1910-01-27

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 125) to amend the Land Titles Act.
Mr. SPROULE.: Explain.


Mr. OLIVER.: The Bill is to make necessary provision for the registration of titles in what is now the Northwest Territories. At present registration must be made within the territories. In a few instances property within the territories is in such condition as to require registration, but it is not thought advisable to establish a registry office in the territories until the business to be transacted is much larger than it is at present. It is therefore proposed that for the present registration of titles of properties within the territories should take place at Ottawa, and this Bill is to provide for that.


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

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 126) to correct a clerical error in the French Convention Act 1908. He said: In schedule C to the Act for the convention reference is made to wines containing more than 23 per cent and not more than 26 per cent of proof spirit. It is printed correctly in the French version but the English version reads: 'Containing more than 23 per cent, and not more than 23 per cent'. The error is obvious. The figure '23' in the last case should be '26'. This is to correct the error.


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

[Stage Direction]
MEANING OF RECESS OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. C. A. WILSON:
Do the words during the recess of parliament in section 119 of the postal regulations, mean the period of time which elapses between the adjournment of one session and the opening of the following session, and also all periods of time durine: which the Senate and House of Commons are adjourned during the session ?
['I submit I am entitled to have the correspondence laid on the table without a motion.']
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: The period of time referred to in the regulations as ' the recess of parliament ' means only the time elapsing between the prorogation of the House and the opening of the next session of parliament.



Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Was Dr. Arsene Godin, of St. Johns, Que., ever paid an indemnity by this government in connection with certain damages to his land on Ste. Therese Island, county of

St. Johns, Que., caused bv waters of the Richelieu river and the Chambly canal?
2. If he was, what amount was paid, through whom was said amount paid, was any interest added, and to what amount and through whom were said amounts so paid?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Dr. Godin was paid $2,000.	(b)
Dr. Godin was paid through the Department of Justice, (c) No interest was added.


DREDGING IN ERASER RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
this work that one of their tugs had been wrecked, resulting in large financial loss.
Later on in the season one of the departmental dredges was sent to Gaspereaux to continue the dredging.
Mr. CROCKET.: Would the minister be kind enough to lay the papers on the table of the House.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The answer will go in ' Hansard.' If the hon. gentleman will move in the ordinary way the motion will be responded to.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	What depth of channel is the present objective of the dredging operations being curried on by the dredge ' Eruhling' at the mouth of the Eraser river?
2.	What is the estimate of the quantity of material requested to be removed to secure that depth?
3.	By what date will that depth of water be available, according to the estimate of the department ?
L Have representations been received from iNew Westminster or elsewhere, respecting the urgency for more rapid carrying on of these dredging operations? If so, is the department making preparations to meet this urgency ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Twenty feet at low tide, or thirty-one feet at ordinary high tide.
2.	500,000 cubic yards.
3.	The resident engineer reports that the work, if carried on without any interruption, would be done in ninety days; but, allowing for delay from bad weather, repairs and practical suspension during fishing season, it will probably not be completed before six months.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) The work is being carried on as rapidly as possible.


DREDGING AT GASPEREAUX.
Mr. CROCKET.: 1.	What was the total amount of the payments made through the Public Works Department to the Maritime Dredge and Construction Company, for dredging at Gasper-eaux Liver, N.B., in the fiscal vear ending March 31, last?	.
2.	What to date during the present fiscal year ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$29,470.
2.	$4,499.60, for work done during fiscal year 1908-9. No dredging was done by the company at Gaspereaux during the present fiscal year, as by reason of the alleged difficult and exposed location where the work was being performed, they declined to return to it last spring at their tender price of the previous year. They also gave as a further reason for declining to accept an extension of their contract, and as evidence of the unusual difliculties attending


Mr. BLONDIN.: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Surely the minister does not require that I should make the ordinary motion?	.


PUBLIC WORKS PAYMENTS TO A AND R. LOGGIE.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	What was the total amount of the payments made through the Public Works Department to the firm of A. & R. Loggie in the fiscal vear ending March 31, last?
2.	What to date during the present fiscal year?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$44,056.44.
2.	$16,366.48.


EMPLOYMENT OP R, J. WATSON.
Mr. BURRELL:: 1. Is Mr. R. J. Watson, ex-M.P., still m the employ of the government.
2 If so, what salary does he receive, and what was the date of his appointment?
3.	If not in the government employ, when were his services dispensed with?
4.	Did he make any reports? If so, what was done with them?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$2,500 per annum. 15th February, 1909.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Yes, a considerable number. They were dealt with in the ordinary way. If the recommendations were approved action was taken on them.


MR. ALLARD AND GOVERNMENT CON TRACTS.
Mr. CROTHERS:: \ p	^bert Allard, of the firm of Provost & Allard, Ottawa, on the 22nd day of January, 1910, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other person, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada, on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada was to be paid?
2. If so, have all such relations with the government or with any of its officers ceased since, and when?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The government is not aware that Mr. Allard is interested in any contract, directly or indirectly.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill (No. 101) now before this House respecting the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, which may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers, to provide for the appointment of Boards of Investigation for the purpose of inquiring into alleged combines causing enhanced prices or restricted competition, for the appointment of counsel to conduct investigations before such boards, and for the payment of the members of such boards and of counsel, and of witnesses appearing before the boards, and of all expenses of boards, including transportation expenses incurred by the members thereof, or by persons under order of such boards, in mating investigations under the Act, and salaries of employees and agents and the payment of clerical and other assistance.
He said:	His Excellency, having been
appraised of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. G. TAYLOR.: I beg to inquire from the Minister of Public Works if it is a fact, as I have heard it is, that a number of employees of the Public Works Department are away from their duties and attending to electioneering in the present campaign in the city of Ottawa. If that be the case, will the services of these gentlemen be dispensed with?


William Pugsley: My attention has not been called to this alleged fact.


NECESSITY OF MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Oswald Smith Crocket: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if, as a member of the House, I am not entitled to demand that papers which are referred to by a minister in an explanation to this House be laid on the table without further order? The Minister of Public Works a few moments ago, gave an answer t-o a question in which he stated that certain representations had been made which accounted for the discontinuance of the dredging at Gaspereaux. I assume he is referring to correspondence, and if that answer referred to correspondence I submit that the House is entitled to have it laid on the table of the House without a notice of motion.


William Pugsley: It will be found that I stated in the answer that the Maritime Dredging Company declined to accept an extension of the contract for dredging at Gaspereaux during last year. They gave as a reason the unusual difficulty and exposed character of the work and also the fact that one of their tugs had been wrecked, involving heavy financial loss. I did not state in the answer that there was any correspondence on file to that effect.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do I understand it is verbal?


William Pugsley: I am not sure that there is any correspondence. I know there were verbal communications. I verbally requested the president of the company to go on with the work, and I know he declined. If the hon. gentleman will move for a return I shall be very glad to have the records examined and see if there is any correspondence.


Mr. BLAIN.: Surely the minister will not call on the hon. gentleman to move for a motion of this kind. The government complain that the time of the House is taken up with too many motions. If the minister will state there is no correspondence, that will settle it; or if he says he will have the records searched and if he finds correspondence in the department he will lay it on the table without further motion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: If the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) insists I shall look into the matter.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I submit I am entitled to have the correspondence laid on the table without a motion.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CON-MEE.

Mr. CONMEE.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Some few days ago an article appeared in the ' Free Press ' of this city in regard to evidence or a statement that was taken before the Committee on Mines and Minerals. Some discussion took place the day following in this House, the matter was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Nipis-sing (Mr. Gordon) and the minister and myself made some remarks. I find in an issue of the 'Citizen ' of this city what I consider a very gross piece of misrepresentation, which I wish to call to the attention of the House. First I desire to call attention to what was complained of. The article published in the ' Free Press ', which I shall not quote in extenso, makes reference to statements made before the Mines Committee, and goes .on to say:
Thar it is the duty of the Canadian government to step in and take over those nickel deposits for the benefit of the Dominion and the empire was the proposition which was

placed before tlie Mines and Minerals Committee of the House of Commons this morning by Mr. Arthur Wilson, at present of Toronto, but officially engaged in an investigation on behalf of the British government into the nickel deposits in Canada.
Continuing further, the article contains this paragraph:
He advocated that the government should take over the nickel deposits as a matter of imperial urgency, which would give Great Britain an enormous advantage over all other countries in the construction of warships, and would insure for all time that the material which is a feature in the construction of modern battleships would be retained for the empire.
I may say, as was explained by myself on that occasion in my remarks, which will be found in ' Hansard,' that Mr. Wilson was very much annoyed at having been misrepresented as this article does misrepresent him. I stated on that occasion that I had gone with Mr. Wilson to the editor of the ' Free Press,' and that I gave him a correction of that statement. Let me read the correction which was published:
I was much surprised at the report contained in your issue of this day with reference to Mr. Wilson's remarks before the Committee on Mines and Minerals this morning. Nothing he said could have warranted any one in stating that he was officially employed in an investigation on behalf of the British government into the nickel resources of Canada, nor had he advocated that the government should take over the nickel deposits as a matter of imperial urgency. He merely attended before the committee at their invitation to give evidence as to the present condition of the nickel industry and suggested that it would be in the interests of the country generally if the larger deposits of nickel ore at Sudbury could be worked on a larger scale, and that not only should the matte be refined in Canada but that the government be recommended to foster the production of nickel steel in the country.
Sir, notwithstanding the fact that that correction was published, there appeared the following day in the same paper an editorial to the effect that its statement was correct. The paper insisted on this, notwithstanding the remarks made both by myself and my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Gordon).
Then in the Ottawa * Citizen ' of a couple of days ago, appeared this article, which is the one I rose more particularly to complain of. It is headed the ' Nickel Monopoly,' and goes on to discuss what it alledges to be Mr. Arthur Wilson's statement. I shall not read the article through, but only that portion which it is necessary I should read in view of the remarks I propose to make:
A discussion subsequently took place in the House of Commons regarding the purport of Mr. Wilson's remarks, and Mr. Gordon, M.P., and Mr. Conmee, M.P., undertook to Mr. CONMEE.
describe the report as inaccurate, and furthermore denied that there was any such thing as a monopoly of the nickel production in Canada.
Let me call attention to the fact that what was complained of in the article and corrected in the letter written to the newspaper and signed by myself was not the question at all of a monopoly, but the question of the misrepresentation of a witness who appeared before this committee. I take it .for granted that it is not only the duty of the committee-and I feel that responsibility as being chairman of that committee-to protect those who come before it and give expert evidence or information, but it is also the duty of this House to protect its members and those from whom it may obtain information on such important questions. Then this article goes on to say:
Mr. Conmee expressed something akin to pained surprise that any one should allege such a thing and conveyed the impression that Mr. Wilson had repudiated the reports of his evidence which appeared in the press both Liberal and Conservative.
As to that statement, Mr. Wilson came with me to the newspaper office. I introduced him to the editor, and Mr. Wilson explained where the misrepresentation occurred and the editor replied that it was not his regular reporter who had attended to that matter. If it had been, he explained, the mistake would not have been made. Yet the editor returned to the same misrepresentation the following day. The article in the * Citizen ' continues:
Mr. Templeman, the Minister of Mines, reinforced the other two gentlemen by stating that the chairman of the committee had assured him that the reports of Mr. Wilson's evidence which appeared in the press were inaccurate. In what detail the report of Mr. Wilson's evidence may have been inaccurate, it is difficult to determine; but whether or not he stated that a monopoly of the nickel industry is enjoyed by the International Nickel Company of the United States, the same is true, the chairman of the Mines and Minerals Committee, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Conmee to the contrary notwithstanding. The two latter gentlemen in making the statements that they did on the floor of the House were simply engaged in the congenial occupation of gold bricking parliament with an engaging air of candour. They pointed out that, so far from the nickel resources of Canada being monopolized by the American company, there was a large area of nickel mineral claims which were not owned by the Americans. This is true, but it by no means disproves the monopoly charge. On the contrary, it is the strongest evidence against it, seeing that this territory is lying idle and its development paralysed.
I wish to call the attention of the House to the extravagant language used by this writer. He represents that the witness did make statements which that witness

has not only denied, but has taken every reasonable means of contradicting, feeling that he was injured by the misrepresentation. He says also that two hon. members of this House are engaged in the work of gold-bricking the House in regard to what was placed before the Mines Committee. The press is an important medium of information for the public; no one is stronger in his belief in the press than I am; but I do protest against the gross injustice of a writer, who knows nothing about the subject-for this article is proof that this writer is absolutely ignorant of the conditions that exist in connection with this mineral-and who has no personal knowledge of what took place before the committee, seeking by these extraordinary statements of his to misrepresent members of this House. There ought to be some decency in conducting discussions in the press. Members of this House have some responsibility, and, in carrying on their duties they ought not to be wantonly and grossly misrepresented at the mere will of some one who happens to write for a newspaper. I do not think it is to the credit of the newspaper itself. I will not go further in the matter. I think these gentlemen have committed an offence which deserves some punishment; nevertheless I shall not do more than call the attention of the House to the wrong that has been done. I shall not take up the time of the House in discussing fully all thi3 writer's opinions and the policy which he advocates for the country as elaborated in his article. But let me say that what it was stated that there was a monopoly of the nickel deposits of Canada in the hands of a particular company. That was denied both by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Geo. Gordon) and myself. There was also the' statement that Mr. Wilson had represented himself, wrongly, fraudulently, before the committee as a representative of the British government; yet the very contrary was the case, for when Mr. Wilson was asked by a member of the committee if he did represent the British government his answer was, ' No '. Yet this misrepresentation is persisted in notwithstanding what ha3 taken place. Now, it may. be in the mind of some hon. members that efforts have not been made to develop the nickel resources of Sudbury. But great efforts have been made-


James Conmee: All right, then, we will read-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have indicated


James Conmee: Oh, you do not require more of it read.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Conmee)' has had full privileges accorded him


James Conmee: This article refers to the aims of the provincial government, and I thought it not necessary to take up the time of the House in reading it. But if I cannot go on without reading the whole


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) must confine himself to the question of privilege.


James Conmee: I am doing so.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is a question.


James Conmee: I would like to understand the ruling of the Chair. I have here a newspaper article to which I am calling attention as a matter of privilege. Have I not the right to read that article?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have allowed the hon. member full latitude on the point, and I think he should not abuse the privilege He has been given every opportunity to explain, and, having done so, that is an end of the matter.


James Conmee: I do not quite understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to disobey the Chair. Am I at liberty to read the whole of this article or not?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I do not know what the article contains. But the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) rose to the question of privilege, and he has been heard on that question of privilege. I think he should confine himself strictly to explaining the position, and, having done that, I think he ought not to go beyond it.


James Conmee: I deny that I have gone beyond it. I think I am within my rights in reading any portion of this that I please.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It must be on a ques tion of privilege, and I reserve to myself the right to call the hon. member to order. Of course, if he does not take the friendly advice offered from the Chair, I cannot compel him to do so.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) ought to confine himself to the question of privilege.


James Conmee: I am doing so. If the House wishes me to read the whole of this article, though it is a long one, I am prepared

Mr, CONMEE. I shall have to bow to the ruling of the Chair, although I fail to see on what it is based.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAIL WAV-CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It would be an abuse to do so at this time.
House resumed adjourned debate on tl -* motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the ap-

pointment of a special committee to investigate certain allegations of Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden against a portion of the engineering staff of the National Transcontinental railway.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I had not the advantage of being in this chamber when the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) introduced his resolution to appoint a committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden as chief engineer in charge of the construction of the Transcontinental railway. But, after a careful perusual of the motion and of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on that occasion, I shall take the opportunity to make a few remarks, first, upon what should _ be _ the object in introducing a motion of this kind; and, second, what I think is the apparent object of introducing that motion.
In 1903, this government conceived the idea of building a second transcontinental railway, or rather some person else conceived that idea, and, as we afterwards proved, the government took to itself that idea and claimed it as its own. However that may be, the record of this House shows that, while we were in favour of the idea of constructing a great national transcontinental railway, we objected-and we still object-to the manner in which the government carried that idea into execution. And, because we did not approve of the principle of carrying that road to successful completion, it carried with it, I think, a corresponding duty on the part of the members on this side to see to it that the road was constructed in the most economical manner.
Now, without going into the figures, let me say in a cursory manner that there is no doubt-it has not been disputed-that this railway has cost a very much larger sum than was estimated. We were told that the government had most reliable information upon the subject, and that the construction of the road would cost in the neighbourhood of $51,000,000. And to-day, as we all know, according to the latest revised figures of the Minister of Railways and Canals, produced in this House in December last, it is costing over $114,000,000.
Now, I would say, in the first place, need we go further than that? That change casts a very serious reflection upon, makes a prima facie case against, the government of the day, that there has been recklessness and mismanagement, or at least, carelessness, in the construction of the National Transcontinental railway. From 1903 down to 1907, while there were occasional grumblings, so far as I know there was no Mr. CONMEE.
distinct eruption in connection with the construction of that road. But in 1907, Mr Hodgins, who was then in charge of district ' B ', came out boldly and said, in effect: ' I have been endeavouring, in my own way, to keep down the estimates, to cut down the classification in respect of the division over which I have charge. But the commission is not satisfied with that, the commission, he said, have been urging me to be more liberal in my classification.' That is the charge he made. That charge wa3 investigated, to a certain extent. A committee of this House was appointed,' a majority of whom were supporters of the government; and, while it it true that to a certain extent Major Hodgins withdrew his charges, it is equally true that the reason why that committee did not proceed was that the matters to be investigated were matters that came exclusively within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of arbitration appointed under the Act of 1902. Matters went on until 1907. The man in charge of the railway, the chief engineer, is the man upon whom this country must depend for honesty in the construction of that railway, because there is no man who has greater powers, or should have greater powers, he certainly has greater responsibilities than the commissioners themselves. The commission is composed of men who know nothing whatever about railway construction. So far as I know, not a single gentleman on that commission to-day has ever built a mile of railway, or any portion of a railway, or has ever, in his lifetime, had control of any railway or any portion of a railway. So I say that as regards the position of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway, I thoroughly agree with the hon. the Minister of Railways that he i3 the most important person that we have under our control in the construction of that railway, because he is the man that can return common excavation into loose rock, loose rock into solid rock, or solid rock into common excavation. That is the man who can turn $25 into $50, who can turn $50 into $150, who can turn $25 into $150. Therefore, I say he acts in the position of guardian of the treasury of this country.
Now what do we find? We find that in 1907 the chief engineer, being unable to agree with the most liberal classification being made by his sub-chiefs, resigns his position because he cannot countenance what he claims to be an unjust, unwarranted and dishonourable manner of classifying, especially on sections ' B ' and * F ' of the Transcontinental. Now I say this fact, coupled with the fact that this road has cost $12,000,000 more than double what was originally estimated, these two facts alone, I submit, make out a prima facie case against this government, that the road has not been constructed in an eco-

nomical manner, and that therefore we are called upon to investigate. Now, having in view' these circumstances, what is the duty of the government upon this occasion? I say it is the absolute duty of the government to place such an instrument in the hands of a committee of this House of Commons that we will be able to go thoroughly into the cause of that gentleman's resignation. A committee of the House should be given full power to say to Mr. Lumsden: You have resigned because you say that certain of your engineers have forfeited your confidence by reason of their over-classification; that means that you have resigned because certain of your engineers were changing 25 dollars into 50, and 50 into 150. You say that in consequence thereof you have lost confidence in them. We ask you to say why you have lost confidence in those men, we ask you to prove your allegations. Until we do get a committee that will enable us to ascertain whether these charges are true, we have not done our duty to the country. If the government do not give us that power, I maintain that they are afraid to give it, they are afraid to let the country know what is taking place under the regime of that commission. I maintain that the government are in a worse position if they grant a commission which does not give that authority, than if they granted no commission at all, because they might consistently take the attitude they took on the Hodgins inquiry and say: We did not grant this commission because these matters were under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of another tribunal which we appointed in 1903. But when they appoint a tribunal and do not give it the powers which they should give it, then we are justified in saying that if they-take this position, they do it for the purpose of deceiving the public.
What have they offered us by this motion? Mr. Lumsden says in effect: I, Hugh Lumsden, having lost confidence in the engineers in district ' B ' and ' F ' hereby resign my position. The government says:	We will investigate that.
Now that, boiled down, is what the government have offered us. But how does the Prime Minister look at it-I take his own words. The Prime Minister says: This is altogether a question of classification, that is the reason that Mr. Lumsden resigned. You can investigate that, but you cannot investigate whether that mistake, or improper classification, arises from carelessness, negligence or bad faith. Why, Sir, those are the very things which caused Mr. Lumsden to resign, he would not have resigned, as he says himself, unless he had lost confidence in his sub-engineers, and the reason he lost confidence in them was because they had been guilty of over-classification, and that can only arise by reason
of carelessness, incapacity or had faith. The Prime Minister, himself says that if this investigation led to that conclusion, namely, that Mr. Lumsden was resigning for either of these reasons, incapacity, bad faith or dishonesty on the part of his subengineers, then you cannot go one step further in that investigation. If that is so, then I say that the whole investigation proposed by this government is an absolute farce.
Now, let us see what the Minister of Railways had to say. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has a very unhappy method, a very unhappy manner, a very unhappy custom, I might say, of interjecting questions which go to the whole root of the matter. The hon. member for North Toronto asked the Minister of Railways what, in his opinion, in his own language, we could investigate under this motion, and the Minister of Railways was absolutely dumbfounded, and could not say what was to be investigated. I will read what the minister said:


Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the hon minister to dispense.
Because he wanted him to say in his own words what there was to investigate. The minister could not say, but he started to read the resolution. So Mr. Foster said:
I would ask the hon. minister to dispense. What I want from him is an explanation of that resolution. Any man can read it, but we do not all grasp what it means.


Mr. GRAHAM.: My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), with his usual precision, puts the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) right. He says the last paragraph explains it. I will read that.


George Eulas Foster: I have read that and understand it.


George Perry Graham: I do not see that I can use any plainer language.
Then the hon. minister goes on to read that portion of the motion:


George Eulas Foster: What are the charges?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find that in Mr. Lumsden's letter, read by myself and by the Prime Minister.


George Eulas Foster: Would my hon. friend tell us what they are, in his own language?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to detain the House longer recapitulating what is so plain.
-So the Minister of Railways himself cannot explain what there is to investigate, under his leader's motion. Then we take the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and what does he say? The hon. member for Pictou says, at the bottom of page 2488 of ' Hansard ' of the 25th January:
And the result is we get down to this question as to whether or not there have been mistakes in classification-
Now, a mistake in classification is an improper classification and if it is an im-

proper classification it is not a proper classification. I think that goes without saying. That means that the mistake that he was referring to was not a proper classification. Then he says:
-whether or not Mr. Lumsden was correct in his statement that there was disobedience of instructions and failure to record what he had told these men should be done.
Well, failure to follow instructions leads to overcharge in classification, and overcharge in classification means improper classification. So far as the hon. gentleman has simply said that the matter to be investigated is whether or not there has been a proper classification. Now he says:
These are proper subjects for the committee.
He says that whether or not there has been over-classification is a proper subject for the committee. But then he says:
The question as to whether there was proper classification is a matter entirely for the tribunal constitued by parliament in 1993.
So that he says in one case that the question of classification is a proper one for this committee and in the next case he says that the question of classification is a matter entirely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators appointed under the Act of 1903. It is impossible to reconcile these two statements. It shows that there is nothing whatever to investigate under the resolution proposed in this House. I will put a concrete instance. We will say that we have a committee appointed and we will say that we have on that committee the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Carleton, N. B. (Mr. Car-veil) who have done such herculean service in the Hodgins inquiry and who succeeded so well in burking that inquiry.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has no right to charge me, or any other member of this House, with burking an inquiry as a member of a committee.


William Sora Middlebro: What I do sav is that it was largely through the efforts of the hon. member for Pictou-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I suppose the hon. member can explain what he meant.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I take the point that no hon. member has the right to make that charge with reference to a member of this House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I must hear his explanation of what he meant bv these words, before I can give a ruling.


William Sora Middlebro: 


William Sora Middlebro: I did say, and if it is not what I did say, I certainly meant to say, that it was largely through the exertions of the hon. member for Pictou and the hon. member for Carleton, N. B., that the whole matter to be investigated by the Hodgins committee was referred to the arbitrators appointed under the Act of 1903, and from that day to this, although it was referred back in 1907, the arbitrators have not given one single decision in reference to it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to know whether the hon. member for North Grey persists in the statement that I burked the inquiry as a member of the committee.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the wqrd 'burked' is not parliamentary.


William Sora Middlebro: I thought it was in order for an hon. member to explain what he meant and I did explain what I meant.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That means that the hon. gentleman does not persist in the use of the word 'burked'?


William Sora Middlebro: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As an hon. member of this House I have a perfect right to rise to a point of order. ' I object to being charged untruthfully-
Some hon. MEMEBERS. Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I object to being charged by the hon. member, about a matter of which he knows nothing at all himself, with burking, as a member of a committee, anything which was referred to me as a member of that committee and I want to know whether the hon. gentleman is in order in persisting in the statement that I have referred to.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand the hon. gentleman to have withdrawn the words.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well let him withdraw them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He wanted to explain.


William Sora Middlebro: As I understand the meaning of the word ' burked ' it is to prevent, and I have endeavoured to show that the hon. member for Pictou was the chief instrument in preventing that Hodgins inquiry.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that the expression ' burked the inquiry ' is unparliamentary.


William Sora Middlebro: If the word ' burked ' is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it, but I am seeking to prove what I mean by the word ' burked.'


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For myself I want to have it distinctly understood as to whether hon. members can make statements of this kind, comply nominally with your ruling and then persist in not complying with it. Are we to have parliamentary rules or are we not? I want to say to the hon. gentleman that he is talking about a subject that he knows nothing at all about.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have given my ruling.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The hon. member has withdrawn the word.


William Sora Middlebro: I was proceeding to give a concrete instance of what would probably happen if we had the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Pictou as two of the members of this committee. We will proceed now to show what exactly would occur. We have a committee of five, three of whom are government supporters, stalwart henchmen of the government. The chairman is put in the chair. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), we will say, calls Mr. Lumsden and puts him in the box:
Q. Mr. Lumsden, you were, until June 25, 1909. chief engineer of the Railway Commission?-A. Yes s'r.
Q. You resigned your position on June 25, 1909?-A. Yes sir.
Q. Why did you resign your position?-A. The letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission shows that.
Q. What was that?-A. I resigned because I had lost confidence in the engineers on sections ' B ' and ' F ' of the railway.
Q. Why did you lose confidence in these engineers?-A. I resigned because they had classified contrary to my instructions.
Q. What were these instructions?-A. I have them here in my pocket.
I propose now to prove that by reason of over-classification against these instructions this country has lost, say, $500,000.
The hon. member for Pictou rises and says:	This resolution does not authorize
this committee to try the question of whether there was over-classification, it is a matter, according to my speech on this motion, which comes exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators appointed under the Act of 1903 and in proof of that I cite the speech of my own leader, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in which he says that whether that over-classification arose from bad faith, incompetence, or carelessness, this committee cannot determine such a question. There we stop. That is the very foundation upon which this inquiry proceeds and yet we are blocked from going into the case. What can we ask the man? We can say to him:	Tell us some other
reason why you resigned. Was it because your engineers smoked bad tobacco, or was it because he was not wearing a proper kind of clothing, or was it because of any other
habits he had? There would be no objection on the part of my hon. friends because this is quite within the purview of this resolution, but when you go into evidence to substantiate your charges and which relates to the taking of a dollar out of the public treasury, these gentlemen are justified-and I make the statement advisedly-under this resolution in saying not one tittle or iota of evidence are you entitled to give here. Then it goes back to the very same tribunal which my hon. friend from Pictou helped to send it back to in 1907, or 1908, because he said that tribunal had the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. In order to be precise I will read the hon. gentleman's own words on that occasion:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: -Now the fact is before us that Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Woods have gone over that section ' F ' of this line. They have looked at various divisions there and at this very moment they are performing the function which was contemplated would be performed by section 7 of the agreement and endeavouring to agree' upon what the proper classification is, and in the event of their being unable to agree as to that then the third arbitrator would be called in. In other words these gentlemen are now dis charging the duty assigned to them and are going to arrive at some conclusion upon the differences which I understand my friends to be arguing this committee should engage in.
The absurdity of the position suggested by my hon. friends will be recognized when we consider that at this very moment the two gentlemen who are appointed by statute are performing their statutory functions and they are bound to come to some conclusion on the matter. Upon that conclusion the accounts will be adjusted. At the same time, if the view of my hon. friends were concurred in we would be taking up our time in dealing with a purely academic question. I do not understand my hon. friends to urge that there is anything improper in the position of the commissioners in dealing with the engineers, so it is purely a question of a difference of opinion between these engineers as to what the classification will be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman ays, hear, hear, but if he follows the reasoning of his leader he will be found to acknowledge that the moment the question of classification comes up in this committee, it will be sent to these three arbitrators. Well, if that be the position taken by the government it simply means that there is not a single thing concerning the expen diture on this railroad which can be inquired into by that committee or any other tribunal appointed by this House. The very minute you touch the kernel of the matter which should be inquired into, the supporters of the government will say: these matters are solely within the jurisdiction of this arbitration tribunal and you have no right whatever to interfere with

them. Therefore, we can come to no other conclusion, but that this committee is now being appointed, not for the purpose of investigating, but for the purpose of whitewashing. We will go before this committee and we will present our evidence, but our evidence will be rejected and the next morning the ' Globe ' newspaper will come out with great big headlines statins that after the most thorough, searching, and impartial investigation that has ever taken place Mr. Lumsden's charges have utterly fallen to the ground, that the skirts of the government are absolutely clean, and the opposition had to withdraw every charge. That is what the government want to do, and that is the reason they put this resolution on the order paper. But if I am wrong I now ask the right hon. gentleman to set me right. The Prime Minister knows that the gravamen of the charges made by Mr. Lumsden is over-classification which simply means taking money out of the treasury of this country illegally and unlawfully. I ask the right hon. gentleman in his place now, will he allow us to ask these questions and to prove these charges when the matter comes up before this committee. The right hon. gentleman is silent; he does not answer. I can quite appreciate his silence. I ask the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) will he declare in the committee that we have the rigiit to investigate the question of whether or not, there ha3 been over-classification and money taken out of the treasury? Let the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) tell us that before we go to the committee. The hon. member is also silent. 1 ask the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) who no doubt will be in the committee, what will he say if we offer to prove these charges? Will he allow us to do so or will he tell us it is a matter to be sent to the arbitrators who have not yet sent in their report. That is a fair question to put to these gentlemen. The hon. gentleman is also silent.


Mr. LALOR.: They are dumb.


