1910-04-28

Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough).: Mr. Speaker, I desire now to ask the House to dispose of the report of the committee on Marine and Fisheries dealing with the lobster industry, which I discussed shortly yesterday. I will not make any apology for taking up a short time this morning in giving the House the reasons why the committee arrived at their conclusions. My only apology is the importance of the question. I .think I can say that it is of much greater importance than very many of the questions that have engaged the attention of this House during the present session. The committee have made some recommendations in the direction of changing the present law in regard to the lobster industry, and it is absolutely necessary that the government and the House should be put in possession of the reasons that led the committee to arrive at these conclusions. The most .important of the changes recommended is in regard to the size limit of lobsters to be taken along the coast. The coast of Canada is divided under the present regulations into nine divisions extending from Gaspe to the international boundary line on the coast of New Brunswick. The reason for this division is largely climatic. The ice disappears from the coast in certain parts of eastern Canada much earlier than in other parts, so that the fishing can be carried on in .those parts at earlier dates. It is absolutely necessary, in order to give the fishermen the opportunity of prosecuting their business, that this fact be taken note of in dividing the country into districts. I pointed out yesterday that the committee had found it necessary to ask that exact information be obtained as to the size of the lobsters that were being caught along the coast, as a great deal of difference of opinion on that point existed. The committee asked the department to instruct their officers in every division during the past fishing season to have a large number of the lobsters measured, to find out what size were being caught. It was impossible of course to measure all the lobsters arriving at the different points; but the instructions were to select a boat coming in with fish that w.as a good sample of all the others, and to measure every lobster in that boat down to a fraction of an inch, and to Tecord the measurements and return them to the department. Those instructions were carried out, I am informed, in every county along the coast of the four provinces, where lobster canning is carried on. There are a few counties in

the Bay of Fundy district where no canning is carried on, and where measurements were not made, but in all the other counties along the coast it was done. It appears that 600,000 lobsters were measured, and the results tabulated, showing the numbers measured in each district and the percentage of those that were below the size limit. It turned out that in some of the districts more than one-half the lobsters taken were under the legal size, and in one district about two-thirds. This proved two things: in the first place, that the violation of the present law is general all over the coast; and, in the second place, that it is practically impossible to enforce the present size limit, because the result would be to close up every lobster canning factory on the coast of Canada. The regulations relating to the size limit have been in force about 36 years, and the evidence appears to be that they have never been respected at any period in their history, that at no time did the packers refuse to accept what are called illegal or short lobsters, that at no time did the fishermen on any part of the coast throw such lobsters back into the water, that .the universal practice has been to boil everything that was caught.
Now there are great difficulties, as any person will see who is acquainted with the business, in the way of enforcing the size limit. This fishing is carried on over 5,000 miles of coast by about 3,000 boats, the packing is done in about 700 canneries, many of those canneries are situated at isolated points on the coast and are difficult to reach, and a small force of officers would be utterly helpless in enforcing a regulation of that kind. It is so easy to conceal, and so easy to violate it. I do not say it is impossible, I think it is possible, but it would occasion vast expense and if it could be done, I say it would not be wise to do it, because it would be equivalent to the destruction of the industry so far as the packing is concerned. Some fishermen would object to that. There are fishermen in some districts who sell their lobsters alive, who are favourably situated with regard to the Boston market, and who are able to sell them at large prices at points on the coast of the United States. This, however, is not possible on the greater part of the coast of Canada. Most of the fishermen are still dependent on the packing industry. If you will look at the figures, you will find that the packing is a very large business. The total output of lobsters each year is valued at about $4,200,000. Less than one million of that value pertains to the live lobster industry. Three times as much has to be credited to the packing industry, so that the packing or canning industry is by far the largest industry of the two, and it could not be turned down without very grave eonsidera-Mr. SINCLAIR.
tion. This question of the size limit appears to have been a sort of stumbling block to the officers of the department for many years, and as far as I can find, the official opinion has been that it was very difficult to enforce. As far back as 21 years ago, Lieut. A. B. Gordon, R.N., who was the chief fishery officer at that date in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, made a report to the department in which he says :
The present regulations in regard to size limit and the destruction of females carrying exuded ora are intended as protective measures and are without doubt protective enactments; but the question arises how far the enforcement of the enactments is possible with the existing means at the command of the department and the still wider question as to whether the enforcement of the regulations is compatible with the existence of the industry. I consider the fact undeniable that taking the Gulf of St. Lawrence district if the above quoted regulations were strictly enforced not one single packing factory could run for one single day, and if the packers, whose interest and desire it undoubtedly ia to maintain this fishery, were to attempt to enforce the law, the fishermen would directly reply that they could not make a living at fishing with adherence to those regulations, and therefore could not fish for the packers. The rigid enforcement of the existing regulations is therefore tantamount to the closure of the factories.
That was the opinion of Lieut. Gordon 21 years ago, and he was the officer at that time in charge of the protection of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Now, coming down to the present day, I may give the opinion of Mr. Venning, who is the present commissioner of fisheries. Mr. Venning did not make up his mind without a good deal of consideration. He is a very able officer as we all know, and has given great attention to this branch of the department. Mr. Venning visited the coast of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and I think of all the maritime provinces two years ago, in order to investigate this matter. He called every fishery overseer, every fishery official, or at all events, every fishery inspector in charge of the enforcement of the law and consulted them in regard to the enforcement of the law relating to the size limit, and after these consultations which were very carefully gone into, this is what Mr. Venning says in his report to the department:
The preponderance of opinion developed at the inquiry was to .the effect that in many oases a strict enforcement of the existing size limits would, if not entirely close up the canneries, so cripple them as to make it unprofitable to continue operations.
The view held by the canners to-day seems to be that if they are obliged to render a strict observance of the size limit they cannot proceed with the prosecution of the industry.
Now, I will also call another witness, Mr. M. H. Nickerson, member for the county

