1910-02-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS moved that the second report of the Select Standing Committee to supervise the official report of the Debates of the House be concurred in.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. GERVAIS.: This is the report of the Debates Committee recommending the appointment of Mr. Desaulniers as translator in place of Mr. Laferriere who died a few days ago. The Debates Committee make the recommendation to the House and hope that it will be concurred in.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that, according to the present law of the Civil Service-with which I do not profess to be familiar-this appointment cannot be made on the recommendation of a committee. I understand, however, that the gentleman who is recommended for appointment is acceptable and is to be appointed, but by the regular authority that has power to deal with such matters under the law.


Mr. HUGHES.: Inasmuch as there is a divergence of opinion, as I understand it, as to the competent appointing body, would it not be well to have the matter looked into? As far as I am concerned, if the Committee on Debates is only an ornament, not being much of an ornament, I must decline to continue to act on it; and I am satisfied that that is the feeling of the other members of the committee. If one committee of this House can engage a young professor to perambulate the country for another purpose, I cannot see why a standing committee of this House should not have the authority to recommend the appointment of an officer to carry on the work of which that committee has charge.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can only say to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) that I should be sorry to lose his services on this committee. I could better dispense with his services in some other matters. He is right sometimes, especially in military affairs-


Samuel Hughes: This is not a military committee.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER-and I understand that, in this case, the gentleman he recommends is quite acceptable.


Samuel Hughes: That is not the point. This is a question of principle-


Wilfrid Laurier: That is it; have we or have we not this power?


Samuel Hughes: That is what we want to find out.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the authorities deny that we have the power.


Samuel Hughes: Would the Prime Minister mind giving the authority to the House?


Mr. FIELDING.: It_ is provided under the Civil Service Act7


Mr. SPROULE.: The Act provides how appointments shall be made to the Civil Service. And, while, as I understand it, it was not intended to take from the House any of its rights in the management of its affairs, still it was agreed that appointments should be made according to the Act, and 97}
by the same authority that makes appointments in other portions of the Civil Service-that is, the Civil Service Board. If that be correct, I do not think that this is the way to do it. This involves a charge on the revenue, and is not in order for that reason. But there is the other objection that appointments are to be made by the Civil Service Board and not on recommendation of this committee.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Under the Civil Service Act, action with regard to the appointment of an officer of the House of Commons must be taken by the House of Commons. And, in the case of the appointment of an officer of the Senate, action must be taken by that House. I understand that, by the passing of the Civil Service Act, the House has not been deprived of its power of expression which it gets from the. law of nature and not froni any enactment. And it has power to express itself to the Civil Service Commission in relation to an appointment. The Debates Committee are simply making a recommendation to the Civil Service Commissioners that Mr. Desaulniers be appointed; that is all we are now doing. If the appointing commission do not want to deal with our recommendation, the time will come to decide whether their action is legal or illegal, right or wrong. But I do not think for a moment that the House of Commons should refuse to recommend a first-class man, who has passed his examination three years ago-"before the Board of Civil Service Commissioners was established- and come out of the examination with the highest marks, who has been on the waiting list for three years and has been employed as spare translator at an occasion during that time, and who also is declared by the government as perfectly capable of doing his work. We propose, that, and I think the House of Commons should express its opinion that Mr. Desaulniers will be a fit and suitable person to be translator of debates. It will rest with the Civil Service Commission to accept the expression of opinion of the House of Commons. That is. all we are asking of the House. We may make the recommendation-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Gervais) a question. He recommends to the House thus and so; the House agrees to the recommendation- is not that practically carrying it into effect?


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: It is not the same thing at all. Under the new Civil Service Act, the commissioners may declare that our recommendation is not in conformity with all the requirements of the formalities provided for under the Act, and may refuse to accept our recommendation. That will .end

the matter, unless some other action is taken by this House. But I do not see why this Debates Committee, entrusted by this House at the opening of the session with the supervision of the official report of the debates, should be treated in this way. If so, there will be only one thing to be done, and that is for every member of the Debates Committee to hand in his resignation. We are making the recommendation; that is all. We are simply making a recommendation, which we thought the Civil Service Commission might accept or ignore.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To settle the question, I rise to a point of order. I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if this motion is in order in the face of the law.


Mr. ETHIER.: Although I am a member of the Debates Committee, I was not present when that recommendation was adopted, and I think the committee has not taken the proper step to obtain the appointment of a translator. I understand that the translators of the debates are governed by the Civil Service Act and that they are under the control and authority of the Speaker as head of the Department of the House of Commons. According to the Civil Service Act, I understand that the head of the department, on the certificate of the deputy head, who in this case is the clerk of the House, may ask the Civil Service Commission to appoint such an officer, and, thereupon the Civil Service Commission has power to appoint him, and this in accordance with section 21 of the Civil Service Act amendment, with or without examination. I have no doubt that Mr. Desaulniers who has passed the required examination before the Civil Service Act was in force, if appointed, would fulfil the duties of the position satisfactorily. But I do not think the proper course under the Civil Service Act is for the Debates Committee to recommend the appointment of such an officer. I think this is a case in which the Civil Service Act must apply.


William Stevens Fielding: Might I suggest that instead of asking for the ruling of Mr. Speaker, we might accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes), that, if there be a doubt as to the legal interpretation of the Act, we endeavour to have that doubt removed by obtaining the opinion of the Department of Justice. Happily, there is no difference of opinion as to the man recommended. The understanding, however, is that the House has agreed to permit its officers to be treated in the same way as officers of the Civil Service; and in the case of a technical officer to be appointed under the Civil Service Act, the commission would have to be satisfied that he was qualified, and* that the nature of his services came Mr. GERVAIS.
within the scope of the class to which it was proposed to appoint him. Applying that rule to this case, it is suggested that the Civil Service Commission must deal with this application.


Samuel Hughes: Under the law, how could the matter be bi ought before the Civil Service Commission? We must look at that commission through smoked glasses.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to interpret the law, but rather to act upon my hon. friend's own suggestion. This same question may come up again, and it is as well that we should have a clear understanding of the application of the new Civil Service Act to the officers of the IJouse of Commons. I would therefore suggest that my hon. friend do not press his motion today; and as we all have the same object in view, every good end will be served by adopting the suggestion which has been made.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Acting on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Stevens Fielding: Let the motion stand for another day.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Let it stand for another day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Wherever in one of the departments an officer is to be appointed by order in council, similarly, an officer of this House; but as an order in council can only appoint a person who has been recommended by the Civil Service Commission, so this House can only appoint one similarly recommended. I do not know anything about the action of the committee. In one sense it may be all right, but still I think it is extremely desirable that the provisions of the law should be observed, and I concur entirely in the view expressed by the Minister of Finance that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown or of some legal authority should be obtained for the guidance of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take it that that opinion will be communicated to the House when it is obtained.


William Stevens Fielding: The clerk of the House will comply with the wish of the House in that respect.
Motion withdrawn.



GAS INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 132) to amend the Gas Inspection Act. He said:	The
most important amendment is in section 3. Under the present law there is a percentage of allowance made for errors in the inspection of meters. That percentage is reduced,

thereby assuring greater accuracy in the meters in use. It is largely on the recommendation of the officers of the department and the city of Toronto that this amendment is proposed. Under 'another amendment power is taken to test gas for its calorific qualities. At present it is tested only for its illuminating qualities. The other amendments are not very important. In several clauses the word ' district ' is inserted in place of the words ' city, town and place,' as the work of the department is regulated by districts.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved that the House go into Committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the regulations of the 21st. day of June, 1909, intituled: ' Regulations of the National Parks of Canada,' which were passed on the date above mentioned by His Excellency the Governor in Council, under authority of section 4 of the Rocky Mountains Park Act, being chapter 60, R.S.C., 1906, copies of which regulations, as well as the necessary order in council, have been laid before this House, are, in so far as they relate to the Rocky Mountains Park of Canada, approved by this House, in accordance with provisions of subsection 3 of section 5 of the said chapter 60.
Motion agreed to. ,

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved
That when this House adjourns on Tuesday next, the 8th instant, it stand adjourned to Thursday, the 10th.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CROSBY.: Before the orders of the day are taken up, I want to ask if the Allan line of steamers, which have a subsidy from the government for carrying the mails via Havre, have given up calling at Halifax. I should like to know whether they are compelled to call at Halifax or not


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry 1 cannot give the information at the moment, but will get it on Monday.


Adam Brown Crosby: I might say that the last Allan steamer, the ' Corinthian,' arrived at St. John the day before yesterday, and did not call at Halifax.



BOY SCOUTS.

Samuel Hughes: The following clipping has been sent me, taken from the Toronto ' Globe ':
Arrangements are being made, says the London ' Daily Mail,' bv which a number of boy scouts will be enabled to visit Canada during the ensuing summer, and so have the opportunity of practising scouting under conditions which would be impossible in this country. *
Red Indians will be employed to lay trails and also to teach the boys the art of tracking on a scale which could not be attempted in England. Canoeing, fishing, and following the slot of the wild deer will also form part of the scheme, which is a sequel to the interchange of the visits between English and German boy scouts last year.
The boys, who will be under the care of scout-masters, and for whose welfare the most precise arrangements will be made, will be selected by competition. The trip will be quite free of cost to the participators.
Has the Minister of Militia any information concerning this?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I have not. This is the first I have heard of it.



FISH FRY.

Mr. EDWARDS.: Owing to the regrettable illness of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), I addressed about ten days ago a letter to the deputy minister asking for application forms for fish fry. I have not yet had a reply, and should like to know to whom I ought to address a communication in order to get a reply within a reasonable time.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am surprised that the hon. gentleman has not received any answer. I shall make inquiries at once.



UNITED STATES MINIMUM TARIFF.

Mr. FOSTER.: Has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) any information yet aa to whether a decision has been come to by the United States authorities to admit Canadian exports under their minimum tariff, or whether he has had any communication at all with these authorities on that subject?


William Stevens Fielding: We are only aware of what is currently reported in the public press as to the proceedings of the United States authorities in these matters. I have no official information.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVING CROWN RESIDENCES.

Mr. BLAIN.: Might I ask when I may expect a return to an order of the House of December 6, promised for the early part of last week, respecting the number of officials of the Senate and House of Commons, who have residences supplied them by the Crown?



INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION.

Mr. JAMESON.: When will the report of the International Fisheries Commission be laid on the table? I see by a despatch from Washington that President Taft has trans-mited the report of Professor Starr Jordan to congress.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend refers to the commission about the international waters and lakes. This report ought to be laid before this parliament and congress. It has been laid on the table here.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
["The next items on the Order Paper are Bills to be considered in Committee of the Whole. But they have been amended by the several standing committees that dealt with them. They are not railway Bills, or I would be ready to go on with them. But, as I do not know the nature of the 'amendments, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again."]
William Stevens Fielding: Before my hon. colleague the Minister of Railways proceeds with his estimates, I would ask the approval of the House to a proposal to grant the sum of $50,000 from the treasury of Canada towards the fund organized in France for the relief of sufferers from the recent floods. We are glad to know, from the latest information, that the waters are receding and conditions improving. Nevertheless, the information available to us, both official and unofficial, shows that there has been very great distress and misery, and that there is much need of relief. Generous citizens of all nations are contributing, and in some instances governments have contributed. I am sure it will be the wish of this parliament and the people of Canada, irrespective of class, creed or nationality, that the Canadian people should show sympathy with the government and people of France in this trying moment. I propose that we should ask the French gov-eminent to accept the sum of $50,000 as a practical expression of our sympathy and desire to assist the suffering.


George Eulas Foster: Could the minister give us an idea of the losses and the degree of distress being suffered?


William Stevens Fielding: It is difficult to obtain anything like an official estimate. We have to rely to some extent on the public press. We have communicated with our Paris agents to ascertain whether foreign contributions would be desirable and acceptable, and we are assured that such contributions will be gladly accepted by the French government. What wre intend is that this amount should be forwarded to the French government through our Paris office and the British ambassador at Paris, who has kindly consented to communicate with the French authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a course which has been taken more than once where the people of foreign countries have suffered from great disaster, and it seems to me eminently fitting that a similar course Mr. BLAIN.
should be followed in this case, more especially as the country to which this offering is made is the ancestral home of a very considerable part of our population. It is also appropriate for the further reason that the relations between the British empire and the French republic are at present of the most cordial and satisfactory character, as we believe they will continue to be in the future.


Mr. CROCKET.: Would the minister state whether some other governments have contributed?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, our Paris office informs us that the government of Turkev has contributed $10,000 and New Zealand $2,500. I think the United States government is contributing in a less formal way, and judging from the public press, through the Red Cross Society very large sums are being contributed by individual citizens of the United States and foreign countries. I notice that the German Emperor has sent his personal contribution of $5,000, but at the moment of our latest information the only governments to contribute are Turkey and New Zealand.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Like the Minister of Finance, I believe in charity being the greatest virtue, but while I do not want to speak in any way against what he has brought before the House, I want to remind him that charity begins at home. I have brought to the attention of the government on various occasions cases in my own riding where, owing to floods, farmers have not been able to reap the benefit from their operations which they should reap." No attention whatever has been paid to that bv the government, and I want to again impress on the government that, we ought to take care of our own people whenever we have an opportunity. In saying this I do not want any one to misunderstand me or to think for a moment that I desire to do anything less than the Finance Minister in aiding these poor unfortunates in France.
I believe, Sir, that charity, while a good thing, ought to be reciprocal at all times. We all remember of the disaster here in Hull and Ottawa in 1899, when so many of our French Canadians were left absolutely destitute on the_ streets as a result of that fire. At that time various nations of the world came to our aid. I shall give a summary of the cash subscriptions that were sent from various sources to aid the Hull sufferers. They were as tollow's:
Received from Canada	$500,781	00Great Britain..	..	363,248	00British Colonies..	..	53,605	00"	United States..	..	33,505	00France	
1,036	00Chili	
4	86
I hope that the government will remember at this time the action of France at the

time of that disaster and reciprocate to the very fullest extent the kindly aid we received from the motherland of the ancestors of the people who were the sufferers from the disaster I spoke of.


William Stevens Fielding: My friend has laid down two principles, neither of which I entirely concur in. In the first place, in the sense in which he uses the words, I cannot agree with him that charity begins at home. It is particularly the business of the Dominion of Canada to attend to the giving of foreign charity if a case may be worthy of charity, but the government of Canada is not a body for distributing charity at home. We have organizations, provincial and municipal, for the granting of charity at home, and the fact that the Dominion government did not grant charity in any particular case where disaster has arisen at home would by no means be evidence that the Dominion parliament was lacking in liberality or had in any respect failed in its duty. We are the proper dispensers of charity for a foreign country if Canada desires to give such charity, but this parliament is not the proper dispensing body for charity at home.


Samuel Hughes: Are we to understand that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) is to apply to a foreign government for charity in his locality.


William Stevens Fielding: No; but I have such faith in the provincial and municipal organizations of Manitoba that I would say that with these provincial and municipal organizations, in 19 cases out of 20 there would be no need of any foreign charity assisting the people of that section. But if there be any exceptional and unusual case of need, then it is a question whether the Dominion parliament shall grant it. We have sometimes had embarrassing questions as to whether we should grant relief in the cases of fires in Canada, and I think on the last occasion when we were considering a grant of that kind, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) pointed out, and reasonably, that it was very difficult to lay down any principle upon w7hich we should aid funds of that kind from the Dominion treasury. However, if there should be anything of that kind exceptional and unusual, I have no doubt the parliament of Canada would respond.
My hon. friend's second thought was that charity should be reciprocal. 'And now abideth faith, hope and charity, but the greatest of these is charity.' It does not add that it must be reciprocal; charity must be voluntary in every case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not subscribe to the principle that charity begins at home
in such a case as this. There is but one idea that should animate the human breast in making gifts of this kind, it is that of humanity. A great calamity has happened, humanity is suffering, humanity is in need and I think that neither relationship, nationality or anything else should actuate us beyond the tie of human brotherhood that binds us to the human race. I think it should be given on that line and on that line alone.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not propose to say anything against the resolution introduced by the Minister of Finance. If there is suffering and want in Paris because of the unusual floods that have taken place, there, it is quite proper for the Dominion government to give out of its plenty something for the relief of those sufferers. But I wish to call the attention of the government to a case in my own county-not that I want to ask for any charity from the funds of the Dominion of Canada for the people in a portion of the county of Frontenac, but I want to asx for consideration of the rights of the people of the township of Bedford who suffer every year owing to floods caused by a certain government dam, known as the Wolf Lake dam. These people have had to meet the damages thus caused, and I think that this is a proper occasion to call the attention of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Railways, to this case.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask whether the Prime Minister has considered this question? This must be, unless there is a string to it, a severe jolt to the autonomy of which the government speak.