William Sora Middlebro: They won't answer. Since it is quite evident that we will not have an opportunity of getting these matters before the committee let me now say a word or two on the merits of the case. In 1903 the right hon. the Prime Minister proposed the building of the National Transcontinental railway and he told us he had mountains of information upon which to base an estimate of the cost. I have a right to suppose that he sent out a staff of engineers who went along the route of this railroad and got the levels, and took the estimates of quantities that were to be removed, making borings in the different hills to find whether there were solid rock, loose rock, Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
or common excavation. That wa3 their duty and I presume- they did it. I make this statement here-not as an engineer, but on what has been told me by experienced engineers-that an engineer can ascertain more correctly before a cut has been made than he can afterwards, what amount of material is in that cut. That is especially so in the case of	a partial
cut, say where the railway is going round a hill and only a portion of the hill is taken off, because he has the actual geographical formation of the hill to be removed in his eye, whereas afterwards he has not. In the case of a straight cut I will admit that he could measure that afterwards as correctly as before, but I say that the experience of engineers proves that in a location such as I have referred to, they can estimate more accurately before the actual cut has been made than afterwards. Now, that being the case, can any one conceive why there should be a difference of from 100 per cent to 150 per cent between the estimate- and the actual cost in this road. The geographical position of the country is the same as it was when the estimate was taken, the geological formation is the same, and practically the only thing that has caused a difference in the price is, the classification of solid rock, loose rock, common excavation, and the over-break. It is because the juxtaposition of these four that the extra additional cost of the railway has come. It i3 very easy for a man to change commop excavation into loose rock, an engineer's certificate will do that. It is very easy for him to change loose rock into solid rock, if the engineers are in any way in collusion with the contractor and if they will do it, and it is a very hard matter to detect when they have done it. But, in going along and boring down into a hill to find what was the character of the soil, how much was common excavation, how much loose rock and how much solid rock, was it possible for them to have made a mistake to the extent of from 100 per cent to 150 per cent. The best engineers say that it is not possible, nay, they would not be very much surprised if there was a difference of more than twenty per cent in the calculations of an engineer made in that way; but they say that when you get beyond a difference of twenty per cent there is a prima facie presumption that there is something wrong. Now, in this case the difference is not only twenty per cent between the cost and the estimate, but the cost has risen from $51,000,000 estimated-to which you may add twenty per cent as the outside difference that may arise and that will give you $62,000,000 estimated cost. Then the estimated cost ha9 risen from $62,000,000 (including an allow-| ance of twenty per cent) to $114,000,000, and there you have an increase of 100 per

cent and $12,000,000 additional to 3pare. Is there any common sense in that? Does not that very circumstance cast upon the government a prima facie case of negligence, mismanagement, or dishonesty? I think I am justified in saying it does.
I desire to say a few words in reference to Mr. Hodgins. As we all know Mr. Hod-gins was district engineer in charge of district ' 1'', the district lying immediately east of Winnipeg. Mr. Hodgins, so far as we know, enjoyed an enviable reputation until the time he severed his connection with the Transcontinental Railway Commission. He was selected for that position because of his exceptional qualifications as an engineer, because of his great experience in other portions of the world in railway engineering, and, so far as we know, no suspicion had been cast upon him on any occasion. Why was Mr. Hodgins dismissed? I make the claim that Mr. Hodgins was dismissed because he was keeping the classification down too low to suit the contractors and to suit the commission. I prove that in this way. In 1907 complaints were coming in from the contractors to the commission that the classification which Mr. Hodgins was making on his section ' F ' was altogether too low as compared with the classification that was being made in the province of Quebec. This commission sent out their inspecting en-giner, Mr. Gordon Grant, to investigate whether or not Major Hodgins was giving estimates that were too low for the contractors. Perhaps that was not putting it fairly; to investigate the question whether Major Hodgins was not giving a3 liberal classifications as he should. What did Mr. Grant say? After examining the work he came back and reported to the commission, under date J uly 23, 1907, under the head of ' classification on district ' F ' as fol lows:
Classification, on this work, where the vast majority of it is solid rock, is not a serious matter, and where material has been moved that could be classified-and the greater part of it was moved last winter when it was frozen, such as the opening of cuts, the stripping of rocks, &c., I found, from questioning the resident engineers and from looking over the progress estimates, that the classification given the contractors has been very low, and in many cases absurdly low, and for that reason alone there are probably
1,000	men less on the work to-day than there would have been if the work had been fairly and justly classified. Classification is left entirely to the resident, engineers, and they are all to timid to give the contractor what he is entitled to in that line.
Mr. Gordon Grant reported to the commission that Mr. Hodgins was classifying too low, yes absurdly low that his resident engineers were afraid to give the contractors what they were entitled 80
to. What was the result? Two months afterwards Mr. Hodgins was made to walk the plank. It is not the inference that he walked the plank because he was keeping the classification down too low to suit the contractors? Now, what is the truth? Fortunately we have, I think, Mr. Hodgins being justified by after events. The hon. member from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) went very carefully and concisely into the amount of over-classification on the different divisions of the Transcontinental railway. So far as I know the calculations he made are absolutely correct and they have not been denied by the Minister of Railways. I am, therefore, assuming that what he gave us in the House on Tuesday is absolutely correct and is justified by the returns brought down by the Minister of Railways and Canals. According to these returnes we find that there has been an over-classification on the same district ' F ' of $2,798,791-and Mr. Hodgins was removed from that section before that because he was keeping down the classification. Mr. Poulin, his successor, was appointed. Do we find then that his estimates were too low? Do we find any contractors making complaint that his classification is kept down too low? Not a bit of it, not a word of complaint. What do we find? But we find Mr. Lums-den, the chief engineer, of the commission, finding fault with the classification there and we find that the reason Mr. Lumsden resigned was because there was over-classification in that district. We even find Mr. Gordon Grant himself, after he is appointed chief engineer, after he goes over that road, coming back and cutting off $360,000 voluntarily. Is that not proof that Major Hodgins was justified in the charge he made? Is it not proof that the commission wanted Major Hodgins to give more liberal classification? Their inspecting engineer came back and reported that Major Hodgins was not liberal enough. Major Hodgins is discharged and an engineer put in who allows over-classification of $2,789,000, and Mr. Grant himself comes back, and, of his own volition, not as an arbitrator, but simply as engineer for the commission, lops off $360,000. Yet we hear it said that Major Hodgins did not do his duty when he came to the conclusion that they were trying to make him over-estimate the classification. What could an honest man do but to resign. The Minister of Railways yesterday put on record a great number of letters in reference to this subject, many of them not very germane to the discussion. I, therefore, propose to quote from some of the letters to be found in this return from Mr. Woods, assistant engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, in which Mr. Woods makes complaint as to over-classification in differ-



ent portions of the contract. The first letter appears on the first page of the return. It is a letter from Mr. Woods, dated October 7, 1907, shortly after Mr. Hodgins had been removed from his position. So far as I know, certainly so far as this return shows, there were no complaints by ine Grand Trunk Pacific against Mr. Hodgins while he was in charge as to over-classification. This return shows that in October, 1907, shortly after a successor was appointed, there were serious objections to the classification on that section from the Grand Trunk Pacific. He says:
With the latter portion we had detailed percentages for each cut and were greatly surprised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case, where the cuttings were not entirely all ledge, the estimate given for solid rock is double, or more than double, what it should he. In fact, the specifications had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not by reason of any error in judgment, but, as I understand, by special instructions from the assistant district engineer.
Let me give you some illustrations:-
Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5826. Estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out 1J to 1. Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Station 5812 to 5860. Classified 91 per. cent solid rock. 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out 1J to 1. Solid rock over-classified at least 100 per cent.


Mr. CARVELL.: What distinction does the hon. gentelman draw between the slopes of solid rock and common excavation?


William Sora Middlebro: In common excavation you will naturally remove more material, because you will require to have a greater slope irom the perpendicular.


Mr. CAR VELL.: What is the percentage?


William Sora Middlebro: Not being an engineer, I cannot say; but if one and a half to one is a proper slope for common excavation, it is too much for rock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the proper slope for rock?


William Sora Middlebro: As I have told my hon. friend I am not an engineer, but I have sufficent common sense to know that if one and a half to one is a proper slope for common excavation, that slope is not required for rock. Notwithstanding, Mr. Woods says that in this particular excavation solid rock is over-classified at least 100 per cent, yet the return of the slope is given as one and a half per cent to one. That means that you have allowed the contractor to go back from the slant twice as far as you should, and back of that legitimate slope, he has taken rock at $1.50 per yard. That is properly over-break.


William Sora Middlebro: He takes that at $1.50 a yard and uses that in the next grading and calls it filling and gets paid for it as such. Although they are cu tting solid rock, they are returning it as one and a half to one slope and getting $1.50 per yard for it. The next letter I shall read is on page 5. It is dated 20th February, 1908, from Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden:
I do not know the date of those instructions or when they are supposed to have become effective, but from reports of my assistants at Winnipeg and at Quebec, there does not seem to have been any change in classification of work previously reported, the percentage of classified material being steadily increased. We are satisfied that on some parts of the line the work previously estimated was not classified according to your recent instructions, being overestimated in both loose and solid rock. The attention of your district engineers has been called to this fact, but apparently without effect. If your instructions were effective when the January estimates were made, we certainly will have to object to the classifications as rendered on certain parts of the work.
On March 24, 1908, Mr. Woods again writes Mr. Lumsden as follows. He is referring to sections ' B ' and ' F,' the two sections concerning which Mr. Lumsden sent in his resignation because of the insubordination of the engineers:
In examining these estimates I find no apparent change in classification since your instructions to district engineers of January 28, 1908. On the contrary the percentages of classified material seem to be constantly increasing and are even higher than when we made our objections in September last.
I am quite aware that during the winter season it is natural that classified material should run higher than at other times, as little earth work is opened, but I had hoped to see a reduction in classified material so reported prior to January last.
1 have before me a detailed sheet showing classification as made on district ' B,' and am surprised to find material classified as solid rock which, if 1 am correctly informed, under your instructions could onlv be classified as loose rock. 1 also find very large quantities returned both as loose and solid rock in borrowed embankment. On the work east of the Quebec bridge a large amount was done with teams, side borrowed material, and yet the entire contract for the 150 miles only shows 24 per cent of the work done as common excavation. It appears also that the item ' assembleed rock,' No. 5 in your instructions, is made to cover most material where explosives are used in handling.
In excavations for foundations, where hard material is found, under this item it is classified as solid rock, giving the contractor three times the usual price for that material. Onr district engineers are not satisfied with the classification as made. On district ' P ' the objection lies in the first and second divisions.
It is imposible at this time to go over the work with a view of examining classification, but, from reports from my assistants, I cer-

tainly must object to the classification as rendered being: considered final, and request that as soon as the season will permit, you accompany me over at least a part of the line, that I may have your views in regard to this most important matter of classification.
H. A. WOODS, Assistant Chief Engineer.
Then on April 2, 1908, Mr. -Woods again wrote to Mr. Lumsden:
There are a few exceptions to be taken to these estimates so far as" I am advised, except to the classified material, which is constantly increasing, and a very large amount of overbreak in solid rock cutting also increasing and representing in all a very large amount.
The next letter I shall quote is dated June 19, 1908. This is'rather an important letter from Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden:
Dear Sir,-I have before me estimate of rock excavation, district ' F,' for the month ending April 30, 1908. You will recall these statements as being made showing the overbreak on each division from month to month.
It is a little surprising to find that the total overbreak on this district to April 3J. is over 500,000 cubic yards. From the column furnished showing how some of this might have been used where rock borrow otherwise would have been required, and earth borrow, and deducting the.same, I still find about 151,000 cubic yards of overbreak.
I have nothing to show how this overbreak is estimated. Articles 37 and 38 would indicate that a large amount of this overbreak might have been estimated as loose rock rather than solid. Can you say if this has been done? None of my reports indicate such to be the ease. I think you will readily agree with me that if these cuttings are being measured month to month by actual quantities taken out, and no allowance deducted, little effort will be made by the contractors to keep overbreak within reasonable limit and in the end we shall undoubtedly be paying $1,000,000 additional for the work on this section probably not contemplated in youi a, proximate estimates.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 19th instant, together with the copies of settlement sheets of contractors' progress estimate returns for the month of May, as follows.-
District ' A.'-Grand Trunk Pacific.
J. W. McManus & Co.
Lyons & White.
Willard Kitchen & Co.
District ' B.'-Grand Trunk Pacific.
M. P. & J. T. Davis (east).
M. P. & J. T. Davis (west).
Macdonell & O'Brien.
E. F. & G. E. Fauquier. District ' D.'-Grand Trunk Pacific.
District ' F.'-J. D. McArthur.
Upon comparing these estimates with those received since January last. I find that utou percentage of classified material in districts B and ' F ' remain practically in the same proportions as in former estimates received since January last. As I cannot believe that this classification, as rendered, as in accordance with the specifications, or with your letter of instructions to your district engineers of January 30, I must again object to the classification. Our recent visit to certain portions of the line on district * F ' confirms my views relative to classification on both these districts.
H. A. WOODS, Assistant Chief Engineer.
The next is dated July 8, 1908, and will be found on page 35. It is from Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden, and the portions I shall read are as follows:
Dear Sir,-Referring to our recent visit to the work on district ' B ' east of the St Lawrence river, our examination of classification as rendered at points visited, and our conversation regarding same, I hope to repeat in writing what I stated to you verbally-that we still vigorously protest to the classification as returned to date. For example: The first cut we visited, station 7135 to 7112 Gravel cut with little or no ledge. Classification returned 7,900 yards solid rock, 12,100 yards loose rook.
Then he goes on to say:
H. A. WOODS, Assistant Chief Engineer.
There you have the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, a very experienced engineer, saying: If you go on in the way you have been going, with respect to this very question of overbreak-that is taking out more material than you should on this contract alone, the government will lose one million dollars. In order not to weary the House,
I desire to put on record without reading them, the following letters.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the practice in this House. We allow it sometimes in informal proceedings, but on important questions we should have everything read.


William Sora Middlebro: The next letter I shall read then will be found on page 24, and is dated June 23, 1909. It is as follows: I
80J
These are loose rock cuttings containing many large boulders. My judgment is that the solid rock returned is double what it should he, 25 per cent being a liberal allowance.
And again:
The gravel cut on stations 7175 to 7182 is returned as 8,000 yards loose rock and 12,000 yards common excavation. This is purely gravel cut. There may have been a few small stones, which, if found in sufficient quantities, might be termed loose rock, but certainly not more than 10 per cent at the outside. Classified as 40 per cent loose rock at present.
Then, towards the bottom of the page:
For another example further west, take the cut station 5940 to 5950. Estimated 44 per cent solid rock. 56 per cent loose rock. While there is a small amount of ledge in the hot tom of the cut I should say 25 per cent solid

would be ample, unless actual measurements of ledge and boulders have been taken.
And on the following page:
Station 3239 to 3247. Classified 45 per cent solid rock, 55 per cent loose rock. While the quantities in this cut are not large, it is, in my judgment, classified out of ali reason. I can see no solid in it and nothing to exceed 20 per cent of loose rock.
Now, the last letter to which I will refer is dated July 28, 1909, and is printed at page 43. This is a letter from Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden:
In a recent letter from district engineer Mann, he writes that:-The classification is undoubtedly going from bad to worse, even on the parts of the work you saw when out with Mr. Lumsden.
Then, later on:
Another point to which Mr. Mann makes objection is the returning of dry masonry as third-class. He gave instances at stations 2618 and 2628-60 stating that these culverts are dry, and have been plastered on the outside and inside with mortar and returned as third-class. One of these culverts was under construction when he saw it, and others had settled so that the plastering had fallen away showing the entire lack of any mortar m the interior. He further states that some ot these culverts were returned dry in former estimates and were later transferred to tniru-class.
That will give the House some idea -of the complaints that were being made by the Grand Trunk Pacific and whether or not Mr. Lumsden was justified in the position he took when he resigned his office because he could not submit to the classification made by his subordinates. Let me give an instance. I cannot give the exact monetary sums involved-my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) did that. But it is just such cases as this to which I shall refer that account for the increase in the cost of this road from $51,000,000 to $114 000,000. Take the example mentioned in the first letter written by Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden, dated October 7th, 1907:
Stations 6030 to 6046. Estimated 40 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand-cut west of O'Brien s camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August 31 in tins cut, at least 80,000 yards were pure sand.
Imagine estimating a sand cut at 40 per cent solid rock, and 10 per cent loose rock. Let us figure that out. The estimate as passed by the engineers of this commission on the item to which I have just referred was as follows:
38 yds. solid rock at $1.50	$57,000
9,500 yds. loose rock at 50c	 4,750
47,500 yds. common excavation at 25c. 11,925
Total	$73,675
Yet Mr. Woods estimates:


William Sora Middlebro: 80.000	yds. of sand at 25c	$20,00015.000	yds. loose rock at 50c	
7,500Total	$27,500
This amount, Mr. Woods says, would be ample. But instead of paying for the work in that cut on that basis, the engineers of the commission have declared that the contractors are entitled to $73,675.
Now, let me come to this tribunal of arbitration about which so much has been said. In 1903, it is true, provision was made for the appointment of a tribunal of arbitrators. But they were only to act in case of disagreement between the engineer of the company and the engineer of the commission. ' Well, after Mr. Hod-gins had made his charges, after Mr. Woods had repeatedly and yet again sent letters to this commission objecting to the overclassification, the commission finally decided that they would have an arbitration. And whom did they appoint? They appointed, of course, their own engineer, Mr. Lumsden. The Grand Trunk Pacific appointed their engineer, Mr. Kelliher. And these gentlemen looked around to find a third man. The government, in its wisdom, having confidence in the ability and integrity of Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, suggested that that gentleman be appointed third arbitrator, and the Grand Trunk Pacific acceded to that suggestion. So that two out of three arbitrators were nominees of this government. And this government should have had confidence in at least that number of the arbitrators. The arbitrators, as a body, were considered bv this government and by the railway company as the most competent men in the Dominion to decide this question. They went to districts ' B ' and * F ' the districts in question. Using their knowledge as engineers-the best that could be obtained in this country-they went over the work. The sub-engineers watched the proceedings. I do not know whether they should be there or not. But I do know that these arbitrators were then taken on the ground, and that they had this matter, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) sayssub-judice; they were considering these matters as a court. After going over these two sections they came back again. In the ordinary course of events, if public decency were the guiding principle, everybody would naturally wait until the commission made a report, and especially would this be true of the government of the day, since they had appointed two of these gentlemen practically themselves. But what happened? The district sub-engineers, Messrs. Doucet, Poulin and Huestes, who were subordinates of Mr. Lumsden in district 'B', rushed home and framed a

report and submitted it to the Transcontinental Commissioners. Why? From what they had observed of the action of these three arbitrators, the men who were best qualified to know what had taken place, the best qualified to know whether there had been over classification, from what they had observed they came to the conclusion that that Board of Arbitrators appointed practically by this government, was going to come home and say:
' There has been over classification'; and with a consciousness of what they were going to do, they came home and undermined the authority of the arbitrators, and the most shameful part of the whole transaction is what the commission submitted to it. What did they do? These three commissioners came home, and one of them wrote a report reflecting upon the action of the arbitrators; then every man of them wrote a report of that kind and submitted it to the commission. Now I propose to read from these reports. The first is that of Mr. Doucet, dated on the 22nd of June. After reciting a lot of things which he said the arbitrators did, and which in his judgment was not proper to do, he said, on page 23:
On Thursday a start was made at 5 o'clock in the morning, reaching the 1.50th mile at 9 o'clock. The first cut inspected consisted of classified material in which 1,000 yards of solid rock in masses had been returned by our engineers. Mr. Schreiber turned to me and asked me to point out where the 1,000 yards of solid rock were. I answered him that the cutting was classified material, and that the boulders of which it was composed were in the embankments. I was asked to point out where 1,000 yards of boulders averaging one cubic yard each could possibly be; to which I said that as the material was classified, it did not matter whether the boulders were a yard each so long as the mass consisted of boulders large and small cemented together. Mr. Iielliher. the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, then spoke up and said that if I read the specifications I would see that boulders to be estimated as solid rock must measure one yard each. I at once saw that the arbitrators had made up their minds to throw out everything which our chief engineer had returned as solid rock except ledge rock and boulders, each of which measured one cubic yard.
I just read that portion of the report to show that Mr. Doucet knew that the arbitrators were going to report against him, knew they were going to come home and say that there had been over classification. Now, I will read from the report of Mr. Huestes on page 26:
At about the 132nd mile cut station 6576-92, resident engineer Girdwood was questioned as to how he got his 1.174 cubic yards of solid rock, and he replied in boulder measurements, and led the arbitrators to believe that each individual boulder measured one cubic
vard, which I knew he did not mean, and which afterwards Mr. Bourgeois informed me was not the case, as the cut in question was a mass of boulders cemented together, and Girdwood had taken measurements of all boulders for a certain time to arrive at a means of estimating the percentage of solid rock in the cutting, based on our interpretation of ' assembled rock ' as the material was cemented together.
The rest of the report shows that they were not at all satisfied with the classification being made by the arbitrators, because it was going to exceed what they thought it should exceed. Now, I will quote from the report of Mr. Poulin, on page 21:
I do not know of what nature the reports of said inspectors may be; but as district engineer in charge, I must protest asrainst the manner in which such inspection was made as being altogether inadequate and too * superficial to form a correct idea of what the material was like at the time the work was
done	The only question asked me
by Mr. Schreiber about the work was, how I would return a certain portion of one cut. On my answering ' assembled rock ' he answered, ' you are wrong, the chief engineer meant there should be at least 80 per cent of large masses of rock.' I said nothing, but wondered how he knew so well the meaning of that which the chief engineer had apparently in his mind, but did not say in the interpretation given to us.
Now, the point I desire to make is that these understrappers were criticising the proposed decision of the board, the arbitrators consisting of the most expert engineers in the whole country, two of them appointed, as I said, practically by the government itself. It would have been decent to allow the arbitrators to come back and make a report, and to ascertain, first, whether or not that report was going to justify the subengineers. But they did not do that. They came back, and to my mind, concerted a conspiracy, because I find that one of the reports of these sub-engineers is made on the 22nd of June, another is made on the 23rd of June, and the third one is made on the 23rd of June, and all these reports are sent into the commission, and each one of these reports is an attempt to undermine the authority of the chief engineer and the probable result of that Board of Arbitration. What were the duties of the commission in that case? It was the duty of the commissioners to say: We have ordered a board of the best and most experienced engineers in this country to go and see whether or not there had heen over classification in these two districts 'B' and 'F'; what business have you to come in here and attempt to influence our judgment until we receive the report of these arbitrators? Did they do that? I am sorry to say that the most unwarranted and humiliating spectacle is presented to us of the commis-

sion, not only apparently being only too willing and in too great a hurry to receive these reports, but of receiving each one of them at the same meeting of the commission, and considering the reports of these understrappers at 11 o'clock on the 25th of June last, without consulting the chief engineer, without consulting the Board of Arbitrators, and without first submitting to the chief engineer the reports of his subordinates. Does not that look as if the commission did not want over-classification to be found out in districts 'B' and 'F'? Is not that just what they wanted in 1907 when they sent Mr. Grant to inspect district 'B' under Mr. Hodgins, and he came back and said Mr. Hodgins' classification is absurdly low, he has not given the contractors enough, and so Mr. Hodgins is displaced two months afterwards. These understrappers come back here, the commissioners first get their reports in hand and turn round and send these reports to their own chief engineer and say: Mr. Lumsden, what do you think of that? Under the circumstances what could any self-respecting man do but say: If that is the kind of treatment that is accorded me I will resign my position as chief engineer. The records show what took place. At 11 o'clock in the morning on the same day the meeting took place. The same afternoon, and without notice to Lumsden, they sent to the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, the report of these three sub-engineers which favours the contractors as to said classification. On the same day, as soon as Mr. Lumsden got this impertinent communication, he did as any self-respecting man would do, resigned his position. Now, what I want to show is this:	I will quote the
words of the Minister of Railways in this House on Tuesday last. The Minister of Railways said: If there is one man we ought to stand by, it is our own chief engineer. These are his words on page 2435:
Surely the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Commission ought to be able to look after the commissioners side, which is the public side, ought to be able to defend his own work, the work of which he has approved in the months past, and be able to give reasons for the decisions arrived at.
I thow these words back to the Minister of Railways and ask him: Why didn't you do as you say ought to have been done, give your chief engineer the right to defend his actions, instead of allowing the commission to undermine him by his own understrappers, without giving him the slightest opportunity to define his attitude?
But for the life of me I cannot conceive the action taken by this commission. This commission seems to think that it is their bounden duty to do what?-to fight the Grand Trunk Pacific when the Grand Trunk Pacific say there is over-classification,
Mr. MIDDLEBEO
when they should, if the contractors are not doing the honest thing, be right in line with the Grand Trunk Pacific, because every dollar that the Grand Trunk Pacific successfully objects to means a saving to us of 50 cents interest as I hope to be able to show in a moment. But, they seem to think that they are fighting for the interests of this country when they are fighting for Over-classification. Yet, they are opdosing the Grand Trunk Pacific when the Grand Trunk Pacific are trying to lessen the cost. The facts, as they seem to take them, are diametrically reversed because if they are going to serve the public interest they will fight with the Grand Trunk Pacific and try to keep down, the cost to the country. When they were going to call the arbitrators in what was their attitude? Mr. Lumsden had resigned his position as chief engineer. No self-respecting man would go on and act as arbitrator, and he says: I resign my position as arbitrator as wrell. The consequence is that this body to which the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Pictou were going to leave all questions before the Hodgins inquiry, has been suddenly and rudely dissolved by the action of the government's own commission. Now, what happens? Still, the Grand Trunk Pacific are objecting, in these many letters that I have produced, to over-classification. They object first to the appointing of a new arbitrator; they say that the old arbitration board has not been dissolved because Mr. Lumsden has resigned. All you have to do is to appoint a new engineer and then the three engineers will decide the matter before them. The biggest bungle and tangle that it is possible to conceive is displayed by the correspondence which has taken place between the commission and the Grand Trunk Pacific in reference to the appointment of a third arbitrator and in reference to getting down to the specific matter that is to be considered by the arbitration board. There, we have what? -the commission fighting tooth and nail and for wThat?-to limit the matters to be arbitrated to those mentioned in the letters from the Grand Trunk Pacific. In other words, they are trying to say to the Grand Trunk Pacific that this arbitration board cannot consider one single question except those questions mentioned in your letters; that is the over-classification to which you have objected in those letters. The Grand Trunk Pacific say: We do not want to be bound to that; we want a full, complete and thorough investigation into the classification over the whole system. In reply the commission say:	You cannot have that. Why should they not have it? Is it not in the interest of the public to know if any monev has oeen misspent
25X7

not only on sections 'B' and 'F' of the Transcontinental railway, but on the whole railway that is being built by this commission? This commission conceived it to be their duty, and they think they are serving the public thereby, to limit the inquiry and have no investigation into other portions of the road, when, as a matter of fact, if they took a diametrically opposite course, they would be best serving the interests of the country.
How is this country interested in the matter? Under the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, as hon. members of this House know, we are to furnish the money to build the railway. We pay the interest on the money during the time it is being constructed. We will take -eight years as the time that it will take to construct that railway, and I think I am fair at putting it at eight years. We do not, of course, borrow the whole cost of that railway at the beginning of the eight years, and to be fair we will cut that in two and make it four years. I will say that we pay four per cent for our money, because, while we are not paying that rate of interest, I contend, and the statement of my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) bears out that contention, that when you consider compound interest, brokerage, commissions	and
underwriting, our money will cost us four per cent. What does that mean?	The
estimated cost of the railway, as brought down by the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in December last, is a trifle less than $115,000,000. One hundred and fifteen million at four per cent for four years amounts to $18,400,000. We will pay that on the cost of construction providing that $115,000,000 will cover the expenditure. What after that? One hundred and fifteen million dollars plus $18,500,000 is what it is going to cost us. But we must add to that seven years more interest at four per cent which amounts to $37,352,000 because we get no rental for this road for the first seven years. Adding these two together it makes the total amount that we nay in interest $56,752,000, practically $57,000,000 and $57,000,000 is just exactly half of $114,000,000 which is almost the estimated cost of the road. It means that we are paying half of the estimated cost of the railway. It means that every dollar of over-classification costs' this country 50 cents. It means that every million dollars that we pay for that road costs us $500,000 in interest. So, in that way it will be appreciated what we are paying. When Mr. Woods stated in that letter that I have quoted that the over-break alone would be $1,000,000 on one section 'alone, we see that this country will have to pay $500,000 in excess of
what it would otherwise pay. When Mr. Hodgins was trying to keep down the expenditure of section 'F' every dollar that he saved in classification meant fifty cents to this country. When Mr. Grant, of his own volition, went over sections 'B' and 'F' and cut down $647,000 of the estimates, without one single kick from a contractor, he saved this country $323,000. But, in addition to that we have this interest, and it is the country's interest and it is our duty to keep it in view, that we should not only for our own sake but for the sake of the Grand Trunk Pacific keep down the cost of the railway. Why? The greater the excessive cost of that railway the greater will be the freight rates, because their freight rates will depend on the amount of interest they pay and the amount of interest or rental they pay will be three per cent upon the total cost of construction. So, we are interested in that way in keeping down the cost of that road.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said that when it was brought to his attention that the Grand Trunk Pacific purposed to undertake some of the contracts with this commission for the building of a portion of the railway, at first sight he was not quite certain whether it would be proper for him to allow them to do so. I think his first thought was probably the best. What has happened? Here is the Grand Trunk Pacific under contract with this government to lease the railway after it is constructed at a certain rental. Here is the very same company building a portion of the railway. The engineer of the company is the engineer who will oversee their contract. He is the engineer who will say, of his own company, whether or not their contract has been over-classified, whether or not they are getting too much money. It is the same thing as if I were to say to myself that I should be the sole arbitrator as to whether I was getting too much money for the work that I was doing. That is the position they are in. What has been the effect? I am only going to cite two instances. The Grand Trunk Pacific have, I think, five or six contracts with this commission. The first contract is for 50 miles west from Moncton. The estimate of solid rock under that contract as officially given to this government was no solid rock whatever, and the amount certified was 10,000 yards.
We find that the estimate of loose rock was 130,000 yards and the amount certified
850.000	yards so that these two items alone make a difference of $375,000 on the first of the Grand Trunk Pacific contracts. Where is the man, where is the check, where is the engineer who is to say that the Grand

Trunk Pacific is getting too much for that contract? Surely the Grand Trunk Pacific is not going to make any objection; and yet the history of the whole construction of this railroad is that unless objection is made by the Grand Trunk Pacific practically no objection is to be made with reference to any portion of the railroad whatever. All the material above common material is called classified material, and the engineers appointed by the government estimated that the classified material on that section was only 7 per cent whereas it turns out now to be 52 per cent. Here is an increase of $238,000 on that item alone, and on the whole contract an increase of $600,000 for this one section. We say that is because the Grand Trunk Pacific there is occupying a dual position, and its engineer has certified in favour of itself what itself is entitled to. Now, we come to district 'A,' mileage 96 to 164 from Moncton, and the increase in the solid rock there over the estimates, loose rock amounts to- $63,367, and the increase of solid rock out of common excavation-and this is a remarkable thing-amounted to $272,983, a total increase of $341,000 on that section. On these two sections therefore there is a total increase of practically $1,000,000. And where is the check on the Grand Trunk Pacific; where is the check on this increase of $1,000,000 on these two contracts alone? We know that the whole history of the construction of the line is that no check can be applied except by the Grand Trunk Pacific themselves. I would like to ask the right lion, the Prime Minister this question: Suppose that no objection whatever is made by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers and there is consequently no dispute to be referred to the arbitration tribunal at all, are we to infer that there has been no mismanagement, no dishonesty and no over classification in the construction of this railway? The right hon. gentleman has told us that those things go to the arbitrators which are in dispute between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, and even on his own words we are surely entitled to an investigation into the cost of this road in matters where no dispute has arisen, and in reference to which the country may have suffered. It seems to me, Sir, that if the right hon. the Prime Minister expects this to be an effective inquiry, if he expects it to attain the object which he professes to have in view, he has got to give the committee the right to investigate the cause of Mr. Lumsden's resignation. Mr. Lumsden said in so many words that the reason he resigned was because the engineers in districts 'B' and 'F' had over-classed material. In other words they had converted earth at 25 cents a yard into loose rock at 50 cents a yard, and loose rock into solid rock at $1.50 per yard, and in that way money was Mr. MIDDLEBRO
improperly taken out of the treasury of the country. Surely if we are going to ascertain whether or not Mr. Lumsden was justified in losing confidence in the engineers, we cannot possibly attain the desired end unless we are permitted to prove what he alleged and go into this whole question of classification.