oi Shelburne, in the local parliament of Nova Scotia. Mr. Nickerson is a man well acquainted with the fishing industry. He was so prominent in that line that he was selected in 1898 as a member of the Royal Commission that investigated this important question. Both Mr. Nickerson and Mr. W. Whitman, M.P.P. for Guysborough, were on that commission, and they both gave the commission the benefit of their evidence. I will read what Mr. Nickerson says on that point:
Q. Is not the great danger to the lobster industry the taking of -small lobsters?-A. Yes, I have admitted that is so.
Q. The first object would be to protect the industry, and is there not a danger of the fishery being destroyed because of small lobsters being taken?-A. The law gives that nominal protection already; what we want is that the small lobster shall be protected in practice as well as in law.
Q. The law that is not enforced is no good. Whose fault is it that it is not enforced? -A. I am obliged to say that it seems to be tacitly agreed by all parties concerned that the law with regard to size should go by default. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Q. That is what is destroying the whole industry, the law is not enforced?-A. I have nothing to say in opposition to that.
Then I want to give the opinion of Mr. H. E. Baker, of Cape Breton. Mr. Baker has been all his lifetime engaged in the lobster industry, and there is no man in the _ maritime provinces who is better acquainted with that industry. The question asked of Mr. Baker was:
Q. If you reduce the size to 7 inches would you not be encouraging the destruction of the female lobster before it reaches the age where it is easily distinguishable as a berried lobster? ^* ^u;-v are destroyed now almost about that size, some about 4 inches in size 1 understand in some places.
Q. Well, what do you say about that, do you think it is a good thing?-A. No, it is not a good thing if one can prevent it. The size limit has been universally disregarded tt0^0?1*^.*11 ^is country but even in the United States where they have been trying to maintain a lOJ-inch limit, particularly in Maine. The fishermen find a way of getting a market for their short lobsters.
Then I take the opinion of Capt, Chas. Lonnes, of Canso, Nova Scotia.
Q. There is no use having a regulation that is not enforced?-A. I think there is not a packer who would not stand up and tell you himself that there is not a factory in Canada that does observe the law, if it did it might as well go out of business. Now what is the good of a law that is just discredited to that extent that the man himself will tell you so? There is no good having that law on the statute book.
- Michael Leehan, of Mount Stewart, Prince Edward Island, was asked:
Q. Bo you think it would be possible to enforce the regulation?-A. If you did enforce it, it would put us out of the business and the fishermen could not fish.
Cj. Supposing we tried to enforce it?-A. We would only last about a week and there would be nobody in the business.
Q. It would drive everybody out of the business?-A. Yes, drive everybody out.
I want also to give you the opinion of a prominent man in the fishermens' union, Mr. D. Scott, of Main-a-Dieu, in the island of Cape Breton. Mr. Scott says he has had large experience in this industry, that he worked in a factory for 18 years, that he has the experience of four years' lobster fishing. And he is now the secretary of one of the most active fishermens' unions on the coast. This is an abstract from the evidence of Mr. Scott:
There- is one thing I have to say, and that is that the law in reference to the protection of the spawn or berried lobster, and the small lobster, that is the lobster under the -size limit, has never been adhered to or observed by the fishermen or the packers in this locality during my 18 years' experience
* # # #
I might say that away back in 1893, there was an effort made to enforce the size limit here in this locality, we had the late inspector coming in to harass us, at all hours, even at night, he was coming morning, noon and every other time of day.
Q. That was in 1893?-A. In 1893. It was necessary then in order that we might protect ourselves, I was working then in the factory, to take all precautions. They kept such a close watch on us, and were so hard on us, that the men who were receiving the lobsters on the wharf had to cull all the undersized and all the spawn lobsters as quickly as they could and put them in a separate part of the dock, hiding them to-day in one place and to-morrow in another, in order that we might save the factory or the proprietor from being fined. This was done so successfully, that I think from 1902 to 1906 the factory paid three fines.
I could go on and multiply these opinions of men who are prominent in the business and know what they are talking about, all going to show that this regulation in regard to the size limit has not been observed and that it is not practicable to observe it. The question was asked a number of times what they would think of the proposal to reduce the size limit from eight inches to seven inches. Very little encouragement was given to the committee to report in favour of that proposition. In the first place, it would seem to be too lovs a size to produce seed lobsters. The lobster, we were informed, does not reproduce itself until it is about eight inches in size. So if we legalized the killing of them down to seven inches, we should not arrive a-t the object we seek. And besides, we should have the same difficulty in regard to enforcement-the enforcement'

of the seven inch regulation would not be any easier than the enforcement of the sight-inch regulation. It would appear that, unless the department is willing to put a large force of men on the coast, and, for that purpose, to spend a great many thousands of dollars, it would ba impossible to enforce a regulation of that kind. The committee, therefore, sought to learn whether there was not some other plan that could be adopted that would conserve the industry better than this size limit. Of course, i need to say, we were all impressed with the great importance of preserving the lobster industry. It is the greatest fishing industry we have at present on our coast; and next to the salmon industry in British Columbia, it is the greatest fishing industry of Canada. When we know that it is the last remaining great lobster industry in the world, we realize how important it is. I am informed that lobsters are not found in the Pacific ocean, nor in the Indian ocean; they are not found far north nor far south. They are found only in the North Atlantic. They are now, I believe, quite scarce on the coast of Europe, and there are not many on the coast of the United States, with the exception of Maine. So we have in the maritime provinces the last great lobster fishery of the world, and it is of the greatest importance that we should preserve it. The members of the committee were all impressed with the idea that, as it had proved that the present regulation is not working well and is not resulting in the preservation of the lobsters, and that it is not possible to enforce it without stopping the industry altogether, it was necessary to arrive at some other method by which the smallest of the lobsters could be protected. And the proposal submitted is that a regulation trap be prescribed with the slats so far apart that the small lobsters will have a chance to escape. In this way the lobster can look after himself without the fishery overseer chasing around to look after him. We think this method would work out to the preservation, to some extent at all events, of the industry.
There is some but not much difference of opinion in regard to the question as to whether the trap will work out in practice or not. A great many witnesses-men who had large experience in these matters- were asked their opinion and frankly expressed an opinion and it was always present to the committee in looking over the evidence that, of late years, as the lobsters began to get smaller in size, the slats of the traps began to come closer together. It was obvious that the fishermen were doing this for the purpose of keeping in the small lobsters, and it was thought that, if we could arrive at a regulation trap with slats far enough apart to let the small lobsters out, we should be Mr. SINCLAIR.
making a long step toward preserving the industry. Having settled in our own mind that the old regulation had proved useless altogether, it was felt that a regulation of the kind proposed, if established and carried out, might be of great advantage in preserving the industry. Regarding the recommendations made by Commander Wakeham, we could not make up our minds to agree with altogether, some of them were very good, but others seemed not entirely advisable. For example, he recommended that, west of Halifax, the size limit should be 101 inches. When we looked over the measurements made in that district we found that only about 15 per cent of the lobsters caught in that district came up to the limit he recommended. We felt that to adopt the regulation he proposed would be equivalent to stopping the lobster industry altogether in the district west of Halifax. We found that measurements made were as follows :
County.	No. of Lobsters.
Lunenburg	 4,060
Queens	 19,513
Shelburne	 20,730
Yarmouth	 3,924
Digby	 12,094
Total	 60,321
It was found that 55-9 per cent of these lobsters were under the legal size-that is. under nine inches-and only 15 per cent were over 10 inches. To adopt a limit of 10i inches, as any hon. member can see, would be equivalent to stopping the whole lobster industry in that territory. There were 53 canneries operating in that territory in 1909, and they produced a total pack of 1,451,720 1-lb- cans valued at $362,930. The regulation, in that case, of course, would protect the lobsters. But, in my opinion, it would kill the fishermen. We do not think the lobster industry in such a bad position that it is necessary to do that.
But instead of this, we are making the recommendation, of which I have already spoken, prescribing a certain kind of trap to- be used. You will see, sir, how easy it is for the inspector to inspect the traps. He can take a trip along the coast in the spririg of the year before the fishing begins and have a look at them. He can easily tell whether the traps are or are not made according to the rule requiring that the slats be not less than 11 inches apart.
While it would be impossible for him to watch. 10,000 or 12,000 fishermen and 700 factories, it is quite possible for the inspectors along the coast to have an eye on the traps and to see that they are not used unless they are made according to the regulations. This question was put to a large number of witnesses, and if the House will bear with me I would like to put these witnesses on record. I know that