Wilfrid Laurier: I fail to see the joke.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It is not my intention to take any exception whatever to the grant of $50,000 to aid the sufferers in France; but it has occurred to me that possible we ought to learn some lessons from what has occurred in the old lands which may be useful to us in this country. If. the flood has been caused, as some suggest, by the meandering of the comet which has been roaming around the world for the last 70 or 80 years, of course we can take no action, we cannot defend ourselves. But it is alleged that the clearing away of the forests in the north of France, where the river takes its source, has largely been the cause of the flooding of the country. Rains were plentiful, and there was nothing to hold back the water. The natural forests had been cut away, the result being that the water came down with greater rapidity, and caused the overflow w'hich has brought about so much trouble. Now, in this country are we doing our part

to prevent an occurrence of that kind? Is it not a fact that we are not taking measures to prevent such a thing? I have no doubt that it is felt throughout the province of Ontario that the waters in the spring of the year come down much more rapidly from the unorganized districts to the lakes, and cause flooding, which would not take place if the forests were maintained. I think there is a lesson here for one of the commitees of the House which has to deal with the conservation of our natural resources. I have heard it said, and I presume correctly, that the reasons for the floods in France has been the cutting away of the forest around the sources of the river. If that is the case, I think there is a lesson for us, to take warning, because we might not find France and other countries so willing to come to our aid as we, in our good heart, propose to come to the aid of the people of France.
Prince Edward Island railway-branch line Harmony to Elmira, $150,000.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways).: This branch line wa3 undertaken two years ago. It is ten miles in length, and is estimated to cost $315,000. The House will remember that I gave the estimate off-hand at something like $400,-
000.


Adam Brown Crosby: Does this complete?


George Perry Graham: No. We have spent on it so far only $25,000, and we are asking $150,000 to spend this year.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might read some of the larger items, showing the rates upon which they moneyed out the different quantities.


George Perry Graham: Common excavation, including material, 17 cents; solid rock, $1.10; loose rock, 17 cents; foundation excavation in water, 70 cents; foundation in air and water, solid rock, $1.50.


George Eulas Foster: That would seem as though it would cost $135,000 the way they moneyed it out. Where does the minister get the difference between that and his estimate of $315,000.


George Perry Graham: I am giving the estimate of the engineer on the $315,000. He makes an estimate as to what it will cost, and that is the engineer's estimate. The contractor comes along, and he makes an estimate of $135,835, that is, for the quantities only in the contract. The other includes rails, clearing, close cutting and grubbing. $315,000 includes all these things.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister get it down to what is included in the contract or estimated for by the engineer and see how it moneys out? I want to see how near the engineer came to the contractor's price.


George Perry Graham: The estimate for the items in the contract as made by our own engineer is $139,506.40 and the tender is $135,835. The items estimated for the balance amount to $176,016.


Adam Brown Crosby: What is the gauge?


George Perry Graham: It is a narrow gauge.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the contract?


George Perry Graham: Whitehead Brothers, the lowest tenderers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be about $40,000 a mile for a narrow gauge railway.


George Perry Graham: I always like to be safe. The estimate given by the engineer is $315,126, considerably less than I mentioned last year. Tenders were asked for in the usual way, and these were received, at these amounts: $142,911; $175,219; $146,036; $148,811; $135,835. The latter was received from the Whitehead Brothers, who got the contract. It was awarded on schedule pricae. I am giving what they called the quantities moneyed out by the engineer. His estimate was $315,126.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the estimates of the quantities so far as they have gone?


George Perry Graham: The work is only starting, we have not yet much data of the quantity, and how it will work out.


David Henderson: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Progress estimates, I suppose, are paid upon the certificate of the resident engineer?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is the engineer in charge there?


George Perry Graham: Laurence is his name.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is he a Prince Edward Islander?


George Perry Graham: Yes, he is a Prince Edward Island man under Mr. McKenzie at Moncton.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to call the minister's attention to this fact that if, when these tenders had come in he had asked for the estimates in the office, he would not have to make them up here. Does the minister, when he is letting a contract, inquire what the engineer estimates the work to be worth?


George Perry Graham: Every detail is set out in the order in council, and I have it all in my hand.


George Eulas Foster: Does tire contract fix a time for the completion of the work?


George Perry Graham: The contract fixes a time, but, as in most, cases, the time under the contract is likely to be extended. We usually fix, approximately, the end of the year for which the vote is taken. This amount will not finish the work; the whole estimated cost is $315,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much has been paid to the contractors up to this time?


George Perry Graham: Engineering and everything else has cost $28,618, of which practically all but $1,000 has gone to the contractor.
Increased accommodation at Charlottetown, $79,320.


George Perry Graham: This finishes the work. The entire item is a re-vote. The amount to be spent is not so much as originally intimated.


George Eulas Foster: What is the work?


George Perry Graham: Additional sidings, new rails, stone-filling, concrete curb, new 20-stall engine house, and items of that character.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who has the contract for the engine house?


George Perry Graham: The contract was awarded to Clark & Morrison, the lowest tenderers for $44,400. The contract for the freight-sheds was awarded to Mr. Clark of Sum-merside, at $8,140; the turntable to the Canada Foundry Company.


Samuel Barker: Had there been a turntable there before?


George Perry Graham: Yes. It was removed to some other place and a new one put in.
Georgetown-engine-house at-$5,000.


George Perry Graham: This is absolutely new. There has not been an engine-house there up to this time.
National Transcontinental railway - surveys and construction, $27,000,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a vote for the Transcontinental Commission. The amount asked last year was $20,000,000. I laid a statement on the table the other day carrying every item of expenditure practically up to the end of the calendar year, 1909, and showing a total expenditure of something over $15,000,000. The statement showed also the amount of work that has been done on the eastern section this year, and the amount done up to date.


George Eulas Foster: How much was spent on surveys in 1909-10?


George Perry Graham: I laid on the table a duplicate of the statement I have now before me.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: We have not seen it. Of course, the minister must
know that we require a statement of the expenditure, and how it compares with the estimate, how much work is done, and how much remains to be done. We do not ask for details, but we do need totals of the several items.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend (Mr. John Haggart) would consult the copy of the report which I laid on the table, he would have the matter pretty well in hand.


John Graham Haggart: We have had no opportunity to look at it, even if we had seen it. It would be better to let the item stand, or, at least, some item on which we may be allowed a full discussion later on.


George Perry Graham: That is unreasonable. But this interim report is merely for the accommodation of members of the House. The report required of the commissioners by law is the annual report, and that I laid on the table almost the first day of the session.


John Graham Haggart: But of the work for nine months we have had no information whatever.


George Perry Graham: That is the way the matter' is left by the requirement of the law-[DOT] that the work done for the year ending March 31, shall be shown in the annual report. But, for the convenience of the House, I gave this interim report of which I have spoken, and I gave amounts also in the statement made in the House the other day.


John Graham Haggart: In that statement, the minister gave figures only for the fiscal year.


George Perry Graham: No, in many cases the statement was brought down to December 31, 1909, and in others to November 30.


George Eulas Foster: In the estimate now under discussion, there are two items-surveys and construction. How were they divided in last year's expenditure?


George Perry Graham: In engineering and supplies, $6,935.59. The rest went to construction.


George Eulas Foster: How much of the $20,000,000 has been spent?


George Perry Graham: Altogether $15,939,985.67.


John Graham Haggart: Did I understand the minister to say that the statement of expenditure for the nine months ending the 31st December, 1909, has been published?


George Perry Graham: No. The commissioners must make a report annually at the end of the fiscal year. I asked for an interim report, which would show what has been done for the nine months, but that is not published unless the House so orders.


John Graham Haggart: This is the first I have seen of this statement. I have not had an opportunity of looking at it.


George Perry Graham: I have been rushing to get all the information possible, and the reason I am bringing these estimates so early is that in the peculiar position in which I am placed, I want to get them through while my deputy is with me, for the new deputy would not know anything about them.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as that is concerned, this interim report is practically non-existent, because nobody can examine it for the purpose of making any criticism or any recommendation. No one would desire to embarrass the minister under the peculiar circumstances in which he is placed; but as a matter of fact, the construction of the Transcontinental Tailway is not especially under the charge of the deputy minister, but is under the commission appointed for that purpose; so I would not think that the absence of the deputy minister would make a great deal of difference in that regard. At all events, I think the item had- better stand for the present.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection. 1 placed a copy of this statement on the table oi the House.
Item allowed to stand.
Hudson Bay railway-to provide for the survey and location of a line of railway from the Saskatchewan river to the Hudson bay, $180,000.


George Perry Graham: This item is only to com. plete the location of the line. Although there is a difference of opinion as to the better harbour, the location of the line for 260 miles from the Pas to Split lake is a common location, no matter which harbour is selected. This item is for the location of the line up to this point. When that is done, we may possibly have the other question settled.


Mr.   I@: What are the proposals of the government with respect to construction? Is the railroad to be constructed by the department, or is it to be let by contract, or is a charter to be given to some private corporation?


George Perry Graham: I expect to bring down an item for construction in the supplementary estimates, when I hope to be able to give the information which my hon. friend asks for. A bridge is to be constructed across the Saskatchewan at the beginning of the line, which would have to be done whether the work were given.to a company or carried on by the government. It would not affect this item, which is merely for the survey and location of the line.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total cost of the survey? .


George Perry Graham: 


Mr. LENNOX.: Has the minister anything to tell us with reference to letting the contract to Mackenzie and Mann? It is stated in the press that the government is about to let the construction of this railroad to that firm, and that Mr. Mann was down here the day before yesterday. Perhaps the minister would tell us whether that is well founded or not, and how far the negotiations have gone.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Mann was down on some other business. He did not discuss this with me at all. We have no agreement with any one for the construction of this line. It is absolutely an open question, so far as I know.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Is it the intention to construct a portion of that line this year?


George Perry Graham: It is the intention of the government to start construction, and I hope to give more details when I ask for an appropriation for construction. A bridge might be constructed or a portion of the line, but whatever may be done will only be to save time and not delay the work. If the work be given to a company, whatever be done can be taken into consideration in any arrangement made.


Samuel Barker: I understood the hon. minister the other day to say that Mr. Armstrong had demonstrated that Nelson harbour was a very superior one. I do not find that to be the case. The remarks of Mr. Armstrong are not based on his own surveys, but on various reports issued by the Department of the Interior and on information supplied by Hudson Bay Company officers. If that i3 all there is in Mr. Armstrong's report, for which we are paying all this money, I am afraid we are not getting much in return.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Armstrong has made a report since the departmental report of March 31, 1909. He made a later report in a small volume which was laid on the table some weeks ago, and accompanying that report is a chart showing the soundings taken by Mr. Armstrong himself.


Mr. ROCHE.: Is it not a fact that the Canadian Northern has a line constructed as far as The Pas, and has not the government an idea of that company undertaking the construction of the road? If not why has the government selected The Pas as the starting point?


George Perry Graham: That seems to be the natural point at which to start. It is the nearest to the existing system and to Hudson bay, and the idea of the government was to make connections from the nearest point to Hudson bay.


Samuel Hughes: Any other system would have to go near it too.


George Perry Graham: The total spent on the survey is about $157,000. That will be to the end of the year.


John Graham Haggart: Does that include the vote you are getting this year?


George Perry Graham: No.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total
cost?


George Perry Graham: The amount this year and the amount already expended would be a little over $500,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is not that an enormous sum for the purpose of locating a road like that?


George Perry Graham: My deputy says it is very moderate. It is really an investigation during the last few years, instead of location. The country is pretty far from home.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That amount is all practically for preliminary surveys?


George Perry Graham: The $180,000 we are asking for location, and the $187,000 for preliminary surveys.


George Eulas Foster: Who has control of this, and who is responsible?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Armstrong is the engineer directed by the deputy minister, and the business management is under the deputy head of the department.


George Eulas Foster: Who makes the appointments?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Armstrong himself, and Mr. Butler together, selected the men for the different parties.


George Eulas Foster: Who buys the supplies?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Armstrong.


George Eulas Foster: How are they bought?


George Perry Graham: The great bulk are
bought from the Hudson Bay Company because that company has better facilities for delivery than any body else.


George Eulas Foster: What supervision is there as to accounts and prices?


George Perry Graham: Every account is checked by the chief engineer or some one under his charge.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any departmental audit?


George Perry Graham: Yes, there is a very careful departmental audit of everything. Mr. Bell is the head of our audit department, made so under our reorganization.


George Eulas Foster: Are none of the supplies purchased by tender?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that wherever practicable tenders were called for
and prices obtained from different parties and the lowest taken.
Quebec bridge construction, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that hon. gentlemen know a good deal about the situation of this bridge.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is it possible to state when the bridge will be completed?


George Perry Graham: I said the other day that I thought it would be at least four years from the time the contract was let. The contract cannot be let until next aut umn, and I am of the opinion that unless greater progress is made, and that is not likely while parliament is sitting, this $1,000,000 will be all we will be able to spend in the meantime.


John Graham Haggart: At what time does the contract call for the completion of the foundation piers?


George Perry Graham: One next fall and the other the year following. There are two piers which will be required whether it is a cantilever or a suspension bridge. Another will be required if it is a cantilever. This is included in the Davis contract, but the contract is so drawn that it can be struck out if it is not required.


George Eulas Foster: What if the old foundations are not being utilized?


George Perry Graham: One pier in its entirety. The foundation of a very large pier is being used on the south side but it will be enlarged. The old pier was 150 by 50 feet and the new one is to be 180 by 80 feet. They have taken it down to low water mark and are using the foundations and enlarging them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When does the minister expect to have Transcontinental railway trains running in Quebec? That is of great interest to the maritime provinces.


George Perry Graham: The railway from the east will be constructed before the bridge. I think it will be at least four years from the coming autumn before it is completed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What about the Transcontinental trains to Quebec?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that if it is found advisable a ferry can be established to carry quite a number of cars at that point. There is a car ferry now between Quebec and Levis, with provision on the boat to meet the rise and fall of the tide.


John Graham Haggart: Can the minister give details as to the estimated amount which will have to be expended on the bridge and its approaches?


George Perry Graham: The other day my hon. friend (Mr. J. Haggart) estimated that the bridge would cost between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000. That is money yet to be expended. My own opinion, without being absolutely tied to this figure, because everything is not completed to make a full estimate on, is that my hon. friend was perhaps $1,000,000 under the right amount, that we will have to spend $11,000,000.


Samuel Barker: Not including what you have paid to the Quebec .Bridge Company.


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to understand the situation with regard to the piers. I understand that the superstructure of the bridge gave way from some defect in design and was precipitated into the water and remains there. I was not aware until the minister made his statement a few days ago, that there was anything wrong with the piers.


George Perry Graham: No, there is absolutely nothing.


Robert Laird Borden: Then why have they to be increased or strengthened?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend struck it in his opening remarks. The piers of the old bridge were too light. The new structure will be nearly twice as heavy as the old one, and the piers have to be enlarged to meet the new design.


Robert Laird Borden: It amounts to this, that the piers were quite sufficient for a bridge which would fall down, but they are not sufficient for a bridge which is to be permanent. The design of the piers was wrong, because the design of the superstructure was wrong.


Adam Brown Crosby: We are very much interested in the east in the construction of this bridge. The minister says it will take about four years to complete it. Is it the intention of the railway to facilitate transportation in any way by means of a ferry across the St. Lawrence? Do the government propose to help us out in that particular, and is it not possible to press the work along and bring it to a conclusion within four years?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that I am very careful in what I say. While we want the bridge done as rapidly as possible, a structure of this magnitude must be done very carefully. I think there is brought to bear on it as fine a quality of engineering skill as there is in the world. These men will only go so far as they can feel their way at every inch, because it is something new, nothing like it has ever been undertaken.


John Graham Haggart: 


John Graham Haggart: Is it a suspension or a cantilever bridge?


George Perry Graham: This design is a cantilever. I had hoped to go to Quebec and look over that ferry, as they use it now. But my experience of the Intercolonial convinces me that we cannot hope to carry traffic by a ferry as well as a bridge. Bu't it will do until the bridge is constructed-


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has not answered the question I put, as to when he expects Transcontinental trains to be running from the west to Quebec.


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position to answer that. My hon. friend asked me when I expected trains to be running from the east into Quebec in connection with the bridge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, I said trains running from the west to Quebec, or from Quebec to the west, because this bridge is a very important link in the system' upon which the eastern provinces are depending. If, in the meantime, traffic is going to be carried by the Grand Trunk to Portland, Maine, and it gets settled in that channel, it will be very difficult to get it back to the maritime ports.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say when the Transcontinental would be running into Quebec. We are making fair progress with the construction. But I would not care to express an opinion, because I cannot do so upon any authority.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will it be before the completion of this bridge?


George Perry Graham: I imagine it will.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is that road liaulipg wheat now from Winnipeg to Port Arthur?


George Perry Graham: I think not. Mr. Gordon Grant informs me that, except for speed of the trains, which, of course, is of great importance in the present transportation problem, they are using the road now, and any ordinary traffic could be carried over that line now. His recent report to me is that it will be practically complete and ready to carry wheat almost in another year. But trains can be run, and the contractors have offered to run a train a week over that line at 25 miles an hour, with safety.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The minister stated about the middle of November that wheat was being hauled over that road. I would like to know to what extent. I put a question on the order paper, and I was told that ten carloads had been hauled. I presume there have been none hauled since.


George Perry Graham: I gave the answer as received from the engineer. But I think they are not yet doing a regular traffic business on the road. Of course it will only be run

as the contractors run it, and they have offered to put on trains, but I understand there is some difficulty in coming to an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Richard Blain: Who is responsible for the insufficient piers and the light superstructure of the Quebec bridge, to which my hon. friend has been making some reference this afternoon? We were told when this scheme was first launched that the government were engaging the very best engineers. They had before them all the construction work of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the weight of rails, the kind of engines that were to be run upon the road, the kind of cars that were to be used, capable of carrying the heaviest freight. But with all that before them, the engineers of the government planned an insufficient bridge. Surely there must have been some great blunder on the part of some person. While I am not going to censure the minister, because he was not in the department at that time, somebody certainly is responsible for that blunder. I think it is fair now that the minister should say who was responsible, so that the country may know where to place the blame.