Mr.  F. B.@: CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.) As I was a member of the committee which investigated certain questions in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific two years ago and as I have been referred to by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Middlebro), I trust I may be pardoned if I take a few minutes to discuss what to me i3 a very important question. I compliment the leader of the opposition on the good sense shown by him in marshalling his forces on this occasion and leaving it to a man like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) to resurrect the Hodgins' charges which have been buried for two years and upon which the people of this country have already passed judgment. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who know what took place with reference to the Hodgins charges had the good judgment not to discuss them in the manner they have been discussed this afternoon. I am sorry that the action of my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) has rendered it necessary to refer to these Hodgins charges at all, because it must be a painful matter to Major Hodgins and his friends, and to the hon. gentlemen opposite as well, to have these things rehashed. The facts of the Hodgins case are simple. Major Hodgins was a district engineer employed by the commission. He did not get along with the engineers under him, he had lots of trouble and the commission sent an officer to investigate the matter and report, and as a result of the investigation Major Hodgins was discharged. Major Hodgins made the statement that he estimated the cost at $12,000,000 and that he had seen in .one of the Toronto newspapers that contractor McArthur had stated that the cost would be about $16,000,000 and therefore he concluded that the increase of $4,000,000 above his estimate was due to the excessive classification which was known as the Quebec classification. He also stated in substance that he had been taken down to Quebec to be taught how the classification was made there, and the inference was that he had been asked and had refused to adopt the Quebec classification in district 'F,' and because he had refused he was dismissed from his position as district engineer. Well, the evidence showed that Major Hodgins went to Quebec in company with 15 or 20 other engineers and the commissioners of the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they examined a certain cut in the vicinity of

La Tuque and the report of the engineers had shown that that cut contained about 87 per cent of solid rock whereas in his judgment 40 per cent of solid rock would be the outside figure to allow. And, because of what he saw in this cut he considered that unfair and dishonest classification had taken place and that he would not apply it to district 'F.' This matter was investigated for about a month and Major Hodgins was assisted by able counsel whose services were paid by the government. Every chance in the world was given Major Hod-gins and the Conservative party to prove the charges, and after a month's inquiry, without any pressure or promise or anything else, Major Hodgins voluntarily stated that he found he was entirely wrong, because the cut to which he referred as having been classified as 87 per cent and upon which he would have allowed 40 per cent solid rock, was actually classified as only 29 per cent solid rock in one. month and 30 per cent in another, and the very month in which he was at the La Tuque cutting it was classified at 29 per cent, while he himself had allowed 40 per cent. When Major Hodgins was brought face to face with this statement of facts, there was nothing for an honourable man to do but to say what he did, that he was wrong, that he had been misled by somebody, he withdrew his charges and that was the end of the whole transaction. My hon. friend tries to resurrect these charges and to show that after Major Hodgins failed to prove that there was anything wrong in Quebec and consequently that- he had been asked to do anything wrong in his district, we should have gone into the question of classification. I do not propose to discuss that because it was threshed out at the time and if the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) had been here he would have exercised the same good judgment displayed by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and refrained from discussing that question at all. My hon. friend says that after Mr. Poulin was made district engineer in 'F' the over-classification amounted to $2,798,000. Why, the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about. The amount he cites is a certain conclusion arrived at by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and I shall refer to it in a while. But the hon. member for Simcoe does not claim that it is an overclassification, he says it is a difference between the estimate of the engineers who surveyed the work in the first place and the actual result of construction. He does not say it is an over-classification, he says it is an increase in cost. My hon. friend from North Grey who knows nothing about it, comes here and says that since Mr. Poulin was put in charge of the work the
over-classification has amounted to over $2,000,000 and he contradicts the hon. member for Simcoe himself. I am sorry the hon. member for Simcoe is not here; I believe that hon. gentleman tried to give a fair statement of the case as he viewed it. I cannot agree with his conclusions but, so far as his figures are concerned, he took them from the returns furnished. He has been very industrious, he has asked time and again for returns, and I understand he has gathered information, he has codified that information and while I think in some cases he has been unfair, he has given us the result of his investigations, and has something to back it up. The hon. member for North Grey comes here this afternoon and I would not like to say through malice, I would not *be entitled to say it, but I think I have the right to say through sheer inability to understand the purport of these figures, makes the broad statement that after Mr. Poulin, a Frenchman, took charge, the over-classification amounted to more than $2,000,000.
The hon. member for Simcoe in compiling his statements took the amounts and quantities in district *F' from the estimate of Major Hodgins and you will all remember that Major Hodgins stated before the committee of inquiry that as a result of his investigations and re-surveys of his district he was able to reduce the estimated cost from about $13,000,000 to about $12,000,000 or in other words that he was able by a re-survey to reduce the cost of district 'F' by $1,500,000. The hon. member for Simcoe takes that $12,000,000 as being the true estimated cost of district 'F' and builds up a case from that, the result being his statement that it cost $2,798,000 more than it was estimated by the engineers it would cost. He fails to say that it was proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that Major Hodgins, in arriving at these estimates, not only did not save $1,500,000, but had left out- $1,500,000 which should have been put in, and if he had put in what he should have put in and what he left out, the cost would have been brought up to exactly the estimated cost of the other engineers. I shall not take up time in reading long documents to prove all this, I shall leave it to the decision of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) who was a member of the committee and knows all about it. It will be found in vol. 7 of the debates of 1908 in a number of places in the report of the discussion which then took place. I shall give one illustration that Major Hodgins left out of his calculations entirely. It is known by some members of this House, probably not by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), because he admits he is not an engineer, it is knowm by the , hon. member for Hamilton that these speci-

fications require that all rock excavations shall go one foot below grade. That foot is to be filled in again with other material in order to give a better surface on which to lay the rails. Major Hodgins in his estimate of the cost of this work did not take into consideration that fact at all, and the result was that that one item alone would increase the cost of that work by $500,000. That was proved at that investigation, Major Hodgins was present, he never attempted to deny it, because they had his cross-sections and profiles there to show it.
There were other items in this estimate left out which brought the total up to about $13,500,000. When Mr. McArthur, the contractor, was speaking to the newspapers in Toronto about the total work costing $16,000,000, he was not talking about the grading alone, but about the finished road. His contract did not include rails, sleepers, laying track, station houses, and many other things, and he said that when the road was completed it would cost $16,000,000, but he did not say that his portion of the work would cost $16,000,000, and that is where the whole trouble arose. If I am right-and my hon. friend from Hamilton knows I am right-


Mr. BARKER.: I understand the hon. gentleman is now arguing that the hon. member for Simcoe made an error in contrasting the work that has been paid for with the original estimate. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has taken the estimate upon which the tenders were made and the contracts entered into, not Mr. Hodgins' figures at all. He took the estimates that were in the government offices, and which the hon. gentleman can see as to the quantities in every mile and section of that district F and against that he is taking the quantities for which the government have already paid. He was contrasting it in that way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I always like my hon. friend from Hamilton to make a statement because he wants to be fair, but he fails to realize that Major Hodgins was the very engineer who made the estimate and when my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was contrasting the estimates of the engineer he was contrasting the estimates of Major Hodgins with the results.


Samuel Barker: No, he took the figures that the government accepted 'the tenders upon, which were settled in the head office of the commissioners. I do not care who made them, it could be half a dozen men.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am willing to be asked a question, but I want to say that those figures were made by Major Hodgins.
Mr. CiRVELL.


Samuel Barker: Not all of them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He was the district engineer and in the archives of the office, hon. gentlemen will see every one of these figures signed by Mr. Hodgins. My hon. friend knows that, he is not an idiot and he knows a good deal about railway matters. I tell him he knows it and he knows that Mr. Hodgins prepared the estimates. My hon. friend yesterday referred to the fact that when Mr. Hodgins came to review the estimate he reduced it from $13,000,000 to $12,000,000.


Samuel Barker: That is where the hon. gentleman, perhaps untentionally, is misleading the House. The figures he refers to-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object..


Samuel Barker: You have called on me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend want to ask a question?


Samuel Barker: I say to the hon. member that he is missing what I endeavoured to say. The hon. member says that Major Hodgins claimed that by certain work of his he has reduced the quantities. That did not enter at all into the argument yesterday. The argument of the hon. member for Simcoe was this, that contracts had been entered into by the government on certain quantities, and he showed that the quantities the government had been paying on grossly exceeded the actual quantities as regard solid rock and loose rock, and were less on the cheap common excavation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has had his say, and I hope he is satisfied, but I come back to the proposition that Mr. Hodgins was the engineer responsible for district ' F,' and it was on his figures the estimates were based. If you will turn to' the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) you will find the figures on page 2412. The hon. member for Simcoe gave us only $10,093,873 as the estimated cost, which he says has been increased by, $2,798,600. To come back to what I was trying to impress on the House, hon. members opposite have tried to make out that this increase was due to Mr. Poulin, but Mr. Poulin went there after the grading work was practically all graded. We have the admission from the hon. member for Simcoe that when Mr. Poulin went there the grading was practically all done.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that the hon. member for Simcoe took these figures from a return brought down by the gov-eminent itself, that he took no other figures, and that he embodied no information in that table except what the government put before him in the return brought down.
*2525


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand that the hon. member for Simeoe based his figures *entirely on returns furnished him by the department, but his estimate is based not only on the amounts taken out up to the present, but on what the department estimates will be taken out and paid for in the future.


George Eulas Foster: All given by the government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. My hon. friend from North Grey made the astonishing statement this afternoon that the engineer of the department estimated his work would only cost about $58,000,000 and that, taking what has been done already and what is estimated in the future, it is going to cost $115,000,000, or an increase of over 100 per cent. My hon. friend from North Grey may have honestly believed that, but if he did, that is only another evidence that the leader of the opposition never should have allowed him to talk on this important question, because the estimate of $58,000,000 was an estimate made by members of this House, in discussing the proposition in 1903, before the road had been surveyed at all.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: It was made by the Finance Minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was made before the engineers had gone over the road with their levels, and it was simply based on common knowledge. Taking the fact that certain roads in other sections of the coun-trv had cost $25,000 per mile, and certain other roads elsewhere had cost $35,000 per mile, the Finance Minister arrived at an estimate for this road of $58,000,000. But my hon. friend from North Grey attempted to show that that was the first estimate of the engineers, and that, on account of the dishonesty of the engineers, the total cost is going to amount to $115,000,000, or an increase of 100 per cent over the estimate. Let me give the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the result of the figures furnished by the hon. member for North Simeoe. 'That hon. gentleman was dealing with the construction of practically the whole of district 'F'-of the work from Moncton to Quebec and 150 miles west. I have taken his figures and carefully worked them out, and I find on that portion, or about one-half the work, he only claims that the cost has been increased $7,590,000 above the estimate of the engineers after the work was laid out and surveyed. That would be only an increase of $15,000,000 on the total work, and that, I submit, in a work of such magnitude, is a very satisfactory showing and very creditable to the engineers. Let me discuss the question of the increase in the several contracts set forth by the hon. member for Simeoe (Mr. Lennox). In the first place, Mr. Lumsden,
in his letter of resignation, complains that certain engineers on districts ' B ' and ' F ' had not carried out his instructions regarding classifications. That brings us to the consideration of what were the instructions of Mr. Lumsden, and I propose to read them. There was in the first place a general specification for all the work, including every item, prepared by the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden himself, and placed in the hands of every engineer and contractor, and it was on these specifications that tenders were called for and contracts entered into.


John Graham Haggart: Prepared by Mr. Lumsden?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know who did the clerical work, but Mr. Lumsden was the chief engineer, it was he who signed it and who is responsible.


John Graham Haggart: As a matter of fact, the Minister of Railways stated how the specifications were prepared, and said that Mr. Lumsden had nothing to do with them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Lumsden signed them and adopted them and made them his *own, and has to stand by them. Now, I want to read these specifications'. I am go-' ing to take up the question of solid rock only, and I confine my reading of the specifications to that:
Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard which, in the judgment of the engineer, may be best removed by blasting.
I think it would do many of our hon. friends on the other side a vast amount of good if they would read that, and read it carefully. This presupposes two conditions of affairs to exist. First, it presupposes that there would be rock found in ledges. Every member of this House, and every intelligent member of the reading public of Canada, knows that if you come to ledge rock there is no question that that rock is solid rock. It is the other branch of the specifications over which the difficulty arises-rock in masses; if the rock were all ledge rock, there could not be any question about it. But as it provides also for rock, ' found in masses of more than one cubic yard,' it presupposes that some substance must be classified as solid rock which is not ledge rock. Were this not the case, of course, the specification would have been confined to ledge rock itself. Now, the question arises: What is meant by the term 'rock in masses?' This work commenced early in 1906, I think. Of course, it would not be very long before differences of opinion would arise between the engineers as to what was meant by ' rock in masses of more than one cubic yard.' The Grand Trunk Pacific, who want to keep the price down to thq lowest figure, because they will

have to pay interest on the cost of it for the next forty-three years, contended that it meant practically nothing but boulders which would measure one cubic yard. If it was not a boulder, they contended, it was not solid rock. Other engineers on the work said that it did not mean that at all. And Mr. Lumsden applied to the district engineers, the district engineers to their divisional engineers, and, in some cases, to resident engineers. The contractors applied to their solicitors, and some of the ablest legal minds in Canada were brought to bear on the interpretation of these words. I will not quote any of these opinions, it is enough to say that such legal authorities as Blake, Lash & Cassels, Alexander Lacoste and others were consulted and gave opinions. Eminent engineers also were asked to interpret the words. A variety of interpretations was given, but, with one or two exceptions, every one of these authorities, both technical and legal, held that the specification did include something beyond rock in ledge or in boulders measuring over one cubic yard. Therefore, after a great deal of discussion, Mr. Lumsden, some time, I think, in December, 1907, issued to his engineers, further instructions as to his interpretation of this clause. He then went so far as to say that rock in masses meant rock joined together in such manner that, in the opinion of the engineer, they could be best removed by blasting, so long as the individual pieces of rock in these masses exceeded one cubic foot in size.


George Eulas Foster: That was in 1908?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I may be wrong, but I think it was in 1907.


George Eulas Foster: The minister's date is 1908.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was wrong; it was on January 6, 1908. I made a mistake of a month. On January 6, 1908, the deputy minister of justice gave his decision as to this interpretation of the clause:


George Eulas Foster: Were there two separate constructions?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was wrong; it was on January 6, 1908. I made a mistake of a month. On January 6, 1908, the deputy minister of justice gave his decision as to this interpretation of the clause:
I see no reason to differ from the classification stated by the chief engineer in his letter to the commissioners of the 16th ultimo, except as to the statement that ' rock assembled (the individual pieces of such assembled rock exceeding one cubic foot in size). . . . Such as in the judgment of the engineer may be the best removed by blasting,' is to be classified as solid rock excavation under clause 31. I do not understand upon what principle the chief engineer limits the size to nieces exceeding one cubic foot. The specification ' Mr. CARVELL.
speaks of rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard which in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting.
That is signed by Mr. Newcombe. When Mr. Lumsden received this from Mr. Newcombe he issued his final instructions to his engineers on which the work has been classified from that day to the present, and will be classified from this time forward, because it has been agreed within the last two months by the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and of the National Transcontinental that Mr. Lumsden's interpretation of section 34 of the 10th January, 1908, and that upon that interpretation the classification shall be made. Hon. members will find it recorded at page 430 of the proceedings in the Hodgins charges. Mr. Lumsden issued a blue-print of which I have a copy here. If hon. members have not seen it, it is here for their inspection. A copy of that blue-print is also to be found at page 430 of the Hodgins case to which I have already referred. In that blue-print Mr. Lumsden gives six illustrations of what he would classify as solid rock, including both rock in ledges and rock in masses of more than one cubic yard.


John Graham Haggart: As the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) seems acquainted with the details, would he please tell us what is the difference between the opinion Mr. Lumsden held prior to the opinion given by the Minister of Justice and the instructions that he issued to his engineers?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall need to go back a little. In the first place, while I have no specific statement of Mr. Lumsden's definition of the term, I assume from the correspondence that Mr. Lumsden interpreted rock in masses above one cubic yard to mean a boulder above one cubic yard. But, just before writiiig to Mr. Newcombe, he did arrive at the conclusion that assembled rock of one cubic yard or upwards no portion of which was less than one cubic foot in size and which in the opinion of the engineer could best be removed by blasting, was solid rock. After receiving Mr. Newcombe's opinion he changed it to rock assembled in masses, no matter what size the individual pieces might be so long as the total was above a cubic yard, which, in the opinion of the engineer could best be removed by blasting. The first illustration was something which neither my hon. friend from North Toronto nor myself classify as solid rock, because it means a rock in the ledge, it is simply a straight ledge of rock. You cut through it, and you measure up the quantities.


George Eulas Foster: It might be rock in the mass.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, rock in the ledge.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Lumsden said it may be in masses.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Lumsden says in the illustration that it is rock in ledges. The next is rock in boulders over one cubic yard, and here he gives an illustration of two big boulders, which I think both the hon. member for North Toronto and myself could distinguish as solid rock, because we know solid rock when we see it. As long as it is above a cubic yard it becomes solid rock. The next is not so easy to understand. No. 3 is conglomerate or plum pudding stone. He gives no specific definition of what that means, but he gives an illustration. It means a number of rocks of different sizes, probably not above a cubic yard, cemented together by some solid substance, making it so solid that in the opinion of the engineer it is a conglomerate rock. The fourth is smaller, because he says it is detached ledge rock in masses over one cubic yard. This, to my mind, is not very different from the boulder. The fifth illustration is the one over which the difficulty has arisen; that is rock in masses of over one cubic yard, assembled rock, which in the judgment of the engineer can be best taken out by blasting. Now, I want my hon. friend to pay special attention to the comments made upon this illustration by Mr. Lumsden.
No. 1 is a mere matter of measurement by the engineer. No. 2 is a mere matter of measurement by rock measures. No. 3 is a mere matter of measurement by the engineers. No. 1 is a mere matter of measurement by rock measures. No. 5 and 6, to form a judgment as to whether or not it is best removed by blasting, the chief engineer must view the work in progress or leave it to be decided by the engineer in charge, whose duty it is to frequently visit this work during its operation and be governed thereby and act accordingly.
Remember, he admits himself, in 1908, that to settle this question, either the chief engineer must view that work himself, or leave it to be decided by the engineer in charge whose duty it is frequently to visit the work during its operation, and be governed thereby, and act accordingly. Now, Sir, I want to state here, and I am not doing it for the purpose of finding fault with Mr. Lumsden, I am going to say that up to the month of June, 1909, Mr. Lumsden never travelled over 25 miles of the whole 800 miles of railway under construction. I say I am finding no fault with him, he was an old man, probably his physical infirmities prevented him from doing so, and under his instructions given to his engineers in January, 1908, if he had not been
able to do that himself, if he had not the physical ability to carry out that side of the instructions, then I say there is no other logical conclusion but that he should have left it to the engineers in charge of the work, and there were engineers in charge of every mile of the work, an engineer in charge of every ten miles, then a divisional engineer and a district engineer. There is no man on this earth who has any right to classify this work, or who has the ability to classify this work, except the engineer in charge of the work. I have taken up more time on this point than I intended, because I think it is the basis of the whole controversy. This blue print is the one sent out to his engineers by Mr. Lumsden. That blue print was received by every engineer on that work, down to the resident engineers. The work went on, and we have it in the evidence in the Hodgins case, of Mr. Armstrong, who was the district engineer of ^ the Grand Trunk Pacific over district 'F' that if he had known the contents of Mr. Lumsden's letter to his engineers, which I have referred to, then he would not have recommended that there was any over-classification in district 'F' at all, up to the day when he left the work, which I think was in March or April, 1908. My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Middlebro) read letters written by Mr. Woods away back in 1907. Why, Mr. Woods did not know what was the interpretation of this clause of Mr. Lumsden when he was writing those letters. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) did not refer to these letters in that sense, because he knew that Mr. Woods did not know what this interpretation was when he received these letters. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) knew it, and every member who followed this investigation with any degree of intelligence knew it, and it is left to the hon. member for North Grey to come here and read this letter of Mr. Woods, and then say that because Mr. Woods put up these kicks there must be something wrong with the engineer when, as a matter of fact, Mr. Wood did not know what instructions were given by Mr. Lumsden when he wrote those letters.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: No instructions had been given then.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly not, but after the instructions had been given.


Arthur Meighen: They did not apply to this at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The engineers say they did apply to this. The engineers were on the work, and they say it applied to this, and that they classified this work according to those instructions. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he ever visited a portion of a railway under construction, I mean a portion of the work that is classi-

253*
fied in the material as loose rock or solid rock. If he has, then he will see that Mr. Lumsden was absolutely right in giving the instructions he did as to the classification of figure 5.


Arthur Meighen: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have lived within 200 or 300 yards of such a work. However, I am not criticising Mr. Lumsden's instructions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now I would recommend any hon. member of this House to visit any portion of this work while it is under construction. I may say that after I went home in 1908, from this Hodgins inquiry, I had the curiosity to visit some of the work, I visited something like 75 miles of the *work, travelled over it; I visited hundreds of sections and examined them myself, and I make the statement that there is no man, not even an engineer, who can go to a finished cut of classified material and honestly come to a conclusion as to how that cut should be classified. I will admit that if you have only got a matter of ledge rock, you may take your cross sections and measure them up. But if you have got conglomerate material, or assembled rock, then I say there is no man, not even Mr. Lumsden nor the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, who is able to tell exactly how that work should be classified. Let me give an illustration. I think my hon. friend from North Grey says there may be a cone of rock rising up in the centre of the work. That rock is taken out and thrown over a dump and no man can tell of what material it was composed. There is another thing I want to point out. After this work is completed, if there is any earth on top of the rock at all, that has all to be smoothed back to a slope of one and a half to one, as my hon. friend has stated, which means that it slopes back to a foot and a half here it rises perpendicularly one foot. And when that is all sloped down to the rock, no man on earth, unless he be a practical engineer, would come to the conclusion that there is half as much classified material in that work as there actually was.
I admit that probably the engineer realized this difficulty, I will admit that he would make allowances, and he would come much nearer to the proper classification of that cut than a layman would. But even the practical engineer cannot tell except it be solid rock. To carry that a little further, we have rock such as is found in figures 3 or 5. That is the conglomerate rock or assembled rock. That material has been, according to the judgment of the engineer, removed by blasting.


George Eulas Foster: I have to infringe again if my hon. friend will allow me. When he reads out these numbers what is he reading from? I go by the minister's statement Mr. CARVELL.
on Tuesday and the documents he presented with reference to the chief engineer's interpretations. His instructions with his interpretations bear the date of January 14, 1908. They were interpretations given by Mr. Lumsden on January 14, 1908, accepted by Mr. Woods on February 20, 1908, and embodied in the agreement of all a little-later. There are some differences between this and what my hon. friend is reading.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is very much difference between my hon. friend and myself. He is a little mixed up in his dates, but evidently he is referring to the same subject that I am.


George Eulas Foster: I am taking the dates given by the minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then the minister was mixed up in his dates, but he is referring to the same subject as I am. I have sent over to my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) a blue print and if he will do me the honour of looking at it he will find that it is an exact copy of the illustration found on page 430 of the Hodgins charges and he will also find that it is actually signed * Hugh D. Lumsden.' Of course, he understands that it is a blue print from a tracing.


George Eulas Foster: That is what Mr. Lumsden refers to, I suppose, when he says;
I attach a diagram in explanation of the above which, in my opinion, is all that is included in 34 solid rock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think so.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to point out some of the difficulties of classification in railway construction from a practical standpoint. I had read the instructions given to Mr. Lumsden by his engineers on the 10th of January, 1908, as to his interpretation of the specifications in regard to solid rock. I now refer to clause 35 of the original specification, and here is what Mr. Lumsden says about it:
All large stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock whether in situ or otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel, indurated clay and other materials that cannot in the judgment of the engineer, be ploughed with a ten-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good horses properly handled; and without the necessity of blasting, although blasting may be occasionally resorted to, shall be classified as loose rock.
Under the heading I would include:-
1.	All large stones and boulders more than

one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard not covered under clause 34.
2.	All loose rock in situ or otherwise that mav be removed by hand, pick or bar, ami not covered under clause 34.
3.	All cemented gravel, indurated clay, and other materials that cannot, in the judement of the engineer, be ploughed with a ten-inch grading plough behind a team of six good horses properly handled: and without the necessity of blasting, although blasting may be occasionally resorted to.
That was an interpretation of this clause that might be given by any person, and, let us apply the test. Take material which the engineer may say cannot be classified as solid rock, and then the first question that arises is: Can it he ploughed with a team of six horses and a ten-inch plough? Well, in almost every case that must of necessity lie purely in the judgment of the engineer who is classifying the work, because, of course, you could not by any possibility get a team of six horses and plough on to some of this work. The next question is: Can it be removed by hand, pick or bar? There' is no trouble in telling whether it can be' removed by hand, because a man can get down and try it. But, can it be removed by a pick? Well, a Tailway navvy will take . a pick and if he takes time enough he can remove a solid ledge of rock, or he can' with a crow-bar, if he takes time enough drill a hole three feet deep in solid rock: But, I submit that no engineer ever intended that if it were reasonably a physical impossibility to remove this material by' pick or bar, it must necessarily be classified as loose rock. We must apply common sense to the thing. The question is whether a man engaged in railway construction could fairly and reasonably remove this material by means of a pick or1 bar, or whether in the judgment of the engineers you could with a team of six horses and a ten-inch plough, plough it. If it cannot be ploughed in such a way, then it should not be classified as loose rock, and if it can, then it should be so classified. I merely mention this to point out the large degree of judgment which must be exercised by the engineer whose duty it is to classify the work. I am also endeavouring to show the next to impossibility of you or I, Mr. Speaker, or even an experienced engineer classifying that work on an examination made a year afterwards, when the weathering has caused the face to become smooth and to look different from what it was in its original state. Under the specifications anything other than' solid rock and loose rock would be called common excavation. Let me for . a moment refer to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) who has given the question a good deal of consideration, and to whom the country and the House
owe a debt of gratitude for the labour he has expended in preparing his case. I wish to discuss the points raised by the hon. gentleman in a fair manner and to give him credit where credit is due. In one connection the hon. gentleman was manifestly unfair, although perhaps unwittingly. He gave us instances of work which was estimated by the engineers to cost so much, but which had cost more than the estimate, and he said that this increase had arisen on only three items of the contract. Well, there are 104 items in the contract altogether, and while he did not say so, yet the inference was that the discrepancy between the estimate and the cost would proportionately increase in the case of the other 101 items. Well, my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), who_is somewhat of a railway man, knows that in such a contract as this, the three items of solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation will represent 90 per cent of the total cost of the undertaking, and in some cases more than that. Therefore, when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox), considering the three items, wants us to believe that' there will be an alarmingly greater increase when the remaining items are taken into account, I am sorry to think that he did not treat the House with that fairness to which we are entitled and which indeed the hon. gentleman usually exhibits. Then, another thing, the hon. gentleman did not touch at all upon the price of the quantities to be removed. The prices range practically from 25 cents a yard for common excavation to 50 or 60 cents for loose rock, and $1.50 for solid rock, but the hon. gentleman omitted to mention what is called train-haul. Under the contract the contractor agrees to remove all cuts down to the grade and to place the material in the nearest hollow on either side or wherever he is instructed to do by the engineer. The contractor has to haul that material 500 feet without extra cost, but when he hauls it beyond 500 'feet he gets, I think, one cent per 100 feet per yard. After all that is done, after the amount of earth taken out of the cut is used in the embankment or fill adjoining it, if there is nothing left at the fill-up, they have to resort to some other method. That is called train-haul. They get from 45 cents to 50 cents a yard for train-haul, and as a rule it must be common excavation unless the engineer authorizes the contractor to take something else. There you see, you have millions of-common excavation which actually figure up at 45 cents to 50 cents a yard instead of 25 cents a yard, and any gentleman who' assumes to discuss quantities and prices' [DOT] of this contract ought to know it. I am1 bound to say the hon. gentleman must havd known it, and it probably has escaped hi? attention.	.


Richard Blain: Is there not a special price for that kind of work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly, that is what I am telling the House, but it is common excavation and it is included in the quantities of earth removed and is a special price. That price is about 45 cents or 50 cents a yard, and that price rules as long as the distance to be carried is not more than, I think, five miles. If, for any reason, they have to go more than five miles for material, they get a certain amount per mile after that, I think one cent a yard per mile for the tram haul. This increases the cost of common excavation in many cases by 100 per cent, and it ac* counts for the increased cost to some extent, but yet my hon. friend took good care not to say anything about it.


John Graham Haggart: How much of that kind of work is there?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know one place in district 'A,' for instance, where there is
300,000	yards of train haul; another place where there would be 250,000 yards. I think in New Brunswick I could pick out in district 'A' probably 1,000,000 yards of train haul and these are things which we must understand if we are to discuss this matter intelligently.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think that an engineer giving the original estimates would take that into consideration before he gave the estimate?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not a judge of the engineer, and I do not think the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) or any other hon. member will say that any engineer can go over the ground in making preliminary surveys or even locating surveys and figure exactly to a yard what he will have to do to build a railway 1,800 miles in length.
I will take up district 'F' and take the different sections in the order in which they were discussed by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). He stated that there would be an increase in the cost when the work was completed of about $2,700,000 over the estimate made by the engineer before the work was commenced. Let us look at this like reasonable business men. The engineer goes over 200 miles of proposed railroad. He looks at the contour of the country, at the hills and hollows, he examines the rivers, he makes up his mind as to whether there will be much rock, and he says: I come to the conclusion that out of 1,000,000 yards of excavation there will be 1,000 yards of solid rock and 200,000 yards of loose rock, and the balance common excavation. I want to know how any man can tell to a thousand yards or a hundred thousand yards or a quarter of a million yards what Mr. CARVELL.
different classes of material there will be in a million yards of excavation. He cannot dig pits, they do not do that in modern engineering. He may drive steel bars down and come to the conclusion that after so many feet of common excavation he will have solid rock. I want to be reasonable and I want the members to be reasonable; I am sorry my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is not here, in order to ask him to be reasonable and to tell me what no man on earth, no matter what his ability may be, can tell whether he is going to find this cemented material of which Mr. Lumsden speaks, this conglomerate or plum-pudding material _ of which he also speaks, or material which can or cannot be ploughed by a team of six horses when it is found twenty or thirty feet underground.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. member mean to argue to this House and to the country that any capable engineer has the slightest difficulty in estimating whether
100,000	or 500,000 yards of material is sand, or solid rock?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There never was a railway constructed on earth, let alone in Canada, tout that very thing happened, and it is the most common error known to engi-' neers. I shall give an illustration under my own observation. About a year ago, in company with the chief engineer, I visited a large portion of the work in New Brunswick. We came to a cutting in which there are probably 150,000 yards of material. The engineers returned this in their estimate as solid rock. The sub-contractor, a man from Sydney, Nova Scotia, took the work believing he had this 150,000 or 200,000 yards of solid rock, and it turns out there are not 25,000 yards of solid rock in the whole cut, yet the engineers told him it would be solid rock. There is a concrete illustration. If the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), a practical railway contractor, were here he would bear out every word I say, and the Temark is true in many cases'. Engineers sajr they believe from looking at the ground it is going to be sand, and it turns out to toe very solid rock. I tell my hon. friends they should go on some of these enormous works and see for themselves, and they will conclude that what I say is true.
Now, we will go to district ' F '. There we have an estimate based on the quantities and the estimated classification of Mr. Hodgins, of $12,000,000. I said before dinner that Major Hodgins left out a number of items in his classification, one of which, the excavating of a foot below grade in all rock cuttings, amounted to half a million dollars. I find in referring to the debates, that it would amount to $495,000, about 300,000 yards of solid rock which he

had not estimated at all. I also looked up Mr. Poulin's evidence at page 485 of the investigation. Mr. Poulin there submitted a statement to which I have already referred, and he states there that Mr. Hod-gins had not estimated work in the contract and in the grading which amounted to $1,500,000, and therefore, instead of this work being estimated to cost $12,000,000 as the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) stated the other day, it should have been estimated by Mr. Hodgins himself, if he had included these things which were left out, at $1,350,000. According to the statement given by my friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) it did cost only $12,892,000, or less than it should have cost according to the^ proper estimate made by Mr. Hodgins himself. I wish to tell my hon. friend another thing concerning this district. This is a matter of which there is no public record, but I will make the statement, and it is the easiest thing in the world for my hon. friends to verify it by asking for a return which will be readily brought down. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) complains that in this contract, as in many others, for some unexplained reason-and there was always the insinuation that there was something crooked at the bottom of it-common excavation had constantly dwindled and solid rock had increased. In district ' F ' half a million yards of common excavation disappears and appears as solid rock, and this was done designedly and with the consent of the engineers and of the Grand Trunk Pacific and every body else. It had to be done.


Samuel Barker: Give the particulars.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will.


Samuel Barker: Give them now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was in filling across lakes. The experience of railway contractors and engineers is that, in many places, where you fill up a body of water with common earth-if it were even sand it would not be so bad-it will not stand; it is only mud and will melt away. We have illustrations of that in many places. There is one on the Canadian Pacific railway between here and Montreal, and there is one as my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) knows in New Brunswick, between St. John and Rothbsay. They have been filling up that New Brunswick hole for 40 years and it is going down all the time. In order to meet these conditions they have taken solid rock out of the cuts and have put it in these embankments and made solid rock embankments.


Samuel Barker: You would not get solid rock where there was none.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is called rock-borrow, and that is the subject I am going to talk about.


John Graham Haggart: What was the estimated quantity on that particular section, and how much wa3 it increased by the difficulties the hon. gentleman mentioned?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know. But I can tell the hon. member that the solid rock has been increased from the actual requirements of the case, according to the estimates, by half a million cubic yards. The engineers estimated to use half a million yards of common excavation for the fills and they have had to get rock, not from the ordinary cuts, but from outside the cuts. They broadened them out and took half a million yards of solid rock, borrowed it and made the fills.


Samuel Barker: Give the mile-post where that occurred.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot. I think I treated the House fairly


Samuel Barker: The hon. member cannot give it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I told the House that I got the facts from the engineers, but that they could be verified by a return.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member ought to have given the mile-post.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am willing that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) or any other member should make any criticism of my remarks after I have finished, but I hope the hon. gentleman will not lecture me while I have the floor.