there will be a great deal of criticism of what the committee have done. I know there are many theorists along the coast who will say we have taken a step backward, and that the step we have taken is likely to result in the destruction of the lobster industry; and, for that reason, I would like to show to the House and the country that in this investigation held by Commander Wakeham along the coast a large number of men have undertaken on oath to give their opinion in regard to this proposal, and also in regard to the right kind of trap or engine to be used so as to protect the fish. I shall read a number of these opinions. The following is the opinion of Mr. Wm. O. Porter, who describes himself as a fisherman:
Q. What is your opinion about the matter of the trap, do you think that the taking of small lobsters could be regulated by insisting on a certain legal trap with a fixed space between the slats?-A. I do not think there is any doubt but what you could build traps so that all of them below the proper size would find their way out, because they are very active in hunting their way out of the trap. I have found them nearly out when hauling the trap.
Q. Some fishermen hold that once the trap is disturbed the lobster will not try to get out?-A. I suppose that is a matter of opinion. I know that if I put a trap in the water with the laths wide apart I do not get as many small lobsters, it is a question whether they get in or not.
Q. Is there a tendency in recent years to narrow the slats?-A. There has been with me I know.
I wish to give the evidence of Augustus Harris, a member of the executive of the Fishermen's Union of Long Beach, N.S.:
Q. Is there any difference in the trap you now fish with compared with that in use when you began years ago?-A. Tes, I doubt if the space between the laths will now average three-quarters of an inch, and it used to be one and three-quarters.
Q. That reduction must have been made for the purpose of holding the small lobster, was it not?-A. Certainly, that is the only reason.
Q. Do you think we could protect the general run of small lobsters by insisting on a standard trap with a certain space between the laths, say one and a half inch?-A. Yes, I have always been of that opinion.
Q. You think that would govern it largely? -A. Yes, I could give you the figures of lobsters that I counted myself and the number of traps; one man fished 38 traps and he had 381 lobsters, 152 from 9 to 101, and he had only 12 tinkers; another man had 96 traps closely lathed, and he got 36 large lobsters, 156 from 9 to 10| and over 400 tinkers.
Charles Lonnes, of Canso, says:
Q. We were looking at some traps on the wharf and they run about one inch here?- A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that has anything to do with the capture of small lobsters? Do you
think that the capture of these small lobsters can be controlled to any extent by regulating the width between the slats?-A. To a very great extent. If you put the slats close enough together you are bound to capture the greater amount of small lobsters that go in, whereas if the slats were far enough apart so that they could go out any way you would get very few of them.
Take the opinion of Mr. John W. Sproull, a fish dealer and packer of Canso, N.S., who has a large experience in this business and whose opinion is worth as much as that of any man on the coast of Nova Scotia on such a question:
Q. Other propositions have been made, some have said, 'give us a 7 inch limit instead of an 8-inch limit and we will observe the law.' You know that we began with a 9-inch limit which was not enforced and then an 8-inch limit was given because they said they would observe that, and now they want a 7-inoh limit.-A. I would not propose anything of that kind. If you were going to propose anything along this line I -would propose that the trap should have a certain space between the slats.
Q. What would you put that at here?-A. The fishermen around here use the head of the hammer as a gauge, and that is about an inch. There are a few undersized lobsters caught in those traps, but I should say that if the space were made 1 and I inch it would be all right.
Take the opinion of a man in the Magdalen Islands, Mr. W. C. Leslie, a lobster packer of the Magdalen Islands, who says:
The ordinary traps here have laths an inch apart and they very seldom take lobsters under 7 inches.
Mr. Robert Bell, of Alberton, P.E.I., gave the following testimony:
Q. Do you think the regulations have ever been enforced in your recollection?-A. Not strictly.
Q. Were they ever, at any time, more strictly enforced than they are now?-A. Seme 15 years ago there was a law passed that the first two laths of the trap had to be an inch and a quarter apart. That was strictly enforced. At that time also there was a limit regulation and that was very strictly enforced. I know that because I was fined once.
Q. Have you ever heard of anybody being fined recently?-A. Not very recently.
Q. Was that when Sir Hibbert Tupper was minister?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you think yourself of that regulation limiting the space between the slats? -A. I think it had a great tendency to protect the small lobster and the really small lobsters are of no value to the packer. It is a great injury to the industry to destroy them.
Here is a man who had had experience, and who used the trap made according to that regulation 15 years ago, and he gives his experience that it did operate to protect the small lobster.
Take the opinion ,of Peter Mclsaac, of Bay Shore, P.E.I.:	,

Q. What would you fix the limit of 6pace at, say in the three lower slats?-A. I would say not less than an inch anyway. I put mine at about an inch or slightly over that. That is from my own experience, I find it better.
Q. Do you not think by having a space of at least an inch and a quarter a larger proportion of the undersized lobsters would escape?-A. Well, yes.
Q. It must be wrong, must it not, to kill off the small lobsters?-A. It is, but the trap at the end, as a general thing, has heads that are knit with quite a large mesh and a large number of the small lobsters work through anyway.
I want also to give the opinion of Mr. T. C. Gallant, a canner and fisherman of Summerside, P.E.I.:
If the fishermen build their traps with only half an inch space between the slats they will catch all the small fish, but if the slats are an inch apart those lobsters have got a chance to work their way out. I believe in hatcheries all right but not in spending money on them and then allowing the fishermen to take lobsters that are only four inches in 6ize.
W. A. Macdonald of Grand Tracadie Harbour, P.E.I., said:
Q. What distance apart are the slats in your traps?-A. I don't think they would be more than three-quarters of an inch at the outside.
Q. Do you think it is desirable to have the slats as narrow as that; do you not think it would be wiser to keep them a little farther apart and in that way allow the small lobsters a chance to get out?-A. If you lost the small lobsters on the north side you would lose them all, and you might as well shut down.
Q. What lobsters do you throw out?-A. We dont throw out any.
Then take the evidence of Mr. J. A. Ellis, a canner at Cape St. Mary, N.S.:
Q. Do you think by establishing a standard space between the slats it would be possible to allow the escape of the small lobsters?-A. Yes, I think it is. Of course the narrower you have the space between the slats the smaller lobsters you will hold; you will let out the very small lobsters if you have a little more space between the slats.
Wm. McLeod, of Alberton, P.E.I., gave the following evidence:
Q. Now, with a view to protecting the fishery, are there any changes you would suggest in the regulations?-A. I would suggest to put the laths in the trap far enough apart to let a 7-inch lobster go. It would be a little bard for a few years but it would bring thf fishery up again to its former state.
Q. What would you say to a regulation which would do away with the size limit, control the distance between the slats, and close the fishery on the 1st July, always protecting the berried lobster as thoroughly as possible?-A. I think that would be a good thing.
Q. Do you think if that were done and carried out strictly it would have the effect of preserving the industry?-A. It would have that effect.


John Howard Sinclair: Q. And in a few years the fishermen would reap the benefit by an increased catch?-A. Yes.
I also wish to give you the opinion of James McMillan, canner, of Georgetown, P.E.I.:
Q. What is the width at present between your slats?-A. They are pretty close down now but the sill is about three quarters of an inch. If the lath is put down on the sill I think it would be all right. If that were done and the lath nailed across it would not catch the lobsters too small but they could get away. A small lobster can get out through a pretty small space if it has the opportunity.
Q. What size lobster would get out through an inch opening?-A. Well a 7-inch lobster could get out through that.
Q. Do you think the lobsters make any effort to scramble clear of the trap when it is coming up, or are they more likely to grab on to something until they get to the surface? -A. I think they do get out very often, some of the fishermen say they do anyway.


Then John P.: Sutherland of St. Peter's Bay, P.E.I. :
Q. Do you not think it mu,t exhaust the fishery very rapidly to destroy the young and immature lobsters?-A. Well, I would think so.
Q. Do you think we could stop the destruction of them by insisting upon a fair space between the slats of the trap?-A. I would think so.
Q. What would you put the space at?-A. I would put it at an inch.
Q. That you think would allow these very small lobsters to escape?-A. Yes, they would escape at an inch.
Norman McPhee, fisherman, of Clear Spring, P.E.I. :
Q. Do you not think that the modern trap with a very narrow opening is unnecessarily destructive, that it is destroying too many of the young fish?-A. Oh, certainly it gets too many young fish.
Q. How would remedy that?-A. By opening the trap.
Q. What width would you suggest?-A. I would think that about seven-eights of an inch would allow those small lobsters to pass out.
Q. Would you have that width all over the trap or only in the bottom laths?-A. In the bottom is sufficient. That is the way they naturally go out.
I wish also to give you the opinion of M. Nickerson, canner, of Clarke's Harbour, N.S. :
Q. What do you think about this matter of the traps? Do you think that it would be wise to establish a regulation-it has been suggested that the taking of the small lobsters should be regulated by having a trap so constructed that while retaining the large lobsters it would permit the small ones to escape, and the question is what kind of trap is best adapted for that purpose-providing that there should be a certain opening between the slats in the trap?-A. Well, that