George Perry Graham: It might take the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to decide that question. There was a very long report made, largely technical, in regard to the fall of that bridge. It was planned by a gentleman who was supposed to be the best bridge expert on this continent, if not in the world. There is no question that some one bungled, because the bridge went down. A royal commission investigated it thoroughly, and brought in an exhaustive report, but it is so technical that I would prefer that my hon. friend would read it for himself. It is difficult to say where all the responsibility lies. In engaging an expert so eminent, the government supposed it was protecting itself and the country as well as it could. However, the bridge has fallen down. It-is a great calamity, but it strikes me as a layman that this bridge was beyond the calculations or the principles that any engineers had yet attempted to apply to bridge construction.


Richard Blain: Has any of the superstructure that fell down been taken out of the water?


George Perry Graham: There is a contract let for removing it as far as may be necessary. I think none of it has been removed yet, but they are working at it now. I went out on the fallen bridge or on the debris lying in the water, as far as they would allow me, and the material appeared to me almost perfect as far as the material itself was concerned. The steel was not broken; it was twisted. A gentleman who was with me and who claimed to know something about it, in passing his judgment, said that
the quality of material in the bridge was as good as it could be.


Richard Blain: Who was responsible for the lives that were lost?


George Perry Graham: The Phoenix Bridge Company settled the damages for the loss of life.


Richard Blain: Did it cost the government any money?


George Perry Graham: We have never paid anything in that respect.


Richard Blain: No claim against the government?


George Perry Graham: There has none been made. Occasionally I had some letters, but the Phoenix Bridge Company settled all claims that were made.


John Graham Haggart: But if they settled the claim the government took over all their responsibilities?


George Perry Graham: We took over the Quebec Bridge Company but not the responsibilities of the Phoenix Bridge Company. The Phoenix Bridge Company were the contractors really.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that for the lives that were lost no responsibility rested upon the government and no money was paid by the government?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: How much money had the Phoenix Bridge Company been paid by the government?


George Perry Graham: The Quebec Bridge Company paid them.


Samuel Hughes: But we paid the Quebec Bridge Company.


George Perry Graham: The Quebec Bridge Company paid them something over $3,000,000 which we afterwards took over as a liability of the Quebec Bridge Company.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know where the responsibility is ultimately to be found. This, as the minister very truly says, was a gigantic undertaking, therefore, it should have been preceded by precautions as great as were necessary in respect of any such engineering project. But, the situation was this, as far as I understand it, that the government, although practically financing the whole work, left all the contracts to be made by the Quebec Bridge Company, a corporation with a very small capital and utterly unable to proceed with the enterprise without the aid of the country. Eventually the government is obliged to take over the enterprise and in doing so it is sufficiently generous with the people's money to hand back to these gentlemen all

the money they had put into the enterprise together with directors' fees and a ten per cent bonus on the stock.


Haughton Lennox: With interest.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) informs me that I have omitted one item and that I should have included the item of interest which was also allowed to these gentlemen. In the course of these proceedings they had made a contract with some person for the construction of the bridge, and some person must be responsible for the defective , design. The fact that there was a defect in the design, represents, I suppose, $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 to this country, and I think it might be a very legitimate inquiry by the people's representatives in parliament as to whether or not there is some remedy to the people in respect of the undoubted defects which did exist in the design. If the Quebec Bridge Company had proceeded with ordinary business precaution and prudence, they would have had a contract under which some remedy might have been asserted if the design or the execution of the work proved defective, and they should have had that contract with some company which would be responsible in damages to the Quebec Bridge Company and through them to the people of this country for any loss which might be occasioned by reason of a defect either in the design or the carrying out the design. I would like to know exactly what the position is in that regard. I would like to know whether the government have suffered this project to proceed under such conditions that $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 of the public money of this country is represented only by a mass of twisted steel in the bottom of the St. Lawrence river, under such conditions that we have absolutely no remedy at all against any person, or body corporate, or company, for one single dollar of the moneys which had been lost. I think the minister ought to give a very clear and lucid statement of what the situation is in that regard.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has outlined the history of the case pretty accurately. There was in the contract a clause providing for penalties in case of failure, but one regrettable part of it is that it is not so easy to enforce these penalties under the conditions as they exist. The Phoenix Bridge Company is not the original Phoenix Bridge Company that is worth such a large amount of money. The Phoenix Bridge Company is capitalized at $50,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is that paid up? .


George Perry Graham: I am not sure. It is a limited liability company.


Richard Blain: Was it created for the purpose of constructing this bridge?


Robert Laird Borden: 


George Perry Graham: My own opinion is that it was created for the work of the construction of bridges. It seems to be the practice of these large companies on the other side to organize subsidiary companies for certain work. I admit that when I came to Ottawa, I thought at first blush that we were dealing with the big strong Phoenix Iron Company, which is a rich company, but when I got a little further along I found we were dealing with the Phoenix Bridge Company, which is only a subsidiary company with a capitalization of $50,-OCO.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there any security put up by the Quebec Bridge Company to the government for the fulfilment of the contract?


George Perry Graham: There was a $100,000 bond givep on behalf of the Quebec Bridge Company by a regular corporation. An attempt was made to realize on that bond, but up to date if I am correctly informed it has not been successful. Negotiations are proceeding between the Department of Justice and the company, but the company claim that they were not informed before the expiration of the time when such notice should be given under the terms of the bond.


George Eulas Foster: Who was responsible for the information being given?


George Perry Graham: It would be the Quebec Bridge Company, I would think.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The $100,000 is lost.


George Perry Graham: I have not given up all hope of getting it yet. It is in the hands of the Justice Department. We have from the Phoenix Bridge Company a drawback of, I think, $100,000, and there is a lot of scrap metal. I have had for some weeks negotiations through the Justice Department with the Phoenix Bridge Company. But I may say to the committee frankly that, with a capital of $50,000, I have no great hopes that I can collect any great amount of money from the Phoenix Bridge Company, even if we have a case, and, of course, there is always danger in a lawsuit of being thrown out on some technicality.


George Eulas Foster: Is this an American company?


George Perry Graham: Yes. It is a company that has done splendid work. If I had work of my own to do, and could get security of any fair value from them, I would expect to get as good a quality of work from them as from any other concern on the continent -or any other continent.


George Eulas Foster: That is the Phoenix Iron Company?


George Perry Graham: The Phoenix Bridge Company, I undersand, has done good

work also. I have recommendations from engineers showing that they have done splendid work.


Samuel Barker: I think the minister ought to have gone a little further in his description of the way this contract was entered into. He knows that it was entered into with the Quebec Bridge Company, composed of some lawyers and merchants in Quebec who had this charter. They	were	utterly bankrupt as	a	company; but,	just before the end of along session preceding a general election.	they	came forward with	a	contract made with this small Phoenix Bridge Compuny for the construction of a bridge satisfactory to these lawyers and merchants of Quebec. Absolutely no care was	taken	by the government	to	see
that the plans were what they ought to be. The engineer of the Quebec Bridge Company was a very respectable engineer, who had been employed upon the railways of the country, but who, probably, had never been engaged in the construction of a bridge of over two hundred feet-a very respectable gentleman; I know him; but a man utterly inexperienced in this sort of work. In the railway offices they had a very good man on the staff who declined to say that he was responsible for what was done. Within three days of the closing of a long session, the government rushed through an agreement with the Quebec Bridge Company, guiaranteing over $6,000,000 of expenditure that that company had undertaken.


Mr. OR AH  AM@: In what year was that?


Samuel Barker: In 1903, I think. The government brought in a Bill to validate that agreement, land, within the last three days of the session they rushed it through the House of Commons and the Senate, and it became law. The next thing we heard of it particularly was that the bridge was in the river.


Robert Laird Borden: It does seem to me that this is the most extraordinary tale of negligence in the management of public affairs that the history of this country can show.


George Eulas Foster: Or any country.


Robert Laird Borden: I am perfectly willing to amend it,-this is the most remarkable instance of negligence in the conduct of puiblic affairs that any country has ever known. The mere recital of the circumstances, without any comment at all, is enough to stagger one. The minister has pointed out that this was an undertaking which was almost beyond the limits of engineering skill at that time. The government must have known as well then as they know it now.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the engineers knew it.


Robert Laird Borden: At all events, it was perfectly apparent to the government, the engineers and every one else, that it was a tremendous undertaking. In the first place, they hand over the control and management of that undertaking, they hand over charge of the construction, to a company which practically puts no capital into the enterprise. They exercise no care with respect to the contract; they do not even see that the contract is made with responsible persons or that any adequate security for carrying out the contract is given, by the persons who undertake the work. The work goes on. It is work that requires the very highest order of engineering skill. In the end the whole thing falls into the river. The only thing left for the government to do is to pay off the Quebec Bridge Company, take over their liabilities-not to receive their assets, - because they have no assets of any account-and to proceed with the construction of this work under greater disadvantages than would have affected the undertaking if the Quebec Bridge Company had never intervened at all. The simple statement of the fact that $5,000,000 or $6,000,001) of the money of the people of this country has been spent without any adequate supervision or precaution and is represented solely by the superstructure of this bridge lying at the bottom of the river, with probably no remedy against the Quebec Bridge Company or the Phoenix Bridge Company or any one else, is sufficient without any comment at all. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) is wise in not attempting to make any defence of it. Even he, with all his ability and ingenuity, could not make any defence -no man could make any defence of such a transaction. And it does seem to me that the government, in this particular instance above all others, has shown the most remarkable and unheard of disregard of the public interest and more complete negligence than could possibly have been imagined.


Haughton Lennox: And I would like to bring to the attention of the committee, on this point, the actual figures in connection with this matter. My leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) has referred to the extraordinary negligence of the government as regards proper precautions to see that a proper structure should be erected and proper engineering skill employed-to see, in fact, that such measures were taken as would have prevented this deplorable los3 of money and, worse by far, this deplorable loss of life. In this connection, it might be a little interesting to note for a moment how generous the government is after the event. A month or two ago, I

got the information from the government, and I will give it as it is returned. The total that we have paid to the end of the last financial year in connection with the taking over of this work is $6,424,728, according to the Auditor General's Report. I asked certain questions and the answers were very significant. A large proportion of the money shown to have been spent was utterly unjustifiable expenditure, as I submit. I will read the answer after each question. And I wish, by the way, that the government could arrange to have each answer as it appears in 'Hansard' put immediately after the question to which it relates.


George Perry Graham: The answer is always given after each question.


Haughton Lennox: I mean that it would be well if they could appear in that wqy. I do not want, in saying this, to get into any quarrel with the 'Hansard' reporters, because they do their work exceedingly well. I asked:
1.	In the total sum of $6,424,718 paid by the government to, or for, the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company during the financial year ending 31st March, 1909, were the following items and sums included and paid, namely:- Interest to the Bank of Montreal on
various amounts advanced to the
company	
$889,687	81Interest to shareholders in company	
65,209	07Bonuses to shareholders in company	
26,370	00Making a	total for these items of.. $981,266 88
The answer to that given by Mr. Fielding was very concise: 'Yes'. Then I asked:
2.	What was the rate of interest paid to the bank ?
The answer was:
2.	5 per cent was the rate of interest payable to the Bank of Montreal by the Quebec Bridge Railway Company upon advances made to the company.
The next question was:
3.	Was the interest to be paid by the company to the bank in arrears at the time the government assumed payment of the account?
The answer is: 'Yes', emphasizing the fact that has been referred to frequently, that this was a paper company only, and that when we took over the account we had to pay the arrears of interest which these gentlemen had allowed to accumulate during the time they were nominally building this great national work, and drawing their salaries. I next asked:
4.	Did the bank claim to be entitled to be paid the sum $75,673.18 or any sum, as interest on accrued interest, and did the government pay the sum of $75,673.18, or any sum, to the bank as interest upon accrued interest, or compound interest?


Haughton Lennox: The answer to that is:
4.	Interest on such advances fell due half yearly, and when unpaid carried interest at the same rate as the principal. The government, in taking over the undertaking paid the Bank of Montreal the sum of $75,672.58 on this account.


['The answer to that is:\n4.\tInterest on such advances fell due half yearly, and when unpaid carried interest at the same rate as the principal. The government, in taking over the undertaking paid the Bank of Montreal the sum of $75,672.58 on this account.']
Hon.  S. N.@: Parent received interest, $2,600, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $7,000 capital stock owned by him, and Mr. M. P. Davis received interest, $8,411, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $94,900 capital stock owned by him, in accordance with such agreement.


['Parent received interest, $2,600, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $7,000 capital stock owned by him, and Mr. M. P. Davis received interest, $8,411, and a bonus of 10 per cent on $94,900 capital stock owned by him, in accordance with such agreement.']
Samuel Barker: I want to say one word more. We paid the interest and bonuses that have been allowed by the government upon the payments into the company by the shareholders. Now, the government, when they allowed that, had the evidence in their hands that the money that was supposed to have been paid into that company by these shareholders was nearly altogether not cash, but direc-

tors' fees for attending meetings. You paid interest on the directors' fees and a bonus, and that was known to the government.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to use nickel steel in the superstructure of the new bridge?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that it is, so far as it is possible to use it, in the compression members and in the principal cords.


Richard Blain: The minister has stated that when he came to Ottawa to take his new position as Minister of Railways, he understood that the government had a contract with this strong financial company, the Phoenix, and that if we had any difficulty with that company we would get some redress. My hon. friend has had a very large experience in politics. He was a very prominent member of the Legislature of Ontario and in the government.


George Perry Graham: Not very long.


Richard Blain: That was a matter left in the hands of the electors of the province.


George Perry Graham: They did not act very well that time.


Richard Blain: However, that is another matter. I want to congratulate the government on their ability to put through a scheme of this kind while leading my hon. friend, a very prominent supporter in the province of Ontario, to believe, until he became a member, of the government that they had a contract with this strong company. When he came here and made an investigation he found that the contract was only with a very weak company. With that confession from my hon. friend, surely no one will wonder that the ordinary elector should be deceived. My hon. friend was a student of Dominion as well as provincial politics; he has taken part in all these discussions; and yet it was only after he came here and made investigation that he found that the contract to build this structure, costing many millions of dollars, was given not to a strong company, but to a very weak company. All I can say is that I compliment the government on their ability to deceive the conntry.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was in the House all the time with these documents under his eyes, and he will not take refuge now under the plea that he did not know it was a weak company.


Richard Blain: It was like the North Atlantic Trading Company.


George Perry Graham: I was merely an out sider, an ordinary elector, whereas my hen. fnend was here all the time.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that even the minister did not discover it until after the bridge fell down.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is the bridge fell down the night before the hon. gentleman referred to became minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any connection between the two events?


George Perry Graham: Nobody would be sufficiently cruel to say so.


George Eulas Foster: Did the minister say that the_ road between Winnipeg and Lake Superior Junction was not regularly running?


George Perry Graham: There is no regular traffic over it. The engineers say that the contractor offered to put on a certain service. It 'would have to be run as a contractor's service until taken over.


George Eulas Foster: I want to call attention to what is certainly a grave abuse-the putting of a misrepresentation into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General in the speech from the Throne. Here is what His Excellency was made to say:
The construction of the Transcontinental railway has made substantial advance during the year. The western division has been extended 66 miles beyond Edmonton, completing a total distance of 861 miles west of Winnipeg. Contracts have been let for 399 miles in the Mountain division; good progress was made on this work. The eastern division is now open for traffic from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction and thence, by the Grand Trunk Pacific branch, to the lake itself. The whole of the work between Winnipeg and Moncton is now under contract.
If that conveys any meaning at all, it is an announcement that the road from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction is open for traffic, whereas in reality it is not finished or opened for traffic. That was certainly a grave abuse, and the right hon. the Prime Minister went far beyond what he should have done when he made that statement and made the Governor General responsible for it. We have just found out, some three or four months later, that it was simply a piece of deceit.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the government a contract for the removal of the scrap from the river, and what is the nature of the contract?


George Perry Graham: A contract has been let, after asking for tenders, for $45,000, and the debris taken out belongs to the contractor.


Samuel Barker: He gets $45,000 and the stuff taken out?


George Perry Graham: Yes
REVISED EDtTinX.


George Eulas Foster: Was the debris in the way of navigation?


George Perry Graham: Some of it had to be removed on account of navigation and some on account of the construction of new piers.


George Eulas Foster: There are now four piers, two on land and two in the river. Do these occupy the same positions as the old ones?


George Perry Graham: The south pier occupies the same position, but is enlarged. The main pier on the north side is shifted.


George Eulas Foster: The pier on the south side war partly useful; that on the north side was absolutely useless. What was the cost of the one on the north side?


George Perry Graham: I have not got that.


George Eulas Foster: Do the two in the river itself occupy the same positions?


George Perry Graham: I am talking about the two in the river.


George Eulas Foster: Then the two on land, are they in the same position as the old ones?


George Perry Graham: The two anchor piers have to be taken down.


George Eulas Foster: The old piers then were useless and had to be removed?


George Perry Graham: They have to be taken down. They will not fit into the new plan.


Samuel Hughes: Part of the bridge did not fall. Will that part be used?


George Perry Graham: It will have to be taken down. The material may be used for another purpose.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the board of engineers to be employed until the completion of the bridge?


George Perry Graham: Yes, they are engaged, until the bridge is completed, and they are responsible for the engineering department until then. [DOT]	[DOT]


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is their remuneration?	1


George Perry Graham: $1,000 per month while employed, and a less amount as consulting engineers. During the construction perhaps two may remain as consulting engineers. The engineer who is permanent will, be paid $1,000 a month.


