sir Frederick Borden,-Yesterday I talked over with my colleagues the purport of our interview of last Saturday, and, while we considered it very desirable to do all in our power to make our inquiries as complete and perfect as possible yet it was felt that to let the evidence get out before the production of the report would be unsatisfactory. But while we arrived at that conclusion we thought that every facility should be given to elucidate or supplement evidence either hy witnesses or handing in statements to he added to the evidence-such being the case we shall be glad to see General Lake at any time that would be most convenient to himself to come before us, and anything he may w ish to add will be appended to his evidence, if General Lake would kindly favour me with a call I am sure we could easily arrange a time. I have only to add _ that whatever | course is settled upon that in view of the

early meeting of parliament action should be quickly taken.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. M. COURTNEY. Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, K.C.M.G., &c.
General Lake has appended to his memorandum a letter which he himself wrote to Mr. Courtney. Mr. Courtney sent General Lake a copy of the evidence he had given and General Lake had an. opportunity of correcting it, although as you will see as I proceed, not the slightest attention was paid by the commission to the direct evidence given either by General Lake or by my deputy minister. Possibly it was through an oversight, but in view of the character of the report it looks very much as if the evidence was wilfully omitted. This is the letter which was written by General Lake to Mr. Courtney and which I think is of importance :
Ottawa, November 25, 1907.
Dear Mr. Courtney,-I beg to return, herewith, amended and with certain notes, a copy of the evidence given by me before the Civil Service Commission, which evidence you were kind enough to return, in order that I might verify my answers upon those matters which are the concern rather of my colleagues of the militia council, and upon which I was not in a position to 9peak with authority. I shall he obliged if you will kindly cause any portion of my evidence which may be published to be corrected accordingly.
I venture, also, to submit, with the utmost respect, the following points for the consideration of your commission. At least three-fourths of imy examination was devoted to questions regarding the military administration of the militia force as carried out by military officers, not by civil servants. Some questions were put which were founded upon newspaper paragraphs, generally inaccurate, often misleading. Others were asked-sec more especially questions 171, 311-313 and S28-334-which appeared to suggest that the increase of expenditure since 1892 upon militia force had not been accompanied by a commensurate increase of efficiency.
It is not, perhaps, for me to advance the contrary proposition-though I hold it-but . I must submit that no conclusion of that nature can fairly be grounded upon w.hat could only be a superficial examination of the case. I, therefore, feel it my duty to urge upon the commission that no opinion, such as might be inferred from the tenor of the questions quoted-the accuracy of whicn is not always admitted-ought, in the interests of justice and of the public service, to be recorded, without far more searching inquiry and examination than the present commission has been able to give.
Believe me,
Yours sinceriy,
(Sgd.) PERCY H. N. LAKE, Major General, C.G.S.
J. M. Courtney, Esq., C.M.G., I.S.O.,
Chairman, Civil Service Commission.
It will be observed that General Lake had given the chairman of this commission fair warning so far back as November, 1907, Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
and as General Lake says in bis memorandum this letter was never acknowledged and the contents of it were absolutely disregarded. I find that insead of trying to get information from men xvho might be supposed to know something about military matters, these gentlemen based their questions very largely upon newspaper articles which appeared generally in newspapers hostile to the administration. I do not complain of that, if they were newspapers which knew anything of what they were talking about; but they were not. In one or two cases questions were based admittedly upon gossip of the street corner. There is altogether too much of the element of gossip running through the report of this commission from one end to the other. That part of it which refers to the Militia Department is all based upon imagination or upon gossip.
Now, I wish to summarize the misrepresentations-I cannot say deliberate misrepresentations-that have been made in this report as to the cause of the increased expenditure; as to the condition of the stores and the safeguards surrounding the care of the stores ; as to the number of the headquarters staff, which is stated in one place to be forty, in another place to be fifty, and in another place, with the addition of some other officers, to be 220, while as a matter of fact it was twenty-three, and both the deputy minister and General Lake repeated that fact over and over again in their evidence ; as to the accountant of the Militia Department, against whom the commission, or some member of it, seems to have a particular grudge ; as to the functions of the Militia Council, as to -which I shall be obliged to detain the committee for some little time; as to an article which was quoted, and which I contributed some time ago to the ' United Service Review as to efficiency, upon which there is absolute and utter misrepresentation, against the evidence and the only evidence, except gossip and newspaper clippings, which these gentlemen had before them.
The commission instituted a comparison between the expenditure of 19031904 and that of 1908-1909, as they say for 'specific reasons'; and they go on to point out that the Militia law was changed about 1904. An attempt is made to show that the change in the law resulted in placing the Militia Department absolutely under the control of the military branch and that therefore, in some way not fully explained, the expenditure ran up from three and a half millions in 1904 to six and a half millions. The commissioners say :
Your commissioners have made a comparison between these two_ years for specific reasons. In 1904 there was introduced into parliament an Aet respecting the Militia and Defence of
12514

Canada, which in many particulars was a new departure from the former Act. In the Act of 1901 by section 6 it is enacted:-
The Governor in Council may appoint a deputy of the minister and such other officers as are necessary for carrying on the business of the department, all of whom shall hold office during pleasure.
In all the Act which has over 140 sections, no other reference is made to the deputy, and it is a curious circumstance that while the appointments of certain officials are permissive certain others are mandatory.
You will expect, as a logical inference from this statement, that in the old law, the law which preceded that of 1904, elaborate references were made to the deputy minister, and you will he surprised when I produce the law of 1904 and the law of 1886, to find that the language in both is precisely the same. I am reading now from the statute of 1904, which is the present law, and in which section C says :
The Governor in Council may appoint a deputy of the minister and such other officers as are necessary for carrying on the business of the department, all of whom shall hold office during pleasure.
Now, let me read from the law of 1886. It is this :
The Governor in Council may appoint a deputy of the Minister of Militia and Defence, and such other officers as are necessary for carrying on the business of the department, all of whom shall hold office during pleasure.
The one is copied verbation from the other ; and yet these gentlemen never took the trouble to look at the statute, because they were afraid, I suppose, that they might find that the very foundation of their theory did not exist. They go on to say that the creation of the militia council brought the military authority forward and substituted it for the civil ; and they say that this is proved by the fact that the headings of the reports of the Militia Department have changed-that whereas in the old days, before this iniquitous law was enacted, the report was headed as follows : ' Department of Militia and Defence year ended so-and-so ; ' now the heading is only : * Report of Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada for the year ending so-and-so ; ' and they say that this is a proof that ' the department has been swallowed up by the militia council.' Now, the report of 1904, the last report, is under two heads-first, part 1, that is, the report of the deputy minister ; next, part 2, the report of the General Commanding. Under the head of the deputy minister comes the report as to the civil side of the department under the heading of the general officer commanding, all the district officers of the Dominion are included. It would be just as sensible to say that the department was swallowed up by the general officer commanding in the old days, and much more
so, as to say that the department has lost its identity through the existence of the militia council. But these gentlemen venture upon somewhat dangerous ground for novices. They undertake to say that the militia council is more powerful and has assumed more authority in Canada than the army council in Great Britain. I shall read an extract from General Lake's memorandum on that point as it will be accepted as more authoritative than anything I could say. General Lake says :
It is rather a pity that the commissioners should have commented unfavourably upon the increased expenditure without thinking it necessary to make any reference to these reasons for that increase, which are matters of policy approved by parliament.
On the contrary, they seem to wish to attribute the whole of it to the assumption by the militia council of what they designate as the ' control ' of the Militia Department. A parallel is drawn between the Army Council at the War Office in London and the Militia Council at Ottawa, in which it is argued with somewhat scant acquaintance with the organization of the War Office, that the Army Council is 'entirely distinct' from the War Office, whereas the Militia Council has ' swallowed up' the Militia Department. To any one who knows the War Office, the former statement is wide of the truth.
An attempt is also made to show that parliamentary control is more fully assured in England than in Canada. Parliament is supreme in both cases, and the weakness of the contention advanced by the commissioners will be recognized when it is remembered that the Militia Council is by law (para. 7, Militia Act) purely advisory to the minister, and cannot act without his direct assent (see order in council of December 7, 1904), whereas the letters patent of February 6, 1904, which created the Army Council, not only vested in the latter all tbie prerogative powers of the Crown previously exercised by the Secretary of State or the Commander in Chief, but gave to any three of its members authority to exercise its full powers.
That is literally true and yet this selfconstituted military critic has the effrontry to say that the militia council has assumed control and absolutely possesses by Act of parliament greater control than does the army council itself. The militia council has no control whatever. The militia council, as the Act prescribes, is purely advisory, it is simply a convenient method by which the minister brings to his aid different members of the department, four officers and two members of the civil staff. The Militia Department is peculiar in this respect, it is different from such a great department, for instance, as that of the Interior, which has its geological branch, its Indian branch its land branch, and so on, all absolutely and entirely distinct. The Militia Department has its intelligence branch, with its chief of general staff, its adjutant general, looking after the troops, the training, &c., the quarter-master general, looking af-