would let a lot of them go out, there is no doubt about that, if the opening were large enough.
W. H. Giffin, of Goldboro, N.S. :
Q. Do you think such a regulation would be of service?-A. It would be one of the best things in the world.
Q. Would the small lobster go out?-A. If you were acquainted with the lobster as well as I am you would think he would go out.
Q. As long as there is bait in the trap will he go out?-A. I have seen them all going out as fast as they could when you are hauling.
There are a large number of other opinions that I could give you but it would be too tiresome to the House. I will therefore refer you to the evidence which is comprised in two large volumes, which was taken by Commander Wakeham, and which is available to any person who wishes to study it. I think I have shown that there seems to be a general opinion among the fishermen and packers that were examined in Tegard to this matter, that the widening of the slats of the trap would have the effect of saving the small lobsters. It is quite clear to me that at present we do not save them, that the present regulation is an utter failure in that respect; and it is important, if we can get a better regulation that will save the small lobsters, that the government should adopt it.
One of the other questions that came before the committee and a question about which there has been a good deal of controversy is that of granting licenses. A few years ago I believe it was felt by the department that there were too many canneries, and that if it were possible to encourage the live lobster industry by restricting the number of canneries, we ought to do so. The way to do that of course was to refuse to grant any more licenses. Many of the licenses were in the hands of a few companies, and these companies acquired others, and it had the appearance in some parts of the coast as if a monopoly was growing up. After the department refused to grant new licenses, an agitation arose among the fishermen, and it was stated in some places that this was a reason why better prices were not paid for the raw materials to the fishermen. I have not found very much evidence of that fact. At the same time it was felt by the committee that there is no logical reason why the department should step in to protect lobster canners, and why a lobster canner should not be in the same position as a grocer or merchant and fight his own way with other lobster canners for business. It is certain that on the greater part of the coast it would not very much increase fishing to give more licenses because nearly every fisherman who is equipped with a boat and able to catch fish at all, is fishing at present. So if you cut off the license you simply divide up the work of these fishermen among new canneries. There are points on the coast in the northern parts of Canada where the canner owns the equipment, and where he hires the men and pays them wages. Of course on those parts of the coast the multiplication of canneries would increase the catch to some extent. However, there did not seem to be any logical reason why the department should refuse licenses to the men who had the proper equipment. The opinion of the committee was that where a man could show to the officers of the department that he had a proper equipment he ought to be given a license to carry on the business.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel at all despondent -about the future of the lobster industry. You will find it stated that the lobster. industry is a failing industry, that it is not likely to last many years longer. I do not think that is a correct view. I am of the opinion that the lobster industry has shown a great deal of vitality. I have shown you that during the whole course of its history, this method that we did adopt many years ago for its protection has not been carried out, that the berried lobster has been destroyed on all sides, that the small lobster has also been destroyed, and that very little protection was afforded. You will find that it is almost impossible to preserve the fishing on the coast by adhering to these old regulations, because the honest fisherman who wants to do an honest business and who is anxious to preserve the berried lobster, which of course is the foundation of the industry, the man who is anxious to do his duty when he threatens his neighbour for violating the law by killing berried lobsters, the latter immediately retorts, ' You are breaking the law too.' As a matter of fact, all the lobster fishermen in that way become violators of the law. That is one of the reasons that influenced myself and that influenced other members of the committee in getting rid of these regulations that make every fisherman practically -a law-breaker who is engaged in -this business. Now I was saying that we have no reason to be despondent in regard to the lobster industry. There has been a decrease in the live lobster industry, a very decided decrease in the catch of live lobsters. I am not certain but that the reason may be that the large lobsters are becoming scarce on certain parts of the coast.
The live lobster industry only applies to parts of the coasts of Nova Scotia and to the southern coasts of New Brunswick. It does not apply to the north at all. nor practically to Cape Breton. The statistics that we have with regard to the canning industry are reliable. We know every case that is canned because there is government stamp placed on every case,

and it very easy to get correct statistics; therefore, we know that the statistics in regard to the capning industry are correct. I find that in the year 1898 the number of one-lb. cans put up on the coast was 10,730,594. I find that ten years later, in the year 1908, which is the last year for which we have statistics, the number of one-pound cans put up was	10,911,498,
showing an increase of about 200,000 cans during ten years. That does not look like a failing industry. It looks as if it were a growing business. It is quite true that when you come to deal with the live lobster industry there is a decrease in the catch. I am not able to explain it. There was an explanation given that we have not correct statistics about the live lobster industry, because live lobsters are often sold in the markets of the United States and no record is kept. I do not know whether that is correct. I am told that the department is adopting a method that will be used for the collection of reliable statistics with regard to the live lobster industry. But, it does look as if it were a failing industry. And yet I am inclined to think that with proper regulations, by adopting this suggestion as regards the trap so that the smaller lobsters will escape, by protecting the berried lobster thoroughly and by increasing the number of hatcheries and pounds along the coast, the industry may be made a permanent one. I am not alone in that opinion. I suppose that the man in the department who has given the most attention to this matter is Mr. Venning, the present commissioner of fisheries, whose opinion we all respect, and this is what Mr. Venning says:
I do not take the pessimistic view that a great many people are taking with regard to the lobster fishery. I do not consider that the lobster fishery is anything like destroyed and I do not think it is within reasonable reach of destruction. I do appreciate that probably the time has come when the most persistent effort should be made to continue the lobster industry; but that the fishery is a thing of the past and that we have now to take some very drastic measures to bring it back to life again does not seem to be at all a correct view, in my opinion.
That is the opinion of Mr. Venning, and I am very glad to be able to state to the House that the industry does look so hopeful. The recommendations made to the committee are before the House. They are as follows:
1.	That the existing regulations relating to size limit be abolished.
2.	That in lieu thereof regulations be adopted and enforced providing that all traps used for the taking of lobsters constructed after 1910 shall have the laths placed not less than 11 inches apart, and that the mesh, when netting is used, be not less than three inches extension measurement; and that com-


John Howard Sinclair: mencing with the year 1911 all existing traps be remodelled by removing a sufficient number of laths nearest the bottom from each side and replacing the same so that the three lower spaces shall be each not less than 11 inches.
3.	That any person or firm equipped to the satisfaction of the department, be entitled to a license to pack; that a standard of equipment be aimed at and that existing factories be brought within the regulations as to equipment, within two years from date of the adoption of the new regulations; and that no officer or other person in the employ of the department shall be directly or indirectly interested in any plant or factory operating under license from the government.
4.	That the present regulation, imposing a fee on each case of lobsters packed be amended so that commencing in 1911 five dollars be charged on any number of cases up to one hundred, and two dollars for each additional hundred cases or fraction thereof.
5.	That more rigid regulations be adopted and strictly enforced providing for the protection of the berried lobster.
6.	That an educational campaign be inaugurated and carried on under the direction of the department, among fishermen and packers, with a view of creating a sentiment in favour of observing and enforcing the regulations.
7.	That the counties of Charlotte and St. John in the province of New Brunswick be a separate coastal division with a size limit of 4| inches carapace measurement, and that the fishing season in such division be from January 6 to June 29.
8.	That having regard to the great importance of the Canadian fisheries with vast interest allied but distinct from the marine, your committee would suggest that due consideration be given to the advisability of having a deputy minister whose duties would be confined to the Fisheries Branch, independent altogether of the Marine Branch.
9.	That your committee are of opinion from the evidence produced that the propagation of lobsters by means of pounds and hatcheries, is of special importance to the lobster industry, and would recommend the extension, with as little delay as possible, of this branch of the service.
I may explain, with regard to the exception made in reference to the counties of Charlotte and St. John in the province of New Brunswick, that there is practically no packing carried on in those districts, and that consequently the industry is a live lobster industry.' The market is chiefly in the United States. They are able, where there is no packing to deal with, to get the largest lobsters. You cannot sell a lobster on the Boston market unless it measures nine inches. We therefore thought it was advisable to give Charlotte and St. John a separate limit and to set them apart as a separate district. Objection was taken .yesterday with regard to my motion. It was said that the motion involved an expenditure of money and that It was not properly before the House in the shape in