Samuel Barker: I understood the minister to say there had been a board of three engineers appointed, and the government called in two others to confer with them, and that the whole five had agreed in what should be done.


George Perry Graham: I do not think I exactly said that.


Samuel Barker: What will the minister say now, because it is important to know Mr. GRAHAM.
whether there are any differences of opinion?


George Perry Graham: i My hon. friend, as a practical man, will know that you cannot get two engineers or two architects in the building of a house to absolutely agree on all the details. When the board was appointed, it was provided that should they disagree, they would have the power to call in two other men to confer with them. They have all agreed on the substructure. As to the superstructure, on the great principles they are agreed, but on some details they disagree, and they have the power to call in two other experts to confer with them. If it came to an absolute disagreement, I suppose the majority would rule.


Samuel Barker: I understood the minister to say the other day that there was practical agreement of the three.


George Perry Graham: On the substructure there was.


Samuel Barker: Only on the substructure? Is there disagreement on the bridge itself?


George Perry Graham: The board are working away. They had differences, these two men were called in, they have given their ideas and the reasons for them. It is likely before they get through that they will absolutely agree on all these things.


Samuel Barker: They have not agreed yet?


George Perry Graham: Not on every thing in connection with the superstructure.


Mr. MONK.: It is rumoured in Montreal that there is an absolute disagreement among the three engineers in regard to the superstructure and for that reason these two additional engineers, Mr. Holgate and another, were called in. Is that the case?


George Perry Graham: If the three had agreed, there would be no need to call in the other two, but they did not agree. I may say frankly it has been no easy task to get along with these three prominent engineers. Of course their reputations depend on their making a success of this bridge. If they make a failure of it, they are ruined professionally. They understand that, they hold very strong views along certain lines, they expressed them strongly and when they first met they were quite a way apart. Each belonged to a particular school, and we have been trying to get the result of the skill of each of them.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the hon. minister will say that is what the government ought to have done in the first instance.


George Perry Graham: That is what I am doing.


John Graham Haggart: Why does the minister not have the whole brid.ee constructed of nickel steel? It would be less

work and require no painting. The model modern bridge is the nickel steel one.


George Perry Graham: I am informed, not altogether. There are certain portions of the bridge in which it is of no advantage to have nickel steel, but where it will be any advantage nickel steel will be used in its construction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The minister says there is still not absolute harmony on all details. What we understood in Montreal was that a part of the commission wanted a suspension bridge and another part a cantilever bridge.


George Perry Graham: The difference does not exists there. We arepreparingplans for both. The difference is rather on details of construction which I would not dare to attempt to explain, but I think there will be no difficulty as to disagreements as we proceed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have tenders been invited for the superstructure?


George Perry Graham: Intending tenders have been invited to examine the plans as far as they have gone and to study the plans and specifications for both cantilever and suspension designs. After so many months, in which they will have a chance to study these plans as they go along, we will give them a certain length of time in which to put in their actual tenders.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To whom was the contract for removing the fallen superstructure given?


George Perry Graham: Charles Koenig, of Quebec.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that there will be no action or responsibility on the part of this government towards the widows and orphans who suffered in this disaster?


George Perry Graham: I could not say what will happen in the future about any thing. The Phoenix Bridge Company, I understand, assume all responsibility and have settled the claims against them for loss through this great calamity.


Richard Blain: Are there any threatened suits against the government?


George Perry Graham: I have not heard of any.


Richard Blain: In looking over the debate I see that the Finance Minister said that this bridge would be ready complete in December, 1906.


William Stevens Fielding: I was not informed then that it was going to fall.


Richard Blain: Neither was the opposition, because we had my hon. friend's statement that the very best engineers would be en-
98J	!
gaged, the greatest caution would be exercised, my hon. friend would deal with this matter as if dealing with his own affairs. Instead of that we find now that the minister himself says:	Of course the superstructure was altogether too light and insufficient for the work and as for the abutments, they ^have to be added to and strengthened. When we keep in mind the fact that there is no change on the National Transcontinental railway in respect to weight of engines or traffic, we come to the conclusion that my hon. friend and his government blundered and the people of the country are of the same opinion.


William Stevens Fielding: If you can conceive of such a transaction as that being my own, I could not have dealt with it in a different way. We had the most eminent bridge engineer on the American continent dealing with the matter, I do not know where a better one could be obtained.


Richard Blain: Have you a better one now?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot say.


Samuel Barker: You had a gentleman from New York, Mr. Cooper, to give advice.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Cooper was chosen as the engineer to have direction and charge of the whole work. But there was no question at that time as to his capacity or his eminence.	.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was proved at the enquiry held in the first instance bv a committee of the House of Commons that when the plans were finally prepared they were sent in for the government's approval, and Mr. Collingwood Schreiber obtained authority from the government to have the plans examined by an American expert. He sought out that American expert, the construction company heard of it, and they protested that they would not allow the work that had been performed in the way of plans and specifications by Mr. Cooper, who^ was their engineer, to be supervised by anybody else. That was abundantly proved in the investigation, and the correspondence is in evidence in both committees of this house. Then the Prime Minister said t,hat if Mr. Cooper had approved of the plans it- would not be necessary to go any further. So there was really no government examination of the plans, and they were approved under those circumstances. Those are the uncontroverted facts.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not admit they are uncontroverted facts. I regret that I am obliged to speak from memory, to some extent, on a question of-this importance; but my recollection is that Mr. Cooper

was chosen by the bridge company as their engineer, and when it was proposed that there should be another engineer chosen to represent the Department of Railways and Canals, Mr. Cooper objected; and then Mr. Schreiber gave us the advice^ that, inasmuch as the interests of the bridge company and the interests of the government were the same, the opposing interests being those of the construction company, there was nothing to be gained by undertaking to put another engineer there _ as against Mr. Cooper, who was representing the bridge company. But when Mr. Cooper objected to being associated with some other engineer, Mr. Schreiber said: Mt. Cooper is a most eminent engineer, and his interests as representing the bridge company are not at variance with the interests of the government. And I think Mr. Schreiber advised that the matter should be left in Mr. Cooper's hands. I believe the papers will show that to be the fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend is absolutely wrong. It is true that Mr. Cooper was the advising engineer of the bridge company. But who suggested Mr. Cooper to the bridge company? It was the construction company itself, the Phoenix Construction Company. At any rate, the government had nothing else to do, when the plans were sent in for final approbation, than to rely upon those plans after approval by its own engineer. This Mr. Schreiber would not undertake to do. He was called upon to approve of the plans, and he represented to the government that he had not the expert knowledge, the latest expert knowledge as a bridge builder which was necessary to enable him to pass upon so important a matter. When we voted the last sum of money to the bridge company we insisted and the government gave us an assurance, that there would be competent examination by an independent authority. Mr. Schreiber then suggested to the government that he be allowed to employ an expert, and the name of the expert whom he recommended is given in the evidence. Mr. Schreiber had correspondence with that gentleman, who, I think, was from Philadelphia, at any rate he was a man of equal reputation to that of Mr. Cooper. When the company became aware that their plans were going to be examined by an independent authority, they came here and made representations and succeeded in defeating the intentions of the government of having this expert from the United States examine the plans. The Prime Minister himself told Mr. Schreiber, what the Finance Minister has just said, that Mr. Cooper was a perfectly competent man, and if he had found no fault with the plans, then he might affix his signature to those Mr. FIELDING.
plans. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and myself were sitting on that committee, and we obtained from Mr. Holgate, one of the Royal Commissioners w'ho had conducted the first inquiry, the *assurance that the examination by an expert would have allowed them to see what escaped Mr. Cooper, that is to say, a defect in the construction. Mr. Holgate found at once that any independent expert would have detected that defect.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's remarks imply that the government and the company were at variance with the recommendations of their chief engineer, Mr. Schreiber. Am I right in saying that he meant to convey that impression?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I state unhesitatingly that in that respect my hon. friend is wrong. I say that no step was taken regarding the engineering matters in connection with that enterprise without the cordial approval and support of Mr. Schreiber; and no other engineer was called in to be associated with Mr. Cooper, it was because Mr. Schreiber himself advised that such was not necessary.


Samuel Barker: Have you got his written advice?


William Stevens Fielding: I am speaking entirely from memory, but I venture to say that Mr. Schreiber will confirm that statement. I was for a short time in the Railway Department, during a portion of the period these negotiations were going on, and I would not have dreamed of taking any step in relation to a work of so great importance, without Mr. Schreiber's advice. I know that Mr. Schreiber was of the opinion that we w'ere getting the best available advice, and that nothing would he gained by insisting on another engineer. I am sure that Mr. Schreiber will say that that is a correct account of what occurred.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a question of memory. But I will endeavour to get the absolute proof of what I am saying.


Richard Blain: We have been endeavouring to ascertain from the Minister of Railways who was responsible for this blunder.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend might ask who is responsible for any great disaster which occurred. It is easy to find fault afterwards. He might ask who was responsible for the falling of the Tay bridge, who is responsible for the loss of life on the Canadian Pacific railway a few days ago. These things occur in the ordinary way in the management of a great public corporation. Whenever they happen in great corporations little comment is made; but when an accident happens upon

a government work we have 200 odd critics in the House of Commons finding fault which is sometimes unreasonable.
reasonable enough to give the government credit for having taken every precaution in the matter.


Richard Blain: I am not trying to hold the government responsible altogether for the accident. But we ou this side have been contending this afternoon that the government were aware that this was a very important work. My hon. friend himself is fully aware that the government was responsible altogether for the payment of money, and for guaranteeing the bonds, because the Finance Minister himself had charge of it in 1903, and came down with a statement in 1904 for the guaranteeing of the bonds. I am not holding the government responsible for the accident. This side of the House has never made any severe criticism of the government on that point. But we are now asking the government, who is responsible for the design of a bridge that was absolutely insufficient for the work for which it was intended? That is the position. It was insufficient, the design was altogether wrong, and that is the reason why this country is put to such enormous expense, and I suppose that is the reason why the bridge fell into the river. As a proof of that we find the government now coming forward and making the statement that the superstructure was altogether insufficient. They have now prepared for a very much stronger and heavier superstructure. 1 would point out to the Minister of Finance that had there been a change in the Grand Trunk Pacific by which larger and heavier engines and trains were to go over this bridge, that would have been one reason why there should be a heavier superstructure. But, there was no change in that respect and therefore, my hon. "friend and his government must be and are held responsible for this accident in so far as that is concerned. The minister can say that the responsibility rests with the engineer if he wishes. That may be his statement, but the people of the country and we of the opposition must seek our redress as against the government.


William Stevens Fielding: I entirely disagree with my hon. friend as to what the people of the country think on this subject. I do not believe that the people of the country expect the members of this government to be engineers. What they do expect is that in a great engineering matter they shall select good professional advice and if it turns out that the engineer made a mistake and if an accident happens on government work, which is just as likely as on any other great work, I suppose that is proof that the eminent engineer was wrong in his judgment. But if the government selected the best engineer that could be found I think the people of the country are


Robert Laird Borden: He had never seen the work.


William Stevens Fielding: If so, that does not necessarily prove anything.


Robert Laird Borden: He was never on it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that that is correct.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Merchants and General Insurance Company. Mr. Monk.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 92) respecting a patent of the Mond Nickel Company, Limited.-Mr. McGiverin.
On section 1,	-
Richard Blain: What is the explanation of this?


George Perry Graham: This Bill has been reported without amendment by the committee. I do not know the Bill myself.


Richard Blain: Is the promoter in the Chamber?


Mr. PARDEE.: The promoter is, unfortunately, absent. But the fact that the Bill is reported without amendment indicates, that the committee was satisfied.
Bill reported.


George Perry Graham: The next items on the Order Paper are Bills to be considered in Committee of the Whole. But they have been amended by the several standing committees that dealt with them. They are not railway Bills, or I would be ready to go on with them. But, as I do not know the nature of the 'amendments, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company. Mr. Turriff.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr Girard.
Bill (No. 129) to incorporate the Ontario and Ottawa Railway Comnany.-Mr. Low.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Vancouver Island and Eastern Railway Company.- Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).	[DOT] .

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Collection of revenue-Intercolonial railway. $9,060,000.
['On Tuesday.']
Samuel Barker: I wish to say that some hon. gentlemen who were not present this afternoon wish to discuss some items which are covered by the general summary then before the committee, and would like to have an understanding with the minister that this will be open to them. It will not be a matter of detail requiring the presence of the Deputy Minister, but they would like to have left open for further discussion the items of the Intercolonial railway and the Quebec bridge.


George Perry Graham: I will not object. With regard to this item, hon. gentlemen will notice that we are asking for $250,000 less this year than we asked for last year.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like to have an explanation from the minister as to how he has made this reduction-whether it is by cutting down the number of regular hands or otherwise. As a matter of fact, a great many men have been laid off, particularly in the city. of Halifax and its vicinity. I also understand that a number [DOT]of high class men have been engaged at large salaries. I would like to have some idea of how this saving is made.


George Perry Graham: There has been a general reduction all round. The amount we ask for is based on the experience of the past year; in fact, we think we shall hardly reach an expenditure of $9,000,000 this year, which has been an especially good one for *operation during the winter. Next year, of course, something extraordinary might happen, and we might have a deficit. I will give my hon. friend some items showing how the expenses were cut down last year: steam locomotive repairs, $114,242; passenger car repairs, $1,903; freight car repairs, $114,643; floating equipment repairs, $3,999; shop machinery and tools, $10,566; heating and lighting, $6,493; traffic expenses, $9,637; dispatching trains, $11,882; and various other items of this kind. We did dispense with the services of a large number of men. Quite a number have been taken back, as vacancies occur, and I am asking that the old employees be taken back to fill them.


George Perry Graham: 


Samuel Barker: I quite appreciate, from some personal experience, how impossible it is for the head-of a railway system of some 1,400 miles to put down approximately, as he can do in capital expenditure, what his working expenses will be for the coming twelve months. It is a variable item, and must depend not merely on the number of men employed, and the rate of wages paid, but also on the amount of business done. I desire here to express my great gratification at the departure which has been made by the government from the practice of the past. We have had. year after year, the painful experience of seeing a great public work managed politically. On our side, regardless of whether we should be in power, we desire that this great Canadian institution should be worked for the benefit of Canada, particularly for the benefit of the eastern provinces, regardless of politics. We quite appreciate,
I think, the difficulty of hon. gentlemen opposite in restraining their political friends in the interest of economy, and have tried to make some allowance for that. But there can be no question that so long as a railway like the Intercolonial is worked on political lines, there can be nothing but extravagance and waste. It was for that reason, although I would have liked to have seen the railway removed even farther from the political influence of the government, that I heartily welcomed the appointment of the board of railway men who are now in charge of its operation. I have the more pleasure in saying that much, because in the few months during which these gentlemen have been in charge, we have seen an approach to better things. Year after year, since I have had the honour of being in parliament, I have endeavoured to impress upon the government the absolute necessity of keeping the accounts of this railway as every railway company keeps its accounts-not merely for the purpose of reducing expenses, but for every consideration that applies to any business corporation.
One of the great difficulties we have had in discussing the affairs of the Intercolonial railway has been that we have never been able to compare the results of its operation with those of the operation of other great railways. It has been absolutely impossible for us to take the results of the year's working and compare them with those of any other large concern, for the simple reason that deliberately, wrantonly, , in the face of every experience, the government have insisted upon keeping their accounts on a different basis from that on which other railway companies keep their accounts. If the Intercolonial railway accounts had been kept as are those of the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Pacific railway, all the discussions in this

House, which have taken up our time from day to day and from week to week, could have been dispensed with, and the year's operations discussed in two -or three hours. Take such a company as the Grand Trunk railway whose accounts are reviewed 3,000 miles away from here by the men whose money is invested in the enterprise, in a few hours they get at the bottom of the year's work, while it takes us weeks in the case of the Intercolonial railway. Why i's this? It is because the accounts of the Grand Trunk railway and these other.railway companies are kept on a practical system and basis, so that when you find that the working of either of these companies takes a certain percentage of the profits, you have a fair idea whether it is being operated in an economical and businesslike manner. Can we say this of the Intercolonial railway? On that road there has not been any system for charging expenditure as between capital account or working expenses. The system adopted by the government would be laughed to scorn in any business corporation. It is one which conceals the actual results of the work. How can you expect the management to be careful to keep down the expenditure if all the manager has to do is to charge 25 or 30 ot 40 per cent more to capital account and thus show better results? Yet that system has been absolutely fostered, and in fact recommended, by_ the Department of Railways. The minister wants to show a surplus, and it is the easiest thing in the world to do so, if you take 10 or 20 per cent out of the working expenses and transfer that to capital. We can see in the last nine months the beginning of a different system. We find an effort on the part of the management to know precisely what they are doing. For the first time we find these gentlemen setting aside a round sum out of revenue and charging it against the earnings of the road for the purpose of renewing in the future the rolling stock which is wearing out. I would like the minister to show us any such item in the past. These gentlemen have had very little time to show what they can do, but I feel certain that as they go on, further improvement will be shown and, whether the Intercolonial railway shows loss or profit, we shall know the truth. It is absurd for hon. gentlemen from the eastern provinces to tell us from Ontario or elsewhere that we are prejudiced -against the Intercolonial railway. We have no desire whatever to belittle or misrepresent the Intercolonial railway. We do not desire that the Intercolonial railway shall make money unjustly or unfairly to them. We want the road worked honestly; what we want is to know the truth, whether there' be a profit or a loss, and we shall be content.. What more can the people from Nova Beotia or New Brunswick ask? We are not
going to complain if the railway does not make a profit, but we do say that in the interests of honesty and of the country at large, we should know the truth. How can you expect the staff to care whether theyj are doing their best for the railway or not; if it makes no difference whether the rail-' way is really gaining or losing, if they can gain the approval of their employers simply by misrepresenting the actual working expenses of the road? Why, every time you, claim credit in this House by showing a pretended surplus, you hold out temptation to your officers to misrepresent; beJ cause it is very easy for the manager or the engineer or other departmental head, who knows that his reputation in the minister's eyes depends on showing a surplus' -it is very easy for him to show one, and he will take care by every means in his power to do so, especially as he knows that he cannot be subject to criticism, because his accounts are kept differently from those of any other railway management in America. Who in the world can tell whether a railway man has been a success or a failure if his accounts are kept differently from the accounts of every other railway man in America? There can be no greater temptation to wrong-doing on the part of a great staff of employees than to put them in the position they have been in for years. I have -great confidence in railway men. I have had nearly forty years experience of them, and I say there are no men who are more loyal to honest, good working, to the true interests of their employers, than the railway managers: .and officers. The railway man's whole reputation depends upon it. He knows that whatever clap-trap may be uttered on the public political platform, there is a great mass of experienced men over this whole continent who laugh at cooked returns such as we have presented to us. He knows that if he hopes to rise in his career, the worst place he can go to is a concern which keeps its accounts differently from other railways. I am glad this advance has been made. I can see in these, few months' accounts an advance in the right direction.. I do not want to criticise, and it is useless,, in my opinion, to criticise this round sum; set down as the estimtaed amount you may probably have to pay for your working ex-t penses, which, as I have said before, depend upon your traffic. I hope that the minister will be able to go further in the; right course he has taken. 1 hope he wiL>
put the administration of this road more1 and more in the hands of the professional men, as I may call them, who have been bred to the business, and take it more and! more out of the hands of the politicians.