ter the stores and supplies, and the Master General of Ordnance, and of course the deputy minister of the department as the other departments have. But these different departments or branches are inter-dependent, they are in a sense inseparable, and in order to have successful administration you must have those different departments in perfect accord and perfect touch. You must have continuity of purpose, you must have co-operation among the different branches of the service and you must have co-ordination or you will experience very great difficulty. That is the object for which the army council was conceived, but of course, the army council has received very much greater power. That is the object I had in copying the present plan on which the war office is administered, by introducing the idea of having in Canada a militia council. The system has worked admirably, better than I expected and I hope it will always be continued.
Why in the world did the commission go so far afield to invent a cause for the increase of expenditure when they had actually before them in the evidence of General Lake and in the evidence of the deputy minister, the reasons for the increase? 'The reasons are known to everybody who will stop to think. They are as follows: During the year 1903-4 this country assumed the responsibility of taking over and maintaining the garrisons of Halifax and Esquimau. That meant an expenditure of one and a half to t wo million dollars. There is more than one-half of the total amount of the increase at once. The militia, under the new law, was paid nearly twice as much in the latter years as in the former years. That would account for from a quarter to half a million. The militia had been increased enormously in its numerical strength between 1903-4 and 1907-8. They might also have taken note of a charge of $200,000 on account of customs which is simply a cross entry. Between these different amounts you get the full three millions. I have a statement here which will give this exactly. The expenditures on account of the headquarter staff and district staff, the permanent force, exclusive of Halifax and Esquimalt, and their pay, provisions and supplies for the permanent force, clothing for the permanent force, transport of staff and permanent force' amounted in 1903-4, to $649,000, and in 1907-8 to $1,253, i 00. The strength of the permanent force, exclusive of Halifax and Esquimalt, has been increased from 853 to 1,656. Now, take the expenditure of the active militia, for training, clothing, grants, etc. In 1903-4 the total expenditure under this head was $1,077,000 ; in 1907-8 it was $1,562,000. The number of men of all ranks-paid in 1903-4 was 33,751 and in 1907-8 42,612. On rifle ranges and camp grounds Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
there was nearly $200,000 more spent in 1907-8 than in 1903-4-and I suppose no one will quarrel with that expenditure. On ordnance, field guns and rifles the expenditure in 1903-4 was $487,000 and in 1907-8 $718,000. On warlike stores the expenditures were much the same. On account of garrison at Halifax and Esquimalt there was no expenditure in 1903-4 except $109,987, which was the amount the Canadian government contributed to the British government for the maintenance of Esquimalt. As against this, you have an expenditure of $1,250,800 in 1907-8. On Royal Military College the expenditure in these two years is practically the same. The expenditure on the Dominion arsenal has increased from $224,911 to $410,000. The output has greatly increased. I have here an interesting statement showing that in 1895-6 the output of the cartridge factory was only 672,000 rounds, while in 1903-4 it was 6,352,000 rounds and in 1907-8 10,500,000 rounds, with a very large number of shells of the most expensive kind. These figures show an output in 1903-4 eight times greater than in 1895-6 and in 1907-8 fifteen times greater. In these items I have included the vote for customs, as I have already mentioned.
Now, one of the criticisms upon which this commission has rung the changes is that there is a very large-and I suppose the inference is, useless or, at any rate, unnecessary-staff. I find that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), in his speech, made special reference to this subject, and drew a comparison-between Canada and Switzerland unfavourable to Canada, the statement being that whereas the army of Switzerland was between 200,000 and 300,000 and the army of Canada only 50,000, the expenditure on headquarters staff was greater in Canada than in Switzerland. Now, as a matter of fact, the headquarters staff numbers 23-not 40 or 52, as stated in this report. And, as I have already said, that report was made in the face of the evidence given by General Lake and by Colonel Fiset-a deliberate misrepresentation, because the attention of the commission was thus called to the facts. It is stated by the leader of the opposition that the Canadian staff costs immensely more than the Swiss. I find that (the Canadian staff cost $82,500, and the latest reports 1 have been able to get, those of 1906-7, show that the cost of the headquarters staff of Switzerland is $168,289- a little more than double. More than that,
I find that the highest rate of pay in Switzerland is $1,800. If Canadian rates of pay where applied to the headquarters staff of Switzerland, the cost would be fully $330,000, or just four times the cost of the Canadian staff. Nobody expects that Canadians are going to attempt to live on the pay that the officers in Switzerland can live on ; it would be impossible, and the

Canadian parliament does not expect it. So the statement is absolutely wide of the facts, no wilder statement was ever made than that the cost of the headquarters staff of Switzerland is below that of Canada. It is more than double, and, if the same rate of pay were applied, it would be exactly four times as much. Now, I would like to quote from General Lake's memo. I refer to appendix B, page 15 :
A considerable amount of misconception, fostered by the ill-tintfonmed report of the Civil Service Commissioners, appears to exist on the subject of the number of staff officers now employed at headquarters and on the command and district staffs. I venture to think that it is desirable to place on record a clear statement of the case.
The commissioners have, while criticising the Militia Department and the Militia Council, assumed the truth of an allegation often heard, to the effect that the number of staff officers has, of late years, been considerably increased. They have failed, however, to make any inquiry as to the real extent and nature of whatever increase there has been, or the reasons for it.
It has more than once been advanced in the press, in criticism of the administration of the militia by successive general officers commanding, that each one has apt to differ from his predecessor's views and to introduce a new organization. While there may have been some ground for this criticism, it is remarkable that all general officers have been agreed on one point, at any rate, and that point was the necesssity for a reorganized and augmented staff.
And on page 16 :
The contention implied in the report of the Civil Service Commission, that any large increase in the headquarters staff has been carried out as a consequence of the inauguration of the militia council, is, therefore, without foundation. The sole increase to the headquarters staff since 1903-i has been the addition of three officers, viz: a chief of the general staff, a director of operations and staff duties, and a director of training.
A little further down :
The total of the district staff, when Lord Dundonald first took command in 1902, amounted to twenty-four. The command and district staff together now number twenty-nine. Though the commissioners talk of them as ' about 220,' the combined total of headquarters, command and district staffs at the present moment amounts to fifty-two officers. On January 1, 1893, the combined total of headquarters and district .staffs was thirty-two. The establishment of the militia in that financial year amounted to 31,330 of all ranks. For 1908, the total establishments amount to 57,718. In 1892-3, there was no Army Service Corps, no Army Medical Corps, no Ordnance Corps, no Army Pay Corps, no Corps Military Clerks, and no Signallers. The military force of that date could, therefore, not have taken the field-at least, not without many months previous organization of these services. As to the relative efficiency
for war of 'the forces in 1902-3 and 1908, there can, therefore, be no question, although the increase of staff in the intervening period is almost exactly proportional to the increase in strength.
Another point usually forgotten by the opponents of 'any staff organization at all is the fact that, so long as the imperial troops were garrisoning the fortresses of Halifax and Esquimau, not only was an unusually large staff '(eight officers for about 2,000 men) maintained at the former place for the acknowledged purpose of assisting the militia force in organizing its staff duties in the event of war, but also that the considerable number of Imperial officers regimentally employed at that station furnished at all times >a military reserve, upon which to draw for staff officers or emergency. With the assumption by Canada of the responsibility for the defence of these two places, the British troops have been replaced by Canadian troops and the supply of trained British officers formerly available for these important duties has ceased. Hence a considerable increase in the number of Canadian staff officers lias been imperative.
The existing militia staff, if it be .anything like sufficient for a force of 100,000 men, which is more than doubtful, can only be regarded as a bare minimum.	.
It may, perhaps, be of interest to note that the proportion of staff officers to men maintained in Canada and Great Britain, respectively, for 1907-8 works out roughly, at: In Canada 1 to 1,110, in Great Britain 1 to 1,030, of tile forces provided for in peaoe. If the numbers of men which would be mobilized for war are considered, the Canadian proportion would be still smaller than the British proportion.
Because you have to add nearly 52 per cent to the number we actually train, as our whole system is conducted on the basis of 100,000 men in the event of struggle occurring, and we require to have sufficient officers and staff for that number.
It may also be noted as pertinent to the subject that the cost of the military side of the headquarters of the Swiss army is nearly double