Samuel Barker: I want the facts while the hon. member is stating them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to show some more rock-borrow. And I can give the hon. member the mileage-I can give him the whole thing. That is, I can give him the stations, and he is railway man enough to know what that means. I have here a return to this House, file No. 12,603, brought down some time before Christmas. This refers to the Kitchen contract, district ' A


Samuel Barker: I thought the hon. gentleman was dealing with Mr. Hodgins.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was. But my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) wants facts, and I am going to give him facts. Take from stations 500 to 1,070 in District A. That is better than giving the mileage, because it gives every one hundred feet. They required a borrow which ordinarily would be a train haul of 392,000 cubic yards. The engineer reported that it was impossible to find a borrow of common excavation on the Kitchen contract. The proposition was made to borrow rock near the site of these fills or embankments, outside the ordinary line. Now, it was stated by the hon. mem-



ber for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) that earth embankments have what is called a slope of li to 1-that is, for every foot you go perpendicularly your embankment goes out li feet. If the perpendicular distance from the shoulder of the embankment to the bottom is 50 feet, it will be 75 feet from that point to the outside of the embankment. It is known to engineers that rock embankments will not spread out nearly so far. I think they figure out at li to 1. or, in some cases, much less than that.


Samuel Barker: Very often perpendicular.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not when broken up.


Samuel Barker: You can see it often on the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to tell the hon. member he does not know how roads are constructed to-day. He is about twenty-five years behind the times. They go to a rock cut ten to forty feet deep-I have seen one rock cut on the Grand Trunk Pacific eighty feet. They tunnel into the hill- they call it ' coyuting '-perhaps forty feet. Then they sink a shaft and then spread out from that. After all is ready they put in five or ten tons of explosives, and break up ten or fifteen thousand cubic yards of material at one blast-break it up so small that it is taken out with the steam shovel, hauled and dumped over the embankment. That will not go perpendicular; you have only to tell how it is done to show that the hon. member (Mr. Barker) does not know wliat he is talking about.
Now. let us go back to section * A.' They had to have 392,000 yards of train haul, and the engineers reported they could not get this material on the work. As a rock embankment would not be so wide at the bottom as the other, it would not require so many yards to make it. Then, it is known to all engineers that a yard of common excavation, when placed in an embankment, will not occupy more than a yard of actual space, and it will shrink a little for it will pack closer than when it was in its native position in the earth. Besides that, all measurements of railwav construction are made, as you may say, in situ. That is, when they pay the contractor for rock-borrow they pay for the number of yards, as the material is in the. ledge from which it is taken. But when it is broken up. and hauled out and put in the embankment, a yard of rock will make from I 6-10 to 1 9-10 yards. So, you have more yards in the embankment itself, and you have a smaller number of yards to pay for in situ-you will reduce the number of yards both ways. Then they figure out the cost by train haul. Suppose they had to go fifteen miles. That, in the Kitchen contract, was forty-five cents a yard. So they figured out that the em-Mr. CARVELL.
bankment built out of common earth would cost the country the same amount of money as an embankment built of rock borrow at $1,101. The engineer made a proposition to the Kitchen Company, to give them a special contract to make these embankments at that figure, and they accepted it and did the work. Thus, 400,000 cubic yards of solid rock-


George Perry Graham: Not figured in the specification?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it had appeared in the specification as about 590,000 or 600,000 yards of common excavation. There you have an illustration of how common excavation dwindled by 600,000 yards, and solid rock excavation increased by 400,000 yards, yet without costing the country a cent.	,


Samuel Barker: If the hon. member would give the mile post we could see if that applied in the other case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have told the hon. member the station.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member is giving what occurred in New Brunswick. Give the mile post where you say a similar thing occurred on section ' F.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not propose to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) on that point. As my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) suggests, there is nothing the matter in New Brunswick. I am showing that they had to (borrow rock in New Brunswick, and it can be shown also that they had to borrow rock in district ' F.' And it was done with the consent of everybody, it has not cost the country a dollar more, and you have a great deal better work. More than this, I can show places on the Grand Trunk Pacific where the original estimate was for steel viaducts, but the Grand Trunk Pacific Commission thought it would be better to make solid " embankments. Of course, that costs more. In the estimates, these fills did not appear because the places were to be crossed by steel. But the commissioners made up their mind that it would be better to have permanent works. I can show one place on district ' A ' where it has taken 250,000 yarc(s of material to fill up one of these places which, under the original estimate, would have been crossed with steel. That adds to the quantities. More than that, in one of these cases it is being filled with rock because they cannot get the earth. I think that is section ' A.' I hope now I have given enough illustrations to show how these quantities are changed from the original estimates down to the actual quantities afterwards completed. My hon. friend from Simcoe referred to all these, and I will refer to them. He took the first

section west of Moncton. It is a matter of common knowledge that practically all these Grand Trunk Pacific contracts have been handed over to sub-contractors; the Grand Trunk Pacific taking a very small percentage, simply^ enough to pay them for doing some financing, and the balance goes to the contractors. They are not ordinary subcontractors, because a sub-contractor in an ordinary contract probably allows 15 per cent to the main contractor; whereas on these contracts, less than 5 per cent goes to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Now, if any hon. gentleman has the idea that the Grand Trunk Pacific are not watching this matter very carefully all over the line of railway, he is very much mistaken. I can state that there is a feeling on the part of engineers all over this line, and I have met most of them, that the Grand Trunk Pacific are acting in a really unfriendly spirit, and are finding fault with everything that is going on. They are not objecting down in New Brunswick, as they are probably in every other part of their work. There are very few objections in New Brunswick. In one of these contracts, No. 2, there has not been a solitary protest. On the Kitchen works, which my hon. friend referred to as costing much more than they should, there have been very few protests. But that is not a Grand Trunk Pacific contract. My hon. friend says that in the first estimate of No. 2 contract there was no solid rock at all. It turns out now that there is something like 10,000 or 20,000 yards of solid rock on that whole contract. Now, I want to know if you are going (to condemn an engineer as being a dishonest scoundrel because, in a work 50 miles long, he *says he did not think there was any solid rock, and did not get within 20,000 yards of what turned out to be the fact. You have only to read the specifications to know that any man might make a mistake like that. It is only an error in judgment, and the marvel to me is that these engineers get as near to the facts as they do in their first estimates.
He takes up next No. 3, that is from Chipman to the Intercolonial. There, he says, they have also an increase of 231,289 cubic yards of solid rock which should be called excavation, giving a total increase in this one item alone of $341,000. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is a place on that contract where soft work has been cut out and a solid embankment put in the place of it, and that accounts for 200.000 yards of this work, and it has been done with the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific's engineer and the commissioners' engineer. Yet my hon. friends say that because of these apparent discrepancies in the figures, somebody has been guilty of fraud, and somebody should be brought to the bar of this House, and somebody should be disgraced for the Test of his natural life, 81J
as an engineer who had sold himself out to the contractor. I want to know if that is the standard by which my hon. friends would want one of their friends, or sons, or brothers, or their friends' sons or brothers to be judged? I wont use any harsher term. I think I have shown some reasons why these discrepancies appear between the estimate and the actual results, and if they will make a thorough investigation they will come to the conclusion that there is very little real fault to find.
Next, we have the contract from 164* to 195, that is the Kitchen contract. On that contract, no doubt, the cost has very much increased over the original estimate. I am bound to say, however, that on that contract the engineers made a mistake as to the amount of solid rock to be found. But I have accounted to you for 400,000 yards of solid rock, which has been borrowed entirely elsewhere and put in there, and as I said before, it does not cost the country one dollar more than it would if the work had been completed according to the specifications, and if they had got a rock embankment instead of an earth embankment. Then he goes on to the lines in white. That is hardly worth discussing because the increase is so very slights Now I am not going to discuss the case in the province of Quebec, because I have no personal knowledge of it. No doubt there has been an increase in quantity, no doubt the matter will be investigated, and if there is anything wrong it will be cut out; But I am only talking of things of which I know, or of which I have evidence before me in the returns from which I can discuss the question intelligently.
Then that brings us back to the object of all this discussion. My hon. friend from Simcoe says that there has been dishonest classification on the part of the engineers, he says that the quantities of solid rock and loose rock have materially increased, and the quantities of excavation have decreased. I have pointed out some of the reasons why solid rock was increased, and I have given you actual illustrations. But, there is another matter to which I want to refer as showing why solid rock has increased. Any hon. member who knows anything about railway construction knows that when you go into a cut, say 20 or 30 or 40 feet deep, of solid rock, you dont take this out by pick and bar, or by a little stick of dynamite, it would cost you $10 a yard to do it; but you take it out by putting in monstrous charges of explosives of dynamite, or nitro glycerine, or things of that kind. Is it nossible for any man actually to gauge the width of that explosion when he is taking down 10,000 or 15,000 yards at a time? If that overlaps the actual width of the cutting according tq

the prism, as it is called, then the balance ' is called an overbreak, and on the Canadian Pacific railway they admit there ought to be at most 15 to 25 per cent al' lowed for overbreak. That adds to the cost. When engineers are estimating ' quantities they estimate actual quantities according to the prism as laid down on the 'plan; and when you add to that ten per cent or twenty-five per cent, which of neces sity must happen in the way of overbreak you have that much added to your origina
*	estimate. In all these cases more rock i? broken than they expected. Then that be
[DOT] comes a question for negotiation. Is r. fair to allow the contractor for this extra amount, or not? That is a matter to be decided mutually.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman says that the estimate is formed on the prism quantity.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do.


John Graham Haggart: How is it that the prism quantities are less than the actual quantities? The actual quantities generally taken out are a great deal less than the prism quantities.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are a great deal more than the prism quantities. My hon. friend has got it reversed.


John Graham Haggart: The quantities that were estimated by the engineers are less than the amounts taken out.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is at liberty to say that, I say it is the other way.


John Graham Haggart: No, I went carefully into it, and I find that the amounts estimated by the engineers are the actual quantities paid for.


William Sora Middlebro: With the hon. gentleman's permission-according tio the figures brought down by the hon. member
*	for Simcoe yesterday, which figures were .not disputed by the Minister of Railways,
because they were compiled from information brought down by the minister himself, these figures show that in one case, while the estimate of the amount to be ex-[DOT]cavated was 15.000,000 yards, there was actually taken out, according to his certificate, only 10,000,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not propose to discuss this matter with mv hon. friends, they will have all the chance they want to tell their side of the case.


John Graham Haggart: But we want the facts.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I know as much about the facts in this case as my hon. friend does and perhaps before I am through Mr. CARVELL.
he will think I do. There is this question of overbreak. The hon. member for North Grey made the statement this afternoon that after Mr. Grant was appointed district engineer he went over the work and, of his own volition, deducted something like $350,000 from the work on districts 'B' and TV I can tell my hon. friend, and perhaps he does not know this, but he could get it by asking for a return, that of that portion of the $350,000 belonging to district 'F' $100,000 o* it is a question of overbreak and not a question of classification at all. So, therefore, you have reduced the actual amount in dispute as to classification within districts 'F' and 'B' down almost to a minimum. The total amount in dispute between the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers and the commission engineers is less than $1,000,000 on $50,000,000 worth of work; or less than two per cent of the whole work in question is in dispute between these engineers. When you consider the difficulties of classifying material, as I have pointed out here to-night, under Mr. Lumsden's instructions, ought any engineer to be branded as a scoundrel because there happens to be a difference of two per cent between the estimates by himself or his predecessor and the actual results of the excavation? I think you have only to state the proposition to see the unfairness of it and it is a remarkable thing that the engineers were able to estimate these quantities and costs as accurately as they have done. I stated in the early part of my remarks, and I wish to repeat it here, in order to have it emphasized, that according to the figures of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), there is only an increase of $7,-
500,000	over the estimates, which are only estimates made by the engineers at the beginning of this work.


John Graham Haggart: I would like that authoritatively. I suppose the hon. gentleman gets it from the minister?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Authoritatively? Why, I figured it out from the figures given by the hon. member for Simcoe on Tuesday, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) or any hon. gentleman can figure it out for himself and see. I have taken the figures [DOT]is he gave them and that is the result.


John Graham Haggart: I thought they were figures given to you.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Hon. gentlemen say ' hear, hear.' I stand by my statement. I think every hon. gentleman in this House, if he will let his reason sway him, will stand by the same statement because of the absolute nonsense of a proposition like this. Then, they say we want to do more than that. We want to investigate everything that has taken place in the conduct
of this work. We want to investigate whether this or that engineer exercised proper judgment in locating the line, whether he should have located it half a mile east or a quarter of a mile west. Let me give an illustration. Hon. gentlemen bring up Major Hodgins here as the acme of perfection in all engineering matters. I will showr you what it will amount to. There is a place-I cannot give the name, but I can get it for hon. gentlemen if they desire it-where an engineer located on the work on Major Hodgins' district, when he was district engineer, a five per cent curve in order to get around the edge of the lake. Major Hodgins said: That should only have been a four per cent curve, and because you have located a five per cent curve you are wrong, your judgment is no good. He fired him. That man has gone forth a dismissed engineer and to this day is looking for a position because he is sent off, his reputation is injured, and has no means of redress. Worse than all that, on the advice of this same Major Hodgins, $40,000 was expended on the line which he projected, or caused to be projected, and they had to go back and abandon that $40,000 worth of work and adopt the line projected by the very engineer who was fired because he exercised his common sense and judgment in laying out this line. These are seme of the things that my hon. friends want to have investigated, and they want to have a hundred and one things like this investigated all over the country. You have only to enunciate the proposition in order to see the absolute nonsense of it.
Now, Sir, I submit that these are very grave charges which have been made by Mr. Lumsden. Mr. Lumsden has said in effect, that these engineers were dishonest. Perhaps I am putting it too strongly. Well I will modify it. He says his engineers failed to carry out his instructions of the 10th January, 1908. I have pointed out to the House what these instructions were. If an engineer takes a certain view of the classification of a certain cut under the instructions of Mr. Lumsden, and if Mr. Lumsden says to him, I cannot go there myself, you are on the work, you are the only man that can do it, I want to know, Sir, whether we have the right to bring that man up and allow a prejudiced engineer to investigate him and say that because you have exercised your judgment in one way and our engineers would exercise their judgment in another way, that man is a scoundrel and is entitled to the castigation given to him by Mr. Lumsden. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the only logical thing we can do is to have a committee appointed as suggested by the Prime Minister. We can bring Mr. Lumsden before the committee and ask him as business men whom he means when he speaks of those who did not carry out the

instructions which he gave them. Then, it will he up to Mr. Lumsden to say who these men are. Then, let us bring before this committee a commission of expert engineers and let this commission say whether or not, in their opinion, the engineers who have been so severely reprimanded or castigated Iby Mr. Lumsden are guilty or not. If they are, dismiss them. If the committee find that they have been wilfully guilty of a crime, prosecute them.


John Graham Haggart: Can we not make an inquiry like that ourselves?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How are you going to make the inquiry? I pointed out the impossibility of it from a business, standpoint. We would make laughing stocks of ourselves all over the country if we were to attempt to carry out the proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad to hear my hon. friends opposite applaud that; I am glad they are coming round to a reasonable view of the case and that they will vote against their own motion.


Arthur Meighen: I understood the hon. member to say that before this committee suggested by the Prime Minister, you can call a committee of competent engineers to give evidence as to whether or not the Transcontinental engineers did not carry out Mr. Lumsden's instructions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that at all.


Arthur Meighen: Then who would give the information?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The commission appointed by parliament to settle these matters; the arbitrators.


Arthur Meighen: Who would give the evidence?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why the arbitrators of course; they are the only men who can give the evidence.


Arthur Meighen: All right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are the men created by parliament to have the right to give the evidence, and I can say more than that, there is one man on that commission who has visited every cut and every fill on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Moncton to Winnipeg, and I say that that man has information which it would take the best engineer in Canada ten years to obtain if he spent the whole of his time doing it, and even then he could not do it because Mr. Grant has seen this work in the actual course of excavation; and visited it month after month as inspecting engineer, and he knows and has first hand knowledge which the most expert engineer on earth could ;not get now. Therefore, no committee of Mr. CARVELL.
engineers that could be sent out is in as good a position to judge fairly between Mr. Lumsden and these engineers whom he has charged with incompetency or worse, as is the commission which is created by parliament, and for that reason I submit that the amendment should be voted down and the resolution moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister adopted by the House.


Arthur Meighen: It may be truly said of the hon. member (Mr. Carveil) as it has been said is all that has reference to either the motion, that the very last part of his address is all that has reference to either the motion or to the amendment, and therefore the hon. gentleman will understand why I shall first reply to his closing remarks. The hon. gentleman gave as a reason why he was going to support the motion that, before the committee proposed by the First Minister, a committee of engineers could be called who would give evidence as to whether or not there had been bad faith on the part of the sub-engineers in not following the instructions of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental, but only a moment before that he said that no matter what any engineer said as to whether or not these sub-engineers followed the instructions, that would be no evidence of bad faith because they might in perfect good faith have given a different classification from that given by the chief engineer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must correct my hon. friend. I did not say: if they did not follow the instructions; I said: if they did not interpret the instructions as Mr. Lumsden would interpret them.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carve'll) stated that no matter how great the divergence in the classification, that would be no evidence of bad faith on the part of the under engineers. Then, if that would be no evidence, and if that is the only evidence these arbitrators could give, there absolutely could be no evidence offered to the committee as to the bad faith of any of these men in the matter of over classification. Consequently if the resolution moved by the right hon. the First Minister is adopted, under the argument adduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carveil) there cannot possibly be brought in a finding of bad faith. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carveil) has given a speech and he has got through with it, and I have been at a loss to find one word or one sentence in that speech which argued any more against the amendment than it argued against the resolution, because whatever he may have said against investigation applied equally as well against the alleged investigation suggested by the First Minister in his motion as against the investigation asked for by the amendment. For fear I

should do any injustice to the hon. member by not paying the attention to his speech which it merits, I shall briefly refer to a few points which he adduced. Let me premise by saying that I do not for one minute expect that I can add as much to the knowledge of this House from the point of view of the skilled engineer as has been furnished by the hon. member (Mr. Car-veil). I do not conceive that it is my duty to take part in this debate for the purpose of adding anything to the text-books on the subject of engineering; I conceive rather that my duty is to show why the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) should prevail against the resolution of the First Minister. Probably 75 per cent of the speech of the hon. member for Carleton was directed towards trying to show that it was impossible for engineers to make correct estimates by the yard of what would be solid rock, what loose rock, and what common excavation. I do not contend and nobody will contend that it is possible for absolute estimates so to be made. But, it is stated on the authority of engineers, and no engineering authority has been adduced to the contrary, that a margin of 20 per cent was ample to allow any engineer who could pretend to make a careful or competent survey.
Now, the point advanced by the hon. member for North Simcoe was that in district *F' which is the principal district in dispute there had been a mistake, not of 20 per cent, but a very gross mistake which was sufficient to raise a prima facie case against the honesty or the competency of the estimate, or the honesty of the calculations at the time the excavations were made. The facts are that in district *F' some 3,500,000 cubic yards were estimated by the engineers as solid rock, some 700,000 yards as loose rock, and 11,200,000 yards as common excavation. But, instead of this, the Minister of Railways has told the House that the actual figures are 6,500,000 cubic yards of solid rock, 2,100,000 cubic yards of loose rock, and about 3,000,000 yards of common excavation. There is a difference between the estimate and the result, not of 20 per cent, but of almost 100 per cent in the first case, and about 200 per cent in the second case, and less than one-third of the total estimated amount of common excavation. And, the hon. member for Carleton comes before the House and he gives it as his opinion as an engineering expert that it is a marvel to him how the engineers made so close an estimate as that. The only palliation he has to offer is that in district 'F,' somewhere he knows not where, he has heard that some 500,000 cubic yards of rock were used for the purpose of filling in lakes. Well, he can allow his 500,000 cubic yards whenever he wants to, and there will be almost
8.000.	000 yards of excavation left which he has failed to explain away. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can take for the purposes of this inquiry whichever horn of the dilemma the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) wants to sit upon. He can argue that it is a first-class estimate, and then I will ask him of what use are any such estimates at all for the purposes of constructing a railway; of what use was it for the government to go to such great expense to be able to inform this country for the purposes of an election, that there were
11.000.	000 cubic yards of common excavation in district 'F' when as a matter of fact there were only 3,000,000 yards. Of what use was it to go to the trouble of ascertaining that there were 3,500,000 cubic yards of solid rock when as a matter of fact there were 6,500,000 cubic yards of solid rock. And, of what use was it to inform the House 'and the country on the authority of competent engineers-as the Minister of Finance said-that there were
700,000	cubic yards of loose rock when as a matter of fact there were 2,100,000. Let me say to the member for Carleton and to the House, that if it is not possible to estimate within closer limits than that, if that is a marvellously correct estimate, then, the presentation of these estimates at all can only have been intended to deceive the House and the country and they should never have been made. If 20 per cent is the utmost that may be allowed for a divergence between the estimate and the actuality, surely a divergence of 200 per cent cannot be explained on any hypothesis consistent with honesty. The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) pointed out that there was considerable more excavation required on account of the overbreak, and which he said would not be estimated by the engineers in the first place. I do not think the hon. member is correct in that, although on points of engineering of course I bow to his opinion as an exceedingly high one, judging from the assurance with which he gave it to the House. But at the same time, Sir, at page 12, of the report brought down by the First Minister, there will be found words of the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, Mr. Woods, which are utterly inconsistent with the supposition that overbreak was not allowed for in the original estimates. Mr. Woods says, under date of June 19, 1908:
I have nothing to show how this overbreak is estimated. Articles 37 and 38 would indicate that a large amount of this overbreak might have been estimated as loose rock rather than solid. Can you say if this has been done? None of my reports indicate such to be the case. I think you will readily agree with me that if these cuttings are being measured month to month by actual quantities taken out, and no allowance deducted, little effort will be made by the contractors

to keep overbreak within reasonable limit and in the end we shall undoubtedly be paying $1,000,000 additional for the work on this section probably not contemplated in your approximate estimates.
How can any man say that that statement is consistent with the statement of the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) that overbreak would not be allowed in the first instance? An examination of district ' F ' clearly proves, and the figures in rough were given by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro), that there was a total estimate of 15,056,063 cubic yards, and the total excavation actually taken out to the date of return was 10,068,032, or a deduction of almost
5,000,000 cubic yards. But in the return there was embodied the statement that 94-66 per cent of the work only was done. Allowing for the balance of 5 -.33 per cent, there will altogether be only in district ' F ' 11,222,433 cubic yards or about 4,400,000 cubic yards less actually taken out in the ultimate than was originally estimated by the engineers. Notwithstanding that the cost has far exceeded the estimate and will in the ultimate, to use the word of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), outrageously exceed the estimate. Surely an hon. member -cannot expect sensible men to think engineers will give an estimate of loose rock or solid rock simply by taking a view of the country and not making any borings? Surely if the engineers did such a thing, the members of the government would not give the reports to the House as reliable. Surely the men who made the estimate would not' reduce it to a single yard oi_ rock, if they were going on the assumption that if they could come within 200 per cent of the correct figure they would consider, in the words of the hon. member (Mr. Carvell), that they were .doing marvellously well.
The hon. member for Carleton, with a wise discretion which I have observed in many cases, got away from section * F ' with remarkable speed. He got down to a district near Moncton, and tried to show that there were there some lakes and that borrowed rock had to be used to fill, so that it did not cost the country any more.
I must confess I did not understand his argument that this borrowed rock did not cost the country any more, but assuming him to be correct he must produce to the House the actual basis for the ultimate result that has ensued, that it is costing the country more.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall be pleased to send over a return in which the hon. member will find it all figured out.


Arthur Meighen: That will be very kind.
I will be able to make reference to it as soon as I go home, and I hope it will con-


Arthur Meighen: tain more pertaining to the resolution than the hon. member's speech.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You will find it all on that page.


Arthur Meighen: On this district near Moncton it was brought out by the member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox)-and it has not been denied except by the remark of the member for Carleton, New Brunswick, that the member for Simcoe, like the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and the member for North Grey did not know what he was talking about-that in the eastern 50 miles there had been an error not of 20 per cent, but of 556 per cent, in the estimate of loose rock. Will the hon. member say that this is explained by the fact that some little rock was dumped into a lake? An estimate of 135,000 yards of loose rock grows into 850,000 yards, an increase of 556 per cent. The solid rock is not quite so marvellous, it was estimated at nothing and grew to 10,000 yards. But the excavation estimated at 1,900,000 was reduced to a paltry 600,000 and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) still assures the House that he considers these estimates marvellously accurate.
Then we come to the next section, 50 to 58. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) shows that in that very section there was an increase in the cost of 166 per cent, and if, as the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, argued, there was nothing added to the cost by means of the borrowed rock, what accounts for the increase of nearly three times in that section. In the next section, 58 and 96, the hon. member for Simcoe shows by a return that the percentage of solid rock had increased not 20 per cent but 240 per cent, and that also, to use the words of the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, is a marvellously accurate estimate.
Take section 96 to 164, the increase of solid rock there, if the other is marvellously accurate, will be still more so for it is 95 per cent. Surely the member for Carleton does not pretend to be able to convince this House that estimates are worth one -dollar to the country, are not a positive detriment to the country as tending to deceive, if they cannot come infinitely nearer the mark than has been the case in almost any division of this whole Transcontinental line.
The hon. member for Carleton gave some figures of $15,000,000 in the total cost. I confess I could not understand his argument where he stated that the increase would be only $15,000,000. The figures are in ' Hansard ' and are to be found in the returns. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) assured this House that the cost would be $54,000,000 and he stated that his authority was not, as the member for

(Jarieton (Mr. Carvell) represented this afternoon, his own. I would like these two gentlemen to get together and reconcile their differences, because while the Minister of Finance assures the House he would not give the House an estimate based on his own authority, the member for Carle-ton, N.B., says that these estimates are not given on competent authority, but by members of the House. The Minister of Finance assured us that the co3t would be $54,000,000 and in that the minister estimated the interest during construction because without that it would be only some $44,000;000. The figures brought down last December show an estimated cost of $114.000,000, a rise from $27,000 per mile to over $63,000 a mile on the average. I do not know what the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B., meant by referring to an increase of $15,000,000. Before he got through he also said: What is the use of appointing a committee to look into this matter of classification when the total amount at variance between the two contending parties at the present time is only two per cent? If the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., had been able to prove to the House that the total amount at variance was not two per cent but 1-100 of one per cent he would only have added to the strength of the argument that we require a committee to go into the rest of the over-classification. Why is there only two per cent now in dispute? It is because of the ingenuity of this Transcontinental Commission, assisted, as we were informed yesterday, by the Minister of Railways and Canals himself, by a document dated January 10, 1908, persisted in with a wonderful loyalty throughout two years and nearly three, with a marvellous tenacity, because by the ingenuity of that resolution they were able to shut out the whole burden of the complaint of the Grand Trunk Pacific from the purview of the arbitration board. It is more to revise and extend the scope of the investigation than for what is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators that we require a committee for the purpose of investigation. I shall come to that point later on.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), in that part of his speech before six o'clock, laid great stress on the fact that it was absolutely impossible, once an excavation was taken out and the road laid down, to make an investigation and determine as to over-classification. He said it was a mere farce. Let us assume that the hon. member's knowledge of engineering leads him to a correct conclusion on that point. Then, what is the use of the arbitration board now sitting? What is the use of putting the country to the expense of that board appointed last November to investigate work done prior to January, 1908? The hon. member's argument is that the whole principle of the arbitrations propounded by this agreement of which the government is the father, is a farce.
Now, I wish to refer for a few minutes to the resolution, and I confess that I cannot make the point stronger or clearer than it was made by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro). Still I submit, in my own humble way, that this resolution of the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) means absolutely nothing;- plainly and on its face it can result in nothing. As the hon. member for South Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) said, it is a gold brick, it is made for the purpose of being announced from the house-tops as showing the Prime Minister's desire for pure politics. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) avoided the point that nothing could result from this investigation. If the committee is appointed in pursuance of the resolution, the hon. member for Carleton and possibly the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) will be members of that committee. For I have learned this, if nothing else, since I came to this House, that the cold and frigid logic-or perhaps I should say the narrow scrutinizing method-of these hon. members confining the limits of investigations in this House appeals with great force to this government for the hon. member for Carleton in particular appears to have a perpetual retainer from the government for committees of this description. Should that hon. member be appointed as one of this committee, I cannot conceive that he will remain the man he has always been unless he contends before the committee that nothing can be investigated except according to the strict language of the resolution as interpreted and explained by the mover. Then it must be pointed out in the first place that the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is careful to include and quote only such language of Mr. Lumsden as meets his purpose, that he leaves out Mr. Lumsden's charges that there . was over-classification in districts 'B' and 'F.' The only thing quoted is to the effect that there was a disregard of the instructions of Mr. Lumsden and that Mr. Lumsden had lost confidence in his staff. Consequently, all that will come within the purview of this committee is whether or not Mr. Lumsden had lost confidence in his staff and whether or not they disregarded his instructions. Investigating that narrowest of all points before the committee, the committee would be hemmed in by the fact that, as soon as they used the matter of over-classification to prove that these men had disregarded instructions they would be stopped by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Pictou on the ground that this over-classification, whether it results from bad faith or incompetence, is not within the purview of

the committee. If bad faith, if insubordination-if you call it such-on the part of these district engineers is not to be proven by over-classification, you cannot prove it at all, and it does not matter whether it existed or not. So, the only element by which insubordination could be proved is shut out from the domain of the committee altogether. If there ever was a resolution cunningly devised to forbid investigation, this is the one. The hands of Judge Cassels when he went to investigate the affairs of the Department of Marine were not anything like so securely tied as those of the committee will be when started on its narrow course. The resolution of the First Minister is not the whole truth; it is ' the seeming truth that cunning times put on ' to entrap the people. But the people cannot be deceived, because the facts have been clearly pointed out three times in this House, and no attempt made to meet the points raised.
Now, let me approach that point from another side. If any committee should be appointed by this House that would in any way duplicate the work of the arbitration board, there would be no work for that committee to do. This committee, as I want to argue later on, has infinitely greater work before it, if it is given power to do that work, than any arbitration board, because there is so much excluded from the jurisdiction of the board as to justify the appointment of the committee anyway. If they could not investigate any of these two per cent difficulties which the hon. member for Oarleton has spoken as between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Commission, they could not investigate the point of bad faith, because that point is inextricably involved in these two per cent difficulties.
The question before the House is whether or not we, having for our clients, not the Transcontinental or the government, but the people of the country, are justified in inquiring into all the facts regarding this expenditure of public money. My remarks will be almost exclusively along the line that we should have such an investigation. And in this we are supported by the powerful authority of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway itself. What we ask for is little if anything more than what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have been asking for for over two years-as evidenced by the very return brought down by the government-and what the government, through its commission, has been steadfastly refusing. I am relieved of the necessity, in order to form a basis for my argument, of placing on 'Hansard' the letters of Mr. Woods in which he argues against the classification as made by the district engineers of the Transcontinental. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) thought Mr. MEIGHEN.
he did justice to himself and the people by putting on record certain letters consistent with his own position, without putting on record those that were against his position. But these other documents have been placed on record by the hon. member for North Grey. Before I proceed further, I wish to correct the Minister of Railways -I regret to see he is not in his place, but perhaps his absence and his inattention to this debate is the measure of the importance that he attaches to the resolution of the First Minister-in regard to one statement he made, yesterday. The hon. gentleman said that since the appointment of Mr. Grant as chief engineer of the Transcontinental Commission, there had not been any new objections to the classification. If the minister-or those behind him who are present-will take a look at the return brought down, pages 35, 36 and 69, they will see that that statement of the minister is incorrect. Let me read from page 69. In a letter to Mr. Woods by Mr. Gordon Grant, dated October 21, 1909- several months after Mr. Grant was appointed-in reply to a letter written by Mr. Woods to Mr. Grant, of October 5, 1901, an acknowledgment of the criticisms of Mr. Woods is made.
I must comment here on the fact that throughout this return there is a marked absence of copies of the letters, in the first place, written by Mr. Lumsden to Mr. Woods. There are only the letters written by Mr. Woods to Mr. Lumsden, and they are more or less unintelligble without the replies of Mr. Lumsden. Not only is there a marked absence of those letters, but there is an absence even of the letter from Woods to Lumsden of October 5, 1909. At all events, in the reply, the purpose of Mr. Woods' letter is clearly shown, because Mr. Lumsden writes as follows:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 5th instant in which you file objections to the classification as returned on contracts 4 and 5 in district ' A.'
And so on. These objections cover the work done one or two years ago, notwithstanding that they were the same as the objections found by his engineers. This is pointed out by Mr. Lumsden. Further on, Mr. Gordon Grant acknowledges the receipt of objections to the following classifications as having been received, which objections are not referred to prior to the appointment of Mr. Grant, and which consequently, I take it, were made after Mr. Grant's appointment :
In district ' A ' 24, Grand Trunk Pacific Company: in district ' A ' 25, district ' B ' 15, Macdonell & O'Brien, districts ' C ' and ' B ' 14, Grand Trunk Pacific; district ' F,' O'Brien & Macdonell.
All these objections were made after the resignation of Mr. Lumsden, although it