George Perry Graham: I know my hon. friend will agree with me that it is easier to speak from his standpoint than from the stand-

point of the man who has to do these things. He must have heard some criticism, not unkindly criticism, rather intimating that the appointment of a board was to escape responsibility. I may say that is not my view. I wanted to escape first an enormous amount of detail about which I knew nothing, but which came to my office every day only to be returned to the management and perhaps returned to my office again. I sought, in the first place, a way to get rid of innumerable details and to let them all be settled by men who knew something about that kind of work. However, I am obliged to my hon. friend for his kind words with reference to what I think is an improvement. So far as I am concerned personally, it would be much more comfortable and far easier in one way to continue the old system and have no board. But having undertaken


Richard Blain: What way is that?
t Mr. GRAHAM. I will not put that on ' Hansard ' because we never can get it out of there. I am frank in saying and hon. gentlemen will agree with me, that it is a difficult position, a difficult problem to work out. But the board, I think on the whole, has given good results. I am not so anxious to have the Intercolonial railway pay a lot of money, we want to give a good service and the road has been established under conditions that have not allowed it to make much money, but we want to maintain the standard of the road. We want to maintain the service as far as possible, but I do say that at the present time the Intercolonial railway ought to be able to at least pay its own way. It has not any dividend to pay, it has no interest to pay and I think it should be able to support itself. One year we may have a surplus, the next year we may go a little behind.
As to the keeping of the accounts, some three years ago the present deputy minister engaged an expert to go through our books and reorganize the accounts of the Intercolonial railway and get them on the same basis as the books of a company. That cannot be all done in a moment, men who have been working one way all their lives cannot change quickly, but at present our returns are kept on the standard classification of the railways of America. Our reports are made under the head of maintenance of way, maintenance of structure and maintenance of equipment, traffic expenses, transportation expenses, just as returns are made to the Railway Department from all railways operating in Canada. As to charges to capital and revenue we have adopted the standard of the InterState Commerce Commission and whether it be a surplus or a deficit accounts are being kept absolutely as they are kept by a railway company. This year we have Mr. GRAHAM.
charged everything to capital just as a a company would. We have been putting aside $25,000 a month for renewal of equipment since 1907, but not for renewal of rails. This year we are placing $100,000 to one side for rail renewal account and I think that whatever the reports to the House may be they will be shown exactly how the matter stands and will be exactly as the accounts of a company would stand doing the same business.


Richard Blain: I am much interested in the remarks of the minister. Whatever may be said, it is certainly a departure, lor many years we have been listening to the predecessors of the Minister of Railways stating to this House that there was absolutely no political patronage in the management of the Intercolonial railway. After the minister had made this statement year after year, he would be endorsed by the hon. gentlemen from eastern Canada emphasizing the fact that whatever other defects there might be in respect to the management of the railway there was no political patronage. We would gather from the_ remarks of my hon. friend, coupled with the fact that they have changed the policy and have now transferred the management to a board, that there had been some political interference. Now the government is being complimented because of the change that has taken place. I want to direct my hon. friend's attention to this remark made in the House a few days ago by a gentleman who lives down in the province where the Intercolonial railway runs, and who is a prominent supporter of my hon. friend's government:
I would like to know if it is in the interest ot the people that the commissioner takes a big stick and threatens a newspaper if it criticises the management that it will get no more patronage, and not only threatens but carries out his threat. That is the way the people's railway is managed for the people. Dod save us from the people's railway.
That is not a criticism by a gentleman from the province of Ontario, that is not a criticism of the old policy, but it is a criticism of the new board of management by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black), showing that there certainly is some interference, that the commissioners do take up the big stick; and if a newspaper down there attempts any criticism of the management of the road, the commissioner says: No more money from the government until you stop that kind of criticism. Now I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Of course he is a railway man, and his experience is very valuable; but I would hesitate to compliment this new board of management until we see what they are going to do.


Samuel Barker: I only said I was gratified with what they had done in the way of improvement, but I expected a great deal more.


Richard Blain: Improvement in lessening the number of employees. It was charged from this side of the House that they had altogether too many employees on that railway, and we were answered by their saying that, in comparison with other railways in Canada, there were no more employees on the Intercolonial than were required for the passengers and freight. Now we find a number of men have been dismissed. For what reason? Times are prosperous. Surely that is an answer to the criticism on this side. The fact is that a commission appointed by themselves declares there has been altogether too many put on there for political purposes. And now they are dismissed by the railway board, dismissed by the hundreds. A certain great man said that people are bundles of inconsistencies, and I think that remark would apply very well to my hon. friend's department. We have not much to say about my hon. friend, we are waiting until his record is made. My hon. friend from Hamilton thinks he is doing pretty well, but I am not so well acquainted with his achievements. But to-day we have a complete rebuttal from the government side of the policy that they declared was the policy of managing the Intercolonial without any political interference at all. Now I am sorry to have to sit in the House and to find that a criticism, keen and cutting, comes from a gentleman on their own side of the House, who says the management is not a bit better. The commission takes up the stick the same as the government did, and as soon as any criticism comes from a newspaner in eastern Canada about the management-no more support from the government until you stop that sort of criticism.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend complains of political interference. He won't feel so badly when he knows that it is a Liberal newspaper that is under discussion.


Richard Blain: I was reminding my hon. friend of a criticism of one of his own supporters, and perhaps he would tell us whether that is true or not.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend contended that the same political interference was being exercised by the commission as there was before by the minister when they took up the big club.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Hants said that.


George Perry Graham: No, the hon, member for Hants did not mention political interference. I am pointing out that this cannot be political interference, because it is a Liberal newspaper that is under discussion. As a matter of fact I believe the board did have some disagreement with a newspaper in the east, because the 'board represented to me, and I saw some of the statements myself, that this paper was making a campaign against the Board of Management of the Intercolonial which I have no hesitation in saying was absolutely unfair and based on untruths: and in my private capacity I would not give any business to my best friend if he told what was not true. Of course we have criticism of the Intercolonial management more or less, but no charge of political interference can be made against the board. There would have been political interference if.I had said to the board: 'You must not do that; you must keep on giving this Grit paper business.' But I try to keep my fingers out of the trouble. I hope my hon. friend will see the point.


Richard Blain: It certainly could not have been any criticism of a Conservative newspaper, because my hon. friend knows well the Conservative newspapers do not get any pap from the government.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong again, because he does not keep track of things. One of the complaints occasionally made by strong Liberals is that we do give advertisements to Conservative newspapers. That is true. The Halifax ' Herald ' for instance, which the leader of the opposition will recognize, gets advertising; so does the Montreal ' Gazette', so does the Quebec ' Chronicle,' and I could name others, where we get good value. My hon. friend also referred to dismissals. Now, as a matter of fact, the traffic on all roads fell off immensely; every company road, I understand, dismissed their men by the dozens, by the hundred, by the thousand. Wisely or unwisely, I kept our men on. But when the board came in they said there were too many, and they did what a company road would have done a year 'before. I hope that the Intercolonial will get so much business back that we will have to Te-employ some of the men who have been dismissed.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Do I understand that the minister has given the board perfect liberty to advertise in whatever papers they choose, in the eastern provinces or the western, for railway supplies?


George Perry Graham: For everything in connection with the Intercolonial. The board is doing this now, I could not give you tonight a list of the Liberal or Conservative papers in which they are advertising.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do I understand
that, so far as the minister is concerned, he gives absolute freedom to the board to advertise in whatever papers they choose?


George Perry Graham: So far as the Intercolonial! railway is concerned.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: There is a certain amount of politics, of course, in connection with the road. But I suppose the minister will not deny that, now when we are two years further away from the general election, the department might exercise some more economy with regard to this $250,000.


George Perry Graham: This $250,000 is really not in question. The expenditure has been reduced. This year there will be less than the $9,000,000. We took a vote of $9,250,000 last year so as to be sure to cover all contingencies. I am not asking that much now for the experience of last year proves that we will not need it.
. Mr. CROSBY. How many freight passenger cars and locomotives are idle at the present time by reason of the fact that they require repairs? I do not know whether the minister will be able to-night to give me an answer to another question which I desire to ask, but if not I would like him to give it at some other time. I would like to know what the difference is between the number of men getting from $1.25 to $2 a day on the Intercolonial Tailway in 1907-8, and the number of men receiving that wage on the road at the present time. I would also like to know the difference in the number of men getting $2,000 and upwards as between the present year the year 1907-8, together with their salaries.


George Perry Graham: It would be impossible to get the details that my hon. friend asks for as it would take weeks and weeks to procure the information. In our higher offices we pay our men much less than the railway companies do. [DOT] There has been a good deal of talk to the effect that we pay certain men high salaries and take it out of those receiving smaller pay. The ordinary man on the Intercolonial railway is paid as high, on the average, as men on any railway, or higher, whereas the officials filling the higher offices are paid less than men filling similar positions on other railways in Canada. The criticism of railway men-and we have heard it in connection with the retirement of Mr. Butler from the Railway Department-is that we do not pay sufficiently high salaries to our officers on the railway, and that we do not have enough of these officers. That is the professional criticism on the Intercolonial railway. Just before I came into the department my predecessor took occasion to get the opinion of an expert and his Opinion was as I have expressed it. The criticism is heard that we possibly have too many in the lower grades and too few in the higher, and that while we pay good salaries to the ordinary employees we do not pay our higher officials a sufficient 1 Mr. ARMSTRONG.
amount of money to keep them and to get the best out of them. As to the number of cars, there are about four hundred freight cars ready for repairs and we are turning a greater number out of the repair shops every day than ever before in the history of the road. There are about 5 or 10 per cent of the locomotives ready for repairs, but I find that our percentage of locomotives requiring repairs is less than the average in the Dominion of Canada to a considerable extent. I do not think there are any passenger cars, except those that are always going through the shops.


Adam Brown Crosby: Last year we had in this House a report from a commission which had been delegated by the government or this House to ascertain whether the clerks in the employ of the Intercolonial railway were getting fairly paid or not.


George Perry Graham: That was not a commission but a conciliation board agreed to by the men themselves and the management. The House had nothing to do with it.


Adam Brown Crosby: For the purpose of my argument it does not make any difference. That board went out to ascertain whether the employees on the Intercolonial railway were paid by the standard of other employees on other railways in Canada. They came back with their report, and it was to the effect that they were paid 15 or 20 per cent less.


George Perry Graham: That was not the report.


Adam Brown Crosby: Well, what was it?


George Perry Graham: The report was that we should reduce the staff of clerks and that by this reduction we could pay the balance of the staff a certain percentage of money as recommended by the commission. They recommended that we have a classification something like the Civil Service classification. There were great discrepancies. Some of the clerks were paid too little and others too much, or more than their jobs were worth. We have undertaken to classify these clerks, not by reducing the salary that any person then had, but if a man is getting $1,000 now in an office that under the new classification ought to be worth $750, the old man will retain his classification, but when he goes out his successor will get $750.


Adam Brown Crosby: That is very good as far as it goes, but I remember when speaking of the matter in the House last session, that a different answer was given to me from that given to-night by the minister. A few days after, when the minister came down with his speech on government railways, he tried to satisfy the House that the Intercolonial railway was run at a

cheaper rate per mile than any other railway in Canada. Then this board went out for the purpose of ascertaining whether the men were overpaid or underpaid, and they reported that there was an over abundance of employees, a matter which was none of their business, because they were not sent out for that purpose. I tried to uphold the minister on that occasion because they were not doing him justice. If they had more men on the road than they should have it was not fair to him. But the minister came in and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the railway was not over-manned. I had no reason to doubt the figures which he presented_ to show that that was the actual condition. That being the case, and the management having dismissed as many men as we are informed have been dismissed, we must have a railway which is not sufficiently manned at the present time. I did not have the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. Minister of Railways this session, and I have not had an opportunity of reading it, although I hope to do so. Now, I would like to ask the minister what difference there is in the number of men of the working class employed on the Intercolonial railway in 1910-11 as compared with 1907-8, or in 1909-10 as compared with 1908-9. I am sure the minister will be able to give me that information. Then I would be glad if he would give us the information with regard to the number of officials. I understood him to say that the technical men, as he called them, were paid less on this road than on other roads, while the labouring classes were paid as well on the Intercolonial railway as on other roads. No doubt, there are some men on the Intercolonial railway who should not be on the r'oad at all, but if so, that is the fault of the management. .Sneaking particularly of the men in my own locality, including those engaged in connection with the terminal facilities, I do not think they are getting better pay than men who are engaged in other work in that city. In what he said, I suppose, the minister had in mind the fact that his deputy minister has been called to a very high position, at a salary, I believe, three times as much as he was getting here. I want to tell the hon. minister there are not many Butlers in Canada.


George Perry Graham: Only the first families can have a butler.


Adam Brown Crosby: I sympathize with the minister in losing his deputy, but we are all pleased that that gentleman has been called to so important a position. If the minister wants to hold his good men, all he has to do is to raise their salaries. Treat the good men well, and do not let them suffer for the bad ones. I suppose the minister
will send me the information as to the number of workingmen on the railway.


George Perry Graham: I will try to send that to-morrow.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand the minister to say that there are about four hundred freight cars of every description now idle. He says also that the number under repair is from five to ten per cent. That is not very definite.


George Perry Graham: Of course, in our change from the old shop to the new there was some delay of work. But, with the facilities of the new shops, we are effecting a greater quantity of repairs than ever before and are catching up rapidly. I do not take credit for that; it is due to the new shops which were designed and practically constructed by my predecessor.
Prince Edward Island railway, $400,000.


Richard Blain: The minister has some explanation to give of this.


George Perry Graham: I gave that at length the other day. Prince Edward Island is one of the most beautiful spots in Canada. But, so far as railways are concerned, it is isolated. We have a narrow gauge railway there, about 260 miles in length. You cannot give a fair service there and come out even, much less make money. The people of Prince Edward Island have always complained to me- and their complaint is not without Teason -that they do not get the train service they ought to get. They certainly do not begin to get the service that is given on the Intercolonial railway. It is for parliament to look at the matter sympathetically. We must make up our mind that, each year, a certain amount must be contributed out of consolidated fund to maintain the service of the Prince Edward Island railway, for the traffic is not there to keep the road on an even basis financially. But Prince Edward Island is part of the Dominion; the people were brought into confederation expecting great things, and, for my part, I sympathize with the view that we ought to go on and give on that railway a better service than we do now, even though we know that it will increase the amount which must be taken from the consolidated fund.


Richard Blain: How much is taken from the consolidated fund for 'this purpose now?


George Perry Graham: Last year, $90,000; this year it will be about $70,000. We must make up our minds that, if we are going to have the service we ought to have, the service that the rest of us enjoy and would make a fuss if we did not have, it will cost us, say, $100,000. I regard sym-

pathetically the idea that we should give Prince Edward Island a fair service.
Railways and canals-chargeable to capital -canals-Lachine canal - concrete vertical wall, $165,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for a concrete vertical wall on the south side of the La-chine canal. The slope walls made during the last two years were carried up only to the water line. The portion above water is to be vertical to increase the width of the bank eight feet to twelve feet. Another section of vertical wall is to be built from the top of the rock from the Canadian Pacific railwav bridge to the guard lock, where the dry wall is tumbling down. This wall is similar to the northern wall on the same section. This is a new vote. The items of this expenditure include $22,000 for concrete under water, for the vertical wall $80,000 and for cement about $30,000. Purchases will be made by tender in every instance.
Lachine canal-towards completion of wharf and basins, $135,000.