As I have pointed out:
-that of militia headquarters of Canada, and this ill spite of the fact that the rates of pay, generally current in Switzerland are lower and that the economies possible under the system of universal service which there obtains tend to reduce expenditure considerably.
Now, Mr. Chairman, these military expert and critics seem to have discovered that we have staffs sufficient for 100,000 men ! They state that in their report, not knowing-not caring to know, not desiring to know, shutting their eyes and ears lest they might know-that the whole scheme on which the Canadian militia is based is one of having an effective force of 100,000 men in case of necessity. How is that made up? We have over 50,000 enlisted, we have rifle associations and men who have gone through their annual training, on the reserve

list, who could be called on and are ready to enlist at a moment's notice, so that we could raise the number from 55,000 to 100,000 and put that force in the field at short notice. But it will not do to wait until trouble occurs to have officers ready.' You can improvise your men, you can bring into the field men who have a certain amount of drill and have learned how to use their rifles, but you cannot improvise your officers in thirty or sixty days. You must have them carefully trained, you must have an effective staff, you must have every one of your departments which go to make up an army ready for action. And these men are in the meantime not idle. They are all occupied, and I venture to say, as General Lake has pointed out, that there is not a department in the whole service where more work is done than in the Militia Department, particularly in the military branch of that department.
We are told that there Is less efficiency. These wiseacres say there is doubt as to whether the rural militia is as well trained as it used to be, and because somebody has said so on a street corner, they say that the city militia is much less efficient.' In that connection I am going to bring an absolutely disinterested witness-a gentleman who has written a letter which I happened to see in one of the Montreal papers, a gentleman who occupies a very prominent position in the Conservative party in the city of Montreal and who has been an officer of the militia. My hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), I am sure, will know him very well. I refer to Lieutenant-Colonel Meighen who wrote this letter, certainly unsolicited by me :
Civil Seivice Commissioners as military critics.
Editor, ' Herald.'
Sir,-I do not suppose that in the moments of their wildest ambition, the members of the Civil Service Commission ever expected to be taken seriously as military critics. One n ay wonder, therefore, why they allowed themselves to say that they doubted if the city corps of the militia were as efficient now as formerly. I am sure I have the support of all city militia officers when I contradict this statement. The commission evidently do not know what they are talking about. I have been long enough actively connected with a city regiment, and in touch with many others, to know the conditions prevailing, and can say with confidence that the regiments in the chief centres of the Dominion are to-day very much more efficient than in the past.
I do not make this assertion without being able to give reasons for it, as is the case with the commissioners. The officers of the city corps are better qualified for their positions. The examinations which they have to pass aie more numerous and more strict, and exact a higher standard than formerly, and the same thing applies in the non-oommis. 'on-td cffioers.	j
To-day practical field work is called for, and is carried out by the different corps indivi-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
dually and in brigades, tactical manoeuvres on a large scale being a feature of the annual training. Such things were never done fifteen, years ago. Discipline has vastly improved, and finally and most important of all, the rifle shooting is very much better. Thanks to the ranges provided of recent years there are now many more men able to use their rifles effectively, and any one with the faintest idea of militia training knows that this is the most important feature of it. On this count alone, if on no other the commissioners report is utterly wrong.
I do not wish to belittle the excellent work of the officers and men of the militia in former years, but they had neither the material nor the opportunities to bring their corps up to the standard of those to-day.
It is to be hoped that the gentlemen composing the commission if they are called upon to make any further reports, will be more careful to ascertain the facts, and not imagine that the rashness of ignorance is knowledge. They have oast a slur upon a body of men who are giving up more of their time and money, and making greater sacrifices in the service of the country than any other class of Canadians.



[Stage Direction]
Lieutenant-Colonel, First Battalion Royal Highlanders of Canada,
Montreal, March 30.
He Is not on the active list now, be bas retired and I think be retired before that letter was written.
Another point referred to by the commission and quoted for my bon. friend the leader of the opposition is In reference to desertions. The statement is made that desertions are very numerous and reasons are given which are not correct. I will quote again from General Lake, because I do not wish to give my unsupported statement. I wish to give the evidence of a man above the suspicion of writing or saying what is not absolutely correct :
The commissioners refer to the prevalence of desertion in the permanent corps and attribute it mainly to a want of sympathy between officers of the permanent corps and the men. It may be remarked that the reasons given by Major General Lake
[Stage Direction]
In bis evidence, mind you, which they would not take any notice of :
-were, the demand and high pay given for labour everywhere, the smallness of the establishments, poor barracks, no change of station and the occasional failure on the part of the government to keep faith with the men. While he admitted that, possibly, in some cases, officers might not he in full sympathy with the men, he expressly stated that he did not think it to be the case to any appreciable extent.
Yet, these commissioners rush into print to say that the desertions are entirely due to the fact that the officers are out of sympathy with the men when they have the evidence before them of the man best able to give evidence, General Lake himself, that such was not the fact.

He pointed out, also, that some of the barracks were wretchedly bad. Surely it would only have been fair to the officers of the permanent force for the commissioners to have mentioned some of these reasons.
They were not mentioning reasons. Again :
(f) That ' the desertions have been one in three.'
This statement was approximately true for 1905, but there has been much improvement since then. For 1906 the figures were one in six. For 1907 they were one in nine, and many of these men rejoin froip desertion and reduce the proportion.
Yet, the commission insists upon saying that the desertions are one in three when they had the evidence before them, that of General Lake, that the proportion has been reduced to one in six, to one in nine and even less. Of course, there will be desertions in a country like this. I doubt if the proportion is any greater than in the United States. As General Lake has pointed out, the demand for labour is so great and men can get higher wages outside of the service. When they can get from $2 to $2.50 a day they are not going to remain in the service where they get from 50 to 75 cents a day. A man who goes into the service goes there simply for the love of soldiering and sometimes after he gets there he finds that he Is not as fond of it as he thought he would be and he deserts. But, to put the responsibility of that upon the permanent force, officers qnd the department is absolutely unjust and, in view of the evidence which the commisioners had before them, simply outrageous.
These military experts and critics report that there is a useless officer in the department known as the inspector general. They say that in England there are good reasons for an inspector general and none in Canada, but they fail to tell us wherein the difference lies. Again, I shall have to trouble the committee with a short quotation from General Lake who, I fancy, is as good authority as there is on this subject:
The commissioners consider that the appointment of an inspector general is of but little benefit to the militia, and recommend that, when vacant, it be not filled. They state that, in Great Britain, the appointment was made for reasons which do not exist in Canada. They do not give those reasons, and it is, therefore, impossible to judge how far the commissioners' contention holds good.
But it may be remarked that the committee of 1904
[Stage Direction]
That is the English committee, the Esher committee as ,it is called,
-on whose report the present War Office organization was adopted, were very insistent upon the need for an inspector general; indeed, they said that effective inspection was 4 absolutely imperative.' And the appointment is at present filled in England by one
of the ablest soldiers in the army '(General dir John French).
An inspector general was appointed in Canada because the arguments used by the War Office Reorganization Committee (and detailed in their report) were concurred in, and it was considered essential to provide for inspection by a highly qualified officer, competent to speak with authority upon all military questions, who should insure, first, that the directions of the Militia Council were faithfully and uniformly carried out throughout the militia force (especially that the instruction given in the various military schools should be uniform) ^pd, second, should report to the Militia Council upon the practical results of the measures adopted by it. Thorough and competent inspection is, at least, as necessary in the militia as in any business concern.
At this moment General Lake is the inspector general and he is engaged in making a most careful inspection of every branch of the militia from beginning to end, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, for the benefit of this country and so that this parliament at its next session will be able to see exactly what that able, experienced, competent, fearless officer thinks of our militia force. General Lake came out here in 1904 as chief of the general staff to assist in the reorganization of the militia, to inaugurate not a new policy, but improvements in the general plan of the militia, and I thought it was fitting that a man of his capability and experience should occupy the position of inspector general before he leaves this country for I regret to say his term of office will be up in a few months. I thought he should have an opportunity to see whether the system he inaugurated is effective and is being properly carried out so as to inform the minister as to what changes in it he would suggest. That is a duty that all inspectors general will have to perform. It would be extremely difficult to get as able a man as General Lake. I believe men can be got of sufficient ability and sufficient honesty to fill the position advantageously in the interest of the country, and of all the positions in the militia I believe this is one we can at least do without.
As to stores, there are insinuations

I do not know what other phrase to apply for they are scarcely direct statements-there are insinuations in this report -which are said to be supported by evidence given by the Auditor General.
Mr. J. D. REID.: Against the department?


Frederick William Borden: Not against the department and not with reference to my department alone, but that the stores are not properly audited and that there is no means of preventing thefts.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the Auditor General reliable?


Frederick William Borden: I could read my hon. friend the evidence.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister consider that the Auditor General is a reliable officer?


Frederick William Borden: I am not on the witness stand just now.