was stated by the Minister of Railways none were made. It is worth while to refer to the objections made after Mr. Lumsden's resignation by Mr. Woods, as shown on page 35 of the return, where Mr. Woods says:
Referring to our recent visit to the work on district ' IS J east of the St. Lawrence river, our examination of classification as rendered at points visited, and our conversation regarding the same, I hope to repeat in writing what I stated to you verbally, that we still vigorously protest to the classification as returned to date. For example:-
And he proceeds to give examples covering several inches of the page of the return. Further on he says:
I take it that the above are fair samples of classification on this residency, if not on the entire division.
Emphasizing the point that the instances mentioned by himself are typical only. He says:
In the aggregate you can readily see the effect upon the cost of construction.
Now, Sir, the importance of the great divergence between the estimate and the result, is illustrated by the latter part of the letter which I read a few moments ago, found on page 5 of the return, in which Mr. Woods charges that if the overbreak on this district ' F ' is allowed to go on in the haphazard, unchecked style in which it had been going on, the loss on that connection alone would be $1,000,000 from overbreak. Now surely if, on one section of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton the loss in overbreak is estimated by Mr. Woods, through the error, through the dishonesty, of the officials of the Transcontinental, to be nearly $1,000,000, what would be the loss, not on overbreak alone, but on classification also on the whole district from Moncton to Winnipeg? Surely the importance of it was worth the while of the commission, in the first place, to grant an investigation from Winnipeg to Moncton, and if they did not do it, then it is for this House to take the matter in hand.
I now come to a point which I think will be of interest to members of this House, because it bears most directly on the necessity for a thorough investigation, I refer to the arbitration that was to take place last summer by Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Schreiber, the last being the third arbitrator called in. In the first place, I say that if ever there has been anything in the whole conduct of the construction of this road that reflects upon the Transcontinental Commission, and through it on the members of the government of the day-because the government countenanced and tacitly approved of all the Transcontinental Commission did-if I say, there is anything that establishes the discredit of
that commission it is the arbitration farce that proceeded in the matter of overclassification and overbreak during the months of May and June, 1909. Now what are the facts? Throughout the whole of 1908 and part of 1907, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the Transcontinental Commission had been unable to agree in the matter of classification. Objections had been filed early in 1907, they continued throughout all of 1908. The summer was the only time, admittedly, when arbitration proceedings could be intelligently gone on with. But the harvest was past, the summer was ended, and nothing was done. The Minister of Railways has been pleased to account for the delay by ascribing it entirely to the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and quoting Mr. Lumsden as his authority. But I can equally well quote Mr. Kelliher, and Mr. Woods, and Mr. Chamberlain as authorities for stating that the delay was caused just as much by the Transcontinental Commission as by the Grand Trunk Pacific. In the month of May, when the Prime Minister wrote the letter which was quoted by the Minister of Railways, in which he asked for an investigation, and when he stated that, as a result of that letter, proceedings were at once taken for an investigation, I say that he stated what was incorrect, and what this return proves to be incorrect. It is a remarkable fact that in the month of May, the Hodgins investigation was taking place, it is a remarkable fact that throughout this month and the previous month, the press and members of the government were contending that there was no over-classification. At any rate, on the 11th of May, the first minister writes to the Transcontinental Commission and suggests that an inquiry be instituted, and suggests the appointment of an arbitration board. Notwithstanding the fact that the letter was written at that time, and that it was answered by the chairman of the commission with the assertion that proceedings had already been instituted, there is no record to show that until the 22nd of July, or over two months after, the first step had been taken towards pushing these arbitration proceedings. Mr. Lumsden's letter written in October, says that on the 22nd of July last he wrote a letter to Mr. Kelliher asking that an arbitration be started. So the letter of the Prime Minister, whether it was intended to be peremptory or not, at all events had no peremptory effect, because they stood still until the 22nd of July. Then one dilatory step was taken and then another, until the winter came on; and then the letters of Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Kelliher show that to attempt an arbitration xn the winter months was an absolute farce, that no arbi-

tration and no investigation eould take place when snow was on the ground. I commend these words to the Minister of Railways, who assured this House yesterday that since the 18th of November, and during the winter of 1909 when snow was on the ground, arbitration has actually proceeded. These words in the House, and the statement made -by the minister's own engineer on previous occasions mean that the present arbitration also is an absolute farce.
Well, after a while, and after much correspondence, an arbitration board is constituted in the winter months. They can do nothing until May. In the letter appointing Mr. Schreiber as third arbitrator, in the very last sentence of that letter, it is stated that if he accepts, a formal submission to the arbitration board will be drawn up for execution. Mr. Schreiber accepted, his acceptance appears appended to that letter. And notwithstanding the fact that the engineer, with the authority of the Transcontinental Commission, signed that letter and assured Mr. Schreiber and all interested in the arbitration, that a formal submission would be drawn up for execution, no such formal submission was ever executed by the commission, or by any one representing it. A formal submission was drawn up by the Grand Trunk Pacific, a very fair, a very comprehensive, a very useful document, but the Transcontinental Commission knew too much about the game to sign that and they further knew too much about the game to give the actual reasons why they refused to execute it, I stated in reference to the submission that it was a very fair and reasonable one. I want to read that submission, I want to read the agreement that the Grand Trunk Pacific laid before the Transcontinental Railway Commission for execution and to ask the members of this House whether it was not a fair and reasonable agreement and whether it was too comprehensive as it was at a much later time stated to be by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. At page 17 of the return that agreement ap-ppnrs The usual recitals appear in the first place setting forth the fact that an Act of parliament calls for the arbitration of all differences, and the fact that differences have arisen. Then, it goes on to say:
Therefore this agreement witnesseth that the following question dn regard to the specifications and the work in respect of which the said engineers have differed shall be submitted for determination to the said engineers and the said Collingwood Schreiber, Esquire, as third arbitrator, namely
(a) The interpretation of the specifications as applied to the actual work, each party under this heading to be at liberty to ask for the construction or interpretation of any particular clause of the specifications not already Mr. MEIGHEN.
approved by the engineers and such construction or interpretation when given to be conclusive as to all work already done, and to be thereafter binding in regard to all future work to he done.
is that unreasonable? is there anything ;:i fear by an honest Transcontinental Railway Commission or by honest engineers in asking that certain clauses which may coni in an ambiguity, or which may be difficult of interpretation, shall be settled as to their interpretation, once and for all? Nothing unfair to my mind.
(b) Classification of material handled by contractors in the formation of the roadbed, or incident to other work forming part of any of the contracts on the eastern division.
Surely it will be in the interest at least of the people of this country, if it is not in the interest of the commission, that that natter shall be investigated. Glassification of material handled by contractors. The technical point is raised and is persisted in with a steadfastness, a perpetuity, if I may use the word, that would never be expected of the most technical lawyer in a court of law, .that unless you put in your objection at a specified time and put in your objection to a certain mile there is nothing to dispute over as to that and consequently nothing to investigate. As Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Lumsden went over the road, if Mr. Kelliher found something that was over-classified, could not he object then and would not that be a question in dispute? Would not a question in dispute be raised the moment Mr. Kelliher said: There is over-classification and Mr. Kelliher having stated that and that point in dispute having arisen, was it not in the interest of the people of the country that that point in dispute be settled there and not be relegated to obscurity and refused settlement for all time? Surely it was. Would it not have been absolutely fair to have investigated a dispute raised by Mr. Kelliher on the ground? He is looking over the work. He goes over a mile and he says: There is over-classification amounting to 100, or 200, or 500 per cent and I want you to investigate that. If Mr. Lumsden did not agree with him let Mr. Collingwood Schreiber decide it. That is what the Grand Trunk Pacific asked for and that is what the commission refused. The attitude of the commission on that point is consistent only with the proposition that they wanted to confine the limits of the overbreak and over-classification, they wanted to confine the dollars that the country had lost in the construction of this road by these frauds-and these incompetencies of various people in order that Liberal politicians might go through the country and say, as did the hon. member for Carleton: Why, there is only two per cent; there is only $1,000,000 out of $50,000,000. That could

have been the only result. They could not have had the interests of the people at heart. They could not have cared one single straw for the treasury of this country, or thev would not have allowed the Grand Trunk Pacific to have raised objections and refused to have allowed these to be fairly and amicably settled by the tribunal appointed to discharge this duty under an Act of parliament. This agreement goes on:
(c)	Payment to contractors for handling material in cutting in excess of the theoretic section to be excavated, whether caused by slides, excessive use of explosives or otherwise, and commonly termed overbreak.
They wanted that investigated, but the commission refused to investigate that unless it also was bound within the narrow and frigid letters which happily Mr. Woods happened to write on a previous occasion and since the 10th January. The commission not only absolutely refused to investigate anything except such as was within each specific mile post embodied in Mir. Woods' letters, but they refused to investigate anything embodied in Mr. Woods' letters prior to the 10th January, 1908. Later, the Transcontinental railway secretary of the commission addressed to Mr. Schreiber, as appears in the return under date of about the 20th January, 1909, a letter which shows clearly that the commission had absolutely made up their minds that no objection, however specific, raised by Mr. Woods, prior to the 10th January, 1908, would be allowed to be investigated. They shut the door first to all objections raised on the ground, they shut the door to Mr. Woods' objections wherein he says the whole division is wrong, they shut the door lastly, and they locked it, and said that no matter how .specific your objections, if they were made before the 10th January, 1908, they are shut within a dark closet and you cannot investigate them now. Then they go on. Here is a general clause and could [DOT]anything be fairer?
(d)	All other matters not included in the foregoing but which may properly form the subject to arbitration under clause 7.
How could anything be fairer? Everything that could properly form the subject of arbitration under clause 7 of the Act passed by this parliament in 1903 should be investigated. Let me ask any member of the government who may be present-[DOT] and if there are none present who know anything about it, then let me ask any hon. member of this House who is interested in the people's behalf-what right had the commission, what jurisdiction had the Minister of Railways and Canals to limit the powers of investigation granted by the House of Commons in an Act passed in 1903?


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me as a very singular thing, not to say a very
discourteous thing, that in the discussion of two resolutions of this kind, fihe only man who really knows anything about it, absents himself from this House. Questions are raised and debated; three or four have been raised by my hon. friend who is now speaking in which it would be very pertinent to have from the Minister of Railways and Canals why such and such a thing did not appear in the return and other things of that kind. The Minister of Railways, with either contempt or an utter disregard of his duties in a debate of this kind, leaves the House. Mr. Speaker, I make my protest against having such treatment accorded to such an important ques^ tion as this.


Mr. FISHER.: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) was in his seat until a few minutes ago, but he was called out of the House. I have no doubt that he will return shortly, but it is unreasonable that any minister should be required to stay in the House constantly through a prolonged debate of this kind.


George Eulas Foster: Either the Minister of Railways, or the Prime Minister, or some minister who knows something about this debate, ought to be here, and I think it would be a good thing to take a recess until one of the responsible ministers comes back. I move that the House do now rise.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In reference to that motion, I have only to say that I cannot accept it at all as a reasonable censure on the government, or as a reasonable censure on the minister. It is true that when a prolonged debate occurs, as in this case, the ministers have to leave the House occasionally. It is true that at this present moment the minister in charge of this particular question is not in the House, but at the same time there are ministers here. We have frequently seen what is practically the same thing on the other side of the House. Members on the front bench of the opposition make a motion, then leave the House, pay no more attention to it afterwards in any shape or form, and even leave the House during the speeches which are being made by members on that side. A rule of this kind should certainly work both ways. It should work on one side just as much as it does on the other. When a debate is prolonged to a very consider-, able extent, one cannot expect that any one individual or any number of individuals shall remain in the House during the whole time of the debate. I regret very much indeed that members frequently leave the House, and that applies to all members. That is perhaps one of the reasons why our sessions are so prolonged. But it comes with ill grace from any^ member of the opposition to take exception to that condition which they so largely bring

about, or to oast a reflection upon the Minister- of Railways who is one of the hardest working ministers of the Crown, and who attends as constantly and continuously to his arduous duties as any member of any government ever did. I feel- under these circumstances that the strictures made by the hon. member (Mr. Foster) are entirely uncalled for.


George Eulas Foster: As the purpose for which I moved my motion has been accomplished and as we now have the inexpressible pleasure of having the Minister of Railways with us, I beg leave to withdraw my motion.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is usually courteous to me, but if I am rightly informed he has to-night gone to the limit of being almost unparliamentar-ily discourteous. Fot a moment I was called out by a gentleman from Winnipeg (who by the way does not happen to be a political friend of mine, either) to discuss a matter of public business with him. That gentleman has been here for two days waiting to get an interview. My desire is to treat gentlemen who come to see me from a distance with courtesy and to facilitate business, and I left the chamber for two or three moments. Now, I have seen the hon. member for North Toronto leave the chamber five minutes after he delivered an address and never return while a reply was being made to him. I did not intend any discourtesy to anybody; I am not built that way, I am not afraid of any criticism that can be offered; on the contrary I am glad to hear criticism.


George Eulas Foster: I am quite willing to accept the hon. gentleman's apology for leaving the House.


George Perry Graham: I did not apologize by any means.


George Eulas Foster: I take exception to the argument made by the Minister of Agriculture and which was implied in the statement of the Minister of Railways. There is every difference in the world between a responsible minister and a member of the opposition, and there is in this case a still greater exaggeration of that difference because it happens that the only man on the ministerial benches who knows anything _ about this question and is able to answer details is the Minister of Railways himself. I was perfectly justified in making the strictures I did. I was not discourteous personally to the Minister of Railways; I was speaking of his office and not personally of himself.


Arthur Meighen: I wa3 referring, before this very convenient recess took place, tc the celebrated memorandum of the 10th ol Mr. FISHER.
January, 1908, which the Minister of Railways assured us yesterday he was the father of,-I am very glad, indeed, to see that the Minister of Public Works appears on the scene in this debate as in much the same manner he flitted over the scene in the Transcontinental Commission correspondence, just at the close of the incident. That memorandum of the 10th of January purports to be made in pursuance of clause 7 of the agreement, ratified by the Act of parliament of 1903, and it reads:
Monthly estimates for contractors shall be submitted promptly from time to time by the chief engineer of the commissioners to the company's assistant chief engineer at Montreal for approval. If he has any objection to such estimates he shall promptly file the same with the chief engineer of the commissioners, and any objections from time te time filed shall thereupon be considered, and, if possible, determined by the said engineers, and in case of their failure to agree, may then or at any time before or at the time of the final payment, at the option of either party, be considered and determined by arbitration as provided in the agreement of the 29tli July, 1903, but in no ease shall the payment of monthly estimates be delayed except with the consent of the commissioners.
Now, that agreement purports to be in. pursuance of the Act of parliament of 1903 -I am sorry to say the Minister of Railways avows himself the father of it-but tljat agreement distinctly limits the operation of that Act of parliament, confines the powers of arbitrations, restricts within very narrow limits the possibilities of arbitration, and confines within bounds so as to render almost useless the only protection that the people of this country had under the Act of 1903. I want to know by what authority the Minister of Railways or the Transcontinental Commission limited the powers of arbitration granted by the Act of parliament within the narrow confines of the memorandum of the 10th of January? What right had the Minister of Railways and what right had the Transcontinental Commission to say that matters that might have been arbitrated under the statute cannot hereafter be arbitrated. I say that the ingenuity and purpose of that agreement is only too plain, and I say that it has worked disastrously for the people of this country. However, the winter months passed and the arbitration board proceeded to its work on the 21st May, 1909, and finished their work on division ' F ' on the 5th day of June of that year. During that time Mr. Collingwood Schrei-ber, in whom the Minister of Finance professed such unlimited confidence, Mr. Lumsden, who was the choice of all engineers of the world as the chief engineer of the Trancontinental, and Mr. Kelli-her, selected by the Grand Trunk as their chief engineer, devoted their time to an

investigation of the classification and overbreak on district * F I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the argument of the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., is right: that after the work was done no classification could be made that could compare with the work of the engineers on the spot at the time of excavation, then, surely Mr. Lumsden, and Mr. Kelliher, and Mr. Col-lingwood Schreiber would not have addressed themselves to a task, which, if the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Car-vell) is correct, they must have known was a farce from beginning to end. Surely, they were in a position to make the classification or else they would not have come back, and while not presenting a formal report, practically reported through the mouth of Mr. Lumsden that they found against the honesty or the competency of the classification that had been made. The very words of Mr. Lumsden, and the tacit concurrence in them of Mr. Collingwood Schreiber and Mr. Kelliher, give denial to the argument of the hon. member (Mr. Car-vell) that it is impossible to properly classify such work, unless the engineers were there when the actual excavations were made. They finished with district ' F ' oyer which Mr. Foulin presided, on the 5th of June, and on the 6th of June they proceeded to district ' B ' and finished there on the 22nd of that month. These three men, the most competent engineers in the country, the choice of the government, considered that they competently did discharge their duties, and they must be conceived to have acted honestly. Now then, I say that the facts in connection with that arbitration which appear from the record as brought down by the government, facts that are undeniable on the very face of that return, clearly show that no sooner did that board which was the creation of the Transcontinental Commission, with the ratification of the government; no sooner did these men finish their work than the Transcontinental Railway Commission started to wreck it. No sooner was the work of their own arbitration board completed, and no sooner had they got an inkling of what their finding was, than they set deliberately to work to wreck the rejport, and if possible obviate the possibility of a report at all.
On what do I base that? It is a remarkable coincidence, and I notice that this has already been brought to the attention of the Minister of Railways or he would pay more attention to it, he knows it as well as I do, he absolutely knows that it is impossible on reasonable grounds to believe that the letters of Messrs. Poulin, Doucet and Huestes were written otherwie than at the instigation or with the concurrence of the Transcontinental Commission, in the light of the return brought down. The Minister of Railways asked this House, whether, if we had been engineers in the case of Messrs. Poulin and Doucet we would not have acted exactly as they did. I tell the minister no, and I say further that no engineer could possibly have done so, acting as a reasonable man, if he conceived he was being wronged by an arbitration board. What does Poulin do? Notwithstanding the fact that the work of arbitrating on the over-classification on section ' F ', his own section, was finished on June 5, he sits silent under it and says not a word until June 22, about two and a half weeks afterwards. How does the minister explain that, that a man so grossly wronged as Poulin said he was, by his own superior officer, would not protest or open his mouth until the 22nd day of June, some 16 days after the whole work was done. It is a remarkable fact also, and I do not need to draw this to the minister's attention, because he knows it, that Poulin says nothing from his head office in Winnipeg, nothing from the ground, but he waits until he gets down here, within the sanctum or within the influence of the Transcontinental Commission, and there makes known his complaint, because his letter is dated not from Winnipeg, but from Ottawa on the 22nd of June, 1909. Not only that but section ' B ' was finished on June 22, the very day that Mr. Poulin made his complaint. Mr. Doucet immediately, on the 23rd of June, the very day after Mr. Poulin makes his complaint, also writes to the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission and complains as well. The same day that occurs Mr. Huestes writes a memorandum and makes his complaint. Let me say to the minister that neither he nor any other man can justify these district engineers in making their first complaint to the Transcontinental Railway Commission instead of through the medium of their own superior officer, Mr. Lumsden, except on the hypothesis that the whole thing was instigated by the Transcontinental Railway Commission itself. Furthermore it is a remarkable fact that Mr. J. D. McArthur, the contractor on a large part if not all of district ' F ', about the same time and also two weeks after they got through with his work, by a wonderful coincidence writes to the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission and he protests also against the work of the Arbitration Board. On the 22nd or 23rd of June, at the very time these engineers are making their protests, another remarkable coincidence occurs, and Messrs. Macdonell and O'Brien also write a letter to the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission, making complaint exactly along the line of Mr. McArthur's. It is also difficult to explain and it would be interesting to know the cause of a clause in Mr. McArthur's letter wherein he states that he is informed an examination of the district engineers

was made by the arbitration board, and as a matter of fact notwithstanding that sub-sequently_the commission upset the whole findings -of the arbitration board on the presumption that the engineers were not examined notwithstanding the fact that Mr. McArthur says they were. We have all those facts coinciding. We have Mr. Doucet's letter written from Ottawa on the 22nd of June, Mr. Huestes' memorandum written on the 23rd, and Mr. Poulin's on the 23rd, all along the same line, and we have Mr. McArthur's letter on the 19th and Mr. Macdonell's on the 23rd. How do you explain the fact that all those men came to write on the very same line to the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, all to the same man, just at about the same time, and for the same obvious effect? Surely that is not a coincidence. What do they do? What does this Railway Commission, in which the Minister of Railways places such confidence do? A most remarkable thing, and for that act no other is responsible than the government of this country and the Minister of Railways in particular, because that act was made known at once to the Minister of Railways by a letter from the secretary of the Transcontinental Railway Commission and there is no protest against it and the Minister of Railways subsequently concurs in the action of the Transcontinental Railway Commission wherein they disallow and utterly condemn the work of the first arbitration board.
The commission did the following with the tacit concurrence of the Minister of Railways: On June 25, at IX o'clock in the morning, the commission held a meeting, and they read the letters written to them by Messrs. Doucet, Huestes and Poulin. They also read the letters written by Messrs. McArthur and Macdonell & O'Brien, and in the light of those letters, taking those letters as correct, even although those letters assumed that Mr. Col-lingwood Schreiber, in whom the government have absolute confidence, Mr. Lums-den, the man whom they appointed themselves, and Mr. Kelliher, acted like perfect school boys, the Transcontinental Railway Commission, with the concurrence of this Minister of Railways took those letters without question and immediately stamped the whole proceedings as illegal. Sir, if it is unfair and wrong, as the Minister of Railways contended yesterday, for any one to find these district engineers guilty without a hearing-and nobody asked that they should be found guiltv without a hearing- was it not far more wrong, was it not an outrage, for the Transcontinental Commission on June 25, to pronounce on the authority of engineers, without the other parties being heard, that Messrs. Lumsden and Kelliher and Schreiber had been so abso-Mr. MEIGHEN.
lutely derelict in their duty, had so absolutely forgotten the fidelity they owed to the people of this country, as to upset without a hearing the finding these three engineers on the authority of understrappers.
The Minister of Railways yesterday pronounced as an outrage in a hypothetical case that he ascribed to the mover of the amendment, an act which he himself condoned on the 25th of June, 1909, an act which on that day was certainly outdone by the Transcontinental Railway Commission that absolutely overtopped anything that would be done were we to find these men guilty without a hearing; and the Minister of Railways, by his tacit concurrence in that act is responsible for that outrage on the 25th of June last. There is no reasonable deduction from this correspondence other than that a deliberate conspiracy was entered into on that day to annihilate the report of that .arbitration board simply because it resulted in finding a large amount of over-classification which would have brought discredit on this government and on this country, and if there is any bad faith to examine, if there is reason for an investigation with the object of finding bad faith, this government and the right hon. the First Minister who moved for this committee, would far better act in the service of the people if they investigated bad faith on the part of their own commission instead of (as they only pretend to do) on the part of certain unmentioned understrappers on the engineering force.
The Transcontinental Railway Commission, at 11 o'clock in the morning on the 25th of June, pronounced the following remarkable words on the authority of letters written to them, which should never have been written to them, in reference to the conduct of Messrs. Schreiber, Kelliher and Lumsden:
Whereas, it is inconceivable that proceedings of such great importance, and possibly involving a very large sum of money, and which may result in much expensive and troublesome litigation between the contractors and the commissioners, should have been conducted in such a hasty and superficial manner, without a sufficient hearing being grant-to the engineers on the work.
If Mr. Collingwood Schreiber was guilty of inconceivable conduct, if he was guilty of conducting a great public duty, in a-hasty and superficial manner, why does the government, and why does the Minister of Railways, assent to his appointment again on the same arbitration board? Surely, if he was guilty of such conduct as that, if he was so absolutely forgetful of the duty he owed to the people of this country and to the government, he is not a fit man to .conduct proceedings of such importance. But they go further and ar-
2570

gue-and here is a most remarkable thing -that Mr, Schreiber, Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Kelliher, in the course of that investigation, proceeded along lines of this awful memorandum of submission which I read to the House some time ago, and which called for no more and no less than arbitration on matters that were properly the subject of arbitration under clause 7 of the Act passed by this parliament. Because they did such a heinous thing, because they so absolutely forgot their duty to the country as to follow the provisions of this Act of parliament instead of doing as directed by the Transcontinental Railway Commission, their whole finding is illegal and void. Did anybody ever hear of such an argument? Can the Transcontinental Railway Commission or the government of Canada produce a reputable lawyer who will say that, because they proceeded under the authority of a form of submission which provided only that such matters should be submitted to them as provided by Act of parliament, therefore the whole proceeding must be upset for illegality? The Transcontinental Commission had no authority whatever for that statement. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that the arbitrators had proceeded under that authority. But even if they had, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber was justified in doing so by the very document to which the Transcontinental Commission is a party. In the document appointing him and which he signed, it is clearly stated that a form of submission would be presented to him. It was never presented to him, unless it was the form of submission under which, they charge, they acted; they never presented any other. And when they refused the form of submission which was sent, they did not apprise him of the fact. They, wrote, if not to their own engineer, then to Mr. Kelliher, that they did not see any necessity for it. If the Commission wanted to be above board in the matter, why did they not say that it would be illegal to proceed along that line and state specifically their objections to that form of submission, instead of saying in an offhand way: 'We do not think any submission is necessary?'
On June 25, at eleven o'clock in the morning, these gentlemen, or three of them, held a meeting to pass a resolution, which is reported at page 30, protesting against the proceedings of the arbitrator as being ' improper and illegal,' in that they were based in all or in part on the draft agreement of May 14, 1909, which had been rejected, and which had no existence in fact-and for that they had the authority only of a district engineer under Mr. Lumsden, and against it they gave Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Colling-82
wood Schreiber no hearing at all. The report goes on:-
That the engineers on the line who classified the work were not afforded a sufficient hearing or an opportunity of presenting evidence.
What right had they to say that the engineers must be heard by the arbitration board? Did the Act of 1903 say that arbitrations should be upset by the Transcontinental Railway Commission unless these engineers, who were charged with being guilty of wrong-doing, were on the spot to argue the matter out? I do not think so. But, further, Mr. McArthur's letter was by that time in the hands of the Commission in which it was stated that the engineers were heard before the arbi tration board.
Again, I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals-though I know he will not listen- and I ask the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Murphy), did the Act of parliament state that contractors must be heard before the proceedings could be legal? The Minister of Railways and Canals said the findings would be of no use unless they were heard, because the government wanted such evidence as would be taken bv the Exchequer Court. The minister is not a lawyer, and I do not pose as a very great lawyer myself. Still, it does not require a great lawyer to know that even if they had been heard the evidence would not be binding upon them before the Exchequer Court. Evidence against a third party would not be taken by a court in a subsequent case. So the hon. minister's argument falls to the ground, though I confess that it had the best face of any that could be given in support of clause (D) of the resolution of this Transcontinental Commission of June 25th last. They say that the contractors were not heard. That was a significant statement. But there is the significant fact that, on the 19th of June, when the conspiracy referred to was being hatched, Mr. McArthur wrote a letter saying he was not heard before the arbitration board, and he protested against it. Yet, on the second arbitration board being formed, and Mr. McArthur notified, he immediately writes to the commission that he has nothing to do with the arbitration and does not want to be heard. Is it not most remarkable that the commissioners should upset the findings of an arbitration on the ground that the contractors were not heard, when in the first place, there was no legal authority for their being heard, and, in the second piace, they did not want to be heard? After the commission makes the finding condemning Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Schreiber as being superficial, as being derelict in their duty-as well paraphrased by the hon. member for Carleton- as not knowing what they were talking about
KEVISED edition.

-Mr. Lumsden resigns. The Minister of Railways said there was no justification for his resigning. There will be plenty of opportunity for the Minister of Railways to answer, but surely he will never contend before any sane audience that an engineer, the head official under a commission, could possibly retain his office after being censured in such language by his superiors, by the very board that had appointed him- being called, almost in plain words, a school boy and told that he was derelict in his trust. Under such conditions no self-respecting man could retain his job. The minister said that he did not know whether the letter was written before the meeting or after it, but if he had read the return he would have seen that it was pointed out under the authority of the chairman that Mr. Lumsden resigned after the meeting held at eleven o'clock in the morning. What is the authority for the hon. member for Pictou and the Minister of Railways and Canals saying that Mr. Lumsden resigned in a huff because his men disobeyed his instructions? He could do nothing but resign, and the Minister of Railways knows it. And, what is more, the Transcontinental Commission knew that he could do nothing but resign, and that is why they passed the resolution on the 25th of June. They intended that he should resign, and that there should be no doubt about it, and not only that he should resign as engineer, but they made sure also that he should resign as arbitrator as well. Read , his second letter of June 26th:
Ottawa, June 26. 1909.
The Commissioners of the Transcontinental
Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sirs,-
How he must have emphasized the adjective.
r	letter of yesterday wherein
I stated that I have lost confidence in the engineering staff, I would like to state .that this does not apply to the whole staff, but applies only to a portion of the staff who were responsible for the measurement, classification, supervision and inspection of considerable portions in district ' B ' and east of Rennie Crossing in district 'I" lately gone over by me.



HUGH D. LUMSDEN.

[Stage Direction]
Apd here is a most significant postscript.
P.S. In order to make the matter clear, I may say I assume my resignation as chief engineer also carries with it my resignation as arbitrator in matters of dispute with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, but as there is a doubt raised by you, I also resign as arbitrator.

[Stage Direction]
So, to be absolutely certain that the work of wreck was complete, that they had utterly annihilated the work of this arbitra
Arthur Meighen: tion board which was so disastrous to them, they come to Lumsden after he has resigned on the 25th of June, and say there is a doubt whether he was not still arbitrator and he had better remove that doubt. And so, he resigns as arbitrator too. Surely they must be given credit at least for the greatest possible efficiency in carrying out their evident determination of having Mr. Lumsden out of the road and the arbitration proceedings made null and void.


George Eulas Foster: Was that expression of doubt verbal?