which I had presented it. In looking into the matter I find that is true. I have therefore decided not to move for the adoption of the report as it would be irregular to do so, although I believe that the report is in a large degree acceptable to the department and that there is no reason excepting a technical one why the House should not adopt it. I have decided, in place of moving for its adoption, to move that the report be referred to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for consideration. I therefore make that motion.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: Before this matter is disposed of, I would like to know why, in the corridors upstairs, if so much interest is being taken in this lobster industry, you will find from five to six cords of blue-books on lobster fishins lying from year to year, because I believe that many of these books came over from last year, and I would ask why they are not sent out to the people to read. Has it been an oversight? Do the people down there not take sufficient interest in lobster fishing to make it desirable to send out these books after the country has been at the expense of printing them, for, as the hon. member suggests, possibly the members think they cannot read. I think they are intelligent enough to read and understand these reports, but it seems to me we are wasting a fearful lot of money on this lobster industry, and that the members from that part of the country are not- taking the interest which they ought to in disseminating information with respect to lobster fishing. In the lobbies of this building you will find blue-books on the lobster industry piled up by the cord, five, six or seven cords.


John Howard Sinclair: The department asked for 5,000 copies and I think that many of the books referred to belong to the department. The members have used very many of them. I sent out 1,000 myself to my constituents and I know that other gentlemen have done the same thing so that many thousands have been sent out this winter. They are very valuable to the fishermen and packers along the coast. I can assure the hon. gentleman that they can read, he need not worry about that, they are very intelligent men indeed. It may be that some hon. gentlemen who asked to have the blue-books printed did not send them to their constituents. The members of the committee were asked to say how many they would require in order to send the publication out to their constituents, they sent in their requests and upon this the calculation of the number to be printed was made.


Mr. SPROULE.: This is a new departure in dealing with such reports. In the order of references to the old standing committees they were directed to examine into the subject referred to them, to examine persons and send for papers, etc., and then report to the House their observations and recommendations. That was for the information of the House and that information was before the department interested through the minister. Such reports contain much information of value to a department. The proper motion for the hon. gentleman to make in order to discuss this report would be that the report be now taken into consideration. Usually these reports are made to the House and there is no motion for their adoption because such a report (as this one does) may call for the expenditure of money. Numbers four, five, six, eight and nine involve the expenditure of public money and therefore if this House adopted it, it would be an instruction to the government to carry it out and it is not the usual custom to provide for the expenditure of public money in that way. With Tegard to departmental regulations, one, two, three, five, six and seven are recommendations to the department which should be taken cognisance of by the department. Thus, although the hon. member's aim may be a good one, his procedure is a departure from the usual practice and may lead to other irregularities in the future that will be rather confusing than otherwise to the average member of the House.


Mr. U. WILSON.: If these reports were all referred to the joint committee on printing it would lead to the saving of a great deal of unnecessary printing.


Mr. FIELDING.: The object of the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) I fancy was simply to make a motion which would permit him to present to the House a little more fully than in the report, the reasons_ which led the committee to come to their decision. As one who is very much interested in the subject I want to thank the hon. membeT for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and the other members of this committee for what I regard as the very valuable service they have rendered in the investigation of this subject. Of course a vast territory like Canada has many industries. Many hon. gentlemen here have little or no knowledge of this matter and possibly may hastily assume that the question is not of the utmost importance, but I can assure them, as the hon. member for Guysborough has said, that in a large part of the coast district of Canada this is a matter of great importance affecting the living, the habits, the comfort and the prosperity of a large number of people and therefore, although the session is far advanced, no harm will be done by devoting a few minutes to the discussion of this subject. I must say I regret the determination of the committee to recommend the abolition of the size limit, but I am impressed with the reasons that have

been advanced in support of that view and I am not disposed to find fault. The difficulty in the past has been to enforce the regulations. Whenever we put on the statute-books laws -and regulations running far in advance of public opinion we must expect that there will be difficulty and failure in their enforcement. Unfortunately that has been the case with the lobster regulations. You will meet many men, especially those with access to the American market, who can sell live lobsters at a profitable rate, who are indifferent to the canning industry, who will say that the size limit should be rigidly observed, but as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) it has been perfectly clear that the enforcement -of the size limit, while it may -serve the interests of the fishermen in some particular sections, would destroy the canning industry of the country. I regard the canning industry as one which must gradually be pushed back into the more distant portions of the Dominion. Those portions of our coast that are within easy reach of the American market, and that have convenient methods of transportation both to the American market and the consuming centres of Canada, will find the live lobster trade profitable, and with a constant demand for live lobsters in a district the canning industry must find itself in difficulty and must be pushed back fo_ those sections of the lobster fishing districts where the facilities for transportation are not so good. For the moment the canning industry is preserved by the recommendations of this committee, but every one interested in the canning industry within districts having easy access to the market for live lobsters must look forward to the time_ when that business will be a dying one and perhaps become extinct. One of the most unpleasant features of the situation in the past has been the inequality of the enforcement of the law. One not very well informed may say that that is the fault of the officials-why should they not enforce the law? Sometimes we pass laws that cannot be enforced. Here and there a fishery officer taking a rigid view of his duties would attempt to enforce the regulations. I remember a case of a man interested in a friend who had committed a violation of the laws, who came to me complaining that he had a great grievance. He said his friend had been put in jail for violating the law, I said: was he guilty or innocent? Oh, well, he said, he violated the law, of course. I -said: what are you complaining about? He said: I am complaining because there are hundreds of others all along this coast who are violating the law and nothing is done; I am grumbling because the law is rigidly enforced in this case and not in other cases.
In view of all these circumstances I have reluctantly come to the -conclusion that Mr. FIELDING.
the abolition of the size limit may as well be abolished as it cannot be enforced. There is a small district in New Brunswick, including the counties of Charlotte and St. John, where they are able to enforce not only a size limit, but a very large size limit. There they only take lobsters of very large size; it suits the condition of their market; and the committee have wisely agreed to maintain the regulations in that respect. The purpose of the committee is not to keep up the enforcement of the size limit in the other portions of Canada, which has been found impossible, but to direct the attention of the authorities to the preservation of lobsters in other ways, for instance, in regard to the space between the slats of the traps. I am hopeful that what my hon. friend from Guysborough and his excellent committee recommend will be helpful in that direction. Above all, there should be strict enforcement of the law in regard to taking seed lobsters. In that respect we should have, as the committee recommends, a campaign of education among the fishermen, with the view of getting them to appreciate the importance of the industry, not only to themselves, but to those who come after them; and I would not complain of any severity that might be shown towards a fisherman or a canner who would take what is called a berried lobster. If the law is enforced in that respect and an improvement is brought about in regard to the space between the slats of the traps, I am hopeful that much good may be done. I do not wish to detain the House further than to express my appreciation of the work done by the committee. I belive I was criticised some time -ago for saying that I represented more lobsters than any other man in Canada. I will have to amend that and say I represent a constituency which produces more lobsters than any other constituency in Canada. It is very important industry to the people of that constituency. Without any disparagement of other classes of fishermen, I may say that by reason of the fact that that part of the country is close to the United States, and that they are able to use the American market, they have brought the lobster fishing industry to a more than ordinarily high position. The business is well done and the fishermen use the most modem improvements. In these as in other lines they are introducing gasoline boats. I know that there will be a wide difference of opinion among fishermen in regard to this report; but I hope that the department will be able to carry out the recommendation in regard to starting a campaign of education among the fishermen who will be able to help them to enforce the law. The fishermens' union which has already been referred to, has done good work in educating its members. Much has been done, and there is