John Dowsley Reid: You are finding fault with him.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, I am, and I must be allowed to do it in my own way, and when the hon. gentleman gets his opportunity he can criticise me. I do not consider the Auditor General reliable upon this point. I should judge from carefully reading, the evidence of the Auditor General that it seemed to be almost a rehearsal; he said there was no means of checking the stores and that he had no authority to do so himself, which is perfectly true. But it is also true that over and over again the former Auditor General asked for permission to inspect the stores and received it. I have letters written by the former Auditor General to the department asking us to facilitate his making an examination of the stores and in every case that request was acceded to. The present Auditor General himself to my certain knowledge has inspected the stores at Quebec on more than one occasion; he made a thorough examination and took a thorough inventory of the Ross rifle factory a year ago, and the department has always been ready to facilitate any inspection or audit of that kind. As a matter of fact the very greatest care is taken with reference to the stores, and if the commission instead of jumping at conclusions and examining the Auditor General who admitted he knew nothing about it before he got through, had taken the trouble to have gone to the Quartermaster General and asked to inspect the great central store department at Ottawa they would have seen exactly how the stores are managed. I have here the following memorandum from the Quartermaster General on that point :
In looking over the evidence given^ by the Auditor General before the Civil Service Commission I think it right to . draw your attention to the entirely inaccurate statements made by him, based- no doubt upon his naturally limited knowledge and want of familiarity with the ordnance stores system of accounting for all stores in ordnance charge. As the bearing of all the questions and answers relates to accounting only I will not take them separately hut treat the subject as a whole. Questions and answers will he found on pages 1304, 1316 and 1318. Vol. 2, Minutes of Evidence.
Both questions and answers are entirely misleading and not in the smallest way in accordance with the facts.
1.	The duties of the Ordnance Corps are to receive, hold and issue clothing and equipment which has first been inspected and passed by the government inspectors.
2.	It has nothing to do with the making of contracts or payment for stoves under contract. This is all done by and under the director of contracts and the stores are delivered to ordnance charge after inspection.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 3.	A receipt is given by the senior ordnance officer to the director of contracts for all stores received by him. These stores are entered in a daily journal of receipts and from it transferred to the store ledger in which a complete list of every article in possession of the depot is contained.
4.	There is also a daily journal in which all issues are entered and thence transferred to the general ledger, and the department is debited with the receipt and credited with thet issues.
The general or store ledger consists of debit and credit pages and shows at the top of the debit page every article in store charge. At the end of each month the receipts for that month on the debit page are totalled up and added to the balance brought forward from the preceding month. Issues for the month are deducted and the result shows the balance in hand at the depot.
A monthly return from each depot is forwarded to headquarters showing all transactions. including each issue and receipt, accompanied by the authority for such issue or receipt. The checking clerk at headquarters sees that the balances on hand at the end of the preceding month are correctly carried forward to the current month and that the number of articles received or issued correspond with the authority for such receipts or issues.
Should any entry appear with no authority submitted it would, be at once challenged. It will thus he seen how complete the system of checking and accounting is.
5.	No issues are allowed to he made by any ordnance officer except on written authority, and such authority is governed by regulations as to clothing and all other equipment and the same authority is given for all receipts from inspection stores.
6.	From the date of the organization of the stores department, many years ago an annual board of survey has been held. The board consisting of the district officer commanding of the district and two other officers.
The duties of this hoard were to count each and every -article in store charge and then compare such count with the numbers given in the store led-ger, noting either surpluses or shortages (if any) also noting such stores as were unfit for further service and such stores as could he repaired.
The hoard then prepared a list of all the above for submission to headquarters with its suggestions as to the disposal of all unserviceable and obsolete stores.
The quartermaster general has been over twenty years connected with the stores branch and in no case within his recollection have any of the boards found evidence of wrong-doing or dishonesty.	.
The quartermaster general is not in a position to say that there has been an audit of the military stores by an officer of the Auditor General's Department.
He can, however, state that on more than one occasion the late Auditor General wrote to the deputy Minister of Militia to say that an audit officer was making a tour of inspection and audit in connection with the stores branch and asking that instructions he given to the officers in military stores charge to afford such auditing official all necessary assistance in connection with his work, and in every Instance

instructions were .sent accordingly. As no report to ,the contrary was ever made to the department it is assumed that the audit made was found to be satisfactory.
In conclusion the quartermaster general desires to draw your attention particularly to the fact that the work of the commission wasi for many weeks carried on in Ottawa, during which time it would have been an easy matter to hare visited the Headquarters Ordnance Stores (the largest of all the depots) for the purpose of examining on the spot, the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property held in charge, the method of caring for it and the working of the ordnance system of accounting.
It may be added that our ordnance system is much more strict than that followed in the imperial service.
D. A. MACDONALD, Brigadier General.
Well the commission was too busy bringing out evidence about how many men had been graduated from the Finance Department for. high positions outside, and too busy criticising the military policy of this country. They did not want Information, and nothing is clearer from the beginning to the end of this report than the fact that they shut their eyes and. their ears deliberately in order to make the damaging report which they have endeavored to make. Now, the people of Canada are interested in this phase of the question. They are paying millions of dollars for stores, and they want to know whether these stores are being properly taken care of or not. And so I am taking more time than I would otherwise take in order to bring these facts before the people and to show that the insinuation contained in this report is absolutely and utterly without the slightest foundation in fact. I have here a memorandum on this subject, prepared by the accountant at the request of the deputy minister, which I will read :
Procedure	in purchasing	stores,	clothing,
equipment. &c., and issuing them, and system of audit.
Ail such purchases are made by contract, and before being taken over, are thoroughly	inspected	and	tested	by departmental	inspectors. If	found	according to contract they are passed into store, the ordnance officer in charge certifying receipt of the articles and also entering them at the same time in his store ledger, in which an account with each kind of stores or article in his charge, is kept.Issues from stores are not made until the requisition has been approved by the officer commanding	district.	A receipt from the
corps or person receiving the articles is always taken; this and the document containing the authority for issue are the vouchers which the officer in charge of stores has to submit in support of his monthly statement of stores issued.
Until quite recently these monthly statements were 9ent to the Quartermaster General for examination but a regular audit was some time ago undertaken by the accountant of the
department and these returns now go to him.
The system of audit adopted is practically the same as that of the British War Office, viz.; first a thorough inventory of all stores, this- was made a year ago last April. Then monthly returns of all receipts and issues together with an audit of the ledgers used by the officer in charge of stores. For this purpose two ledgers are kept in each store and are sent alternately every six months to the accountant for audit and verification. Lastly, an inventory at intervals to see that the articles, as shown in the ledger on the date the inventory is made, are -there and in good order.
The audit is not confined to the stores in the charge of the district ordnance officer; it is also extended to the stores in the charge of the regimental officers throughout the country, so that all articles are kept track of from the time they are purchased and pass into store until they are condemned as unfit for further use.
Any gentleman who lias anything to do with the militia knows that this statement is correct.
Now. these military experts and critics have something to say which one is scarcely able to understand the meaning of. In speaking of the general increase of the expenditure, which I have fully accounted for, and which they knew the reason tor themselves, they say that there Is no means by which they could appreciate ' whether amounts payable for sub-target gnus or Ross rifles are proper and just. On that point I want to read the evidence of General Lake at page 756 of Volume I. There was an attempt made to lead General Lake, which was not eminently successful. The chairman asks :
Q. Is there not now rather an over inclination to lay in sub-target guns, Sutherland rifle sights and Ross rifles-to over do dt rather than under do it?-A. I think it is necessary to have an up-to-date modern rifle, whether it he the Ross rifle or the Lee-Enfield. I think you must have a rifle which is, in the opinion of the general public at least, equal to the rifle with which your foe may be armed. I believe the expenditure on certain things, such as the sub-target gun, is justified by its results on the shooting of the militia.
That is General Lake's deliberate opinion in answer to a question which was evidently intended to lead him to say something else.
Q. Granted that it is desirable to have up-to-date methods, is there not an inclination, instead of ordering fifty sub-target guns, to order a thousand ? Is there not an inclination to over do it?-A. Speaking for the Militia Council, I should say that we watch very closely not to order anything more than we positively need. We know the amount available for our purposes is limited, and we endeavour not to expend anything that we think could he avoided.
Q. Then the restraint lies in the amount of the vote?-A. Largely.
Q. If you could persuade parliament to increase the vote, the Militia Department would

As no officer of the pay corps was summoned before them, it is perhaps hardly to be wondered at that their report displays ignorance of the situation.
And that is a remarkable thing. They condemned the system of keeping the stores, but never took the trouble of going into a store or doing that branch the justice of calling upon one of Its officers to explain the system. In the same way, they condemn the pay corps and the paymaster general, but never call him or one of his officers to come to them, nor did they go near him. That is the justice that is meted out to the Militia Department.
As regards the Auditor General's evidence, the following questions and answers, given at almost the end of his evidence on the subject are significant :-
I would like the committee to take note of this. The Auditor General was examined as to the pay corps and this is the grande finale of that examination :
Question by the Chairman.-I wanted the Auditor General to explain the system in order that the absurdity of it might be placed before us. Now, tell us another thing, Mr. Fraser, do you know anything about the working of the Army Pay Corps?
Answer.-No, not yet. I will know more about it a little later on.
And that is the evidence upon which the Militia Department and its officers are condemned, anything more grossly outrageous, I am sure, has never appeared in the annals of any parliament. Now, General Lake gives a full statement of the duties performed by the Army Pay Corps, but with this I need not trouble the committee. But on this point of the pay, there is something very refreshing with which I would like to enliven these proceedings. Mr. Fyshe, one of the commissioners, an ex-banker, put a series of questions. He was examining Mr. Boville, the Deputy Minister of Finance :
Q. Mr. Boville, you were not here when Mr. Fraser was giving us some evidence of the absurdity of the reintroduction of the paymaster's branch of the Militia Department, and this trouble, of course, has some bearing on it also.
They were referring to the forgery of some cheque mentioned in the previous evidence. I will not bother about that.
Would it not be a simplification of matters if the Finance Department made all payments for every department?
It was not merely that he would have no pay corps in the Militia Department, but he was going to abolish the paymasters in the whole service and have all the paying done through the office of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I want to call attention to this evidence. The answer was :	|