George Perry Graham: The tenderers in this case were George Goodwin, the Canadian General Development Company, Downey & O'Brien and Michael Connelly. The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like the minister (Mr. Graham) to notice that when the canal question comes up, he finds that the men of the east are always prepared to see that the money necessary is provided. All they ask is that that money shall be properly spent. The men from the east are anxious to have every facility provided for the transportation of the commerce of this Dominion. So, I am glad to say, you do not find them trying to interfere with these estimates in any way.


Richard Blain: Were tenders asked for in all the cases the minister has mentioned?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Richard Blain: By advertisement in the newspapers?


George Perry Graham: Yes. Formerly, we sent circulars to the cement manufacturers, but now we advertise in the papers for cement also.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to criticise too closely on this point, but we ought to understand the policy of the department. Are we to understand that advertisements are given to the newspapers having the largest circulation regardless of party. Or what is the policy of the department on that point?


George Perry Graham: So long as men are human there will be humanity in all these Mr. GRAHAM.
things, I suppose. The policy of my department, in regard to large works like the Quebec bridge, is to advertise in all the trade papers and engineering papers, which will reach particularly the men who would be able to undertake the work. General work we advertise in papers of good repute, and I am free to confess that they are mostly Liberal papers.


Richard Blain: For instance, looking over the list of papers in Toronto, I find in connection with one item that $228.60 was paid to the Toronto ' Globe ' and $228.60 to the Toronto ' Star ' * but I look in vain for any advertisement given to any other of the leading papers in Toronto.


George Perry Graham: Upon the basis of my hon. friend's suggestion, it is said by those who know that the Toronto ' Globe ' has the largest circulation, inside and outside, of all the Toronto papers. It is said that the ' Star ' has the largest circulation of the evening papers. So that outside of politics these would be the two papers that would reach the most people.


Richard Blain: Accepting my hon. friend's policy of selecting the papers having the largest circulation-


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Richard Blain: There can be no other inference from his statement that the Toronto ' Globe ' has the largest circulation of the Toronto papers and the ' Star ' has the largest evening circulation. Keeping that in view, I want to direct his attention to the fact that when advertising is done in the city of London, in western Ontario, my hon. friend does not select the paper there having the largest. circulation, because in the London ' Free l'ress ', which is recognized as the leading newspaper in that section, you cannot find any government advertisements.	Therefore, the policy
which my hon. friend has laid down applies to the city of Toronto, but not to the western part of the province. I am not complaining particularly. I merely want know exactly what the policy of my hon. friend is.	My hon. friend says,
therefore we may expect that in the future advertisements will appear only in papers that support my hon. friend and his government, and therefore the patronage list, which we have heard so much about lately, is not going to disappear altogether from the government, even from my hon. friend's department.


George Perry Graham: I may be blunt, but I am not hypocritical. As long as I find a friend who gives me good service, I am inclined to lean a little towards that friend, and I am inclined to think that my hon. friend would do the same.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am very glad to hear that that is the minister's policy, because it means that he will do all his advertising in the Halifax 'Herald' and 'Evening Mail,' which I think have the largest circulation east of Montreal, if not in the whole Dominion. They are also perfectly independent. No man can have their support unless he is worthy of the support of the people. Therefore, these papers, having been brought to his notice, being perfectly independent, and having a sworn circulation, I hope that the minister, whenever he wants to let the people know what he wants, will advertise in them.


Robert Laird Borden: How much will this item cost altogether?


George Perry Graham: 


Robert Laird Borden: What is the cost of the other item?


George Perry Graham: It is expected that the vote will cover the entire cost; but we have not yet let the work.
Soulanges canal-purchase of tool grinder, &c., $850.


Samuel Barker: How are articles of this kind bought?


George Perry Graham: All \>y tender. I have a list of 300 of the leading machinery men, irrespective of politics, and I write to all of them for tenders. It is cheaper than advertising.


Samuel Barker: What we have had to complain of is that the government bought through middlemen.


George Perry Graham: We do not buy any tools from middlemen, unless they are recognized agents of their respective companies. In every case we try to buy direct from the manufacturer. In fact, in some cases I have told the manufacturer that he must tender direct.


Samuel Barker: I believe that the minister means what he says, but in the Mer-win case we found that the manufacturer was willing to sell and deliver at his price to the middlemen, but the government bought in preference from the middleman and paid him 87 per cent extra..


George Perry Graham: There is nothing of that kind in my department.
Soulanges canal-stopping leaks, trimming slopes, &o., $100,000.


George Perry Graham: Last year we asked for $160,000 and spent $60,000. The Soulanges canal is built through soft soil, which is very treacherous, and we are trying to improve the banks so that it will be impossible for us to experience the trouble we had in the Cornwall canal. The work we have done has proved very efficacious, the bank being dry where it used to be wet and
spongy. We are completing that work, which must be done in the interest of shipping.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will that cover all the work to be done?


George Perry Graham: It will cover this particular work and overcome what appears to show signs of difficulty. We have to take the responsibility of keeping up the work to prevent any recurrence of this kind.
Sault Ste. Marie canal construction, $70,000.


George Perry Graham: This work is under contract. It is for deepening and widening the channel at the upper entrance. We let this by tender to C. S. Boone, of Toronto, who made the lowest bid. Contract dated 12th March, 1907, value of work done to October last, $200,380. We hope that this $70,000 will complete the work.
Trent canal construction, $1,750,000.


George Perry Graham: Last year we had a million dollars. This year we expect to let two more sections, which will bring us from Lake Sirncoe to Lake Ontario. We expect to have all that under contract this year. My trip through the various canals in the old world convinced me that the Trent canal will be of real advantage to the Dominion. Quite a lot of water-powers will be developed along the way, and the dams constructed by us will assist in the development of more power. We have made arrangements with people who own the land along the banks wherever we could, and we expect that there will be developed altogether in that part of the province some 60,000 horse-power. Some two years ago, in order that the rates might be right, I amended the Act of the Board of Railway Commissioners and placed the rate to be charged by the people who develop these powers under the control of the board.


John Graham Haggart: How much still remains to be done after these contracts are completed?


George Perry Graham: From Simcoe to Georgian bay, there is one route by Nottawasaga bay and the other by the Severn river. I expect to meet a deputation concerning these routes in a few days. One part of the people desire the canal to go by Nottawasaga, and the other by Orillia, taking the Severn river.


John Graham Haggart: It will be of no use for the craft that sail on the upper lakes?


George Perry Graham: No, it will be for canal barges drawing eight to nine feet of water. I look to a good deal of development of traffic that will come through in these barges. The opening of this canal will make that part of Ontario one of the paradises of Canada for summer tourists.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many locks? And is there any estimate of the cost of the work?


George Perry Graham: The engineer has not yet finished his report as to these two routes, the Severn river and the Nottawasaga. My hon. friend from Simeoe (Mr. Currie) looked over part of the report in my office. I do not know whether it pleased him or not. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) was looking at it to. The report will be completed and give a full estimate of all my hon. friend asks.


John Graham Haggart: The Newmarket canal no doubt will get its full share.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from York (Mr. Wallace) is waiting for that.


Mr. WALLACE.: What is the hon. gentleman appropriating for the Newmarket canal?


George Perry Graham: Last year we did not spend much on it. I sent for Mr. Grant, the engineer of the department, who is a first-class man, and we discussed the Newmarket canal very thoroughly. He assured me that I can state to the House on his reputation that there will be plenty of water in that canal. Before the summer is over, you will find that the stretch then completed will have water in it.


Thomas George Wallace: It has none now.


George Perry Graham: Yes, they are skating on_ it. I am giving you what my engineer says. This year we intend to spend about $150,000 on that portion of the Holland river canal. Of course that is the portion in the vicinity of Newmarket. There is another section east of that called No. 2, Holland river, which requires dredging, but we have not done anything on that yet.


Thomas George Wallace: Last year you spent about $192,000.


George Perry Graham: $57,000, I think.


Thomas George Wallace: You were to have spent the same as the year before.


George Perry Graham: I did not do it.
Mr. WALLACE, The year before most of the money was spent during August, September and October, 1908. That is the reason I thought this work was mostly political. Does the minister really intend finishing that canal, and has he any idea that it will be of any use whatever


George Perry Graham: I do intend finishing it.


Thomas George Wallace: And you will get water?


George Perry Graham: Not the faintest question about it.


Thomas George Wallace: Where do you expect to get it?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: I am giving Mr. Grant's opinion. In Germany last year I visited one canal owned by a county council. The canal was 26 miles long, and it was supplied entirely from the drainage of the country. In Germany last year I visited one canal 29 miles long supplied absolutely by the drainage of the country. It joined a river, but the county council was precluded from taking any water from the river because a rival company had the monopoly of the water from the river. They made provision that in case the water supply ran low they can pump the water back into the canal and use it again. They have a system of double locks by which a boat goes through on one side and the same water is used for another boat on the other side of the canal. They have never used the pumping device as they get enough water from the drainage. It is one of the most beautiful places in Germany, and is a fashionable summer resort. Mr. Grant says that by a system, I think, of two dams and reservoirs they can provide ample water, and after-discussing it with him 1 have not a lingering doubt in my mind that there will be plenty of water for the Newmarket canal.


Thomas George Wallace: What is the estimated cost of the canal with the water? Last year you said $982,000 w'ithout the water.


George Perry Graham: Unlike my hon. friend, I always include water when I give an estimate for a canal. The estimate will be as I said last year, at least $1,000,000 in my opinion.


Thomas George Wallace: When do you expect to have the canal finished?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend is in a hurry, I can spend some more money.


Thomas George Wallace: I do not think you should spend any.
Mr, GRAHAM. I have taken that we should not construct more branches until we finish the main work. When existing contracts have been completed, I intend to stop toying with this project and go on and complete it. This year I intend to spend $150,000 on it.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the government come to a conclusion as to the best means for irrigating the Newmarket canal?


George Gordon: I could understand the necessity for a canal where water had to be pumped in and out if after-having it in the shape there would be any traffic. I know that vicinity and I know that there is very little water to be got to go into that canal. I would make a special appeal to the minister to stop spending money on a useless work like that. I am appealing to the minister as a business man on a business proposition even in the

face of the report of the chief engineer. If the minister would go there himself and look into the proposition and come back and tell us that he thinks it is feasible to keeri that canal supplied with water, and that when completed there would be an}' business or traffic, I would be willing to put up some money. You should stop building this canal, it is a work which should not go on because there are so many necessary works all over the country that are not being gone on with. I am satisfied that the minister feels he should not go on with it, but something is compelling him to make the expenditure. I am sure that if he had his own way he would not do it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: If the hon. member had been in Ottawa some years ago and had had the privilege, which was my privilege of listening to a very large and representative delegation from that section of the country, headed by Mr. Lennox, a member of the legislative assembly of Ontario, I am sure his faith in the Newmarket canal would have been strengthened, and he would have been convinced beyond all question that it was a work in the interest of Canada, as well as in the interest of that section of the country, that there was abundance of water, that traffic was there waiting only to be carried, and that unless this parliament acceded to the very reasonable request of these gentlemen, parliament would be doing an outrage on the people of that section and on the people of Ontario generally. I was impressed by the earnestness of the appeal made and the representation with respect to the project.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Did not the minister make any investigation?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was a very thorough investigation.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What amount of traffic was stated to be likely to go through the canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall now, but it was a number of years ago, and I am speaking of the impression made on my mind as to that. It was said that this traffic would mean a traffic to the city of Toronto as well as the country near the canal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What class of goods was it expected would be carried?


George Perry Graham: Very largely lumber and materials that were to be brought down from the central point there in Haliburton through Lake Simcoe, through the Kirk-field lock, and on towards Aurora, and thence carried to Toronto. It was said that the manufacturing interests of Toronto would be largely advantaged, and that the resources surrounding these interior lakes would be given life, and the
people of that section of the country would' reap the benefits which are denied them today by reason of the lack of transportation.


George Gordon: Did you, ever see the feeder where the water is to go through for the Newmarket portion?


George Perry Graham: I have never personally seen it.


Thomas George Wallace: Does he remember the first estimate that the deputation asked the government for?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not carry it in my memory.


Thomas George Wallace: That deputation did not ask the government to build a canal from Lake Simcoe to Newmarket, but for a small appropriation to deepen the Holland river from Lake Simcoe to Holland Landing. In former day3 boats used to go from Lake Simcoe to Holland Landing. The chief reason why the Prime Minister and the Minister of justice justified that canal was that a deputation came down from North York, and there happened to be three or four Conservatives among them. Well, if that circumstance is a sufficient reason for this government to spend $1,000,000 on that canal, I am not able to see it myself. The deputation asked for a small expenditure, and the premier said that because Mr. Lennox was on the deputation, who he supposed was a member of the local House, that justified him in spending a million dollars. But I would remind the committee that the deputation did not ask for any such thing, they only asked for about $100,000. just enough to deepen the canal. It was Sir William Mulock who brought that deputation down here; he invited a few of his friends to come down to Ottawa. You can get any number of people to come down here on a little trip like that.


Richard Blain: That was his own county.


Thomas George Wallace: Sir William Mulock was the representative of North York at that time, and he got this deputation to come down here. It was a little pleasure jaunt for the purpose of seeing the capital. But that is the reason the government gave for spending a million dollars there. That is the minister's estimate here to-night, but I am sure that by the time they get through with it it will cost $2,000,000. Before that time there had not been a dollar spent on that canal, except in survey work, according to figures brought down by the Minister of Railways last year. I do not think it is fair to try to make the country believe that Mr. Lennox, because he happened to be the local Conservative member, would come down here and ask the government to spend $1,000,000 on a useless work like that. The ex-Minister of Railways 3ays he

does not remember what the first cost of that was. But all they asked for was a small sum of money, which has now grown to $1,000,000, and will probably be $2,000,000 before they get through.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I happened to be Minister of Railways at the time this_delega-tion came. I cannot speak as to the politics of those gentlemen, but I remember that the delegation was headed by Mr. Lennox. I assumed that they came as business men, and not as politicians, and I did not treat with them as politicians, but as a representative delegation from that section of the country, coming here for the purpose of impressing upon the government the necessity of this work. I remember that they emphasized the fact, they claimed it to be a fact, that it would be a very easy matter to clear out the Holland river to Holland Landing, which they said was the old route to the Georgian bay, and they only required a comparatively small sum of money to build that portion of the work. But they laid stress upon the necessity of extending that work up from Holland Landing to the interior, to Newmarket.


George Perry Graham: Clear through to Aurora.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that far. Now, I am sure this delegation were in earnest. Subsequently I had the matter inquired into by an engineer, one who was not connected with the department at that time, and he made a report with regard to the estimated cost, and the traffic as well. I cannot carry in my memory, of course, what the report was. It is true that the then Postmaster General, who represented that constituency, took a deep interest in the work, and he and the local representative in the Ontario legislature seemed to be united in an effort to secure the construction of this work for that section of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. member for Westmorland could tell us whether any estimate was made by the department in his time of the probable traffic that would be carried over this canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give any details, and I only speak from memory as to the importance of the traffic, and from their representations. They convinced me, at least, that a traffic would come from the section to which I have referred, from the lakes away up to the Haliburton country, and from the Black river, and from the Georgian bay. They represented that material would be brought from the shores of the Georgian bay through the Trent Valley canal to Lake Couchiching, and from Lake Couchiching to Lake Simeoe, thence into Aurora, and thence on to Toronto.


Mr WALLACE.: 


George Gordon: Then the hon. member himself is practically responsible for the canal being started?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certainly am, and I take all the responsibility that belongs to me. There is one thing I am always ready to do, I am always disposed to lend a listening ear to the people, to gentlemen coming here on the part of the people, seeking the people's interest, and I have yet to be convinced that it was not in the interest of the people to begin that work.


David Henderson: Year by year we are told by the government that this Newmarket canal was built in response to the request of a deputation that accompanied Sir William Mulock and Mr. Lennox, who at that time, or subsequentliy, became the local member for that county.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was at that time.


David Henderson: Perhaps the hon. member could tell us what year that was in, so that we may know whether he was the local member at that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was introduced to me as the local member for that constituency in the Ontario legislature.


David Henderson: I infer from what the ex-Minister of Railways has said to-night, that the object of that deputation was not to get a grant of money to construct this canal. What these people wanted at that time was something different, a sum, as he has told us, for deepening the Holland river, which would be a small part of this canal, and would cost but very little money.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not wish my hon. friend to be under any misapprehension as to what I stated. I said that they had spoken of the deepening of the Holland river as far as Holland Landing as a work that would not be very expensive. They emphasized the fact that it would not cost very much to do that, but that the important work and that which they sought, urged and solicited was the extension of that canal to Newmarket and Aurora.


David Henderson: What I have heard in the discussions in this House in reference to the whole matter was that the deputation did not have in their minds the extension of the work which the government is at the present time undertaking. I do not think it ever entered into the minds of the people who came down at that time that the work was to spread out into a section of country where no water could be found for canal purposes, where practically no traffic sufficient to warrant the expenditure could- be obtained. I am still under the impression it was only the small part that the people at that time asked for, namely the deepening of the Holland river.