room for more to be done. The work of the committee, I am sure, will have a most excellent effect, and as one representing a community largely interested in the matter, I desire to thank the hon. member for Guysborough and the committee for the attention they have given to the subject.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I entirely agree in the importance of this question to many parts of the maritime provinces. A great deal of time and attention has been given to the subject by the Committee on Fisheries, and I only trust that the action of the department, coupled with the report of that committee, may result in bringing about better conditions in the lobster fisheries than those which obtain at the present time. The subject is one ef very great difficulty. I have not given to it the same amount of attention that has been bestowed upon it by my hon. friend from Guysborough and the hon. Minister of Finance, although I have given it a good deal of consideration in connection with my own constituency. As far as I understand the problem, it is this; how can you find a course of action which will preserve the lobster fisheries as a great industry, and at the same time do justice to the fishermen and to invested capital in every reasonable respect. I am not prepared to say at the moment how far the recommendations of the committee are likely to bring that about. That is a matter principally for the consideration of the department, which is entrusted with the responsibility of taking such action as is consistent with the two conditions to which I have just alluded; and when I use the term invested capifal, I refer not only to the canners, but to the fishermen themselves, who have a very large proportion of their own capital invested in this great industry, and who are well worthy of every consideration at the hands of this government and this parliament. I would have been glad if my hon. friend from Guysborough, who has made a very illuminating speech, had been able to condense his remarks into a little smaller compass, as the matter must be eventually dealt with by the department, and be brought back to this House for further discussion. I am not aware of the course my hon. friend proposed to take, or I would have put myself in a position to discuss this question more intelligently. Let me say in that regard that it seems to me rather a curious practice for parliament to refer a report to a department. It would seem to me that a department of a government does not need any reference of such a report from this parliament. It is the duty of the department without any reference from parliament to take this report into consideration and to accept executive responsibility with regard to it. I have never heard before of a reference by 261
parliament otherwise than to a committee of parliament. A reference by parliament to a department seems to be something of an innovation. However, if it is thought best by the government and the chairman of the committee that such a motion should pass, I shall not interpose any technical objection. But I do not think that the House should have some notice of motions of this character. I did not know before this morning that my hon. friend proposed to make a motion to refer this report to a department of the government, or I would have looked into the precedents a little. Yesterday my hon. friend proposed a motion for the adoption of the report. I do not know whether that was proper or not. It was held eventually that it would not be proper, for some reason indicated by the Prime Minister yesterday and by the hon. member for Guysborough to-day. I am not prepared to say that outside of that consideration it would have been a proper course to pursue in respect to a report of this kind.


William Stevens Fielding: It is merely equivalent to a motion that it lie on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: What I suggest is that if there is to be any motion dealing with a report of this kind, the House should have some notice of what is intended. For example, the Minister of Finance may have known of the motion.


William Stevens Fielding: Not until a moment ago.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the Minister of Finance think that he and I and all the other members of this House should have some notice of what the intended motion is? I am not imputing any special blame to the hon. member for Guysborough. He has very properly brought forward a very important subject, and is entitled to credit for having bestowed a great deal of time and industry and attention upon it; but when it is coming up for consideration in this House, I think we should know in advance what is coming. I do not intend at the present moment to raise a question of order. I desire that this matter shall be forwarded in every possible way; but I invite your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the question in relation to the general business of the House, as to whether we should not in the future have some practice established by which we shall know what is coming in respect to reports of this kind.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I think the hon. member for Guysborough proposed yesterday to move concurrence in the report.
Exception was taken to that procedure by officers of the House and by the department on the ground that if parliament committed itself to the report it would have to carry out the regulations. Now, the hon.



member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) changed his resolution to avoid that difficulty. I take it, it does not matter very much whether it is a motion to take into consideration the report or to refer it to the minister. My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair), I suppose, desired to conclude his speech with a motion. Now, in respect to the report, it was laid on the table of the House on Monday, I think, and the departmental officers have had little time to consider it. I had a conversation this morning with the deputy minister, and I was advised that on the whole the report was favourably received by the officers of the department, and that they are prepared to put in force, at all events most of the recommendations. There are several with which they do not agree, but they agree with the most important one, the abolition of the size limit of the lobster. They approve also of the increase of the space between the slats although they would prefer to have the space a little larger. In one or two other respects they slightly disagree. However, that is a matter for consideration and adjustment later. I believe that the recommendations of the committee will be of valuable assistance to the officers of the department in framing regulations protecting the lobster industry during the current year, and in applying them next year, and I am instructed that most of these recommendations can be enforced with the approval of the department, probably all of them.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Before the hon. minister leaves that question, I would like him to tell us if his department is pot able to carry out these regulations without being goaded by parliament by a.special vote.


William Templeman: The department can frame regulations and carry them out but the department is very pleased indeed to have the recommendation of the committee. The committee have gone to a great deal of trouble. They have called a large number of witnesses, and elicited a great deal of information that will be of great assistance to the officers of the department in enforcing the regulations in future. I have no views to express myself on the regulations; I am not familiar enough with the subject. On the Pacific coast we are trying to plant lobsters, having imported some from the Atlantic coast, and probably in a few years we will have as valuable an industry there as on the Atlantic coast, and if we do get it, we will try to conserve it. I can only say on behalf of the department, that this matter will receive the very earliest and best consideration they can give to it, and in the main, I believe that the recommendations of the committee will be incorporated in the regulations to be enforced next year.	. t


William Templeman: 


Mr. CROSBY.: I must say that as a member of that committee, I have been somewhat surprised at the stand taken by the chairman in bringing in this report here. We have heard from the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the department will take this matter into consideration. Now, the Department of Fisheries have had a law standing on the statute-book for years which they have not even attempted to carry out. This committee all last session, and has been sitting all this session, and now we have a report that is practically a report of the department, because we have had all the officers of the department available. We are told that the department must be consulted. The department is for the purpose of carrying out the orders of this parliament. What is a department for but for the purpose of carrying out the orders of this parliament? I am somewhat -surprised, because we are going to be in the same position as we have been in for a number of years. We have had for years a lobster fishery 'law on the statute-book, to carry out which no attempt was made. The only thing that has been carried out has been a monopoly of canning licenses. We have a report by which we propose to do away with that monopoly, and I think it is important that it should be put into effect as soon as possible. I do not see why it should not be put into effect. We have had the officers of the department taking evidence in Ottawa. We sent an officer of the department to New Brtunswick, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia last year, and that officer has brought back evidence, and based upon that evidence a report. We have had men, high officials of the department, associated with the committee during the session, and these men know the report from the beginning to the end.


John Howard Sinclair: Would the hon. member suggest what disposal he would make of the report? It appeared yesterday that the report could not be adopted on technical grounds, not that there was any objection to it, but that it involved the expenditure of money and could not come before parliament in that way. I have asked that the report he disposed of by sending it to the proper authorities. I would like to know what the hon. gentleman would do.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will answer the hon. gentleman's -question, although I think there was no necessity for his making a speech. As soon- as I am called upon to become Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which I hope will not be very long, I will then come down to this parliament and tell it what I suggest, and what I suggest will be carried out. That is the position I take. I think our chairman has -given

very faithful attention to this matter and worked very hard, but what is the good of all that work when he comes and tells this parliament that he wants it taken over by the department? It is playing with the subject to take it up year after year. Now} we are in no better position than when we started, and no doubt this will go on next' year. It does not seem to me to be the way to expedite this business.	*


Mr. SPEAKER.: On the point raised by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and the leader of the opposition, I have consulted Bourinot, and I would advise the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) to move that the eighth report of the Marine and Fisheries Committee be now considered, as its adoption by the House otherwise would be contrary to the procedure. I think this would cover it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. G. TAYLOR:: What was tho total amount of Grand Trunk Pacific bonds guaranteed up to March 31, 1910, and of them how many were issued at that date?