Frederick William Borden: Theoretically, yes, as an academic proposition, but as our business is so tremendous and is spread over such a wide area it is not practicable.
Then the chairman comes to the rescue. He asks ' How many of these cheques do you think they pay in a year? Mr. Fyshe said : ' I have no idea.' The chairman was evidently questioning his brother commissioner. The examination goes on:
The Chairman.-Somewhere about 700,000 of all grades. Your idea is that the Finance Department should be paymaster for the whole government.
Mr. Fyshe.-Should take charge of the whole thing, of every payment from five cents to five thousand dollars. Of course each department should look after its own expenditure and vouch for its payment, for the amount to be paid, but the Finance Department or the Auditor General's Department should make the payment, they have to go over this thing anyway.
The Chairman.-The theory governing the Finance Department is that it deals with the finances of the country.
Mr. Fyshe.-Yes, well let them make the payments.
The Chairman.-You must allow the other departments some latitude in the matter of small change. The Finance Department and the Auditor General's Office do make the big payments now, but if they were reqiured to make all the payments as you suggest it would probably require a staff of a thousand men to do it.
This is the way one of the commissioners was going to economize. His brother commissioner said if you do that you will require perhaps a staff of 1,000 men. Yet in the whole service I do not suppose there are more than 100 ment connected with the pay staffs. I continue reading from the report:
Mr. Fyshe.-You would simply concentrate the staff in one department instead of having it scattered around?-A. Apart from that, this credit system we have established facilities very materially the transaction of the government's business at distant points. Supposing all the payments were concentrated here in Ottawa, you would have constant growling at tho delay in making payments.
Q. Not necessarily, if the pay-lists or accounts were properly vouched for and forwarded. It is only a question of drawing the cheque and sending it?-A. Which in the case of a payment in British Columbia would mean two weeks' delay.
Q. Well, you might make an exception in that case?-A. Then Prince Edward Island, it would mean a delay of nine days there.
By Mr. Bazin:
Q. And in winter what would the delay be? -A. In winter it would mean a delay of weeks sometimes.
Imagine anybody seriously suggesting that the whole business of paying out millions on account of the different departments should be done from the Finance Department. Is there anything more than that
12533 JULY 9, 1908 12534	
necessary to show the unlitness of the man to deal with a big question of this kind ? There is one thing more I would like to call attention to. In the course of the criticisms on the Militia Department, you will observe that the high pay of the officers is frequently referred to. It is rather singular that while the Militia Depatment is criticised for paying $2,800, $3,200 and sometimes $4,000 salary, the general civil service of the country is spoken of as being inadequately paid; and it Is worthy of note that in the Civil Service Bill which has just been put through, the salaries are increased to something like the amount which the militia officers are being paid, so that after all we were not so very far astray. But it is singular that in one breath this commission should condemn the Militia Department for its high salaries and in the next condemn the government for not paying the civil service more. Further than that the Militia Department is referred to as a department in which the officers are not only highly paid but whose officers and their wives and children receive pensions. That is one of the indictments brought against the Militia Department, yet at the conclusion of this report a Bill is submitted by which it is proposed that the whole civil service, including the wives and children, shall be given the benefit of a pension. In one breath the Militia Department is condemned for having a pension, and in the next the government generally is condemned because it has no Pension Act. Just here I would like to point out that every officer in the permanent force and on the staff contributes five per cent of his salary towards the creation and maintenance of a pension fund, while the Bill, which is suggested by these gentlemen for the benefit of the civil service, only recommends a tax of four per cent, so that the militia service is actually paying five per cent while they recommend four per cent for the civil service-a much more favourable arrangement. I find that in the evidence the commission went out of its way to introduce something very foreign indeed to. the inquiry and for no other purpose than to have a fling at the Militia Department. Questions were asked regarding the superannuation of an officer of the department, Mr. Aumond, who was superannuated a year or so ago on a retiring allowance of $1,321.25, who has that amount of money for the rest of his life and does nothing, and in the course of the questioning to get evidence on that particular transaction, the chairman asked : Q. He had served for forty years?-A. Yes. Q. This man had never had any bad habits? -A. Never. Q. What was his name?-A. Anmond. Q. Did his work very well?-A. Thoroughly well. 398}	Q. He was a faithful officer?-A. He could not be better. Q. And yet that man after more than forty years' service was turned out into a cold world. Mr. Fyshe.-I call that brutal. Well, turned out with nearly $1,350 a year in his pocket for the rest of his life and nothing to do ! What is the superannuation law for? What could I do? The man had been there forty years. We had talked about superannuating him for several years. He was of no use and it was better for the service that we should let him go. We let him go. Then, they go on to prove that he had to give up his house. I do not know about that but I made some inquiry-it is an outrageous thing to put such a statement in a book like this-and I am told that Mr. ' Aumond took a smaller house because his family was smaller, that he moved into lodgings because it suited his convenience, and I believe that the same man has had some favours from the department since that time, that he has had an occasional day's work. But, to cal.l it brutal to superannuate a man at $1,350 fdr the rest of his life seems a most extraordinary thing that any commissioner should dare to say. I would like to bring another matter forward. There happened to be, in the Militia Department an officer by the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Guy, au English officer, or rather I think he was a sergeant when he came to this country 45 or 50 years ago. He had served in the Crimean war, he came to Halifax and was made use of by the government of Nova Scotia before confederation. Some time after confederation he was brought un here. He served in the Northwest rebellion. This officer was sent to Halifax because he had had a great deal of experience as the paymaster of troops and when we took over Halifax and Esquimalt he was sent from the head office to Halifax by the accountant and paymaster general as the most suitable man in our employment for that purpose, being an old imperial officer, who had been paymaster in the Northwest rebellion and had had years and years of experience. We had no man in the service who was as competent to do that work as Colonel Guy. So, he was sent there. The commission goes out of its way to state in its report that this man was too old to do his work and that we had simply sent him to Halifax in order to try and give him a good retiring allowance. The evidence is on page 747. I think it is just as well that we should reveal the fact that there was such a thing as animus of a very unpleasant character behind the conduct of this commission, animus begotten during the time that the chairman of the commission was the Deputy Minister of Finance. I have no hesitation in saying that that gentleman took a special dislike to poor Guy and I believe, as surely as I am standing here, that this dam-

aging report about an bonest man who had served bis country faithfully for sixty years and who has now passed away, was simply to satisfy a malevolent disposition.
Q. Are you aware that the paymaster sent to Halifax was a worn out officer in the service of the department, who died a few months after he was sent?


Samuel Hughes: Who asks that question?


Frederick William Borden: The ex-Deputy Minister of Finance, the chairman of the eommision. It is General Lake who is giving evidence.
A. Yes. I know that he died, but he was not worn-out when he was sent, though he was old. He had exceptional qualifications, and I concurred in the selection.
Q. Was not one of the effects of sending this officer as paymaster to Halifax that he became a member of the military branch of the department and came under military control rather than civil?-A. I do not know; I do not think so. There was no Army Pay Corps at the time.
Q. When he went down