Arthur Meighen: There is a distinction between this intimation on ,the part of Mr., Lumsden, and other intimations of Mr. Lumsden. that seem to favour the contention of the board. Mr. Lumsden says over his own signature that the doubt as to this was raised by the members of the Transcontinental Commission, whereas ail these statements of the board launched out before the public to the effect that engineers on the ground are the only persons who can make a competent estimate, were made only on the authority of the Transcontinental Commission, as a memo, by the secretary.
Now we go on. The work of wreckage, they contend, is complete. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company take another view; they say that notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Lumsden resigned, his successor is ex-officio arbitrator, and notwithstanding the fact that he resigned as arbitrator, there is nothing to hinder Mr. Sohreiber making his report. There may be some doubt about that. There is no doubt in my opinion that the work of the arbitration board up to that point. was absolutely valid; at all events, the Grand Thunk Pacific claimed that it was valid, notwithstanding the resignation of Mr. Lumsden. At all events, if .the Grand Trunk Pacific were content to call it valid, there -was no reason why the commission should not call it valid, too. But they chose not to do so. They say: No, we want things done de novo, and we will try a new man, we want some different resiult. Then what occurs? They go ahead and appoint a new arbitration board, and after a long time they start again, notwithstanding the protest of the Grand Trunk Pacific. But in the meantime there is a remarkable coincidence. On the 25th of June, Mr. Lumsden writes his letter of resignation, he says in that letter that there has been overclassification carried on to a very large amount. He says that owing to this, and owing to the disregard of his instructions, he has lost confidence in the staff. That letter was written to the Minister of Railways or to the commission; at all events, the commission transmitted it to the minister on the 25th of June. The Minister of Railways was in the city on the 26th day

of June, and until the 30th of June, 1909, because on the 30th of June there is a nice letter pTit on file by the minister, and I must compliment him on the graceful language he uses. He writes to Mr. Lumsden, who has been in the plainest way fired by the commission, or has been put in a position where his self-respect demanded his resignation. The minister writes thus on the 30th of June:
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, inclosing correspondence sent by you to the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, and also proffering your resignation as chief engineer. It will be considered in due course.
That must have been news to Mr. Lumsden; at all events, it shows that the Minister of Railways was in the city from the 25th day of June to the 30th. Later on he evidently went across the water, 'because on the 31st of Augwst he writes a letter to the Transcontinental Railway Commission. And I want to say that I cannot understand this correspondence on any other hypothesis than that it was born of a laudable ambition on the part of the Minister of Railways to make the correspondence look as nice as possible, to give it a high moral tone, notwithstanding the awful facts that had transpired. I cannot see anything in it but a nice piece of stage-play. Here is the letter, and I invite the attention of the House to the matter, because the spectacle of the Minister of Railways breaking the bread of official fidelity to the Transcontinental Commission, is a most inspiring one. The letter is found on page 48:
Dear Mr. Parent,-As I was leaving for Europe some time ago the resignation of the chief engineer of the commission, Mr. Lumsden, was received, and X left it with my colleagues for consideration. I find on my return-
Remember, the Minister of Railways did not find this until he got back. During the five days he was in Ottawa it did not come to his notice.
-I find on my return that in his letter of resignation Mr. Lumsden intimated that he had lost confidence in certain of his staff. 1 have no doubt that this intimation is unnecessary, hut wish to emphasize the government's attitude in this matter. Should it he found that any member of the staff has been dishonest or wilfully negligent in the performance of his duty he should he summarily dealt with.
Now, that must have been news to the Transcontinental Commission.
What you desire and what we all desire is justice to all parties and the fullest protection of the public interest. Any employee who has forgotten this, or has failed to act on this principle, cannot be retained for a moment.
Now surely the Minister of Railways will concede that if there was any occasion for 82J
writing a letter like that to the Transcontinental Commission, he must have had grave doubts as to the fidelity with which that commission was discharging its duties. So it looks to me as a piece of stage play, put on in order to make the correspondence look wholesome. Then the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission, not to be lacking in his share of the pantomine, comes forward and writes thus to the Minister of Railways, he actually expresses the startling fact that the minister's view's that dishonest officials must be fired, exactly coincides with his own; and the Minister of Railways, with sober face, read that correspondence to the House as emphasizing the high moral tone which the government of this country adopts in connection with the Transcontinental Railway. It does seem strange that notwithstanding the fact that the minister was here for five days, and that he discussed the matter with his colleagues, as appears by his letter, he never noticed Mr. Lumsden's statement that he had lost confidence in his staff until two months afterwards, and he never thought there was any occasion, during the whole of two months, to preach the doctrine of honesty to the chairman of the Transcontinental Commission. The chairman of the Transcontinental Commission actually goes on to say:
Should any reasonable proof be brought that employees in our service have been guilty of serious negligence or wrong-doing, yon can rest assured that the commissioners would deal prompt justice, as we have done already in several cases.
But the whole correspondence up to that point, and subsequently, shows that there was no object so dear to the chairman of that commission as to see that all the avenues of proof should be closed, so far as he could close them. Now for two years the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company were paraded in this country, during the election campaign of 1904, as the guardian of the people's rights in the matter of the construction of this road. The electors were told that the company was in such a position that they had actually to fight the battles of the people in order to preserve their own rights. Then the railway company, during two years, urges and struggles with the chairman of the commission that a proper and complete investigation be made of all matters complained of. Throughout those two years we have the spectacle of the chairman and the commission resisting, with every weapon in their power, the attempt of the Grand Trunk Pacific to preserve their own rights, and through them in some degree the people's rights. If the powers had been granted to that arbitration board, or to the second arbitration board which is now in existence, the powers which the Grand Trunk Pacific so ably con-

tended should be granted, then there would not be so much reason for the amendment of the hon. member for South Simcoe as there is. It is because the request made throughout those years by that company that the investigation should be thorough, was denied by the commission, that there is all the more need for an investigation now. What supports the position I take that the railway company, throughout these years, struggled for a complete investigation? Turn to page 52 of the return. Mr, Chamberlin, vice-president and general manager of the company writes as follows to the chairman of the commission under *date of September 15, 1909:
Dear Sir,-Referring to conversation had with you to-day relative to Arbitration Committee.
We are ready to have the commission go on with their examination, and consent to their re-examining matters complained of and looked into by the former commission consisting of Mr. Collingwood Sehreiber, third arbitrator, Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden, government engineer and Mr. B. B. Kelliher as chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
X presume this committee will start their examination from Winnipeg and work east to Moncton.
That is a presumption that unfortunately Mr. Parent could not agree with.
Mr. Kelliher is now in Winnipeg, and will be ready to start any day which will suit the *convenience of Mr. Sehreiber and Mr. Grant. Will you kindly advise me as early as possible when Mr. Grant and Mr. Sehreiber will be ready to start, so that we may arrange the affairs of our engineering department accordingly-	.	.	.	,
VVe trust that this examination will be very thorough and will be continued over the entire line, taking up and settling all matters under question.
That is a simple trust and one would think an honest and useful trust, but the commission, having the interests of this country at heart, could not coincide in it. Right on the next page, in a letter dated the 18th September, Mr. Chamberlin says:
I am quite willing as you propose and as mentioned in my former letter, that the arbitrators should go over all questions in dispute from the beginning, letting the two engineers discuss all differences on the ground as they go along and where they cannot agree call in Mr. Sehreiber.
And that also is a willingness, in which the chairman of the Railway Commission, as guardian of the people's rights, refused to coincide. Then, on page 55, Mr. Chamberlin still urgently presses the same point. In a letter dated Winnipeg, 8th October, 1909, and addressed to Mr. Parent, he says:
You seem to misunderstand position Grand Trunk Pacific railway. My agreement with you which is outlined in your letter fifteenth was that all differences were to be discussed on the ground in accordance with article Mr. MEIGHEN.
seven of the agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and your government, and we are ready at any time to proceed on that basis. Mr. Grant declined to discuss and settle differences as above suggested, therefore delay rests entirely with your commission.
Mr. Grant refused to proceed on the lines laid-down by the parliament of Canada under clause 7 of the agreement of 1903, and he persisted in proceeding within the narrow, small and almost useless limits of the agreement of the 10th January, 1910, of which the Minister of Railways boasts that he himself is the father. On page 58, Mr. Chamberlin still continues the same struggle-the struggle that we are continuing now.
Have wired Kelliher

He says under date of October 5:
To sign letter appointing third arbitrator and to proceed at once with arbitration, as per our letters. Trust you instruct Mr. Grant to make examination thorough, and to take all the time necessary to settle all differences between Winnipeg and Moncton.
If the commission had agreed to make a thorough investigation and discuss the difference between Winnipeg and Moncton the matter would have gone ahead, but they did not agree, they have not agreed yet, and consequently the amendment is absolutely imperative if the public interests are to be protected. At page 59 Mr. Ryan, secretary of the commission, writes instructions to Mr. Grant that if Mr. Kelliher re-, fuses to go on within the narrow limits of the subsidiary agreement then they must stop altogether. He says:
Kelliher's attitude again delaying arbitration. Persistence in this will perhaps indefinitely delay it. If he adheres to refusal to sign joint letter, your instructions are to return to Ottawa. Show this telegram to Killi-her, and advise result.
Then Mr. Chamberlin says on October 6:
We now find engineer Grant refused to take up anything but a few specific cases and not make arbitration cover all matters in dispute as you agreed when I saw you in Ottawa, and by your letter later, therefore Mr. Kelliher rightly refused to go on with arbitration. When Mr. Grant is prepared to take up all matters in dispute, Mr, Kelliher will be ready to meet him.
But Mr. Grant was not so prepared, because the commission refused to let him be so prepared. Then at page 60 Mr. Parent writes to Mr. Chamberlin on October 7, as follows:
For reasons which have been explained it is in the public interest-
Mr. Parent is very fond of that expression :
-that these differences should be promptly adjusted, and I hope, therefore, that you will

instruct Mr. Kellilier to prevent further delay by consenting to sign the ioint letter, and proceed at the earliest possible date in the matter.
At page 61 Mr. Gordon Grant admits the whole point in a letter dated October 11, to the chairman of the commission. Mr. Grant says:
Mr. ICelliher also insisted in spite of the advice of the Deputy Minister of Justice to the contrary that I had no say in the appointment of a third arbitrator, that Mr. Lumsden's previous choice of Mr. Schreiber still held, and that another joint letter was not necessary. This, of course, was all in accordance with his instructions dated September 18. Not only was this the attitude assumed by Mr. Kellilier, but he also informed me that, before we went out, I would have to sign a formal agreement or submission similar to the one previously prepared by the authorities of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
So that if Mr. Grant had been willing to sign the general agreement which I read to the House the first arbitration authorized by the government and bv parliament in 1903 would have been ready to go on, but Mr. Grant refused and the commission backed him up in refusing to allow the law laid down by this House in 1903 and which at that time was considered ample for the protection of the people's interest to be carried out; consequently the arbitration was delayed in 1908 and 1909. I might go on but surely the Minister of Railways will admit that the point is established. On October 21 the point is again raised by Mr. Kelliher and the letters all through that period establish the same contention. The matter is still in dispute. The deadlock still ensues, the deadlock which the Minister of Railways was able to remove, but the deadlock which was only removed when the serene presence of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugslev), appeared on the scene about the 18th November last. It is a strange thing, it is a matter certainlv that this return does not explain, but it is a remarkable fact that just as soon as the Minister of Public Works, carrying peace and blessing in his train, appears upon the scene in the middle of November last the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, with a complacency childlike in the extreme, without any explanation, without any introductory letters, without any reason being given, without anything to explain it, quietly submit in toto to the contention of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, evidently under the spell of the Minister of Public Works. Now, Sir, an agreement appears on page 74 of the return under which the whole thing is submitted to arbitration and absolutely within the limits urged by Mr. Gordon Grant throughout this controversy. What
explanation can be offered for this docility? What explanation can be offered for the rapidity with which the Grand Trunk Pacific, the guardian of the people's rights, the only guardian of them, threw down the bulwarks behind which they had been doing battle all along and without qualification coincided with the contention of Mr. Grant and of the Transcontinental Railway Commission? Under mat submission this board of arbitration now can only arbitrate as to matters specially mentioned in letters prior to 10th January, 1908, and subsequent letters wherein specific points are mentioned such as are in conformity with the limited agreement of the 10th January. The whole contention disappears. All the clouds of difficulty are removed in a moment, the sun shines serene and the whole operation of this arbitration board is limited, as the hon. member for Carleton correctly says to the two per cent difference contended for all along by Mr. Grant and the commission. That is the whole history of the affair. There is quite a little stage play which it may be interesting to glance at. After Mr. Grant had written repeatedly to the Transcontinental Commission explaining Mr. Kelliher's attitude at Winnipeg and after Mr. Chamberlin had written to the Transcontinental Commission a letter in which he stated very innocently that the commission had called Mr. Lumsden back to Ottawa away from his duty as arbitrator, a letter appears on the file in which the secretary of the commission asked Mr. Grant to again report on this Kelliher matter. I have been unable to find what reason in the world there could be for that other report, and I should-be glad if any gentleman on the other side can explain. But here is where the stage play comes in. In the course of that report Mr. Grant very correctly says that he has covered the whole matter in former reports so far as Kelliher's conduct is concerned, but he says that Mr. Chamberlin's letter saying that the commission called Mr. Lumsden back to Ottawa is incorrect. Now, what suggested to Mr. Gordon Grant to report on that point in Mr. Chamberlin's letter? Was not the whole purpose of that correspondence to, if possible, remove from the public mind the evidence of the conspiracy that Mr. Lumsden was called back. On page 67 of the return will be found the letter of the secretary of the Transcontinental Railway Commission and Mr. Grant's reply. The secretary very innocently asked Mr. Grant for a report, and inclosed Mr. Chamberlin's letter, and Mr. Grant replied:
With reference to Mr. Chamberlin's statement that Mr. Lumsden was called back to. Ottawa by the commission, I understand from you that you did not call Mr. Lumsden back

to Ottawa, and in the records of my office I find a letter addressed by Mr. Lumsden to Mr. Schreiber, dated June 22, 1909, in which
he says:-
Now, June 22nd is the date of the completion of the investigation in district 'B,i district 'F' having been gone over before; and as soon as the inspection was completed in district ' B ' Mr. Lumsden evidently wrote this letter to Mr. Schreiber:
As it is important that I should be in Ottawa on the 21th instant and the work of inspection of the Macdonell and O'Brien contract in connection with matters in dispute between the .chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and myself having been completed, I am unable to proceed further with the work at the present time.
Mr. Lumsden states in that letter, that it is important he should be in Ottawa on the 24th of the month, and I cannot see anything which would make that important, except that the commission wanted him there. Now, Mr. Grant's explanation of that paragraph in Mr. Lumsden's letter is:-
I understand from my secretary who was also Mr. Lumsden's secretary, that the first time he wrote this letter to Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Lumsden stated that it was important that he should be in England early next month, that is, he, in his second letter, changed ' England ' to ' Ottawa.'
There is a most peculiar thing there. Mr. Lumsden wrote saying he had to be in England early in July and Mr. Grant says on the authority of the secretary that he afterwards changed the word 'England' to 'Ottawa,' meaning that he had to be in Ottawa early next month.


George Eulas Foster: He said he only changed one word.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that would mean that he had to be in Ottawa early in July, but as a matter of fact, if he makes any sense out of it at all, he changes the original letter saying he had to be in England early in July, say that he had to be in Ottawa within two days.
Why did he so suddenly change his intention to go across the Atlantic, into an intention to go immediately to Ottawa, unless there was some urgent call.	Mr. Grant's letter, while it is fairly well designed to wipe away this peculiar fact, appears only too clearly to show that Mr. Lumsden was called back by the Commission and it supports the position taken by Mr. Chamberlin, that Mr. Lumsden was called off the work of arbitration by peremptory orders from Ottawa.
During the course of his speech, I asked the Minister of Railways a question. I then had in mind the point that even under the original agreement the people were not adequately protected in the mat-Mr. MEIGHEN.
ter of over-classification. I may be wrong, but my opinion is that the matter of overclassification and the consequent increased cost was not in the contemplation of this House when that original agreement was entered into, because I think the wording of clause 7 of the original agreement would not necessarily or obviously lead to the conclusion that the matter of cost by overclassification or by any other cause was in contemplation of parliament as a matter to be referred to arbitration. Assuming that the arbitration is empowered under the original agreement to cover the question of over-classification-and we must assume it because all parties have assumed that that shall be within the purview of the arbitration board-then it turns out that the people have practically no protection at all. Even if the arbitration has the tho rough and complete scope that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company contended it should have, and that we contend it should have, even so the people have not adequate protection under that agreement. I asked the Minister of Railways how he could explain where the engineer of the Transcontinental Commission would represent the people in the matter of over-classification, and as the Minister of Railways did not answer at the time, I was in doubt whether to complement him or his sincerity in acknowledging that he could not understand the point or on the skill with which he avoided it. Later on in the evening, he did attempt to answer it, and with I should think about three per cent of success. In so far as the legal liability of the government to charge the 3 per cent interest on the cost of construction was concerned, his explanation had something in it. But what about the 100 per cent principle cost of construction? How in connection with that could that engineer possibly represent the people? Why, Sir, no dispute could arise unless the Grand Trunk Pacific chief engineer takes the position that there is over-classification, and that consequently the cost is too great. It is inconceivable that the Grand Trunk Pacific would take the position that there is under-classification, and the cost estimated at too little. Before any dispute can arise, then the Grand Trunk Pacific must take the position that the cost is too great through over-classification, and then the representative of the Commission must say: 'No, the cost is not too great and I shall not let yon reduce it.' Now, in arguing out that position, how can he be said to represent the people of Canada, when he urges that the cost should be as great as it is? How in the world can he represent the people of the country in urging for the increased cost? It may he that he is establishing the right of the people to interest on that increased cost, but the Minister of Railways cannot have studied the position.

seeing that as to the 100 per cent, the principal cost of the construction which the people of Canada had to put up, the engineer of the Transcontinental Commission was acting directly antagonistic to the interests of the people. Therefore, all along there was no protection in the matter of over-classification, except such as might be afforded by the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I say that under the circumstances, in matters of over-classification that did not constitute a sufficient protection for the people of Canada. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company pays the 3 per cent interest, it is true, but it is a well known principle of railway management nowadays that the freight rates are fixed to meet such charges, and that the interest in the end comes out of the people. I do not -want to say it is a matter of no concern to the Grand Trunk Pacific to see that the cost is kept down, but it is a matter of comparatively little relative concern to them compared with the concern it is to the people of this country. Consequently I say that even should the arbitration have the thorough powers it was intended to have, it did not constitute in the matter of over-classification a sufficient protection for the people of Canada. The interest of the parties who are only relatively slightly interested was not a sufficient interest to be placed as a bulwark for the protection of the interests of the people, who, to an extent 40 times as great were interested in the cost of the construction.
That being the case, and I think it must be taken as clearly established, surely when we are in that position, surely when we have little enough protection at the best, it is the duty of this House to see that that protection is exercised in the most liberal possible degree. Surely the action of the Transcontinental Commission should have been not antagonistic to the limits of the arbitration, they should have taken a position all along in favour of the widest possible scope for that arbitration board. But when they refuse to take that position, it is the duty of the House to take it for them and to investigate the matter which they refused to investigate. The Transcontinental Commission all through these proceedings should rightly have been looked to by the people of this country as ranging themselves in all matters of dispute in favour of the people as against the contractors, but they have ranged themselves on the opposite side and in every dispute that has occurred have stood up alongside the contractor and fought his battles and the people's interests have been' left to take care of themselves. We do not represent the Transcontinental Commission or the government, we represent the people of Canada. They are our clients alone, and unless the light is let into them through the instrumentality of the resolution of the hon. member for South Sim-'on it is never going to be let in, absolutely no light can be let in by the resolution of the first minister and ho member on either side can show how there is any possibility of the slightest pretense of investigation under it. As this parliament is constituted, the House of Commons should have the interests of the people and no other at.heart, the people are their clients and they should have no other clients. It is our duty to see that they know the facts, and _ they knowing the facts we can rely on their intelligence.


John Graham Haggart: At this late hour I shall try to be as brief as I possibly can in discussing this question. What are we discussing? A resolution of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the government purporting to make inquiries into certain charges made by one Hugh D. Lumsden, engineer in chief of the Transcontinental railway, in which he uses certain words which I had better read. He says:
That neither the general specifications nor my instructions regarding classification have been adhered to, but on the contrary large amounts of material have been returned as solid rock, which should only have been classified as loose rock or common excavation, and material has been returned as loose rock which was, or could have been handled by ploughing or scraping.
He goes over a lot of charges in which he accuses his subordinates of not carrying out his instructions. Why does not the right hon. gentleman leave that to the committee to inquire as to whether the allegations of the chief engineer are true or not? He carefully avoids it. Look at his resolution. What is it? It says:
And whereas, while this House deems it not desirable to take any action which might prejudice the position of either of the parties to the arbitration proceedings now in progress between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company and the said commissioners, yet the said recited allegations of said Hugh D. Lums-den, stated by him as the reasons for his resignation of the said position of chief engineer, are in the opinion of this House of such great public interest.
In the opinion of this House it is of great public interest whether a subordinate carried out his instructions. The-gravamen of the charge is that the country is being robbed by over-classification on certain of the work, and that is the charge made by Mr. Lmmsden in his letter to the commissioners, yet this House is debarred from inquiring into it. Why? Because an arbitration board was provided under the Act and the question is, as the hon. gentlemen who have spoken from the othefi side of the House say, sub judice; as we bad given powers to this arbitration, or

at least delegated them, we should not inquire into the classification or the question whether there has 'been over-classification or not. These questions are not to be considered at all. What a farce appointing a committee of this House for the purpose of inquiring whether some subordinates' of the chief engineer had performed their duty or not. That is all that the right hon. gentleman is willing to submit to the House for its consideration. A greater farce never was heard of in this House. He could not get past the fact that his chief engineer, the party selected by him to superintend the construction of the Transcontinental railway, was obliged to state that there was over-classification, or, in other words, robbery of the country.
Let us first look at the manner in which an estimate as to the probable cost of a railway is prepared. The bon. gentlemen stated that a specification had been prepared for this work by his depmty minister and by the engineer in charge of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I think they put their heads together and consulted some United States works as to what the proper specification. should be. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that the specifications provided by them are proper specifications. I am perfectly content, too, that the interpretation in the first instance put on them by Mr. Lumsden, that even his amended interpretation after the opinion of the Minister of Justice had been obtained, was perfectly in accordance with what is correct. If these instructions were carried out, we would have honest construction of the Grand Tnunk Pacific. An estimate of the cost of the construction of the road is made by engineers. Engineers are employed to locate the road. , When the road is located, they say that there may be mistakes in reference to the quantities along the line of road. They examine it most carefully, test pits are sunk at every part of the road, and the variation ought not to be more than the amount the Minister of Railways said, 20 per cent. It never is 20 per cent with true engineers. They ought to know within 20 per cent anyway every piece of rock, every piece of loose rock, and every piece of earth upon the road. That is demanded by the Minister of Railways. Under these estimates of quantity the department lets contracts, and strange to say in this case the same parties who located the road, as I drew from the Minister of Railways, are the engineers who are on the construction. They furnish information to the country stating what the quantities are and from time to time as the work progresses and the measurements come in, the quantities a.re found to be in some cases three times in excess of what they estimated. Not a word from the Minister of Railways, not a word from the Railway Commissioners who have charge of the con-Mr. JOHN HAGGART.
struction of this road, saying: How is it, gentlemen, you estimated certain quantities in reference to this particular construction at one time and now by your return you find there in some cases three times the amount? Not an explanation asked, no reason given. I drew the attention of the Minister of Railways a couple of years ago, and a year ago, to the fact that it was notorious that the quantities on this road greatly exceeded the estimates jinade of them. I asked whether this was by reason of the interpretation put upon the contract by the Minister of Justice. If it were so, I could not understand the position of the chief engineer. These contracts were let on specifications prepared by him-. They were changed by the Minister of Justice putting a certain interpretation uporf them. But why were not the specifications* altered for the new contracts so as to carry out in these what was intended in the first place? I do not see this matter referred to in The correspondence. The simple fact is that the parties who had change of the work for the government returned quantities largely in excess'->as to cost-of the quantities estimated by themselves to be in the work. And no complaint was made by the government or by the commissioners; no report was made by the engineer, nor does any evidence appear 'as having been given before any commission with a view to exculpating .those who were thus proven to be in error.
The Minister of Raidways and Canals (Mr. Graham), and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), in their remarks, found it necessary, in order to defend the government, to say: We have done all we possibly could, but powers were delegated to the Railway Commission and board of arbitrators and not to the Minister of Railways. I was careful, when the commission was appointed, to state that the responsibility of the minister to this parliament should not cease, that whatever commissioners or arbitrators were appointed, we would not divest ourselves of authority for this purpose. We may have- delegated our authority to a certain extent for our own convenience, hut the ministerial responsibility must always continue. The member for Pictou asked us: What has the Minister of Railways or the head o.f the government to do with the question whether classification is right cr wrong?- the matter is referred to the arbitrators to decide the matter according to the law, and by that we are all hound. But the doctrine I laid down is that this House goes to the minister direct. The minister can exculpate himself by justifying the action of his subordinates and showing that the calculations have been correctly made.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) dealt with the tender question of the arbitration between the Grand Trunk Paci-

lie and the government in reference to this work. I may be wrong, but in my judgment the arbitrators had nothing to do with deciding any question arising between the contractors and the government. The only questions that the arbitrators can decide, and the only ones intended to be referred to them under the Act, are disputes be-between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government in reference to the construction of the road. The power of decision of matters between the government and the arbitrators is entirely with the government. I might read the statute on this subject, but instead I will read from the report brought down a section embodied in the contract which the government have let:
The engineer shall be the sole judge of work and material in respect of both quantity and quality, and his decisions on questions in dispute with regard to work and material, shall be final.
No arbitration is referred to there.
No extra additional work or changes shall be deemed to have been executed, nor shall the contractor be entitled to demand payment for the same, unless the same shall have been executed to the satisfaction of the engineer.
Thus, the Railway Department has entire control over any dispute between the contractor and the government, and the only questions the arbitrators have to deal with are questions arising between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government in reference to the construction of this road.
Now, why are we asking this inquiry! It is one of the most important that has come before the House. We were promised the construction of this road for $53,000,000. The Minister of Finance states that, in giving this estimate, he did not speak on his own authority but on that of the engineers. But the minister is responsible to this House and he has no right to hide himself behind the officers of the government. If an officer of the government makes a misstatement to him, it is his duty to correct that officer, to suspend him, or, if necessary, to dismiss him. The statement was prepared by Mr. Schreiber, prepared on certain quantities, furnished to his department by the location engineer I have looked carefully over the returns, and I find the total prism quantities are less than the amount found by actual construction of the road. I think that in the case of every contract let on the Transcontinental Railway, the locatees of the road made the quantities a little in excess of what has been found. What, then, is the difficulty? It is on the question of classification. If you have a million yards of earth to take out, and, instead of classifying it as earth, you classify 700,000 yards as loose rock at 50 cents, instead of at 25 cents for loose earth, or solid rock at $1.50, the
difference is very serious. But where the government is responsible, and what we want to inquire into is as to these changes of classification. We want to inquire whether there has been falsification of the classification or not. That is the only real question. The question before the country is not whether the country has received good work. Why go to the trouble of surveying, and locating a line, taking out the quantities, preparing specifications and letting contracts if we are not allowed to inquire afterwards whether the expenditure has been in accordance with the contracts, and not only whether the country has got good work or not. The question of honour, of proper management of the public works is far above every consideration of money value. Honour should never be linked with dishonour. We ought to have in our public men honour and reputation. No country can exist unless it has the means of knowing that the money entrusted to_ the care of the government is spent in the interest and to the honour of the country. What we want to investigate is charges that have been rife from one end of the country to the other. It is the duty of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways to assist the opposition in finding out whether there has been a proper and honest spirit, an economical spirit in the expenditure of public moneys, and whether contracts have been carried out properly or not.
That is his duty; we ought to be assisted in that. Do not burk the inquiry. We do not want an inquiry to investigate even the charges made by Mr. Lumsden, we want an inquiry as to whether there has been over-classification or not. But the Prime Minister says we are simply to inquire whether the charge made by Mr. Lumsden against his subordinates is correct, whether they (carried out his instructions. You would think that the inquiry should give us the right to look into the question of classification. But no, the right hon. gentleman does not intend anything of that kind, we are to be completely debarred from going into the question of over-classification. Now, I think the House will agree with me that an inquiry should be made into these charges, which are rung from one end of the country to the other. They are selfapparent upon the papers brought down. Is there not a prima facie case -when you see 600,000 yards of solid rock in a contract increased to 1,200,000; when you see loose rock multiplied in quantitv three or four times; and when, to make up the quantity taken from the prism, they have to reduce earth excavation reduced to the standard of rock? Then the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) made a statement which, if true, bears evidence of fraud committed upon the government. He says that on some portions of the line where there

have been excavations returned as solid rock, the slope upon that excavation is one and a half to one. That very fact shows that there was earth present, they are passing through earth. If that statement is correct, it is evidence sufficient to convict the engineers of having returned clay instead of rock. I shall have another opportunity of discussing these questions. The hour is late now, and I know the House is anxious to have a vote. But for the honour of the House, for the honour of the country, let us not be debarred from making an inquiry into the charges which are specifically made in this House. Mr. Lums-den has made charges of fraud, of overclassification on the part of his engineers, who refused to follow his instructions, which sometimes amounted to two-fold or three-fold actual quantities. Do not prevent the opposition from exercising the right of making this inquiry, in order to iustify themselves before the country. If we are refused it will be worse for the government. I state here in the papers brought down the evidence is so conclusive that fraud has been practised upon the government, that the government should hasten to inquire into the matter. The Minister of Railways himself stated that the location of this road was under the charge of a certain class of engineers. They reported the amount of loose rock, the amount of solid Tock, and the amount of clay excavated that would require to be taken out; and these same engineers, be it remembered, are now engaged in the construction of that railway. There has not been a proper tab kept upon the excavation, there has not been proper reports made from month to month to the department. The department ought to have known that the payments were largely in excess of the estimates. But no inquiries were made, the chief engineer is not even consulted, even those gentlemen who made the estimate are not asked to explain the difference, and the poor country has been left entirely at their mercy.