William Stevens Fielding: 
TEMPORARY LOANS.
Mr. G. TAYLOR:: 1.	What temporary loans were outstanding on March 1, 1910?
2.	From what institution were they obtained?
3.	At what rate of interest?
4.	For what period?


Mr. FIELDING:: 
RED RIVER DREDGING.
Mr. BRADBURY:: How many yards of sand or earth were moved last season by the government dredges 261i
at the mouth of the Red river, and what was the cost per yard for such work?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: There was no dredging done at the mouth of the Red river during the last season.


CLEAN DOMINION PAPER CURRENCY.
Mr. LEWIS:: 1.	What is the government doing to assist in getting clean money in circulation?
2.	Is there any standard by which one and two dollar bills are said to be unfit for use?
3.	Has the government enough clean bills on hand to recall the dirty money now in circulation ?
4.	How far does the government keep ahead of the demands of the banks for clean money?


William Stevens Fielding: I think the condition of the paper currency issued by the Dominion government is very much better than -one would suppose from the criticisms that are sometimes offered. No doubt there are exceptional cases in which the notes have been too long in service and should be sent in for redemption by the holders. But it is safe to say that on the whole the condition of the currency from a sanitary point of view has steadily improved. As a test, I recently caused application to be made in the ordinary way of business at all the banks in the city of Ottawa, and obtained from each a number of dollar notes. I find only a few of these that could be considered objectionable, and these should not have been paid over the counter by the banks. The great majority of them are quite fresh and clean, and with very few exceptions all are serviceable.
1.	The government redeems all Dominion notes unfit for circulation presented to it. Redemption agencies are established, under the Dominion Notes Act, at Victoria, British Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Toronto, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; St. John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. During the year 1909 Dominion notes unfit for circulation were redeemed as follows:
Onesj, $7,765,721; Twos, $4,769,576. Or practically three-quarters of the total circulation of Ones and Twos.
2.	No. But no Dominion note unfit for circulation is issued by the government.
3 and 4. The government keeps on hand a sufficient supply of new Dominion notes to meet all possible demand that may be made upon it.


STEAMSHIP 'PRINCESS.'
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What is the name of the officer in charge of the steamship ' Princess,' employed in the fishery protection service?

2.	What are the names of the other officers of the same steamer and the nature of their certificates ?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	William Wakeham.
2.	Jos. Chalifour, sailing master, master competency, sea-going.
Edward Miller, first officer, master competency, coasting.
L. Ouelet, chief officer, second-class, competency.
L. Lapointe, second engineer, third-class, competency.


ST. ANDREWS RAPIDS IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. G. TAYLOR:: 1.	What portion of the cost of the St. Andrews Rapids construction was rendered necessary in order to provide for bridge accommodation between the municipalities?
2.	What is the estimate of the cost of the approaches thereto?
3.	What will be the total cost of the whole structure when completed?
4.	What will be the yearly cost of operation divided into salaries, power and maintenance ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	About $54,800 to build a roadway above the service bridge.
2.	$63,000.
3.	The total cost of the lock, dam and bridge, to date, is $1,380,096.09.
4.	Salaries, $6,000; maintenance, about $5,000 a year; power, included in above.


SUBSIDIES TO RAILWAYS.
William Stevens Fielding: In the absence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), I move that the House do on Friday next go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions:
45.	For a line of railway from Montreal to a point on the National Transcontinental railway in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 48, not exceeding 200 miles.
46.	To the Little Nation River Railway Company, for a line of railway from Papin-eauville on the Canadian Pacific railway towards Lake Nominingue, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 70, not exceeding 30 miles.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House do on Friday next go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolutions:
Mr. GATJVREAU.: Resolved, that it is expedient to continue for a further period the granting of aid towards the maintenance of an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press, and that for such purpose it is expedient to provide for the payment of the following sums:-
A sum not exceeding $12,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1911;
A sum not exceeding $10,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1912;
A sum not exceeding $8,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1913;
A sum not exceeding $6,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1914;
And a sum not exceeding $5,000 for the twelve months terminating June 30, 1915.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the attention of the government to a matter of great importance, which under the rules I cannot bring forward in any other way than this. I desire to have some papers brought down, but I am not allowed to move for them. But the need for them will be explained by the following telegram which I have just received from Winnipeg:
Winnipeg, April 27, 1910 Dr. Schaffner, House of Commons, Ottawa.
Re Terminal Elevator Co. fined here by Magistrate Daly. Have government bring down return showing Castle's report and all correspondence upon the matter. Very important.


R. McKENZIE,
[Stage Direction]
Secy. Grain Growers Assn.
This relates to the Trade and Commerce Department. I should like very much to get this information, and the only way I have of asking for it is by bringing this telegram to the attention of the government and the House.
William Stevens Fielding: I will call the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the subject. I would not like to say more at present.


THE GREAT NORTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY AND THE FRENCH LANGUAGE.
Mr. E. ROY.: I wish to bring to the attention of the government a regulation which I find in circular (No. 109) giving the rates for messages transmitted by the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company of Canada. I understand that a decision has been taken after conference with the government


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman wants to move a motion he cannot do it on the orders of the day. He had better wait for a motion to go into Supply. He can ask a question now.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: That is what I wish to do. I desire to draw the attention of this House, and of the government to a decision that has been taken in regard to special rates on telegraphic messages. I find that the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company has issued a circular (No. 109) under date April 16, 1910, in which I find this provision:
The rates for night letters are the standard day rates for ten-word messages for the transmission of fifty words or less, plus one-fifth the initial charge for each additional ten words or less. To be entitled to this rate night letters must be written in plain English. Night letters written in any other language than English must not be accepted.
I wish to know from the government if this decision has been taken after conference with the government, because I have understood that some ministers had something to do with the decision that was arrived at. I want to say that this clause of the telegraph company will prevent over two million people of Canada from taking advantage of these night rates, in fact the whole province of Quebec where the French language is spoken. We have in that province some very large newspapers, like ' La Presse,' ' La Patrie,' ' 1'Action Sociale,' ' Le Devoir,' ' Le Soleil,' ' l'Evenement '-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman cannot give a list of newspapers to the House at this stage. He must confine himself to the question.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: The question I ask is this: has the government any information to give in reference to that matter, and can they say why French messages are not taken under this regulation at the same rates as English messages?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: In answer to my hon. friend I may say that the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company has not consulted the government in the matter. But I may add for his information that all telegraph companies, as well as telephone and railway companies are now under the control and jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that any complaint such as the one he has now made can be brought to theiT notice, and I am sure that the Board of Railway Commissioners will see that it is remedied.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