This is nil assertion, not a question.
-he ceased to be an officer of the department on the civil side and became an officer on the military side, entitled to draw a pension?- A. That is news to me.
Q. And that pension is continued to his widow?-A. He did not leave a widow.
As a matter of fact his wife predeceased him. It shows how determined this commission was to create a scandal of some kind. The chairman goes on :
Q. Ait all events, this man, who was worn-out in the service, was sent to Halifax, the principal point, to inaugurate a new system? -A. I understand that he was the only man competent for the work they had available, to send.*
Here is a note put in by General Lake.
*The circumstances of this case were as follows: The British troops at Halifax were to be paid by the Canadian government at imperial rates of pay and under the imperial regulations. It was thought desirable to send for this job a paymaster (Lieutenant Colonel Guy) who had been in the imperial service and knew their system, rather than an inexperienced civil officer.
Now, I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, and the attention of the committee to a note appended by the chairman of this commission, and I will read it:
I deem it night to append to the evidence a statement of the facts upon which the questions relating to the paymaster at Halifax were based.
When, in 1902, I was a member of the commission appointed to inquire into the Mur-tineau defalcations, while examining the work of the accountant's branch of the Militia Department I found that one of the officers in that branch (Lieutenant Colonel Guy) ap-Sir FREDERICK BORDEV.
peared to be very dazed and enfeebled and quite unfit for duty.
I suggested his superannuation but it was intimated to me that on account of his short term of service his retiring allowance would be small, and that if would not be generous at that time to retire him. To my astonishment, when the system of paymasters was set on foot, Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was made paymaster at Halifax. This was on July 1, 1905. The salary of Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was increased' from $1,650 to $2,400 per annum, and, in addition he was brought under the provisions of the Militia Pensions Act. From the outset Lieutenant-Colonel Guy had to procure assistance to do the work and he obtained help from an official of the Halifax post office.
Which is untrue.
As the post office official could not demand two salaries in a short time he was appointed assistant paymaster and certified the accounts. A year after Lieutenant-Colonel Guy went to Halifax, and when the Militia Pension Act permitted it, he was retired. Had he remained in Ottawa under the Superannuation Act Lieutenant-Colonel Guy would, on his retirement, have received about $650 per annum.
Would that have been ' brutal '? The man whom I retired at $1,350 a year was brutally treated according to this gentleman, but here he pursues the memory of a man who is in the grave because he was not retired on a miserable allowance of $650 a year, which was all he wanted him to get.
As it was by an addition of fourteen years military service he was retired on $1,450 per annum.
He got $100 a year more than the man who was ' brutally ' treated.
Lieutenant-Colonel Guy died about a year after his retirement, being predeceased by liis wife a very short time before his death. Such are the facts, and I feel certain that General Lake was not fully aware of the case when Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was sent to Halifax.


J. M. COURTNEY.
[Stage Direction]
Let us see what General Lake has to say about that:
Report Civil Service Commission, pages 747 and 748 of evidence.
Rs Lieutenant-Colonel Guy.
The foot note signed by Mr. J. M. Courtney is not a full and correct presentation of the case.
Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was one of the most capable, hard working and conscientious clerks in the service, and up to within a few months of his retirement was not only capable of doing, but did do a very large amount of work each day as the records of the department will show. As a clerk, his work was to examine the great bulk of claims that came in for payment, abstract them in duplicate and prepare them for payment. This involved a large amount of work which was always correctly done and which a man dazed could not do.
When the garrison at Halifax was taken over, it was necessary to send a paymaster down there who was thoroughly capable of

taking charge of the work. Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was considered eminently fit, both on account of his long experience and his knowledge of the departmental system of accounting. He had put in nearly fifty years of public service under the two governments as follows:-
Joined the British army just at the close of the Crimean war and was sent to the Crimea with the last draft, continued in the British service until the Trent affair, when as sergeant-major he was sent to Halifax with the troops at that time. He took his discharge at Halifax and received an appointment immediately afterwards, viz., in 1864, as chief clerk in the adjutant general's office, Halifax, Nova Scotia Militia.
I have been in camp with him many a time in Nova Scotia.
He held this position until 1869 when he was appointed superintendent of stores, Halifax, under the Dominion government with rank of 'captain, remained' in that position till 1884, when he left the service but on the breaking out of the Northwest Rebellion, in 1885 he entered it again as paymaster of the forces in the field at that time.
He received the recognition of this parliament at the close of the rebellion and $1,000 was voted to him.
After the rebellion he served on the Northwest Claims Commission and after that, was appointed in 1889 to the inside service, Ottawa, where he remained till he was trans-) ferred to Halifax as paymaster in 1905. After having satisfactorily established the payj office he applied for and received his pension.
Surely he had earned his pension.
It will be seen from this that he had nearly fifty years of service, the only break being between 1884 and 1885, and of these fifty years nearly forty were under the Canadian or Nova Scotia governments.
It is not, therefore, easy to understand wherein the iniquity lay of giving Lieute-: nant-Colonel Guy some recognition and making him paymaster at Halifax, after nearly, fifty years of service. If there was any in-; iquity it would appear to lie in the fact thatj recognition was so long deferred.
Mr. Courtney points out that had he been, superannuated as a civil servant, he would: have received but $600 per annum. What a, magnificent reward to a man who had given, nearly fifty years of valuable service to his country!
Nothing brutal about that.
Now as regards the ' Clerk from the post office, Halifax,' who, it is claimed, was got to assist him, the facts are as ft 11cws:	...
Major Sircom was an officer of the militia, he was also employed in the post office, Halifax, as assistant inspector.
Before Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was sent to Halifax, Major Sircom made application for the position of paymaster, this application was favourably considered, but he was iiH formed that, owing to his inexperience in paymaster work, he would have to take the appointment at first of assistant paymaster. His appointment was intended to be made
concurrently with Lieutenant-Colonel Guy's, but there was some delay in getting Major! Sircom's through, and it did not appear till a few months afterwards. The statement that Lieutenant-Colonel Guy had to get aj clerk from the post office to assist him, was, intended apparently, to convey the impression that he was not capable of performing his duties when first sent down there, which' is entirely incorrect. Of course, he had to have assistance in the office as the work was too much for one man. His predecessor, the army paymaster, had an assistant paymaster and a staff of seven clerks. Lieutenant-Colonel Gny had only three clerks and his work w>as heavier than the army paymaster's, as in addition to the garrison, Lieutenant-Colonel Guy had all the militia of the three maritime provinces to attend to.
Lieutenant-Colonel Guy was, no doubt, net as vigorous during the last six months of his service as he was in his early days, but to assert that he was unfit for the duties of paymaster when appointed to that position is incorrect.

[Stage Direction]
A.P.M.G.	/
Appended to this memorandum in the handwriting (of General Lake, which I know well, is the following :
I entirely concur in the above. I saw Lieutenant-Colonel Guy just before he started for Halifax iaud Mr. Courtney's description of him is certainly not truthfully applicable to him as he then was.

[Stage Direction]
I ask the committee to define if they can what possible good motive this gentleman could have in criticising as ' brutal ' the conduct of the Militia Department iu superannuating a man who had forty years' service at $1,350 a year, and declaring that the department had practically put up a job on the country because It did not insist upon superannuating a man at $600 a year who had servied his country fifty years, but had given him a retiring allowance of $1,450 per annum. That is a conundrum that I cannot solve.
I have to congratulate my deputy minister, with whom the commission sympathized so deeply in his distress because he was only getting $3,500 a year, while gentlemen sitting on the board next him were getting $4,000; I have to congradulate him that If the Civil Service Bill gets through the Senate, and is approved by His Excellency the Governor General, he will have $1,000 per year more than his brothers on the Militia Council. I do not think it will be the cause of any jealousy at that board. Neither do I believe tbe statement made by this commission that my deputy minister, Colonel Fiset, was greatly troubled because his pay was a little lower than that of his breathern on the board. Now,
I have one more, and only one more, illustration to give you of the extreme fairness of these, I might almost say, heaven-born
[Stage Direction]
military critics. In the report the following statement appears :[DOT]
Your commissioners have noticed that it has heen held to be of serious importance that the expenditure of the militia in Canada should increase with the growth of the revenue, and that once the revenue has arrived at a hundred millions a year the expenditure should be in the same proportion to thirteen millions as thirteen millions is to one million, that rate being paid for conditions at the time of confederation. It would follow, therefore, that with a revenue of $100,000,000 a year, the expenditure should be at the rate of eight millions. How this can be adjusted with the various retardations which must occasionally happen through a bad harvest, stringency of the money market and other causes, the commissioners cannot understand. It would seem that the militia expenditure would have to be cut down in proportion to the revenues. The better method, in the opinion of the commissioners. is that the expenditures should be increased according to the growth of the population and be put on a per capita basis.
Now, it_ so happened that in the Nelson year, 1905, I was asked to contribute an article for the ' United Service Magazine ' on the Canadian militia. The chairman of the commission asked General Lake if there had not been an article contributed by somebody to some magazine. I do not know that the general had seen the article ; he evidently did not understand the point of the question. This is what is said in the article :
At the time of confederation the revenue of Canada amounted to thirteen millions, and the militia expenditure was one million, or one-thirteenth of the revenue. The annual revenue this year will probably exceed seventy milliijns, so that it will be observed that the ratio of one to thirteen is being somewhat exceeded. It is not necessary to assume that this ratio must be maintained indefinitely, but it would seem probably that, to remain an efficient and effective militia force in Canada, will cost annually something like eight million dollars, an amount, however, which need not be approached until the revenue has reached the hundred million mark. It would seem probable that the ratio of one to thirteen need not be carried farther than the point just named.
I afterwards made a similar statement in the House in this language :
In 1867, when the revenue of Canada was $13,000,000 we began with a militia expenditure of about $1,000,000 or one-thirteenth of the total revenue of the country. The militia expenditure to-day is $5,500,000, still not more than one-thirteenth of our gross revenue. I do not mean to say that it would be fair to lay down the rule that because we began with a militia expenditure of one-thirteenth of the total revenue we should keep that up, but I do not think we should keep it up until we have reached the point at which we have I created an effective and an efficient defensive
Frederick William Borden: force for Canada. Whether that will be $6,000,000 or more I cannot say, but should think it will not go very much beyond that sum. I do not think that the ratio between one and thirteen as to the revenue, will be increased in the expenditure on the militia. I hope that before we have reached a revenue of $100,000,000, one-thirteenth of which would be about $8,000,000, we shall have reached the maximum which will be required for our militia force.
I quote this because there is an evident attempt to misrepresent what I said. As is quite obvious to everybody, the amount of money to be spent upon the militia is the amount that is necessary to make the militia efficient and effective, whether the population is five millions or ten millions. According to the absurd proposal of this commission, if our population should reach fifty millions, and we established the rate at a dollar a head, a good deal more than it is, then of course we would have to spend fifty millions on the militia, whether we required it or not. General Lake shows how absurd the proposal is, on page 9 of his memorandum, in the following words :
The commissioners state that they r have noticed that it has been held to be of serious importance that the expenditure of the militia in Canada should increase with the growth of the revenue/ and devote some space to arguing against that theory. They do not state where the view to which they refer is set forth, so that it is not possible to verify their statement.
It is more of importance, perhaps, to see why they have brought in this reference. It is in order, apparently, that they may propose, as a preferable arrangement, ' that the expenditure (on the militia) should be increased according to the growth of the population and be put on a per capita basis/ If this means anything, it must apparently mean that the requirements of the defence of the country do not affect the question. No matter how imminent or how great the danger may ibe, the expenditure is only to increase in the same ratio as the population- no matter if the danger decreases or disappears altogether, the expenditure is to go on increasing because the population does. Their reasoning may embody some economical doctrine, but it is hardly common sense. The only reasonable plan is to regard military expenditure as an insurance against national danger, the amount of that insurance being decided by the extent and imminence of the danger and by the degree to which the nation can afford, and is willing, to insure itself.
I had intended dealing in my statement in defence of the department against the outrageous, extraordinary and unjustifiable attack of this commission, with a number of other points mentioned by the commission, but time will not permit me to do so. I would like, however, to reproduce two tables which will be found at the end of General Lake's memorandum, Appendix D and Appendix E.