Mr.  T. W.@: - CROTHERS (West Elgin). There are one or two matters in connection with_ this question which seem to me of considerable importance, and which I have not heard discussed during this debate. Even at this late hour I take the risk of wearying the House for a few minutes to bring these matters to its attention. I read the observations made bv the Prime Minister in introducing this motion; I had the advantage of hearing the somewhat lengthy and heated address delivered by the Minister of Railways; I listened to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil), and I have endeavoured to find some logical, consistent and bona fide position for gentlemen on the other side of the Mr. JOHN HAGGART.
House to take on this question, and I must confess my inability to reach the conclusion that this motion is presented to the House with any sincere desire to'preserve the interest of the people. Gentlemen who have spoken on the other side have given us quite lengthy addresses, all of which are equally applicable to the motion proposed by the Prime Minister and to that which has been proposed by way of amendment. Hon. gentlemen have put up a very plausible argument, I must confess; they tell us that this parliament, in Dasing the Transcontinental Railway Act in 1903, provided that a board of arbitrators should be constituted composed of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the chief engineer of the Board of Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, and, in the event of their being unable to agree, they should choose a third arbitrator. They call your attention to section 7 which provides for that board in these words:
It is hereby agreed that the specifications for the construction of the eastern division shall be submitted to and approved of by the company before the commencement of the work, and that the said work shall be done according to said specifications, and shall be subject to the joint supervision, inspection and acceptance of the chief engineer appointed by the government and the chief engineer of the company, and in the event of differences as to the specifications, or in case the said engineers shall differ as to the work, the question in dispute shall be determined by the said engineers and a third arbitrator to be chosen in the manner provided in paragraph -1 of this agreement.
So in that section of the agreement this parliament has provided a board of arbitrators to determine questions of a certain character that may arise. Gentlemen opposite have told us time and time again that the people are safeguarded by that board of arbitrators; that board, we are told, is composed of an independent, high minded body of experts. Now, Sir, I have just noticed, during the last few minutes, a communication from the commissioners to the members of this board, which is really astounding, and alarming, and startling, if you stop for a moment to look at it. , It is contained on pages 28, 29, 30 and 31 of this return. In it the commissioners undertake to criticise, discipline and intimidate this board of arbitrators. One would scarcely believe it possible. Let us see, at the bottom of page 30, what this communication says. It comes from Mr. Parent, chairman of the commission, and P. E. Ryan, secretary.
Resolved, that the secretary be, and is hereby directed to write to the three arbitrators, transmitting a copy of the letters of District Engineer Doucet and notes of Assistant District Engineer Huestes, each dated 23rd June instant; a copy of the letter of Messrs. Mac-donell and O'Brien, dated 24th instant; *

copy of the letter of Mr. J. D. McArthur, dated 19th instant, and a copy of report of District Engineer Poulin, dated 22nd instant, all relating to the proceedings of the arbitration Tribunal

	'
Here you find these commissioners forwarding to the arbitrators letters signed by these subordinate engineers and by two or three contractors. What do these commissioners then say?
-and to say that the commissioners object to and protest against the proceedings of the arbitrators as being improper and illegal, for the following reasons, viz.:- _	.
(a)	That they were based in whole or in part on the said draft agreement of May 14, 1909, which had been rejected, and which had no existence in fact;
(b)	That the examination of the work was of a hasty, insufficient and superficial character.
Fancy a person interested in litigation before a court having the audacity to w,rite a letter of that kind to the court to criticise the conduct -of the eouTt. Here they say that the examination made by these arbitrators, this independent tribunal, provided by this parliament for the protection of the people of Canada was hasty, insufficient and superficial, and they undertake (to discipline and intimidate it. But, that is not all.
(c)	That the engineers on the line who classified the work were not afforded a sufficient hearing and an opportunity of presenting evidence.
Further:
(d)	That the contractors were not afforded an opportunity of showing cause; and further to say that the commissioners insist, in the public interest, that the proceedings of the arbitration tribunal shall be exhaustive, final and conclusive; shall cover all the objections filed on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and that the report of the arbitrators, when made, shall be supported by substantial evidence, including details of quantities.
There is the communication sent from the commissioners to this board of arbitration, alleged by gentleman after gentleman on the other side of the House to be composed of competent experts, virtuous arbitrators, independent men, and yet intimidated by this board of commissioners. Did anything of the kind ever occur in a civilized community before? I read this because the importance of it warrants it. We find these commissioners appointed by this government, criticising, disciplining and intimidating an independent board, constituted for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And by a statute.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And by a statute. That communication was brought to the
knowledge of the Minister of Railways and Canals by a letter sent to him by the secretary of the commissioners, dated the 26th June. What step did the Minister of Railways and his colleagues take in regard to this? Did they point out to these commissioners that they had drifted outside of their jurisdiction, that they had no legal right and that it was simply an outrage for them to attempt to intimidate an independent board of arbitrators appointed for the protection of the people of the country? Not one word, not one line do we find coming from the Prime Minister to say to these commissioners: You must not interfere with this board, this board has been appointed by the parliament of Canada to safeguard the interests of the people; it must be held to be an independent board and you must not attempt to dictate to it. Did the right hon. gentleman send a single word of that character to this commission? Not a word. Did the Minister of Railways send a single word of that character, reprimanding or rebuking the commissioners for having taken that stand, for having attempted to pervert the judgment of this board of arbitrators, said to be independent, in the interests of the people? Not a single word. Is there any reason why a high minded gentleman like Mr. Dumsden should not resign hi3 position when the government permitted the members of the commission to send him such an insulting letter as that? Could any gentleman having a grain of self-respect submit to any such position as that? You will notice that these commissioners are not writing the arbitrators-they would not be justified in doing that even-in the interest of the people, but they are writing them to influence them in the interests of the contractors. They say that the contractors ' were not afforded an opportunity of showing cause that ' the examination of the work was of a hasty, insufficient and superficial character,' and that ' the engineers on the line who classified the work were not afforded a sufficient hearing and an opportunity of presenting evidence.' That is what we get from the commissioners. One of the primary reasons for this is that the commissioners were appointed for political purposes and had no special qualifications for the office. A great deal of this difficulty has arisen from the fact that these commissioners knew nothing of the construction of railways. They were men who had been appointed by reason of political services rendered to the government and there was added to that commission a few weeks ago a very estimable gentleman, a member of this House, but I never heard that he ever had had any experience as an expert engineer or that he knew anything about the construction of railways. Do the railway companies who are striving to get large dividends for their shareholders ap-

point political friends to positions of trust as managers of their companies? No, you will find that the managers of the large raiiwaycorporationsaremen who have come up from the bottom, who know every step in the process of construction and operation of railways. These are the men who are placed in these high positions to manage these great railway corporations and they are men who know something about it. But here we have a commission appointed who know nothing about the positions that they are called upon to fill, but who are appointed by reason of political services rendered to the government which is in accord with most of the appointments made by this government. I submit that it would have been a more proper position for the government to have taken to have said to Mr. Lumsden: We will not accept your resignation, we will dismiss the commissioners who had the audacity to perpetrate this outrage upon the people in attempting to intimidate you in the position which you occupy. But, instead of doing that what do we find the government doing to-day? We have the government saying to this Hou3e and to the people of Canada that they have lost confidence in their chief engineer, not that they have lost confidence in the commissioners, not that they have lost confidence in any of the subordinate engineers, but that they have lost confidence in Mr. Lumsden because that is what this motion means, if it means anything. It was said here by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that Mr. Lumsden had made a statement and that the government were going to appoint a committee to ascertain whether Mr. Lumsden was telling the truth or not. At page 2483 of ' Hansard ' it will be found that the hon. member for Pictou, in a speech which he made in this House yesterday, used the following words with reference to a statement made by Mr. Lumsden:
My right lion, friend the leader of the House asks this House to investigate that statement and to ascertain whether it is a fact or not.
That is the position they take. Here was the chief engineer of the largest project that this country has ever undertaken, appointed by this government, making a statement in reference to several of his subordinates. Hi3 statement alone should have secured the dismissal of these men instanter. Instead of that we have the government saying:	We do not believe Mr. Lumsden; we are going to appoint a committee to ascertain whether the statement he has made is true or not. Is not that the position? They accept his resignation.
I have here a copy of this motion proposed by the Prime Minister, and in it he cites portions of two letters written by Mr. Mr. CROTHERS
Lumsden, in which letters Mr. Lumsden states, speaking of his engineering staff generally, he says:
In view of the general disregard of my instructions and having lost confidence in the engineering staff I have concluded to resign iny position as chief engineer.
Is it possible to conceive that Mr Lumsden sent in that resignation without having been misused not only by the commissioners but by this government. We would like a committee to ascertain what Mr. Lumsden said to the government in regard to the manner in which he had been treated by the commissioners, whether he called the attention of the government to this intimidation practised upon him by the commissioners and if so what answer he got from the government. Did the government tell him: We are going to stand by the commissioners, to stand by the engineers, to stand by the contractors even if you go down. I cannot conceive of his resigning without his having some intimation of that sort from the government. In the second letter he says:
1 beg to state that this does not apply to' the whole staff but applies only to the portion of the staff who were responsible for the measurement, classification, supervision and inspection of considerable portions in district B and east of Rennie crossing in district ' P/ lately gone over by me.
What Mr. Lumsden says is that he has lo3t confidence in these engineers in respect to their measurement, classification, supervision, and inspection. Now, the Prime Minister proposes a committee to ascertain whether that statement is a fact or not. We are told that the board of arbitrators is the ,only tribunal properly qualified by expert knowledge to determine questions of measurement, classification, and inspection, and yet the Prime Minister proposes to appoint a committee of three partisans to determine whether the statement made by Mr. Lumsden be true or not. I would like any man to explain to us how a committee of five are to investigate and ascertain whether Mr. Lumsden was justified in making that statement or not, without making an inquiry into the measurement, classification, inspection, and supervision. I submit to you Mr. Speaker, that it would be utterly impossible for any committee to make any inquiry with a view to ascertaining whether Mr. Lumsden was justified in saying that these men had made over-classification, without having inquired respecting that classification. That is as plain as two and two are four. And yet we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that this committee will not be permitted to ask any questions respecting the supervision, classification, or inspection. Then, how is the committee to ascertain whether this

classification and inspection was properly or improperly done. Of course it would be utterly impossible. It seems therefore as clear as the noon day sun that the proposition to appoint this committee is not made with a sincere desire in the interests of this country but is suggested for the purpose of making nice reading campaign literature for distribution among the people. Mr. Lumsden was a qualified man, a man of knowledge and experience and capacity and integrity, or he was not. Hon. gentlemen opposite now say in substance: We doubt whether he was or not, because we are going to appoint a committee to ascertain, as the hon. member for Pictou says, whether the statement he made was true or not. Now, if the position taken by the government in that regard be sound, that itself is a very good reason why we should investigate the whole' matter, because Mr. Lumsden has been in office for years and if the government had no confidence in him and are not able to accept his word on a statement of that kind, then how are they to expect the members of this House and the people of Canada to accept without question what he has been doing for the last 4 or 5 years? And if he be a man of capacity, experience, and integrity, then his word should have been accepted at once by the government, and his subordinates who were accused of misconduct should have been dismissed at once-one or the other. Therefore I say that all the arguments hon. gentlemen on the other side have presented against the adoption of this amendment are equally applicable against the motion presented by the First Minister. A great many things arouse suspicion about the Transcontinental Railway. It has been iterated and reiterated that the people of this country were deceived by the government-I * do not say intentionally-but certain it is that they were deceived and grossly deceived with reference to the cost of this great work. They were told by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance that the whole road from Winnipeg to Moncton could be constructed for about $50,000,000. The government were then urged to take more time to become familiar with the project, and to get more information with regard to the character of the country through which the railway would run, but the Prime Minister told us that the archives contained material enough to make anv member of this House as familiar with that country as he might be with his own home in the city of Ottawa. He told us he had mountains of information, and that there was no necessity whatever for getting further information with regard to the matter. The Minister of Finance yesterday gave the name of a gentleman upon whom he relied as authority for the statement that it would cost only $51,000,000.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that one of two things must exist with reference to the estimates that were made before this country embarked on this project, and also with reference to the estimates that have been made on the different parts of the road that have been let to	contractors-either
the engineers who gave that information were incompetent or they lent their hand to deceiving the people of this country. There is only one alternative. Would any one attempt to make you believe, Mr. Speaker, that it was impossible for a competent engineer to get within one-third of the cost of the road, and yet it is admitted now that this road will cost three times as much as we estimated. What do we find with reference to these estimates as detailed to the House yesterday by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). We find that in contract after contract, he took up, the alleged measurement exceeded from 75 to 520 per cent more solid rock than the engineers estimated, and that in every case the amount of solid rock grew enormously while the amount of sand and clay. diminished enormously. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect, and I submit it guardedly, one of two things must be admitted: Either the engineer was incompetent or he was dishonest. One could very easily understand that an engineer may make a mistake and over estimate one mile and under estimate the next, but every one knows that if there are such variations they would be found on both sides if the estimate were made by an honest and competent man. But here we have hundreds of miles and in every instance the alleged under estimate of from 200 per cent to 500 per cent varied on the one side only. Go out to the plain, honest people of this country whether Liberals or Conservatives and tell them that, and I submit there is not a sensible man amongst them who will accept it without very strong suspicion. He will likely say if he is a Liberal: I had confidence in the government when they made that statement to me four or five years ago, I have confidence in the government yet, there must be something wrong with the commission apnointed to manage the construction of the railroad or there must be something wrong with the engineers who were appointed to carry out the instructions. I have not lost confidence in the government, I believe they were honest at the time they made that statement to us; ydu cannot blame them much. But they will say further: The cost of the 'railway is so enormously beyond what they told us; the fact of these commissioners

not being experts, the faci oi their being appointed for political purposes the fact that they know nothing about the construction of railways, the fact that they have attempted to intimidate the independent and righteous board of arbitrators that we supposed was standing between us and the contractors, all these things have established in our minds a well grounded suspicion that things are not right, and unless our leader, unless this government which we have been following for many _ years will give us an impartial, and a fair, and an open, and full investigation of this matter from the top to the bottom we will lose confidnce in the whole outfit. Why, the very first thing I see in this return is a letter dated 7th October, 1907, written by the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, from which I quote:
Let me give you some illustrations.
Take the cutting from station 5818 to 5826, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 pel cent loose rock; slopes taken out 1 i to 1.
Showing that this is not solid rock because if it were there would be no such slopes, for even if the solid rock stood up perpendicular it would be safe. But where there is sand and earth they have to slope back li to 1. And the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific says:
Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders, but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Then again he says:
Station 5842 to station 5850. Classified 94 per cent solid rock, 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1. Solid rock over classified at least 100 per cent.
Then again he says:
Station 5866 to 5875. Estimated . 80 per cent solid rook, 20 per cent loose rock. No rock in place in this cut.
No rock whatever although this classic fication gave 80 per cent solid rock and 20 per cent loose rock.


George Eulas Foster: Is that an engineer who says that?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, it is an engineer who says that. That letter was written October 7, 1907, and these same engineers are operating on the road to-day; notwithstanding the finding they thus made, they are still in the employ of the government and still giving estimates on the construction of that road. Is it any wonder that the members of this House and the people of this country are demanding an impartial investigation of this whole matter from the beginning to the end.
Station 5882 to 5901. Estimated 78 per cent solid rock, 22 per cent loose rock. A large amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers Mr. CROTHERS.
and ploughing being done with two horses. There are hundreds oi yards of earth here without a stone, large or small.
Station 6030 to 6046. Estimated 40 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August" 31 in this cut at least 80,000 yards were pure sand.
And yet these engineers are on the work to-day and hon. gentlemen opposite say: 'We boast that we have the same engineers now that we started with, we. have kept them all along.' The government got notice of this in October, 1907, that is two years ago last October, and they are there still.
Station 6071 to 6078. Estimated 99 per cent solid rock, 1 per cent loose rock. Very little solid rock in place. Slopes taken out If- to 1.
I would have made it 100 per cent. The slope of li to 1 indicates sand. They did put in 1 per cent for loose rock and 99 per cent for solid rock. Yet these engineers are on the work still and the Commissioners are still in the employ of the government, notwithstanding these Commissioners have, kept these men at work all this time, notwithstanding that these Commissioners have been intimidating, criticising and stultifying the righteous and independent board of arbitrators appointed by this House for the protection of the people,- they are all there yet, they will stay with us until the end, all of a piece, from the right hon. the Prime Minister down, they all must be kept in order that they may finish their work.
I have another half-page of that letter making similar objections which I might read. But let me give one or two words that are very significant:
As before stated, these over-classifications are not made through error in judgment nor upon the decision of the resident or division engineers, who are fully acquainted with the character of the work, but by arbitrary orders from their superior.
Who were these superiors? This .letter was written to Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer, and it certainly is not referring to him. Who are the superiors? That statement is made by Mr. Woods, the assistant Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific two years ago last October. They are still with the Commission and yet the right hon. gentleman proposes a resolution here to appoint three partisans-I do not suppose there will be more than two from this side -to ascertain whether this is so or not, whether Mr. Lumsden was telling the truth or not. How can one of us go out on the streets to-morrow and meet a fellow citizen without a blush of shame on his cheek? If this proposition contained in this amendment be defeated this evening, what will it be saying to the people of this country? It will be saying: 'We refuse to investigate charges of this kind, saying that your moneys are being sacrificed by the million,

but we refuse to investigate.' What are we to say? The Minister of Railways was asked two or three times, several others have been asked what this committee suggested by the Prime Minister is to inquire into. The hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) suggested two or three questions that might be asked of Mr. Lumsden if he were in the box before that committee. One would be: 'Did you find these men honest?' He might answer: 'Yes, or no.' He might be asked: 'What are the names of the men?' He might answer that.' He might be asked: 'In what respect did you find them dishonest?' Then we would hear: 'Hold, you must not answer that question, I object.' They told us so in so many words, this committee would have no right to investigate anything of that kind, they have said: 'This has been relegated to a board of arbitrators.' It has been relegated to a board of arbitrators under the intimidation of the political partisans who constitute that Commission, who are labouring in the interests of the contractor as shown by this letter. What are they to inquire into? We have been told by hon. gentlemen on the other side, in speaking against the amendment, that it is only expert engineers who should inquire into such matters; but you have the statement of the chief engineer of the Commission, in the person of Mr. Lumsden, and the Prime Minister actually proposes to this House and to the country, that he will set aside the statement of that celebrated and distinguished expert and leave it to three of his partisans behind him. I submit that I do not think there is a single hon. gentleman in this House who, if he were left to his head and his heart and his patriotism, would not say that there has been a sufficient ease made out to warrant this House in appointing a commission or committee or some independent tribunal, to investigate this matter from the top to the bottom.
Nobody, I say, has been able to tell us what this committee is to investigate, and how they are to carry on their work. I submit that the very recital of the motion proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister shows that this committee could not do this work without inquiring into the matters of classification, supervision anu inspection. So that if what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the., other side in opposition to our proposal to have the whole matter investigated be well taken, it is just as well taken as against the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. I was very much surprised to find in the remarks of the Prime Minister a statement to the effect that he himself doubted Mr. Lumsden. I have never heard that there was a word to be said against Mr. Lumsden. He seems to have had the confidence of this government at the time he was appointed and for many
years thereafter. There is no suggestion that I have ever heard that he was a man unworthy of - confidence. And yet we have the Prime Minister arising in his place in this House and suggesting that this statement made over his own signature is not to be accepted; the Prime Minster prefers that that statement should be inquired into by the honest, intelligent, independent non-partisan three gentlemen sitting beside him. Did any one ever see such a spectacle?-a man of Mr. Lumsden's ability and experience and standing in the community set aside, his word questioned and the hon. member for Pictou saying: We want to know whether the statement he made is true or not. And we are to have the matter in-i vestigated by three gentlemen sitting behind the Prime Minister, all of whom are looking for promotion, which they can get only through the assistance of the Prime Minister himself. I shall not take up more time of the House, but I cannot emphasize too strongly the point I started out with. I want to call the attention of the House, and particulary of the people of this country, to the fact that the tribunal provided by the statute of this parliament in 1903, and section 7 of the agreement to stand as a safeguard between greedy grafters and dishonest contractors and the people, this government has permitted the commissioners to discipline and criticise and intimidate, not in the interest of the people, but in the interest of the contractors who are trying to bleed the people.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I should be a party to prolong this debate to any extent, and, to use a phrase I have heard many a time at the opening of lengthy addresses, that I should take up the valuable time of the House; but, I would deem it on my part a breach of duty to give a silent vote on such a question.
Viewing the matter in.the most unselfish spirit and apart from all sectional or party considerations of any kind, I am satisfied, and thoroughly so, that a general inquiry is desirable, not an inquiry narrowed down to a single district, or dealing merely with quantities, classification, supervision and inspection; but an inquiry concerned with the methods followed in connection with the building of the National Transcontinental, east section, from one end of the line to the other, and I contend that public opinion demands it.
On the above grounds, I ask for an investigation of a general, fair, public, and thorough character, untrammelled by legal technicalities or political bias, as laid down in the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) ; and not a summary, curtailed investigation, held behind

-closed doors, hide-bound and out-of-date, such as is looked for in the resolution submitted by the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the grievious nature of the charge made by Mr. Lumsden, considering the high standing of that gentleman, his .unassailable reputation, his ability and prestige which no hon. member is justified in questioning; considering the alarming and inexplicable discrepancy between the estimated cost of the Transcontinental-a mere trifle it was to be, these hon. gentlemen assured us at the outset-and the monstrous amount it actually comes to and will .grow to in the end, I say, Mr. Speaker, that a general inquiry is in order; and all that these hon. gentlemen on the other side have said, satisfies one as to the slackness of their principles of political morality and fairness much more than it impairs the force of my statement.
After listening to their expressions of .opinion, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, through what perversion of the most elementary principles of logic-not to. say honesty- these hon. gentlemen feel an inclination, and apparently rejoice in directing from the bitter shafts of malice and suspicion against the honest and faithful servant who has been courageous enough to fulfil his duty, though the loser by it, in the sole interest of the country; and how is it that their goodly disposition goes wholly to those whom a prima facia case exists, and who should be the object of suspicion. However, my short stay in this House has taught me that this government has tender mercies for their prevaricating political friends, much more so than for honest judges; and whenever, as the result of an inquiry, graft and extortion have been brought to light, the guilty parties have always found in this House ministers willing to discredit and even disgrace tribunals in order to better absolve and clear those whom these tribunals had convicted.
By the way, let me say to these gentlemen on the other side who are so fond of scrutinizing old-time scandals under Conservative governments, that whatever scandals have been unearthed at the time. Conservative governments have never endeavoured to prevent investigation in regard to them. And to the credit of those who then administered public affairs, these verses of an old poet might be appropriately recalled:
Et, quaud nos vieux heros avaient du mauvais
[sang,
Ils eussent, pour le perdre, ouvert leur pro-
[pre flanc.
Now, what other object could there be to this resolution introduced by the right hon. gentleman, if not that of' once more throwing into disrepute the man who has brought forward the charges, by question-Mr. BLONDIN.
ing the truth of his statements? I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not justified in questioning the truth of Mr. Lumsden's statements, any more than we are justified in questioning the truth of statements made by a minister occupying a seat on the Treasury benches. I say that, as a matter of mere common sense, we are not justified in questioning the truth of Mr. Lumsden's statements. I say that his charges should be considered true; and, if they are true as regards one district, if graft and over-classification have taken place in one district, we are justified in believing that abuses of a similar kind have been resorted to in other districts; and consequently, a general inquiry should be instituted at once, in order to put a stop to such leakage in the Treasury, to this scourge which is ruining the country.
Will the government contend that they have in hand all the necessary information as regards other districts, and that an investigation would not reveal anything of interest? If their contention be such, I may be allowed to say that they are in error, and here is a proof amongst a thousand. Last year, on the 12th of May, I put the following question to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals; it will be found on page 6603 of Hansard:
What is the total amount of damages inflicted yearly up to date by floods to the works of the National Transcontinental railway below La Tuque, and between the latter place and Ludger Noel's creek?
The answer, in no way candid, was as follows:
No damage whatever.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have personally gone over the grounds and seen for myself, I have questioned people on the spot, and I state that the hon. minister has been shamefully deceived, and, as a result, has himself deceived the House; damages for a very large amount have been inflicted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a condition of things which a general investigation would bring to light. But is not the government rather anxious to prevent any light being shed on the subject? I am inclined to believe it, and if such be the case, it is in order to congratulate it on its wisdom, its fears as to the result of an inquiry which would enlighten public opinion are indeed very well grounded.
Apart from the charges which come in from all sides, apart from those mountains of information-to make use of a term of which the right hon. gentleman is fond-[DOT] an inquiry would enable me to show up, for the enlightenment of public opinion- which is becoming anxious and suspicious, and rightly so-what justification there was to selecting a swamp, absolutely a swamp, as a yard for the Transcontinental, in pre-

ferenee to the magnificent site of La Tuque, which was in every way from the first designated as the most suitable location for that purpose.
The hon. chairman of the Transcontinental Commission, in the course of a journey to La Tuque, had not conceded his admiration for this last spot and he could not explain to himself how another might be chosen.
The chief engineer of the Quebec section, Mr. Doucet, had also been inclined, at first, to prefer this last spot, and the hand of the one or of the other of these gentlemen had drawn the circuit plan on a map of La Tuque.
Why have they suddenly changed their opinion, against the laws of common sense, of economy and of civil engineering? That is another point which might be made clear by the means of a general inquiry.
But, Mr. Speaker, I understand that, owing to the nature of this discussion, I am precluded from entering into the details cf those questions. I venture to think however, that those few facts, added to the facts already mentioned by the hon. members who spoke before me, will, at least, show the country, if not the government, 'that an inquiry must be had and that the conclusions of the amendment proposed by mv hon. friend the member for Simcoe, should be adopted.


Robert Laird Borden: The sub-juct has been so thoroughly debated that I do not intend to detain the House for more than a minute or two. It does seem rather remarkable that six months after the^ letter of Mr. Lumsden announcing his resignation and the causes for it had been written, it should have occurred to the commission and the government for the first time that an investigation was necessary. The tenor of Mr. Parent's leter, which was read by the Prime Minister in introducing his motion, indicates that the nature of the charges made by Mr. Lumsden absolutely necessitated some investigation. But it also seemed _ to indicate that the necessity for an investigation first occurred to the minds of the members of this commission, and to the mind of the Prime Minister, about the 30th of December, 1909. Well, that seems a somewhat curious circumstance, but it is absolutely consistent with the course which the government has since taken, because the motion which the Prime Minister has introduced might more properly be styled a motion for the purpose of preventing any investigation into the charges that have been made.
The whole case that has been presented to the House by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) with a great deal of ability, and by other members who have followed him with 83
similar ability, that case up to the present time remains absolutely unanswered by any hon. gentleman on the government side of the House. Does the Prime Minister realize, does the Minister of Railways and Canals realize for a moment the position in which they ,are placed before this country? Here were estimates made by men whom they still retain in their employ, estimates made according to the manner of engineers, by going upon the ground, surveying it, making borings, sinking drills, by ascertaining in every way that is known to them, just what the nature of that ground was. Now, there is no question about that. Does the Prime Minister deny that? Does the Minister of Railways deny that?_ There is no question about it, no question has been raised in the House about that up to the present time. What is the result? When the returns are made by the same engineers, or some of them, who made these original estimates, what is the result when the work actually done comes to be placed before the government, or 'before this commission, and paid for out of the public treasury, with the approval of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission? The result shows that the estimates thus made by these men, or under the direction of those for whom they are responsible, were so absolutely absurd and misleading as to justify the dismissal of every one of those men. What more, Mr. Speaker? The position further is that charges of the gravest possible character have been made against some of those men by no less a person that Mr. H. A. Woods, the assistant chief engineer of the Grand lrunk Pacific Railway Company. This letter has been read in part, I do not know that it has been placed upon the 'Hansard' m full; and although the hour is late, I propose to place every word of it upon the 'Hansard' in order that the people may see what has been before the government of this country for more than two years. It is dated Montreal, October 7, 1907.
Classification, of Material, District B.


Mr.   H@: Lumsden,
Chief Engineer, Eastern Division, Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
National
Dear Sir,-At the request of District Engineer Armstrong, he was furnished recently with a statement of classification for the heavier work on the above mentioned section which were, when given in detail so different irom lus expectation that he requested the writer to visit the work.
During the past week we passed over portions of the work from the Batiscan river west for 15 or 20 miles, and later, from miles 115 to 132.
With reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances of from 3 to 5 miles, and as we did not have total quantities of graduation, could not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although



I1EV1SED EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
percentages for entire distances seemed excessively heavy in both loose and solid rock.
With the latter portion we have detailed percentages for each cut and were greatly surprised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case where the cuttings were not entirely all ledge, the estimate given for solid rock is double or more than double what it should be. In fact, the specifications had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not by reason of any error in judgment but, as I understand," bv special instructions fron the assistant district engineer.
For two years they had under their eyes the statement of a reputable man, placed upon the work to guard the interests of the Grand Tffunk Kailway, with their assent, and who tells them that, by the direction of their own officer, that their specifications had been absolutely ignored and departed from. The Minister of Railways has met our arguments by saying that the specifications were good, bv deigning no other answer whatever, because he could give no answer to the statements put forward by the hon. member for South Simcoe. Why, if the government had no answer ready, if they required time to investigate the truth of what the member for South Simcoe put forward upon his reputation as a member of parliament, they should have adjourned this debate until they were ready to give some answer one way or the other. We have heard something from geologists as to the way in which, in the by-gone history of the earth, through enormous pressure, or through the action of fire, sediment or other material was converted into rock of various kinds, but there is nothing in geological history which will account for the extraordinary speed with which pure sand and gravel have been converted into solid rock in this district. Does any man in this House, does the Prime Minister of Canada, venture to stand upon his feet and say that any adequate explanation has been given up to the present time of those statements which, if they are at all justified by the facts, indicate that the whole operation connected with the building of this National Transcontinental railway reek with corruption and mismanagement? One would think that the government would have instantly ordered a searching investigation as soon as that letter was made public. Let me tell hon. gentlemen in this House who were not here in 1907 that the whole of that letter was then produced, read and commented upon in this House, and an investigation demanded. The answer of the government was that there would be an immediate investigation to be carried out by experts under the provisions of the Act in 1903. Up to the present time no such investigation has taken place. I would like to read the rest of the letter, because it is Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
important that it should be placed upon the records of this House. The letter of Mr. Woods proceeds as follows:
Let me give you some illustrations:
Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5826, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1. Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Station 5842 to 5860. Classified 94 per cent solid rock, 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out 11 to 1. Solid rock over-classified at least 100 per cent.
Station 5866 to 5875. Estimated 80 per cent solid rock, 20 per cent loose rock. No rock in place in this cut. Many large boulders but a large amount of earth.
Station 5882 to 5901. Estimated 78 per cent solid rock, 22 per cent loose rock. A large amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers, and ploughing being done with two horses. There are hundreds of yards of earth here without a stone large or small.
Station 6030 to 6046. Estimated 40 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August 31 in this cut. at least 80,000 yards were pure sand.
Station 6071 to 6078. Estimated 99 per cent solid rock, 1 per cent loose rock. Very little solid rock in place. Slopes taken out li to 1.
West of the St. Maurice river.
Station 6391 to 6394. Estimated 46 per cent solid rock, 33 per cent loose rock Sand cut with few boulders and possibly 1,500 yards ledge in bottom of cut not yet taken out.
Station 6493 to 6504. Estimated 20 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock. No evidence of any ledge and very large bouldeis.
^Stations16506"to 6512. Estimated 16 per cent
fmrely °a^sand
Upper slope nearly 100 feet high material wasted into river. Certainly not 10 per cent of this should be classified.
Station 6522 to 6548. Estimated 26 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock This is borrowed material from the side. Very little solid rock shown except what was used for blind drains but some large boulders not placed in embankment.
On account of heavy rams we were not able to go . west of station 6600, but we understand
"	[DOT]	'"	1 '	' mafia nlinnf n<3 nnf.fid
Alccoifioof 1P1T
above.
In every case where cuttings are not entirely in ledge we find the material overclassified very largely. Mr. Armstrong has been able to visit this work at different times, perhaps quite as often as the assistant district engineer. His estimates and my own are not very different as to the amount of classified material and until he received detailed nuan-tities he had no intimation that such heavy classification had been given. In many cases, particularly in sand and gravel cuts, he had -upposed that no classification would be given, except perhaps for a few boulders as loose rock.
I am informed also that on the work east of St. Lawrence river heavy classification is being made in borrowed material where

[Stage Direction]
ploughing is done with one team and material moved in slip scrappers.
As before stated, these over-classifications are not made through error in judgment nor upon the decision of the resident or division engineers, who are fully acquainted with the character of the work, but hv arbitral orders from their superior. To such classification as mentioned above, increasing ti cost of the work to such an alarming evtei we most seriously protest and respectful'' request that either yourself or the assistant chief engineer visit the work and pass judgment upon the classification as made. Please note that the percentages <nven indicate the work done to August 31. We are not advised what the September estimate will be.
(Sgd.) H. A. WOODS.
Mr. Speaker, this return brought down from beginning to end fairly reeks with statements of that kind over signatures of reputable men, and although that was going on for nearly two years and a half the men who sit upon the treasury benches of Canada have been content to let that letter pass without any investigation. Sir, that is putting it altogether too mildly. Two years ago, when that letter was first brought to the attention of parliament and of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada and the men who sit on the treasury benches beside him, and the followers who support them in this House, had the audacity to vote down .any investigation by parliament into these charges which are as serious as can be expressed in the English language in regard to this work. I _ think it will remain to the everlasting discredit of this government that these charges made in October, 1907, have been permitted to go until this 27th day of January, 1910, without an attempt on the part of this government to give them any investigation worthy of the name. All these men were retained in the employment of the government, and the only man dismissed is the man who dared to call attention to this state of affairs.
There is a great deal of force in the statement of my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Orothers) although I am inclined, if possible, _ to put it in stronger terms than he did, that the moment that extraordinary resolution of this board, passed on the 25th day of June, 1909, was brought to the attention of this government, the government would have done no more than its duty next day, on the 26th day of June, if it had dismissed every one of these commissioners. A more extraordinary performance by men supposed to be acting in the public interest I never heard of, and I do not think any hon. member of this House ever heard of, than to undertake, while this tribunal was dealing with this matter, to interfere, not on behalf of the public but on behalf of the contractors, to call the action of these 834
arbitrators in question, and to do that apparently without giving them any right to be heard. If they were going to be tried, surely they had the right to be heard. That the engineers on the line classifying the work were not afforded a sufficient hearing and an opportunity of presenting evidence was one of the grounds of indictment against these arbitrators, and yet these arbitrators were tried, condemned and almost executed by these commissioners without apparently consulting them at all, or giving them an opportunity to place their statement against the statement of the district engineers as to the character of the work these arbitrators had done.
I would like to take up just one or two little matters in connection with the defence that was attempted by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canah. That hon. gentleman has told U3, in answer to the well-grounded argument of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) as to the estimates, that railways in South Australia cost $37,250 per mile, in New South Wales, $64,765, and in Germany, $102,272, &c. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether or not that information was in the* possession of the government in 1903 or 1904. Would my hon. friend deign to answer that question?
George Perry Graham: My hon, friend knows that I was not a member of the government then, so I cannot tell.


Robert Laird Borden: All right, my hon. friend pleads ignorance.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend think that is fair?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend pleads ignorance of what was in the knowledge of the government at that time,


George Perry Graham: That is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, we shall go to headquarters. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether or not that information was included in the mountains of information which were possessed by the government in 1903 and 1904?


Wilfrid Laurier: Let my hon. friend make his speech.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad, indeed, to have the permission of the Prime Minister to make my speech. I intended to have done that even if he had not given me that gracious permission. I would have thought it might be a fair question and that it might be fairly answered, having regard to the argument which has been made, whether this was included in the Prime Minister's mountains of information. Did, or did not the government, when they

as upon others I cannot agree with his conclusion. He went on to say:
And, whether rightly or wrongly, whether by mistake or by dishonesty, whether blunderingly or criminally, the expenditure is vastly, enormously-outrageous, I might say-in excess of the estimates presented to the House.
And he concludes:
And whereas the cost of the eastern division of the said railway, according to the latest estimates of the government, will be so enormously in excess of the estimates submitted to parliament in 1904 and 1905 as to arouse the most serious alarm and to call for the fullest inquiry.
The inquiry is therefore asked because the cost of the road is largely in excess of the estimates which were presented to the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) says there is such an excessive cost over the estimate that it must be the result either of a blunder or of a criminality. May I not suggest to the hon. gentleman and to the House that there might be a third alternative. May I not suggest that if the cost has been far larger than was anticipated by the estimates of 1903-4 it may have arisen from the physical difficulties which were encountered in the construction of the road. Is it not at least as natural to suppose that the increased cost has arisen from that fact as from either of the others. But gentlemen opposite are the same as they always are, they are always ready to suspect criminality. They will not give us credit for honest intentions or honest acts; they are ready to protest on all occasions, that if anything does not go as they wish it to go there has been criminality. But, Sir, I think it is just and natural to suppose that if the cost has exceeded the estimates that fact has arisen from honest causes which are to be found upon the ground itself. It is extraordinary, Sir, how these gentlemen opposite forget their own history; they forget, what they themselves said in 1903 and 1904. When we proposed this scheme to build the National Transcontinental railway in 1903 we were told by hon. gentlemen opposite that our estimate was altogether too low, that it was impossible to build the road for $53,000,000, and my hon. friend from Lanark told us that the road would cost $125,000,000 at least.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good, let us say if you like that we were wrong'and that he was right, and if we were wrong and if hon. gentlemen opposite were right', it follows that the increased cost of the road has not arisen from any criminality but simply because of the circumstances which the hon. member for Lanark knew of better than did we. Credit was
given to my hon. friend from Lanark that he was a good prophet on that occasion; the road has cost more than we expected. But while they say that my hon. friend knew that the road cost more than we said it would, still they will persist that if the road costs as much as it does it must be because of criminality.' They will have to choose as to whether it was through criminality or through some other cause. For my part, I prefer to believe that the road has been costly because the character of it is difficult.
Now, I pass to another consideration, the only important consideration brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend the leader of the oppositiqn (Mr. R. L. Borden). He asks us: Why do not you grant this investigation?-you say you can't grant it at this time because the matter is under investigation. That is the very reason we do not grant it. I do not dispute that parliament can do anything it pleases in this as in all other matters. Parliament can take a case from the courts, bring it here and try it. But would he advise that we should do so in this case? The reason, the peremptory reason, why the investigation is not advisable at 'this moment is, not because there should never be an investigation, but because under the present circumstances, it would be unwise for parliament to have an investigation where an investigation is already going on.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) going to withdraw his motion, then?