I do not think that the ex-minister will succeed in convincing this committee that the larger project was ever thought of by that deputation. I have never been able to accustom myself to the idea that that was the real intention, nor can I imagine that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals was so extremely liberal, even to help the few Conservatives wno accompanied that deputation, that he would at once jump into an expenditure that was going to amount anywhere from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000. I do not think it ever entered into his mind that he was going to do that. I do not think he ever contemplated anything of the kind. I do not think that he ever asked this House for an initial appropriation that was going to spread out to such a large sum. I think we might as well drop the idea that when the matter was initiated in the first place by the deputation which came down from the northern part of the county of York, headed by Sir William Mulock and Mr. Lennox, the local member, they ever had in contemplation any such outrageous expenditure. The ex-minister, I think, must see by this time that he made a mistake in venturing on such a broad scheme with the limited information he had. I confess that this is the talk all over that part of the country. It is the wonder of the people who go to see the Newmarket canal. They laugh at the idea. It is simply a matter of ridicule and no one who looks at the work ever thinks of justifying the government in this annual expenditure that is going on. I would appeal to the minister, as other hon. members have done, just to drop this matter of the Newmarket canal. Enough money has been spent on it. I do not think the country will lose anything if we just sink what has been spent and pay no more attention to the undertaking. Now, I have one question to submit to the minister. He informed us a short time ago that the engineer had assured him of the possibility of securing water for the canal.


George Perry Graham: I said the probability- the surety-not the possibility.


David Henderson: Possibility.


George Perry Graham: No not the possibility.


David Henderson: The absolute certainty?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


David Henderson: Is that strong enough?


George Perry Graham: Yes. That is his opinion.


David Henderson: There is no doubt that you can make anything absolutely certain if you spend enough money-almost anything; I will not say anything.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are some limitations.


David Henderson: I do not doubt that
if the minister puts pumps at work some where about Lake Simcoe he can provide enough water to fill this canal. That would be an absolute certainty, but what I want to know is whether the engineer gave him any estimate as to the possible annual cost of keeping this canal filled, and, if so, what that estimate is. How much are we to vote year after year for the purpose of supplying water for this canal? Will it be $50,000; will it be $100,000? Would it not be cheaper for this government to hire ox teams and convey the traffic over this route along which it is expected to build this canal than to expend money for the purpose of supplying water for the canal? I would like to know if the minister has any estimate of what it will cost yearly to supply water?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot permit my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) to take his seat without making one statement. I have made the statement that this delegation came here, that it did not come here as a political delegation, as far as I recognized it at least, and that it pressed upon the department and myself as representing the department the absolute necessity, in the interest of that section of the country, of not only deepening the water-way of the Holland river as far as Holland Landing, but of extending the canal to Newmarket and Aurora. I have made that statement in the presence of my hon. friend. If, personally he cannot believe it, under the rules of the House he is constrained to say that he must accept it. These are the facts. It is not a matter of any moment to me now. I am speaking of it as an occurrence that transpired. I have a very distinct recollection of the circumstances of the delegation. I was impressed, in the first place, by the size of the delegation. We are not accustomed to have, in our eastern country, very large delegations. They usually send two or three men as spokesmen on behalf of a section of country. There is a different custom pursued in Ontario. I remember being assailed by a good many delegations not assailed, but I had the honour of meeting a very large number-I remember, in connection with the Trent Valley water-ways. I had great faith in the advantage that is to accrue to Ontario in connection with the Trent Valley water-ways, and that faith was strengthened by a close study of the conditions in that section of the country and by going over the route. Now, in connection with that, I looked upon the extension of the water of Lake Simcoe, up through the Holland river and on to these other points, as a work that was incidental to the comple-



tion of the Trent Valley water-ways. If there is not that traffic for the canal, if there is not that wealth of resource that was represented, so much the worse for that section of the country, but it seems to me that if the Trent Valley water-way is of any advantage to the interior of Ontario, if it is any advantage to the city of Toronto, and to the cities, towns and industrial centres along the shores of Lake Ontario to secure the development of the resources in that region, surely as a preliminary condition it is necessary not only to complete the Trent Valley canal, but it is as well a necessity to extend this canal up through the Holland river and beyond.


David Henderson: I am not sure that there is very much difference between the ex-Minister of Railways (Mt. Emmerson) and myself touching this question. What I said, or intended to say, was that the primary object of that deputation was to secure the deepening of the Holland river.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be a necessary incident of the extension of the canal.


David Henderson: I never understood that the deputation at that time contemplated the large expansion of work that has since been proposed. And I cannot think that the ex-Minister of Railways would have entertained the proposition at that time if he had thought that it was going to expand so as to call for an expenditure of a million or a million and a half. The ex-minister adheres to the point that he understood that their primary object was the deepening of the Holland river, but that they did make reference to the expansion of the work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That they pressed it.


David Henderson: But I have always understood that what they were in search of was, mainly, money for the. deepening of the Holland river, not that they expected the minister to extend the work all over the country and involving such vast expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They only limited it to Newmarket and Aurora.


David Henderson: It is a matter of memory; it is unwritten history; but the people in that section have the impression that the work, whether undertaken in response to that deputation or for any other reason, is a work that is absolutely useless, that it is unworthy the expenditure that the minister is asking to make upon it. I simply give my understanding of it. I am not going to dispute the ex-minister's memory in the matter. I take my information from general inferences and Mr. EMMERSON.
what I think to be reasonable conclusions. Now, I would like to know from the minister how much it is going to cost yearly to supply this canal with water.


George Perry Graham: The county of York is a very advanced county, so I suppose that when the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) speaks of ox-teams, he speaks metaphorically. Water for this canal will be supplied as water is supplied for other canals, by storing water naturally flowing on the watershed. The engineer tells me that the location is excellent and that the construction of one or two dams will have the effect of maintaing a fair water supply. As to the traffic, if we had stopped to discuss the traffic along any part of the Trent canal, and be guided in our determination by the traffic in sight, we should never have constructed any part of that canal. The probability is that, had a similar test been applied, the Rideau canal would never have been built. Had the traffic in sight only been discussed, many railways would never have been constructed. Certainly, had the authorities of Ontario stopped to discuss the traffic in sight in the north country, there would have been no Toronto and Northern Ontario railway. The question of traffic is always problematical, but these lines of transportation do seem to develop traffic for themselves.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a rather comprehensive rule that the minister lays down-that in deciding upon the construction of a canal you do not need to consider either the cost or the traffic.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: But what the minister did say amounts to about that. Would he be good enough to say how much of this vote represents work on the Newmarket canal to be done during the coming year?


George Perry Graham: I think that we expect to spend $150,000.


George Gordon: This is a proposition that every person who goes near it knows is utterly unworthy of completion. I am sorry that the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) has stated that he is practically responsible for it. He has told us that Mr. Lennox and others came down here and made certain representations. It seems to me that it was his duty at that time to find out more about this matter than he did. I do not like to say anything unkind at any time, but I canhot but feel that, if he was to be so easily imposed on as this, we need not be surprised that he lost his job. Anybody knows that, in order to get water into a canal, unless you depend upon the rain, you must have some

feeders. I would ask the ex-minister and the minister also what lake there is to feed this canal; and, if there is no lake, where can the water come from except by pumping it back from Lake Simcoe?


David Henderson: And I would remind the minister (Mr. Graham) before he speaks that my question was: How much will it cost annually to provide the water for this^ canal? I am not asking simply how it is to be done. The minister used a great many words, beat about the bush, and told us about their plan to have reservoirs, and about the practicability of that plan; but he evaded the point as to how much it is going to cost. Are we going to get value for the money we are to spend?


George Perry Graham: I have tried to make it clear to my hon. friend, but I am afraid he ia bound that he will not understand. He suggested that I said that we would have to pump the water, and he wanted to know how much it would cost to get the pumps. 1 told him that the water for the Newmarket canal would be supplied in the same way as water for all canals where rivers are united, by a system of storage dams and reservoirs; and my engineer tells me that there is not the slightest doubt that there will be plenty of water if it is properly stored. That is on the word of one of the best engineers we have in the service jn regard to hydraulics, and a most reliable man, and I think his assurance is worth more than my private opinion or that of any one else on that point.


Henry Robert Emmerson: An engineer, Mr. Walsh, made a report before this work started, as to the ample water facilities for the canal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It seems as if the minister has gone to Germany to gather information to enable him to come back and spend more money on the Newmarket canal. I would like to ask him whether, in sending his engineer to investigate the water supply of the canal, he instructed him also to investigate the amount of traffic that would likely be on that canal after it was completed?


George Perry Graham: I have made the statement in a general way as to the traffic. I did not send an engineer to report on the canal. The engineer to whom I refer was the resident engineer of the Trent canal system, who has had charge of all the dams and reservoirs which have been constructed, and he says that with storage provided there will be ample water for the Newmarket canal. He has made no mistake on anv other part of the Trent canal system with regard to storage, and I have not the slightest doubt that he is perfectly correct as to this.
99*


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The present statement of the minister is most indefinite and unsatisfactory, and must bring us to the conclusion that we should vote directly against this amount of money being passed at the present time. If the minister will go into that country and investigate for himself, I am sure that he will come to the conclusion which I came to long ago. I was bom within 30 miles of Newmarket, and know that country thoroughly, and there is no way possible to get water for that canal except to build large dams and reservoirs to hold the water, or else to pump the water up. And when the canal is built, how much traffic will it get from that district? The ex-Minister of Railways told us it was a timbered country. If he went there, he would find that it is the very opposite. I plead with the minister, that before he spends another million dollars on this useless work, which will have no traffic worth speaking of and little or no water, he should make use of the money in another direction. It was only last fall that I had the opportunity of looking at the canal that was being built, and I cannot too strongly condemn the expenditure of such a large amount of money for such a useless purpose.


William Cameron Edwards: I think it must be evident to every man of this committee that this project was undertaken without going carefully into the matter and obtaining such information as would warrant an undertaking of this kind. There does not appear to be any person here ready to defend it. We can hardly dignify with the name of defence the statements put forward by the minister this evening. I would suggest to, the minister that instead of asking the House to vote this money for this purpose, he take a portion of it and expend it on a canal that will give tangible results, namely, the Wolfe Island canal. Let him deepen that canal, whidh will shorten the distance between Kingston and Cape Vincent by between 15 and 20 miles; and I can assure him that he will have any amount of water for that canal, as long as Lake Ontario remains as it is.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I wish again to enter my vigorous protest against this expenditure on the Newmarket canal. The minister has associated this work in some manner with the Trent Valley canal system. It does not seem to me to be the part of wisdom to open up doubtful tributaries for the Trent canal when you have no outlet for that 'canal at either end. In building a railway, you build the main line before the branches; and it seems to me that the same principle should apply to a canal. The first thing to do with the Trent Valley canal, if it is ever to be made effective, is to complete it through to the Georgian bay. In that way it might be made of some benefit to the

people of Canada, in affording an outlet for the grain delivered at Midland and other ports on Georgian bay. With regard to the deputation that came to the ex-minister, as the name of Mr. Lennox, the local member, has been mentioned in connection with it, I want to say that I interviewed him with regard to this matter not many months ago, and he emphatically informed me that when that deputation was arranged for, and he was invited to join it, it was only intended to ask the government to deepen the Holland river. The building of the Newmarket canal was an after consideration and no part of the original scheme; Sind if some members of the deputation undertook to enlarge it when they came here, they got up the deputation under false pretenses, and got men to come down in support of a scheme that.was not placed fully before them before they left home. A great deal has been said with regard to the water supply of this canal; but no water will be needed, because no vessels will ply up or down that canal. It will do as well dry as wet. So I do not see that we need trouble ourselves with the question of water for the Newmarket canal. They may cut it up and make pig pens out of it for the farmers when completed, but otherwise I do not think it will be of any value to the people. However I do not want to bother about that phase of the question. The minister ought first to open up the Trent Valley canal, and then, if he has money to waste, take up the Newmarket canal.


Thomas George Wallace: I beg to move that item 113 be reduced by $150,000.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister if, during his many visits to Toronto since he has become a minister, and in view of his statement that it is his policy to visit our public works from time to time, which are under the control of his department, he has gone over this work himself and satisfied himself that it is a proper and wise expenditure of public money. He knows that there has been a great deal of vigorous criticism against this enormous expenditure, and I should have expected that he would have visited this work and found out for himself whether it was a proper expenditure or not.


George Perry Graham: I have seen the work, but I did not visit it for the purpose of investigation, because any information I could give would be based absolutely on the
advice of experts whom we pay for that purpose.


William Wright: How much of that total vote will be spent on the western outlet of the valley of Georgian bay?


George Perry Graham: I have already explained that nothing will be spent on that western Mr. WRIGHT.
section outside of the cost of survey. We expect to let two sections at the eastern end. We want to have connection between Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario, and later we shall go on with the other section.
Amendment negatived.


Richard Blain: How much has already been expended on this Trent Valley canal?
Mr. GRAHAM- $6,514,787.84. Of this amount $309,371.31 was spent prior to confederation.


Richard Blain: What may we expect the total expenditure to be when completed?


George Perry Graham: I am not in a position to give that because one very important section west of Lake Simcoe we have not estimated on yet. Approximately speaking about $3,500,000 to $4,000,000 without the western extension.
Trent canal-to pay damages to property by flooding, $30,000.


George Perry Graham: We have spent about $100,000 now on claims for damages to land caused by the flooding of the reservoirs where we store the water. Claims are coming in as the work goes on, and I am asking for $30,000 more. The settlement is made by valuators.


Richard Blain: Are the claims likely to continue every year?


George Perry Graham: Yes, until we get the work done.
Welland canal-land purchases and damages, $2,500.


David Henderson: There is no one in the House from that section of country through which the Welland cpnal runs, and I would ask the hon. gentleman not to press these items through to-night. Why not wait until the beginning of the week when the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) will be here? I am sure the minister would appreciate their assistance.


George Perry Graham: This is the last day my deputy will-be with me. He has information about all these items; notice was given that I would go on with my supply to-day, and I would like to finish it if possible. I will leave an item over or anything that can be discussed on motion for supply.


David Henderson: I thought that the deputy's expert knowledge applied more particularly to railway matters. As to the offer to hold over an item, my experience is that when items are passed in this way they are never heard of again. However, I have done my duty in making the request for delay.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why is $66,000 being expended on the Port Colborne elevator

when he is contemplating a new Welland - canal and the abandoning of the elevator. Only a small part of its capacity is being used?


George Perry Graham: This is for work that has been done on the elevator, extras over and above the contract. The contract has been let to Messrs. Hogan and McDonald, the lowest tenderers. The amount of work done there up to the present time under these fenders is $1,193,475. This is expected to complete the work during the coming season.


Mr. STAPLES.: As this is a government-owned and operated transfer elevator, I wish the minister would give, for the advantage of the House and the grain producers of the west who have been pressing for government ownership of all terminal elevators, a statement of how this elevator is operated, how many officials are employed and any other particulars.


George Perry Graham: The staff of the Port Colborne elevator is:
Name.	Capacity.	Rate.
J. A. Jamieson, supt. engineer (per
month)	$416	66W. F. Fawcett, superintendent	
150	00D. S. Harvie, foreman	
125	00Clias. Aston, weighmaster	
100	00Wills Maclachlan, electrician	
100	00John Glen, mechanic	
75	00Jos. Hanhan, mechanic	
75	00Jesse Lambert, mechanic	
65	00Robert Blackball, mechanic	
65	00D. 1. Robins, mechanic	
55	00James Roach, mechanic	
55	00Charles Augustine, oiler	
60	00Thomas Heffron, watchman	
50	00Frank Wilson, shovel foreman (per day)	
3	00
The result of the operation from a money standpoint has not been a success directly. It is a question in my mind whether it will not take a good many years to get the trade in a government-owned elevator of this kind, because all the orner interests will do their best to keep grain away from a government elevator if they can go somewhere else. I am informed that having that elevator there this year with all the facilities for transferring cargoes has kept down the rates from the west to the east.


William D. Staples: What is the rate per bushel?


George Perry Graham: One half cent. Last year we experienced with three-eighths of a cent, but this year we charge one-half.


William D. Staples: Has it been able to pay interest on the money invested?


George Perry Graham: Oh, no, we have not been able to pay running expenses, handling one and a half million bushels did not pay the expenses.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would suggest that the way to get out of the difficulty mentioned by the minister would be for the government to take over all the elevators as the farmers ask.
Mr. ARMiSTRONG. What is the total cost of the elevator to-day?


George Perry Graham: Approximately, three quarters of a million dollars, perhaps a little less. Including this $700,000 we are asking for.
Welland canal-to straighten channel at head of lock 2, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: The engineer reports that there is a sharp curve going into this lock, and we must straighten ii for large vessels. It is lock No. 2, from the Port Dal-housie end. Vessels are getting larger all the time.
Extending Chambly Canton wharf, $4,120.


George Perry Graham: We are repairing old wooden bridges and culverts. We have not got our tenders in yet.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman explain how uie advertisements reach the public for those tenders?


George Perry Graham: By newspaper advertisements. They are placed largely in sections of country where we hope contractors will see them.


Richard Blain: Have you any patronage list?


George Perry Graham: I never saw the list; I do not' know what papers get the advertisements.
Quebec canals-macadamizing two miles of public road, Hungry bay dyke, $14,000.


David Henderson: Is it customary for the government to build macadamized roads for the people?


George Perry Graham: Where the government is responsible for destroying them. We raise a dyke, and it keeps the water off. Where the department damages a road, we leave it in as good a shape as we found it.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: $7,000 a mile would build an electric road.


George Perry Graham: The road is on the top of the dyke. It is not like an ordinary macadamized road. There are six miles and a half altogether, the total cost of which it is estimated will be $32,500.


John Allister Currie: How many yards?