APPENDIX D.
[Stage Direction]
Table to show establishments of organized Unite of the Canadian Militia in 1895-6, 1903-04 and 1908-09, respectively
Cobps.
Permanent Force. (Note 1.)-
Royal Canadian Dragoons-Squadrons	
Royal Canadian Mounted Rifles-Squadrons.. Royal Canadian Artillery-
Horse or Field Batteries	
Heavy Batteries	
Garrison Companies	
Royal Can. Engineers-Garrison Companies...
Royal Canadian Regiment Companies	
Permanent Army Service Corps	
Permanent Army Medical Corps	
Canadian Ordnance Corps	
Canadian Army Pay Corps	
Military Staff Clerks	
Establishment, 18115-6.
Number of Squadrons, Batteries or Companies.
Active Militia-
Cavalry or Mounted Rifles-Squadrons.,...
Field Artillery-Batteries	
Heavy Artillery-Batteries	
Garrison Artillery-Companies	
Field Engineer Companies	
Corps of Guides	
Infantry-Companies	
Canadian Army Service Corps-Companies.... Can. Army Medical Corps-Field Ambulances. Corps of Signallers	
Totals.
Number of horses	
Number of men trained (Note 2).
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil;
Nil.
17
Nil.
2
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
Total
Numbers.
173
324
2,115
1,345
2,462
[Stage Direction]
Establishment, 1903-4.
Number of Squadrons, Batteries or Companies.
Total
Numbers.
2 1
Nil.
I
Detachments.. 5
Detachments.
Nil. Detachments. Nil.
Nil.
62 17 4
28 4
Detachments- 654 8
8 F. Hos., 9 B.C Detachments__
35,835
2,872
19,000
00
Establishment, 1908-09.
Number of Squadrons, Batteries or Companies.
132
6
104
1,337
5,106
2,013
1,868
36
34,257
705
1 4
2 10
Detachments.
Detachments.
Detachments.
Detachments.
Detachments.
25
10
Detachments.
12
Detachments.
47,423
Total
Numbers.
120
165
300
1,079
100
34
3,311
7,892
32,000
8,232
2,712
1,675
1,241
107
36,849
1,281
1,460
Remarks.
Establishments provided for in the Estimates for 1908-9. (See Note 4).
to
<Ol
57,718
11,798
46,000*
*Estimated.
growth of the Active Mili tia. Up to the present time only a total establishment of 3,311 all ranks has been authorised.
Note 2.-The permanent corps havebeen, includ^ in	yeM. haye been ghowl) in each ease. In each of the two earlier
[DOT]	' "	>thing may possibly occur in the present year.
' "	~ ~ assumption of responsibility for the defence of
provided for in
[Stage Direction]


o
[Stage Direction]


to
Frederick William Borden: 


APPENDIX E.
[Stage Direction]
Comparative Table to show the Arrangement and Equipment of the Militia, also Cadet Corps and Rifle Associations, in the Years 1895-6, 1903-4 and 1908-09.
W Subject. fcd pj	1895-6.	1963-4.	1908-9.t-H Q Light field guns	
W O ^ Heavy field guns	
., ^ Rifles and carbines	
Maxim guns, 303 calibre	
Ammunition for field artillery	
Rifle ammunition	
Fortress armament 	
(Breech loading guns only.) Ammunition for fortress guns	
Camp equipment	
Personal equipment of men	
Harness and saddlery	
Engineer equipment	80 9-pounder muzzle loading	
36 12-pr. breech loading (under order). 5 40-pr. A rmstrong	
40.000	Sniders (obsolete)	
5.000	Martini-Henry.	
2.000	Lee and Martini-Metford	
42.000	Lee-Enfield (under order)	
15	
About 300 rounds per 9 or 40-pr. gun. 400 per 12-pr. gun (under order)	
About 200 pounds per Snider	
About 350 rounds per '303" rifle	
8 7" R.B.L. (obsolete)	
8 12-pr. Q.F. (under order)	
8 6-pr. Q.F. (under order)	
About 250 rounds per 7" gun	
Complete to scale for smaller guns (under order) as above. Enough for perhaps 15,000 men. .. . Knapsack, obsolete, only partly distributed. Incomplete, some 30 years old	
None	90 12-pounder breech loading	
8 ©"-Howitzer, B.L	
17	40-pr. Armstrong Obsolete)	
4 4'7" Q.F	
39,000 Lee-Enfield and Lee-Metford.. 1,000 Martini-Metford	
18	;	
About 400 rounds per gun	
About 130 rounds per Howitzer .... About 350 rounds per rifle	
1	6" B.L. (Drill purposes)	
2	6" Howitzer (Drill purposes)	
4 12-pr. Q.F	
8 6-pr. Q. F. Practically complete for Q.F. guns above on Imperial scale. Enough for about 30,000 men	
Oliver equipment	
Practically complete	9u 12-pr B.L. 12 15-pr. B.L. 36 18-pr. Quick Firing. 8 5"-Howitzer, B.L. 16 4-7" Q.F. 12 60-pr. Q.F. (for delivery in 1908). 39.000	Lee-Enfield and Lee-Me.tford. 1,000 Martini-Metford. 42.000	Ross. 20 and 8 Pompons. About 500 rounds per gun for all guns. Over 400 rounds per rifle. Halifax and Esquimalt are completely armed, Quebec partly so. It is inadvisable to give details of these. Supply complete for above guns. Enough for about 45,000 men. Oliver equipment complete for all authorized units. Complete for all authorized units. Complete for 4 Field Cos. Complete for all existing units. Field Ambulance completely equipped. Regimental medical equipment nearly complete. Complete for all existing Sections. 800 wagons, 1,600 horses.Army Service Corps equipment.. Medical equipment	
.... Signalling equipment	
Reserve transport (registered)....	None	
Practically none	
Practically none	
None	In progress for 8 companies	
For bearer cos. and field hospitals, making good progress. Commenced and some progress made. A commencement made	Cadet corps	
Rifle associations	Few-no reliable record	
42	104-Members about 5,000 	
J3 Military, 257 civilian, 28,000 members.	152-Members about 8,000. 130 Military, 371 Civilian, 38,000 members.
to
12543	COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
These tables give some idea of the present state of efficiency of the militia which has been branded by this commission as being less efficient than it was fifteen years ago. The objects of the militia are, as we know, three-fold, the maintenance of the civil power within onr own borders, the repelling of any attack from without and the assisting when the parliament of Canada sees fit to undertake it. or whenever it may be necessary, of the mother country. The militia of Canada has performed great services for this country. It -is a very old institution, and it has done its work well. One essential difference between the militia of to-day and of the time prior to 1895-1896 is that in the past on every occasion when an armed service was required in Canada, it was necessary that the imperial troops should take the initiative. We had not the departments necessary, our force was not a self-contained force ; but to-day, the militia of Canada is in a position to place in the field a considerable number of men and to take the initiative itself and probably do so effectively until assistance could come, if it were necessary, from the mother country. Now, it seems to me that those of us who take an interest, a broader interest, in our future, and recognize the imperial obligation or duty, ought to feel proud that we are in that position and are no longer, as we were up to a very few years ago, absolutely dependent upon the mother country. It should be some comfort to those of us who think-though I do not believe there are many such within the sound of my voice -that this country should subscribe a sum of money for the maintenance of the British navy to know that, while we do not possess a fleet, we possess at least the nucleus of an army, with all the departments necessary and able materially to assist the mother country if it were necessary to do so. It is absolutely in our own power to say whether we shall do so or not, but it is a great thing to have the power. I would like to read a sentence or two which I have taken from the budget speech of Sir Alexander Galt when Finance Minister of Canada in .Tune, 1806,-before confederation. These are the notable words to which he gave utterance and which are as applicable to-day as they were then :
We must all feel that the security of the country is to be found in its own power, not in the forbearance of another or in the discharge of duty by another, but by its own ability to maintain our independence and safety.
These are sentiments which, I believe, every man in this committee, every man in this House, every man in this country, will subscribe to.
I shall not detain the committee further. I hope I have succeeded in answering some
of the very unjust statements which have been made. I hope I have been able to satisfy the committee that the increase in expenditure is justifiable and that it is not due in the slightest respect to the reasons alleged by the commission-the change in the law in 1904 by which an advisory board, a militia council, was established. I hope I have been able to satisfy the committee that this country has something to show for money that is being expended. I hold that an inefficient militia is an undesirable thing ; I would rather spend no money at all on the militia-I would rather wipe out the militia altogether-than have a militia that is a mere pretense and therefore absolutely worthless. You can have that by spending one or two millions, but you cannot by such an expenditure provide anything at all adequate for the services required for a country like this, and for a people occupying the responsible position which we occupy as Canadians, as people responsible for the enormous territory which we administer and as the most important member of the great British empire to which we are proud to belong. I am proud to feel and to know that the money which has been spent in the department has resulted in bringing about great efficiency; and I believe that a very small portion, if any, of the money has been improvidently spent. I invite the closest inspection-and we have had some of it already-into the expenditures that have taken place in that department-we welcome it. I consider that our system of purchasing is as good as any system in any government, and will compare favourably with the system of many large business establishments.
I thank the committee for their great patience. I would not have trespassed so long, but for the fact that the forbearance of hon. members has shown that they feel that I * should be privileged at least to state my side of this case.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: At this early hour in the morning, and very late stage of the session, it would be very much out of place for me to devote any length of time in criticism of the speech of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). But I will say this : though I have been in the House for over a quarter of a century I never saw at this stage of the session such an exhibition by any minister of the Crown, one at the head of a department whose expenditure is very heavy and increasing rapidly for years. The minister has devoted about two hours and a half, not to defending the expenditure, not to showing that it was wise and economical, that it was beneficial to the country, but simply attacking the Royal Commission which he himself helped to appoint, a commission that, I frankly confess, I always thought was composed of able men, eminent men. men of high aims and great ability. They did their work accord-