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) thinks that a clever remark, he is very much mistaken. The point that my motion proposes to have investigated is not at all what is in dispute before the commissioners at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: Tell us what it is then. Tell us just now.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend does not know that?


George Eulas Foster: No, and no one on the other side has told us.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will tell him in a moment,-it will not be difficult.


George Eulas Foster: Now we come.


Wilfrid Laurier: My. hon. friend is not as bright as he is usually. I gave him credit for greater keenness of intellect than he displays at this moment.


George Eulas Foster: Never mind the jollying; give us the information.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Lumsden in his letter says:

In view of the general disregard of my instructions, and having lost confidence in the engineering staff, I have concluded to resign my position as chief engineer.
There Mr. Lumsden makes a direct charge against his engineers. However, on the following day he qualifies it. In another letter which he addresses to the commissioners, he says:-
Referring to my letter of yesterday wherein I stated that I have lost confidence in the engineering staff, I beg to state that this does not apply to the whole staff, but applies only to a portion of the staff who were responsible for the measurement, classification, supervision and inspection of considerable portions in district ' B J and east of Rennie crossing in district ' F ' lately gone over by me.
Thus he says that he has reason to suspect the honesty of the engineers who were in charge of a considerable portion of the road in district ' B ' and east of Rennie crossing in district ' F.' There are many districts on this railway-some 1,800 miles of road were to be constructed. And, the districts ' B' and ' F' cover about 400 miles. Mr. Lumsden confines his charge to the engineers in charge of district ' F' and district ' B.' I think that Mr. Lumsden did not do himself justice as I said a moment ago. Certainly, he did not do his staff justice when he did not designate more clearly the engineers against whom he made his charge. I think he would have acted more wisely if either he had not spoken at all or had not made direct charges. But he says that it is engineers in district ' F' and district ' B' that he has reason to suspect. Therefore I think we have every reason to inquire who are these engineers and what are the reasons that he has made this charge against them. That is the subject to be investigated. That is not hard to understand and appreciate. Does my hon. friend believe that dishonesty is a proper subject of investigation? If not, he can vote against the motion. But we on this side believe that it is not fair to the House or to the government, or to the Commission-it is not fair to Mr. Lumsden himself-that this matter should be left where it is. We believe that it is a proper subject of investigation. And I say more, this investigation will not in any way interfere with the investigation which is now going on by the arbitrators appointed by the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It is altogether outside the scope of their investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be allowed to ask a question: The matter is much more in particular in Mr. Lumsden's letter than the right hon. gentleman has just expressed. It is alleged the particular character of the wrong-doing by these en-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
gineers. Does the Prime Minister understand that the' particular character of the wrongdoing-over-classification and so on- should be investigated, or does he propose that- it should not be investigated?


Wilfrid Laurier: The letter of Mr. Lumsden charges that there has been over-classification. I stated, in introducing this motion, that this over-classification might be the result of incompetence, of blundering, or of criminality. So far as the result to the country is concerned- which is the matter now being investigated by the commission-it matters not what is the cause; the point is to ascertain whether there has or has not been over-classification. It is the opinion of Mr. Lumsden that there has been over-classification. But that is an opinion, it is not a fact or a judgment. It is to be observed that Mr. Lumsden never was on the road, that he never saw a single inch of it, so far as my memory goes


George Eulas Foster: Oh, the Prime Minister is away off.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon friend is altogether off himself. Mr. Lumsden never was on the road before last spring, when he went with the commissioners. When he made the charge of over-classification he had never made a personal inspection of the road, but had taken the judgment of his engineers. I do not know that he did himself justice. But that was his way of doing hi3 work, and he had full trust in his engineers. Mr. Lumsden now gives his opinion that there was over-classification. Perhaps he was right; perhaps he was wrong. That is to be investigated by the commission. In this you have the answer of my hon. friend. The leader of the opposition, very dramatically


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister has forgotten to answer my question.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so. My hon. friend asked me what there is to investigate? There is the charge made by Mr. Lumsden that he has been deceived by the engineers of certain districts. As to how it should be investigated, of course that will depend upon the answers given by Mr. Lumsden himself. I do not know what reasons he may have, and the only way to ascertain what reasons he has for coming to the conclusion he does is to investigate. It is premature to say what course the investigation shall take. The leader of the opposition began his speech very dramatically by asking: ' Can you say that the- public interest will be prejudiced by this investigation?" Certainly, I do say so. An investigation here on the back of the investigation now going on would cettainly prejudice the public in-

terest. I do not say at this moment that the door is to be closed against investigation-nothing of the kind. Parliament can exercise supreme power. I think the hon. gentleman put the case better when he said that parliament in its wisdom would determine whether there was to be an investigation. I agree with that. But I say that parliament in its wisdom will not feel called upon to investigate the matter, but will investigate the facts covered by this motion and will reserve its judgment for a future occasion.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take a very long time in making a very short reply to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and to note two or three things of a more general nature. My right hon. friend undertook to discipline the hon. member for West Elgin for the statement made by him inferring that the1 Prime Minister had lost confidence in Mr. Lums-den


Wilfrid Laurier: That's not
what he said.
Mr. FOSTER, -or had 9aid something which reflected upon the judgment of Mr. Lumsden.


Wilfrid Laurier: Upon the
character.


George Eulas Foster: Or 'upon the character of Mr. Lumsden; and he has read the statement which he did make in his speech. The statement which he made involves an inference which, while I will not say it goes so far as to touch the moral character of Mr. Lumsden, certainly goes so far as to touch the stand he took, and his judgment, becamse the Prime Minister as the head of the government says that he questions his judgment. Well, if he questions his judgment, he has gone a long way to losing confidence in Mr. Lumsden, and he has taken the opportunity of letting the world as well as this House know that he no longer has confidence in Mr. Lumsden's judgment.
Well, let that go. He then took up the letter of Mr. Woods, and the statement of the leader of the opposition, a very strong statement, which consisted in putting the letter of Mr. Woods on record. Nothing could be stronger than Mr. Woods' letter. Now, who is Mr. Woods? Is Mr. Woods a nonentity? Is he a scrub engi* neer? Is he a man of no standing in his profession? How often have we heard the greatness and the grandeur of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway described to us, and Mr. Woods is a trusted servant, a picked engineer, a trusted employee in engineering matters of that great Grand Trunk Pacific Company, which knows how to employ the best, and, which so far as I know, always
does employ the best. That is what Mr. Woods is. When he speaks, he speaks with authority, the authority of a man who is trained in his profession, and he places at the bottom of that- the observation and experience of a man who has gone over every foot of the ground he is talking about. Now, is no credence to be given, is no weight to be attached to the judgment, to the statement, to the repeated statements of Mr. Woods in that respect? In 1907 Mr. Woods wrote that letter. In 1909, two years afterwards, he is writing exactly similar letters and along the same line, and from 1907 to the present time Mr. Woods has never ceased writing letters, and no letter of his can be quoted in which he does not reiterate the same broad, strong and specific statements with reference to over-classification, giving the mile, giving the section, and giving the quality of the overclassification. I think that is something that cannot be explained away.
Bait that is not all. Mr. Woods has the backing of his district engineers. Amongst them is Mr. Armstrong, who called the attention of Mr. Woods to what was going on, and who gave him the basis of the information upon which Mr. Woods acted, and upon which, after he had acted, he wrote these repeated letters. More than that, in this stand of Mr. Woods on behalf of his company first, which is a stand, so far as it goes, on behalf of the people of this country, in the second place-because every dollar that Mr. Woods and the Grand Trunk Pacific get taken off on the cost of that road is a dollar taken off from what the people of this country have to contribute, that is what it means. Alongside Mr. Woods stands his district engineer and his sub-engineers. Alongside of Mr. Woods stands Mr. Kelliher, and alongside of Mr. Woods stands Mr. Chamberlin, who is the vice-president of the road; alongside Mr. Woods, in his charges, there is ranged up the whole line of the Grand Trunk Pacific engineering staff, and, there is not one of them but backs him, not one of them but will substantiate his statements. Now that means something.
The Prime Minister asks: If it were true, would Mr. Dumsden have done nothing? And he demolishes the leader of the opposition in saying that an investigation has been held. What was the investigation? Mr. Lumsden writes a letter, or he has a personal conference with the engineers on that part of the road which was the subject of Mr. Woods' letters. The letter was read here to-night, and what did the letter say? Mr. Lumsden says that he questioned them upon it, and they denied it was so. That is the investigation. What a lovely kind of an investigation that is, Merwin likes an investigation like that, Lodge likes an investigation like that, Pearson delights in that kind of an investigation,

the saw-dust wharf heroes love that kind of an investigation. Just ask whether it is so or not, and when they deny it, give it all up, and three years afterwards when you are taunted with it say: But there was an investigation; we asked the chap ii it was true and he said it was not. Rut what an example that would be foT our judges. Why, all you have to do when any one does something criminal is to call the chap up and say: Did you do that? He denies it, the judge immediately throws off his robes, his work is done; and when you ask him what was the result of the triah he says: I could do nothing further, the chap denies it.
Now I put another question to the Prime Minister and the government. The government cannot get out of their responsibility in this matter. When the dommission bullyrags an independent tribunal, the arbitrators appointed, it is the government that is bullyragging them. But we do not need to labour that. The Prime Minister takes the whole glory of doing it. When an independent tribunal of judges is appointed to decide upon great issues between two opposing forces, between the government of this country and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, when that independent and scientific tribunal is arranged for and constituted, the government commences to say: You are hasty, you have no judgment, you have acted like school children, dont do it again. And so they intimidate them for carrying on all work that they have to do afterwards. I put it to the Prime Minister if, two years and some months ago, a statement like that from a reputable engineer whom the Prime Minister dares not impugn, either as to his character or his ability, if two years ago that statement came to the notice of the government, if two years ago their engineer did not take proper action upon it, and they waited for two years and some months, and yet no proper action has been taken upon it, whose fault is it? It is the government's fault? You were erecting a building with another man's money, you appointed the foreman, the man came and told you that the foreman was not doing his duty, that the workmen were stealing, that they were putting in material below the specifications, and charging high prices for it. You got that information, you did not compel your foreman to investigate it. The first thing a business man would have done would be to bring up his foreman and say: Here, this is what is said of you, is the statement true?-Well, I do not know.- Have you investigated it?-No.-Well, do something. The foreman goes down and asks the men that are putting in bad lumber and charging high prices, is it true that you are doing that? They say, no. Your foreman comes back to you. Have Mr. FOSTER.	'	.
you investigated this?-Yes-How far?- I asked the men whether they were putting in bad stuff and charging high prices, and they said, no.-Quite satisfactory, quite satisfactory. After two long years of spending the other man's money, under the same foreman, under the same contractors and under the same workmen. That is the astoundingly adequate idea that the Prime Minister has of his duties as leader of a government. Why, when you translate it into ordinary business, does not every man see what it means? I charge the Prime Minister to-night with full knowledge of this thing two years ago, and I charge him, the trustee for the people, with having spent since then more than $58,000,000 of the peoples' money, and during all that 24 months he has never seen fit to investigate allegations like that, involving such outrageous, such tremendously costly violations of the spirit and of the letter of the contract.
The Prime Minister then takes the full responsibility of the bullyragging that the commissioners have given the tribunal. He stands at the back of his creatures. Who were they? Take Mr. Woods, take Mr. Chamberlin, take the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific, men of experience, knowing their business, and put them against the three men who call themselves the commissioners. Who are the men, who, acting for the government, undertake to whip and lash these independent, scientific members of the tribunal?-a box-maker, a grain dealer and a promoter. These are the high and mighty, the scientific, who, standing for the government, whip men like Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. bums-den, who know more than these men one hundred times over. The government, instead of dismissing these box-makers, grain dealers and promoters, who transgress so abominably against the interest of	the people, comes and apologizes
for them. Well, you may say that to a certain extent, they were his crea-tars. Mr. Parent, Mr. Young and Mr. Reid did yeoman's work-and some of it was not very well thought of, if I have read the history of the last few years correctly -to put him and his party in. Why should not they, as having created him, keep the whip hand of him? But the Prime Minister says, in trying to refute the argument of my hon. friend from South Simcoe, that the cost has been greatly in excess and that is the reason my hon. friend asks for a fuller investigation. I will repay to the Prime Minister and send him back without charge a little of the taffy that he was good enough to give me, and I will say that I think he is too bright to have ever conceived such an idea as that that was the reason given by my hon. friend from South Simcoe for desiring a fuller investigation. It was not, Mr. Speaker, that the
*2621

*cost was greatly over the estimate, but that the reason of this increased cost was because sand was transformed into loose Tock and loose rock was made into solid granite by processes unknown, but to such an extent that millions of dollars were put into the pockets of contractors more than were supposed to go there when the contracts were let upon the information of the government's engineers appointed by themselves. I put it to the Prime Minister, who knows it well enough. It is impossible for mysteries like this to exist in open day; this is not an age of miracles by any manner of means. Once before we had an example of something like this in the devious course of this government's history. I remember that there was a section of country in the Northwest which, at a certain time in a certain month and in a certain year, was arid sands and desert, worth little, sold for a dollar an acre, fifty cents in scrip, and I remember that in less than three years that whole section of country was a garden of Eden selling at from $8 to $15 per acre. That was another example of those mysterious processes of nature which, through the alliance which existed between them and the right hon. gentleman, worked these wonders. The same mysterious alliance, the same occult influences have been kept at work on sundry nights and days along the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was no more a wilderness than the streets of Ottawa, and which suddenly and wonderfully, but most effectively, turned nature into an object of ridicule, smiled defiance and scorn at the slow work of Providence for millions of years, turned loose sand, all at once, . i a jiffy, into cemented rock and turned cemented rock into solid rock by some strange twentieth century processes. That is why my hon. friend from South Simcoe asked for an investigation.
Now, it has been put here a hundred times in this debate but my hon. friends on the other side of the House do not seem to get it in their minds and I will put it to my right hon. friend again. I will ask the right hon. gentleman one question: Why did the government go to the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars, nay, millions of dollars, in order to have engineers travel the route, have engineers make borings, have engineers dig test pits, have engineers take advantage of every device that was known to their science? They did this in order to do what?-to locate the line and to measure up the kind of soil and rock which were within the limits of that road bed and put the result in the shape of cubic yards. Was that all done for fun? It was all done for one purpose and one purpose only and that was that the government might be able to give an enlightened and reasonable contract for the excavation of the roadbed and not allow
the people's money to go for what it should not. Your engineers, the same that you have got now-minus the best one because that one you have taken care to get rid of, whom your commission followed as a sleuth hound follows a scent and whom they treated in such a way that no man of honour could hold that position for a single moment-^-made these surveys, they took out these quantities, they handed them to the government and upon these the government gave us the cost of the road. I do not need to go over it all again. Suddenly sand grew into rock, rock grew from loose to solid and the expenditures therefore grew and it is because that could only take place through gross incompetence or gross dishonesty, because one or the other is the necesary reason for it, and because of the waste of the people's money thereby that my hon. friend from South Simcoe asks for a full investigation. Oh, says the Prime Minister, it may not be dishonesty or incompetence; it may be that there are physical reasons. What were the enginers foT and what did the engineers do? The engineers were for the purpose of finding just what the physical configuration and physical properties of the road and you could not let a single mile of contract until these men scoured every foot of it, found that out and reported. It was not until they had found out the physical properties and qualities of the whole line that they could give you the amount to be taken out and make that the basis for giving contracts and asking for tenders. The right hon. gentleman, in his quick grasping at a reason to get himself out of that dilemma, never thought that the physical difficulties were the very things that the engineers first had to overcome and find out before a single measurement could be made and before a single contract could be let. After all that was done, then the extra cost arose because there was a displacement of quantities-sand, found out by these engineers of yours and reported by those engineers of yours and upon which you founded the terms of the contract, sand which when the excavations were made and the quantities taken out did not happen to be there. Somebody or something had come down and taken the loose rock and put solid rock in its place. That is the charge; that is the charge that Mr. Lumsden makes; that is the charge that Mr. Wood makes; that is the charge that the Grand Trunk Pacific gives all through the series of complaints. But of all the arguments one of the flimsiest was the attempt of the Prime Minister in this House of Commons in the 20th century, to fortify this gross displacement of quantities and this consequent transfer of millions of money from the peoples pockets to the contractors pockets, to buttress up his position by saying: Oh, it did'nt cost any
2G23

too much because some of you people on the other side of the House prophesied that it would cost a great deal more. That needs only to be mentioned for any one to be ashamed of having attempted an argument like that on a serious question. My right hon. friend is asked why he does not grant an investigation and he sees and he knows the weakness of his position and so he is not like Winston Churchill, he has not banged, bolted, and barred the dooi entirely; he says the door is not banged yet and that parliament has it in its power. Parliament has it in its power to-night, but will parliament give an investigation? Sir, we know, and the country is learning to know, that parliament of to-day means Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He does not give it now, and Mr. Parent will have lost his power and his cunning if he allows him to give it at any time. He holds out the hope to us-not to us for it is no hope to us- but he puts the glittering lure before the people: Oh, some time or other when I get good and ready there may be an investigation of these things, but at present: No, no, it would interfere. Yes, it would interfere. Why does it interfere? Because he says there are two investigations on. Which two does he refer to, if I have got my notes correctly I have pencilled here ' which one of the investigations is it.3


Wilfrid Laurier: Your note is not right; I said there would be two.


George Eulas Foster: What are they? One is that which the Prime Minister provides for in his resolution, and I suppose the other is the tribunal.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is the arbitration and there would be the investigation asked for by my hon. friend from Simcoe.


George Eulas Foster: I did not understand that the right hon. gentleman was going to grant the investigation asked for by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox). If he does, I will sit down at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is too thin.	*


George Eulas Foster: If there are to be two, the only two we have in sight is the one proposed by the Prime Minister, and the inquiry by the three arbitrators. And it seems to me there is a clear and distinct difference between the two subjects. I have read section 7 very carefully, and what it provides for is in short this: A road is being built which the Grand Trunk Pacific is to take over; the road is being built, not by the Grand Trunk Pacific, but by the government, and specifications are agreed upon between the two as to what should be the character of the road; if a disagreement arises between the govern-Mr. FOSTER.
ment and the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities as to whether any section of the road comes up to or falls below these specifications, the three arbitrators are to arbitrate under section 7. That is one thing. But there is another branch of the subject equally strong and equally imperative, and it is that this government is building a railway in various sections by its own engineers and by contractors who are absolutely subject to these engineers. These contractors put in progress estimates month by month, which on certification by the engineer are paid by the government from time to time, and there is no cause, no right, no power in the Grand Trunk Pacific to interfere between this government and its contractors. The contractors are building the railroad for the government, the payments are made by the government, and they are certified to by the government employees. And, the verv moment it comes out that there have *been displacements in the classification greatly increasing the cost over and above what should have been paid according to the estimates, that very moment it is the duty of the government and of the Minister of Railways to settle that point then and there before the contractors get their pay. The Grand Trunk Pacific had nothing to do with that; that is a matter between the government and its employees and its contractors. But here we have the odd spectacle of a government professing to be strenuous in getting the people's money into the right channels, living for two long years under accusations and documentary evidence that their contractors have been getting more than they ought to, and yet they don't seem to have taken the first step to get these matters straightened out between themselves and their contractors. That is the singular thing about it. Now, it seems to me that that must be done from month to month and from year to year as between the government and its contractors, whatever may be done by arbitrators between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific looking to the road coming up to the specifications which have been agreed to by both. I asked the right hon. gentleman, as I asked the Minister of Railways, as I asked the member for Carleton, and I do not know that I slighted the member for Pictou; every man on that side who has spoken, tried to get from thege gentlemen, not what this proposed committee is not to examine but what it is to investigate. My first question elicited the illuminating answer given in the last paragraph of the resolution of the Prime Minister. My repeated question elicited no answer that went beyond that, and when I came back to the metropolis and put the question to my right hon. friend as I have done just now I got no

more information that I got at first. The member for Carleton was very explicit. His answer was:	'That this committee
would investigate the matter in this way;' they would say to Mr. Lumsden: 'Have you lost confidence in your staff,' and Mr. Lumsden would say: 'Yes.' The next question would be: 'Mr. Lumsden, have you lost confidence in all your staff,' and Mr. Lumsden would say: 'No.' The next question would be: 'Mr. Lumsden, would you give us the names of those in whom you have lost confidence,' and Mr. Lumsden would give the names. Then the question which would follow, would naturally be: ' Now, Mr. Lumsden, how was it that you lost confidence in these gentlemen,' and Mr. Lumsden would begin to say: ' Because there was displacement of materials in the classification, over-payments, loose rock substituted for sand, solid rock substituted for loose rock and for sand, and these engineers, contrary to my instruction, passed that and therefore I have lost confidence in them.' Well, he would not get out ten words of that sentence before he would be objected to. And why do I say that? I say it, because the Prime Minister has said so; and every speaker on that side of the House has said so. They have said that the whole matter of classification is now before the arbitrators, that it must remain there and that it cannot be investigated elsewhere. Now, I ask. my right hon. friend: How far is he going to get with his investigation? Why have this debate? Why have this committee appointed to waste its time ? My right hon. friend could get all the information he professes to wish from this committee by simply asking Mr. Lumsden :
Mr. Lumsden, you told me in your letter you have lost faith in some of your staff. Will you please tell the names of those persons? Mr. Lumsden will give the names in two minutes. Why have you lost faith? Why, Mr. Premier, I have lost faith in them for the reason I gave in my letter-and the Premier has those Teasons. I have no greater fault to find with the First Minister than this, that when rumours came to his ears that the members of the opposition proposed to probe the reasons for Mr. Lumsden's resignation, and when he felt that there was looming up in parliament a motion and a demand for an investigation, true to his instinct which has led him on other occasions to do the same thing, he thought he would be cute enough if he possibly could to forestall it with this kind of a resolution. The fault I have to find with the Prime Minister is not that he tried to forestall it, but that he has not been honest with the country in his attempt at forestalling it. Mr. Lumsden gave the Prime Minister his reasons in a letter and the Prime Minister selected from that letter two
sentences which excluded the reasons entirely. If the Prime Minister wished to deal honestly and fairly with the people of this country, why did not he put in his resolution the identical reasons that Mr. Lumsden gave him for his resignation? What were those reasons? I will read what they are so it may go on 'Hansard' with this part of the discussion. He says that certain things
Have led me to the conclusion that neither the general specifications nor my instructions regarding classification have been adhered to.
That is strong, but it is not so strong as what follows. What follows is this:
But on the contrary large amounts of material have been returned as solid rock, which should only have been classified as loose rock or common excavation, and material has been returned as loose rock which was or could have been handled by ploughing or scraping, and should have been returned as common excavation.
There is the statement the engineer gives as to the reasons for his lost of confidence. Would it not have been fair to the people of this country, would it not have been more in accordance with the honest treatment both of Mr. Lumsden and the people , of this country, if those reasons of Mr. Lumsden had been quoted as well as the two excerpts from the letter put in by the minister to the exclusion of everything else. Further:
On several residencies there seems to have been no attempt by the engineers to carry out my instructions and measure rock returned, either by showing the same on cross sections, or by measurements of individual pieces, but they simply appear to have guessed at the amount by taking percentages of the total cutting. In some cases where cross sections were prepared showing ledge rock, they prove to be erroneous, resulting in a very much larger amount of the solid rock being returned than actually existed. What is known as overbreak has also been returned in many places where it was caused by excessive use of explosives, and where the material was wasted this should not have been done.
You could not get an engineer to be more explicit with all the faults in the catalogue that can be urged against a resident or supervising engineer or a set of them than the statements made by Mr. Lumsden in that letter. Do the people of the country know anything of these reasons insofar as the motion of my hon. friend is concerned? He purports to give Mr. Lumsden's reasons, he absolutely conceals Mr. Lumsden's reasons, and yet he and his followers and his newspapers will be distributing all over this country the startling and wonderful statement that this government is so honest, so desirous to protect the people, that before a motion is made the Prime Minister comes down and orders a full, free and impartial

investigation. I say that is about the gravest charge that can be made against the Prime Minister; he is not attempting to deal fairly and straightly with the people of the country. He has concealed Mr. Lumsden's reasons and so far as he is concerned in his resolution he has not given Mr. Lumsden's reasons. He avoided giving them. There is not a man on that side, from the Prime Minister down, who has read to the full the reasons given by Mr. Lumsden for his resignation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I read the letter.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, my right hon. friend did. I was wrong in that, but he studiously kept the real reasons from going into his resolution. When my right hon. friend, through his committee, gets the fact that Mr. Lumsden reiterates that he has lost confidence, gets the names of the persons in whom he has lost confidence, how much farther is this investigation going to go? I would like my right hon. friend to answer that, how much farther is he to go? We are all in the dark, nobody knows and before we vote for his motion we would like to know. Having been successful in getting these two facts established, how much farther would he go? That is an answer my right hon. friend ought to give, he ought to enlighten the House. My hon. friend will not enlighten the House?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is no use trying to enlighten my hon. friend when he will not be enlightened. I have given the reasons twice or three times.


George Eulas Foster: If he will cite me any portion of his speech in which he has given me an answer to this question of mine, a fair question, I will acknowledge he has done it. The fair question I put is, the Premier has stated that such a question will be asked, No. 1


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that.


George Eulas Foster: But such information will
be got, first as to whether he has lost confidence; then another bit of information will be got, as to the persons in whom he has lost confidence. Now will he please tell the House and the country what will be the next piece of information that the committee will be empowered to get?


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not state statement No. 1 or No. 2. I did not pretend to catechise the committee or to instruct it, it is the House that does that.


George Eulas Foster: Then my hon. friend proposes a committee to do a thing, but he does not propose to instruct the committee as to what it is to do? Does he expect the House of Commons to do a thing like that?


George Eulas Foster: He knows we could not support it, even if it were reasonable, if he does not tell what it is. He does, however, have implicit confidence in his own side of the House, that they will support it with or without reasons.


Wilfrid Laurier: And you will oppose it, with or without reasons.


George Eulas Foster: I have puzzled my ingenuity to find out what the next question would be. I have imagined it would be this: You have lost confidence in certain men, why did you lose confidence in them? Then we come back to the reasons in that letter. But my right hon. friend says he will not be allowed before this committee to prosecute his reasons and give them to the committee, 'because wrongful classification is the reason why he lost confidence^ as he says and- all matters of classification are already before another tribunal and will not be allowed to be taken up by this tribunal. Then where are we to get? It is a blind, it is an attempt to throw dust into the eyes of this country. It throws no dust into the eyes of the members of the House of Commons on either side, they are all clearsighted as to just what this means. They know, but the country that looks to the Prime Minister as the first commoner in the land, as its leader, is treated in that way, dust is thrown into its eyes and that, I think, is not fair.
My right hon. friend had a little jerk-up [DOT]on me. He said I made a very great mistake when I stated he had said that Mr. Lumsden had not been over a portion of that line himself. The statement my right hon. friend made was that Mr. Lumsden had never been over a foot of the line in his. life. In his own mind the Prime Minister may have made a reservation ' until a certain day,' but he did not make that reservation in his first statement, as 'Hansard' will show and it was upon that first statement, not conditioned in any way, that I told the Prime Minister he was mistaken and so he was as far as that statement was concerned. Mr. Lumsden did go over many miles, but not perhaps at the date my hon. friend contemplated.


Wilfrid Laurier: What I said, was that he had not gone over the line to revise the classification of the line; he took the classification from his engineers. I know he went over some of the line.


George Eulas Foster: The point I wash to bring out is that Mr. Lumsden, the chosen engineer of standing, of character, of ability, makes his charges on the 25th day of June, 1909, and Mr. Lumsden's charges on the 25th day of June, 1909, are an exact fae simile of the charges made by Mr. Woods in October, 1907, two years ago. With singular unanimity, every man, who has

the interest of the country at heart, every man who has at heart the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is to a certain extent the interest of the country in keeping down expenditures, every man is a unit, and altogether consistent and persistent in his statement, that this sort of thing is going on. Mr. Lumsden, the government's engineer, states it as his last message to this government, when he resigns. He makes that charge. Not two years ago, nor at any time since, nor now, will this government and the Prime Minister, as its leader, allow the people to see what has become of their money in the face of these great allegations of fraud, misconduct and incompetence.
Now, Sir, I say that the people of this country have that right. We ought to get out of the idea that this is not the people's money that we are dispensing, it is the people's money. Who stands for the people, if we cannot get such an investigation as that? The government's motion does not stand for the people, the government's commission is throwing itself with all its length and all its strength against the people's getting a chance to look into these expenditures from month to month and year to year. They have not only thrown their length against getting at once all the information they can, but they seek to narrow instead of widening the investigation. The government have introduced this motion against the interests of the people. The Grand Trunk Pacific stands for its own interests and not primarily for the interests of the people. There is nobody to-day looking after the interests of the people. The government's motion is looking after the interests of the contractors and of the sub-engineers who disobeyed orders. The Grand Trunk Pacific is looking after it own interest, and when we come and ask the Prime Minister for a chance to let the people see the truth, he refuses. It is 'better for the Prime Minister himself, if anything is wrong, it will redound to the strength of the government and of the Prime Minister, to let the people know it. The people ought to know it. If there is a suspicion of wrong there ought to be an investigation full and free in order that that suspicion may be removed from the administration.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Lennox).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,	McCarthy,
Barker,	Maddin,
Barnard,	Magrath,
Best,	Marshall,
Blain,	Meiglien,
Blondin,	Middlebro,
Borden (Halifax),	Nantel,
Boyce,	Northrup,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Clare,
Cowan,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoel, Daniel,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Foster,
Fraser,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Winnipe Henderson,
Herron,
Jameson,
Kidd,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lortie,
McCall,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Borden (Sir Frederick),
Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Dubeau,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Girard,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Owen,
Paquet,
Perley,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes,
Roche,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds),
Taylor
(New Westminster), Thoburn,
Thornton,
W allace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington),
Wright.-65.
NAYS:
Messieurs McColl,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Talbot,
Templeman,
Tobin,

Lanctot (Richelieu),-	Todd,
Lapointe,	Tolrnie,
Laurier (Sir W.),	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lavergne,	Turcotte
LeBlane,	(Quebec County),
Lemieux,	Turgeon,
Loggie,	Verville,
Macdonald,	Warburton,
MacNutt,	White (Victoria,
McAllister,	Alta.),
McCoig,	Wilson (Laval).-109.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Low,	Smyth,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
Paterson,	Price,
Harris,	Beattie,
Robb,	Doherty,
Aylesworth,	Porter,
German,	Lancaster,
Brodeur,	Lennox,
Neely,	Arthurs,
Gordon (Kent),	Macdonell,
Chisholm (Antigonish)	Worthington,
Douglas,	Hughes,
Sifton,	Haggart (Lanark),
Roy (Dorchester),	Maclean,
Lovell,	Osier,
Allen,	Monk,
Gladu,	Ames,
Beauparlant,	Bristol,
Ecrement,	Forget,
Turriff,	Chisholm (Huron),
Law,	Lewis,
Martin (St. Mary's),	Russell,
Amendment negatived.
Motion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed to on tihe same division reversed.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved tJtie adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business1 will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take up the Bill to prevent the introduction of insects, pests and diseases destructive to vegitation; also the Bill to amend the Seed Control Act, both in charge of Mr. Fisher. After that, we will go into Supply, taking up the estimates of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.09 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 28, 1910.