George Perry Graham: It is not a question of macadamizing the road, it is raising the road high enough to get it away from the water, and then making a substantial road on top.


John Allister Currie: We would like to know the cost per yard.


George Perry Graham: An lion, friend behind me says it was $1.95 for rock. The balance is done by day work. The stone work was done by contract to the lowest tenderer.


David Henderson: What do you pay per cubic yard?


George Perry Graham: For cribwork filled with stone up to top of loose course $2.15.
Protection wall, north side of Lake St. Mr. HENDERSON. What kind of stone Francis, $4,500.	;s that?


Mr. SEXSMITH.: What is that for?


George Perry Graham: This is to raise the old wall above the new flood level on the north side of Lake St. Francis. We had a higher flood a couple of years ago than we had had i:i a good many years.
Cornwall canal-extension of concrete wall across washout above lock 18, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to strengthen the weak places in the wall. We have had one break there and we want to strengthen the wall as much as possible.
Improving upper entrance to lock 17, $55,000.


George Perry Graham: There is no place at the lock where boats can tie up. This is a very difficult place to get into, and as we had a request from the vessel men with respect to this matter we have decided, for safety, and because we are convinced of the necessity of this work, to improve this upper entrance. The estimate is $55,000. We expect to do the work this year. Tenders have not been asked for, but they will be advertised.


George Perry Graham: Boulders.


David Henderson: Not crushed stone?


George Perry Graham: No. For stones piled on top of cribwork 85 cents.
Galops canal concrete superstructure for piers, lock 27, $24,000.


George Perry Graham: We touii an appropriation of $40,000 for this, but we cut it down to $30,000. I think that is the amount that it will take to do this work. We are asking for $24,000 now and $14,000 of it is a revote. The work will cost about $30,000 instead of $40,000.


John Albert Sexsmith: That is for the superstructure?


George Perry Graham: The piers are all right but there is a wooden structure on these piers and it is in very bad shape.


John Albert Sexsmith: You are making the superstructure of concrete?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is the substructure wood?
Improving upper entrance, lock 19, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is there such a discrepancy between the two amounts?


George Perry Graham: One is a very large improvement while the other does not call for so much work.
Removing high spots from prism of canal,


George Perry Graham: This is to clean up the bottom of the canal. After a canal has been constructed for a few years it is found that there are high spots where the boats strike.
To repair north bank between locks 18 and 19, $5,000.


David Henderson: Is this where the break occurred a few years ago?


George Perry Graham: This is below it a little. Now let us go back to the item under the heading of Quebec canals:
Macadamizing two miles of public road, Hungry Bay dyke, $14,000.
My hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr.-Sexsmith) asked for some information in regard to that item. First there is crib work filled with stone up to top of loose course, 4,500 cubic yards and, second, stones piled on top of crib work 1,630 cubic yards.


George Perry Graham: Wooden cribs filled with stone.
Sault Ste. Marie canal-iron mooring posts,


George Perry Graham: We are getting rid of the wooden posts and putting in iron and concrete for snubbing posts.
Mr: J. A. CURRIE. This is on account of that accident, I suppose?


George Perry Graham: I do not know, but we are doing it as wood is not safe and it rots away.


John Albert Sexsmith: How many mooring posts will that cover?


George Perry Graham: I have not the number here. The lock is about 900 feet long.


John Allister Currie: While we are on this item will the minister give the committee some information as to what consideration has been given to the question of building another lock at the Sault before all water and power are taken by the locks' on the other side? I saw an item in the papers and I think there was a statement made by the minister that we were going to have another lock on the Canadian side. The lock on the Canadian side is getting very busy.
Mr. GRAHAA1. This is a pretty large question. I made a statement the other
Mr. .1. A. CURRIE

day. We have received quite a number of petitions from shipping men in reference to it. They think we ought to have another lock on the Canadian side. There are so many large things looming up all at once that I have hard work to form a decision. I have not brought it before my colleagues in a definite shape yet. We have a construction engineer at the Soo, and I have asked him, as soon as he can find time when he is not really busy, to get into shape an estimate of what the lock will cost. The chief engineer, though he has not the information at all complete before him, thinks that a new lock such as we ought to have-with a depth from 25 to 27 feet and built to carry large vessels-will cost close upon .1110,006,000. We have not done anything in the matter. We have received a petition in favour of building such a lock


John Allister Currie: How will that compare with the cost of the present lock?


George Perry Graham: It is considerably greater, but I cannot give exact figures. It will be both wider and deeper than the present lock. And besides everything costs more now than it did when the present lock was built.
Trent canal-improvements, $62,500.


George Perry Graham: This i3 the ordinary annual vote. Among the works proposed to be done out of this vote are: New concrete dam on White lake, new concrete dam on Devil's lake, and another on Jack's lake, dredging Lake Simcoe, Balsam lake division, dredging Cameron lake, dredging Stur. geon lake, Bobcaygeon and Lindsay river, dredging Peterborough and Lakefield section, dredging Otonabee river, new dredge, rip-rapping Balsam lake, Lake Simcoe division, duplicate lock gates and installation of electric lighting at hydraulic lift locks. These are the main items, and the work will be carried on by our own staff.


John Allister Currie: My hon. colleague from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is not present. And it may be the minister has not been asked an explanation of the work intended to be done on this canal between Lake Simcoe and Georgian bay. If there is another item, either in these estimates or in the supplementary estimates on which that matter can be discussed, we do not need to go into it now. Otherwise, I would like to get the information.


John Allister Currie: I understand that the minister was there when an accident took place last summer?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Was his attention called to the fact that they let the ships into the lock with a good deal of water, the ' wash ' as they call it? I see this item speaks -of ' iron mooring posts.' It would be impossible to carry on this practice, as I understand, without iron mooring posts. Is it the intention of the government to stop this practice?-for, I am told, if it is allowed to continue, some day two or three of these large vessels will go right down through the canal gates.


George Perry Graham: The engineer is having his report completed on the Severn route and the Nottawasaga route. My hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) can come to the department and see what he is proposing. As soon as the report is completed, it will be laid before the House.


John Allister Currie: Was it the same engineer who made the estimate on these who made the original estimate on the Newmarket canal?


George Perry Graham: Yes, Mr. Walsh.


John Albert Sexsmith: How many are there on the permanent staff in the Peterborough-Lakefield division?


George Perry Graham: The engineer tells me that it is practically impossible to carry through these very large boats if this is not done. They are getting a trifle beyond the present standard in their draught. Of course, the difficulty would be obviated if we had the new lock.


John Allister Currie: I sincerely hope the minister will consider it. Of course, $10,000,000 must appear a very large sum to us on this side. But in proportion to the hundreds of millions we are spending^ on other things, it is not a very large item. The large locks on the Canadian and American side3 were each out of commission this year. Had both been out of commisison at the same time, the traffic between the east and the west would have been tied up. As I understand it, our look is the favourite lock. But the Americans are considering the construction of a third lock.


George Perry Graham: That will come up under the revenue items. I am not sure that the division are kept absolutely separate. And, of course, the employees are not the same in winter as in summer, though some remain all winter.


William Wright: As the minister has adverted to the western outlet, I would like to ask if the Severn route has been surveyed all the way down and if a report is on file?


George Perry Graham: I have just stated that the engineer is completing a report. He will make two different reports of the two different routes.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to challenge the standing of the engineer who made the report, but, as the minister was so misled with reference to the Newmarket canal, I think it would be advisable for

him to have these figures checked up by some other member of the staff, as, for instance, Mr. Riley, who appears to be able to come within a few dollars of the value of work to be done.


George Perry Graham: Any estimate of these routes, before anything is done, will be reviewed by Mr. Grant, the engineer of the Trent, whom I will make responsible for all the figures.
Miscellaneous - arbitrations and awards, $4,000.


George Perry Graham: We take this vote every year, and if there are arbitrations, the expenses are thus provided for. This year, I am glad to say, we did not spend anything out of this appropriation.
be a great advantage, and if matters were so arranged that only sufficient business to last for one day, or for two days at the outside, were brought before the board at one time, I am convinced that it would receive the approval of the public. I myself have sat for four days waiting for a case to be tried. I do not wish to differ with the chairman, but it seems to me that the country is losing money by not making up the full complement of the board.


Richard Blain: This vacancy is, I suppose, that caused by the death of the Hon. Mr. Greenway. The minister states that as soon as he gets his eye on the right man, he will appoint him. Are we to understand that not one of the gentlemen from the west who have been applying, is the right man?
Attendance, repairs and alterations to Governor General's cars, $2,500.


George Perry Graham: This is a vote we take each year. Last year the expenditure under this head was $646.40.
Maintenance and operation of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada, $121,400.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason of the increase?


George Perry Graham: There are several reasons. The staff is a little larger. The chairman has established an operating branch, with a practical operating man at its head, for the settlement of disputes between railways in regard to operation. The staff being larger, the travelling expenses are necessarily greater in addition to the salaries.


David Henderson: Is there not a vacancy on the commission, and is there a possibility of that being filled in the near future? Are there no applications?


George Perry Graham: There are a good many recommendations for a new man. He must be a man from the west. Several men have been recommended, but we have not yet made the appointment. I have discussed it several times with the chairman of the commission. He tells me that the work is not suffering-that it is up to date. He has a great avarice for work himself, and up to the present there has been no urgent need. If I come across the right man, I want to appoint him.


David Henderson: I do not wish to find any fault with the chairman of the board. We all know that he is a hard working man, and does his work well; but the public suffer a good deal of inconvenience, I think, for .he lack of more members on the board. I have known of men having to wait four days at considerable expense, either with a solicitor or without one, for a case to be dealt with. When the board was enlarged, it was intended that it could sit in two sections. That would certainly


George Perry Graham: I have not appointed any.


Richard Blain: It is rumored that there are some from the west now here waiting for the appointment. Perhaps my hon. friend has not got his eye on them yet.


George Perry Graham: I have not seen them.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister will tell us what qualifications are required for a position of this kind. Perhaps we could assist him in getting the right person.


George Perry Graham: I think I will get along with it. While there are many qualifications required, the chief one is good horse sense.


William Roche: If that is the case, I should imagine that a farmer would be the right man. I understand that the grain growers of the west, to the number of hundreds, possibly thousands, have petitioned the government to appoint a certain gentleman to the position. I do not know whether it is the minister's modesty that prevents him appointing this gentleman, inasmuch as he bears the same name as himself, and is a distant relative. At all events, the grain growers have asked to be represented by one of their number on the board. I would make a plea for the farmers of the west, whose interests are so frequently involved in cases that come before the board, and I think that a man resident in western Canada and acquainted with western conditions should be appointed. If the chairman of the commission says that there is no necessity for the appointment at present, I do not wish to urge it; but if the minister means to appoint any one, I think the farming interests of the west should be represented.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Marquette should not forget that a resoluiion was moved in the House calling on the government to appoint a farmer, and our hon. friends opposite voted it down. Are we to understand that they have changed their


John Allister Currie: minds, and now intend to appoint a farmer?


George Perry Graham: That is hardly fair. We did not vote it down. An amendment was moved that the vacancy should be filled by a man having a knowledge of railway conditions in the west. The original motion was to appoint a farmer. We changed that because we did not want to confine the appointment to one particular class, but to be enabled to get a good man from any class.


Richard Blain: The resolution from this side asked for the appointment of a farmer. My hon. friend differed from that and had an amendment moved from his side of the House, and the first resolution was voted down. The first resolution was to the effect that as a farmer occupied the position, Mr. Greenway, the government ought to put a prominent farmer from the west in his place; and to assist the government, this side of the House moved the resolution.


George Perry Graham: Are you sure that was the reason ?


Richard Blain: Well, the government had been making such professions on behalf of the farmers throughout the west that we thought we would point out that, so far as our side was concerned, we were favourable to the farmers. But my hon. friend differed from us and had the motion amended. When may we expect the appointment to be made?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to name the day. I have my own views as to the wofk of the commission. My opinion is that we ought to have a man from the west, and when the vacancy is filled, it will be by a western man.


Richard Blain: Will he be a farmer?


George Perry Graham: Not necessarily, but we will take a good man, no matter what his calling may be. I have had very prominent farmers there recommending a professional man, and giving reasons why it would not be wise to appoint a farmer.


William Roche: Perhaps the minister is waiting for the photograph oi the Calgary applicant.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether ne has urged on the Minister of Railways the necessity of appointing a farmer or whether he intends doing so?


Mr. FISHER.: I voted for the resolution that passed the House.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Agriculture recorded bis vote against the farmer.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Richard Blain: He voted for the amendment of the government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: And the original resolution was that the government should appoint a farmer. That did not suit the Minister of Agriculture. He said we must not bind ourselves to appointing a farmer and he voted to enable the government to appoint another man. He will not say that, in that respect, he was very enthusiastic for the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am always enthusiastic for the farmers.


John Allister Currie: The Minister of Agriculture was out west last summer among the farmers and he must have handpicked a number of them and selected one he could recommend to his colleagues. I am surprised that the Minister of Railways should still adhere to the position taken by that side, that the new commissioner must not be a farmer.


George Perry Graham: I did not take that position.


John Allister Currie: And unfortunately a relative of the minister seems to be a favourite in the west for the position, and the minister is blocked from appointing him by last session's resolution.


Mr. HERRON.: I think that professional men are well represented on the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that it is due to the farmers that they should have a representative on that board. I do not think that the minister could do better than appoint a farmer thoroughly acquainted with the conditions out west, and I would strongly urge him to do so.


John Albert Sexsmith: I wish to press the view of my hon. friend who has just sat down. I think the board is well filled with professional men, and there is no class o.f peonle who do more for the country than the farmers. They are well entitled to representation on the board, and I am satisfied that the minister can find many able farmers in the west who could fill the vacancy very successfully.


Richard Blain: I think we are entitled to some expression of opinion from the Minister of Agriculture. He will no doubt be going around the country next summer saying that this matter was not drawn to his attention. We wish to give him the opportunity of saying whether he still believes a farmer should be appointed. Has he made any recommendations to the minister on behalf of an}' farmer for that position?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


John Allister Currie: There are so few positions to which farmers can be appointed that I think we should leave them this one. Everything else in the service is blocked out for professional men, so that when a farmer makes application he is met with the statement you are not a graduate of any university and you have not professional training, &c. I really think that, in all fairness, as a matter of justice to the farming community, especially in the west, who have such vital interests at stake, the minister should be frank enough to tell the House that, all other conditions being equal, a fanner will be given the preference for this position.
Remuneration to government directors, Grand Trunk Pacific, $2,000.


John Allister Currie: I would like to ask a question. Are the officials of the Railway Commission allowed transportation under the Railway Act like members of parliament? It is vitally important they should be, if not.


George Perry Graham: I think they are provided for in some way. I know they do get transportation. I will look into that. I think they are included in the class that the statute provides the railway shall carry free.
Mr. ,T. A. CURRIE. The reason I ask is that it is rumored that such is not the case, and it, would be very unfortunate if it were not.


George Perry Graham: I shall make a note of it. I see the distinction.
To pay expenses in connection with cases before the Railway Commission, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: We spent last year $5,470.77. We have cases come up in which the department is interested, and we sometimes initiate cases on behalf of the government. Take, for instance, the express investigation.
Railways and canals-collection of revenue -canals-statistical officers, $37,506.


John Allister Currie: I hone the minister will look up some of the statistical records. He will find they are borrowed mostly from American publications.


George Perry Graham: We get all our own original returns and abstract the American returns as well.


William Wright: How many officers are permanently employed?


George Perry Graham: On the canals, all told, about 3,000. This is paid to certain officers for collecting statistics in addition to their regular salary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


The CHAIRMAN.: The clerk is not sure whether the item for the * Quebec bridge was passed or not.


George Perry Graham: The item for the Transcontinental railway remains over and any other items may be discussed on it. We kept it open with the distinct understanding that anything else could be discussed on it.


David Henderson: I understood from the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that the items for the Intercolonial railway and Quebec bridge were to stand over. I do not wish to commit myself for the member for Hamilton in any way if these items are allowed to pass.


George Perry Graham: We have gone through the Intercolonial for two or three hours, and if we left it stand now fifty hon. members may discuss it. I may have to bring back my staff and the whole matter be gone into again.


John Allister Currie: I would suggest that on the understanding the minister leaves an item over in order that discussion may take place on any point in his estimates if any member wishes to discuss any of these items. It would be only fair on account of the deputy minister being about to leave the department, that the member should give notice to the minister of what questions he wanted answered so that the rest of the staff could get the answer. It would simplify matters.


Robert Laird Borden: The member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) told me that the Intercolonial railway would stand over and also the Quebec bridge. The Transcontinental railway item was not touched at all. He said, however, that in dealing with these items it would not be expected that discussion would be raised that would require the presence of the deputy. They were not to go into details although there might be some broad matters on which discussion could take place.


George Perry Graham: Suppose we leave the Transcontinental, and any discussion that any hon. gentleman wants to take up on any other item of my estimates can be fully discussed on the one item of the Transcontinental. We will hare a full understanding that they can discuss anything they like.


John Allister Currie: And any information about any other item on notice?


George Perry Graham: On notice I shall be glad to give any information.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller).: The Quebec bridge is passed.


Robert Laird Borden: Let the member for Hamilton and the minister settle that.
313.3


George Perry Graham: Pass them and if the
member for Hamilton wants them re-opened I will be perfectly willing to re-open them.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the debate on the Naval Bill will be resumed on
Tuesday?


William Stevens Fielding: On Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 7, 1910.