hig to their lights ; they gave the .benefit of their time to the country and to this House ; and now the Minister of Militia who assisted by order in council to appoint these men as a royal commission has taken up two hours ahd a half to abuse and condemn them, and very little to defend the expenditure of his department. I have here in brief an account of some of the increases in the Militia department which, as it is in more condensed form than anything I could offer, may fairly be quoted in dealing with this subject. I have taken this from the Montreal ' Gazette ' of some time ago :
In 1896 the cost of the Militia Department was $2,193,372, of which $1,000,000 was for arms and accoutrements. In 1906 this had grown to $5,664,192, an increase of 158 per cent. Of the latter amount only $1,299,875 was for arms, &c. The balance of $1,291,124 covered the same expenditures as the $1,193,372 spent in 1896, the expenditure for administration purposes having increased by 360 per cent.
Is the militia three times as efficient or three times as numerous as it was in 1896?
An idea of how this vast increase has been created may be gained from a comparison of the cost of the headquarters staff at Ottawa in the two years. This was the staff in 1896:
1 major-general commanding .. ..$4,000
1 adjutant-general	 3,200
1 quartermaster-general	 3,200
1 inspector of artillery	 2,300
1 assistant adjutant-general	 1,800
1	A. D. C	
1,0002	clerks of miltary stores	
800Total, 8 officials	at	$16,300
Nowadays it is supposed to require, to do the same work, the following officials:
1 chief of general staff	$ 6,000
1 inspector-general	 6,000
1 master-general of	ordnance	 4,000
1 quartermaster-general	 4,000
1 adjutant-general	 4,000
1 director-general of medical service 3,400 1 director of clothing and equipment 3,200 1 assistant director of operations .. 2,400 1 assistant adjutant-general for musketry	 3,200
1 intelligence staff officer	 2,165
1 director of transport and supplies 3,200
1 director of artillery	 3,200
1 director of engineer services.. .. 3,200
1 assistant adjutant-general	 2,800
1 assistant director intelligence.. .. 2,400 1 staff officer to inspector-general.. 1,200
1 intelligence staff officer	 2,400
3 staff lieutenants	 3,660
1 director operations and staff duties 3,200
>1 medals hoard officer	 2,600
1 assistant to A.A.G.M	 2,000
1 rifle factory inspector	 2,800
23 officers at	$73,425
But this is not all. Attached to this small army of commanding officers there is another small army of staff clerks, about forty in number, apparently employed to do all the work except the deep thinking and public parades. Then, again, there has been an increase in the Mr. SPROULB.
cost of the civil staff of the department amounting to about $10,000 per year. The total result is that the salaries paid in the department at Ottawa have increased in the period under review from $70,000 to $180,000.
Feathers come higth.
The head quarters staff at Ottawa has grown from eight officials, costing $16,300 per year, to twenty-three officials costing $73,425. These are all the items I intend dealing with to-night but they are a fair sample of the iucrease of expenditure all along the line, and I am quite sure that the people of this country, especially the agricultural class, will not be inclined to congratulate the minister when they are properly informed of the rapid increase in our militia expenditure. I am not denying that in many respects the militia are very much better, but I am not prepared to admit that up to a few years ago we had practically no militia at all. We had some in 1885 when the Northwest rebellion was quelled, and in 1866 when the Fenian raid was repulsed and in 1871, and at various times before this heavy increase of expenditure we certainly had some kind of militia which we found very useful.


Frederick William Borden: I did not say that we had no militia or that it had not done good work. II said the militia had done good work always, but we had none of the departments or branches which go to make up an army and always relied on the Imperial troops and officers who happened to be in Canada at the time.
iMr. SPROULE. I understood the minister to say that we had simply a militia in name and nothing more.


Frederick William Borden: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was it did good service for the country then ?
Sir FREDERICK BORDE-N. I did not say that. iMy hon. friend is doing me an injustice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to do my hon. friend an injustice hut that was my understanding of what he said.


Frederick William Borden: That was not what I intended saying.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I always thought that in practice our militia proved themselves efficient every time their services were called upon.


Frederick William Borden: So they did?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The expenditure has grown very rapidly iand we are not getting full value for it. It is too late however in the session and the hour is too late to criticise in any detail, and we shall have to content ourselves with taking some other opportunity in the future to discuss our military expenditure and force at greater length. But let me say with regard to the

commission, that it comes with had grace from a minister who helped to appoint them, to take up two and a half hours of our time in abusing these men after they have done their work so faithfully. The hon. gentleman has put the commission on trial and they have been quartered to the Queen's taste.
Experimental farms, $130,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As we shall have supplementary estimates on these various subjects, it might be understood that any member of this House who desires to discuss any of these questions may do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite willing.


Samuel Hughes: I know that my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) is anxious to speak on the same item.


THE DOMINION POWER AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
William Stevens Fielding: Owing to an error on the part of one of the clerical staff, a Bill which had been practically rejected by the Private Bills Committee was sent back to the Senate as if it had been approved by the House. As it is entered in the records of the Senate, we shall have to pass a motion that the (Senate be requested to return it. I beg to move therefore a message be sent to the Senate requesting them to return Bill (No. 173), letter H of the Senate, entitled an Act to incorporate the Dominion Power and Development Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the order of
business for to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: There are several Bills on the Order Paper-the Gold and Silver Marking Act, the bounty to South African volunteers, the Canada Shipping Act, and at a later stage we may take up the Election Bill and then Supply.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 1.05 a.m., Friday.

Friday, July 10, 1908.