SUPPLY-NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Some minor Bills in order to make work for the Senate. The Insurance Bill will come next, and later on Supply for the Minister of the Interior.']
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the portion of the question this afternoon that I particularly wish to confine myself to,
I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that there is an evident possibility and perhaps a great probability that a large portion of the traffic of the Transcontinental railway may be diverted to a new American port. The discussions in the newspapers and the records that have come to light, have evidently come to the knowledge of the government,, and I have embodied in the resolution which I propose to offer in amendment to the motion to go into Supply, a clause dealing with this phase of the question. But, inasmuch as there are other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who will follow me and who propose to deal with this question very fully, I shall not do more than merely allude to it in a very brief way. In the discussions in 1903 and 1904 a great deal of emphasis was laid upon the fact that we were, by reason of the arrangements that were then being made, securing to a Canadian line of railway the carriage of Canadian goods through Canadian territory and to Canadian ocean ports, and that we had entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific railway which would secure to Canada for all time to come, at all events, for all the time during .which the Grand Trunk Pacific would be the lessee of the line, the certainty as the government supposed, of this desirable .feature of the scheme being carried out. By clause 42 of the agreement which was entered into it is provided:
It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels.
Section 43 provides:
The company further agrees that it shall not, in any matter within its power, directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall, in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
The government assured us when this scheme was being projected, that this would be effective, and that the ralway company would in good faith, to the utmost of its ability, endeavour to secure .the carriage of Canadian goods through Canadian territory and to Canadian ocean ports, and that it would not directly or indirectly encourage the transportation of Canadian goods"through foreign ports. Now, we are being informed that negotiations are being

carried on, or have been consummated, by which the Grand Trunk Company propose to establish a large ocean port at Providence, Rhode Island, with the express expectation by the parties on both sides- the company and those with whom they are dealing-that it will have the effect of diverting a large amount of Canadian traffic to this newly established ocean port. Governor Pothier said in reference to it :
It has been the dream of my life as a Rhode Islander to have Providence become the terminus of a great transcontinental railroad.
I do not want to say what I think of the Grand Trunk railway's application for a charter, for I shall probably have to act upon that matter and I do not want to appear to prejudice the case.
So far as a connection with a Canadian railway is concerned, I said recently, speaking in Boston:
' The export trade of the Dominion in years to come will open the eyes of the commercial world. The development of her wonderful natural resources, the stores of iron and coal, the fertile fields and virgin forests will result in an immense and increasing yield. The port that handles that trade on the Atlantic sea-board will assume a place of power and influence in the maritime circles of the world.'
The trade that is being spoken of there is probably a large proportion of the trade that will be carried over the transcontinental railway system which we have subsidized so very heavily and in which we are investing such a large amount. I merely refer to this, inasmuch as it is one of the important features of the motion with which I will conclude my speech, and I will leave it to others to develop this point. The matter is of the vastest importance, not only to all Canada, but it is especially important to the maritime provinces.
Now, I need not, I think, apologize for asking the attention of the House again this session to the question of the Transcontinental railway. It is a large proposition, it involves the expenditure of an enormous amount of money, it is of vital interest to the people of Canada, and the people are alive to the situation at the present time. An enormous amount of money, whether rightly or wrongly, and I do not propose particularlv to discuss that phase of the proposition this afternoon, is being expended upon that undertaking. I have recently obtained from the government some information that has not hitherto been in the possession of the House, and I will he able to lay before the House, I think, a concise summary of the total amount which the railway is liable to cost the country; at least, I shall be able to submit to the House a statement founded upon actual figures, and to show that the railway will cost as much Mr. LENNOX.
as I will indicate during the course of _ my remarks. Just as preliminary to going into more important matters, I will call attention to some items that are covered by this return. We are told that the amount paid by the government to the Grand Trunk Pacific for the surveys they made before the government took over the eastern division was $352,191.75, and that the amount which the surveys have cost which were executed under the authority of the government-the government surveys-is $3,381,072.41; a pretty round sum, Mr. Speaker, as you will notice. It is not out of place to add to it the $352,191.75 paid to the railway company, and to call attention to the fact that although we are paying for the surveys of this line, almost $4,000,000, the government newspapers and many of the supporters of the government are now taking the attitude that this survey was not expected to be in any sense conclusive, to be that it was merely a preliminary canter, and that the estimates founded on these surveys were not to be expected to be definite to any degree, were mere guess work, that the quantities of solid rock, loose rock and common excavation entering into the construction of the work were merely hazard and guess.
The total expenditure for supervising and overseeing the construction of the work, the staff of engineers placed in charge by the government amounts to $3,699,796.01.
The cost of the commissioners' office will be interesting to the House, and to the public. The singularly efficient way in which these gentlemen are discharging their duties in the public interest, the peculiar qualifications which they possess for that position, the special knowledge they have of railway building, render it interesting to know how much we pay for the carrying on of this office. We are told that we have paid, down to March 31, for the office of the commissioners, and their rentals, staffs, &c., $1,307,250. We are told that we are paying for our share of rentals at Winnipeg, $85,312.
Then as to the cost of the Quebec bridge which collapsed, I need not give the details which are well known. In round figures it is $7,000,000. The cost of investigating the collapse of the bridge was $31,765.44. The cost of plans and investigations preliminary to letting the new contract amounts to $149,087.75.
Coming to the position of the Transcontinental railway at present we are faced by the broad fact which must be admitted by every o.ne on either side of the controversy that there has been an enormous and startling discrepancy between the estimated expenditure upon this road, and the alleged actual expenditure. The sums that are being allowed, and that are being paid out for the work from Moncton to Winnipeg

may possibly be honest, and fair or they may not be, but the whole proposition is inevitably inconsistent with the belief that we had fair, honest, reliable information at the time that this scheme was launched, and again at the time the surveys were made, and that these returns are also correct and honest. If the information that we have obtained as to the facilities for railway construction was honestly announced by the government in 1903 and 1904, if the surveys arid explorations which have cost this country about $4,000,000 were of any value at all, then there is cogent evidence that the 'amount that is being paid for this railway 'scheme is far too great. I propose to-day to call the attention of the House to the basis upon which the country was committed to this scheme, and to ask that an inquiry shall be made now into' whether or not the large expenditure that is being made for the construction of this road is justifiable, and in the public interest. To do that I shall have to refer to statements that have been made by prominent members of the government. I wish to repeat a remark that brought forth cries of ' No, oh, oh,' on a recent occasion, that the government distinctly pledged the people that the total outlay of Canada, the total amount which Canada would be out of pocket, would not exceed $13,000,000. I am not going to confuse the issue between the cost of constructing the work, and the amount Canada was to pay, and be out of pocket, but I repeat what is constantly denied upon the public platform -and I propose to prove it-that the government clearly and distinctly pledged itself to the people that all the money that this scheme would cost Canada for the Transcontinental Tailway, from ocean to ocean, would be $13,000,000, and not one cent more.


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. member is not serious when he says that.


Haughton Lennox: I am as serious as my hon. friend, and I think I am a good deal more wise, because if the hon. gentleman will study this question instead of talking at random he must find that the evidence is so cogent and irresistible that he will have to admit it. However, let us go by the records. I desire also to call attention to 'the statements' in reference to the character of the country through which the road will be built, and shall read from statements of only two or three of the ministers. The Prime Minister said :
In that consideration alone there would have been cause sufficient for us to go on with this work without any previous explorations, but I have to say this more, that we have a wealth of information on this subject. We have more information upon this scheme than
ever was possessed by former governments when they decided the Intercolonial railway or the Canadian Pacific railway.
He goes on to point out that east of the Quebec boundary the land is 'well adapted for cultivation and farming and almost an unbroken stretch of good farming land. Then he deals with the land through which Mr. McArthur is building his 240 miles of railway and says:
The country east of Lake Abitibi has also been explored, and explored several times. .
. . The Quebec government had it explored in the last few years by an engineer of eminence, Mr. O'Sullivan, and his opinion has been summarized by another engineer, Mr. Doucet, with the following language: ' From Roberval (which is a station on the Quebec and Lake St. John railway) to the western limit of the province of Quebec, a distance of some 375 miles, the line runs through a good farming country, the soil being chiefly clay.'
I need not continue the quotation, because what follows is simply an amplification of this sentence. He says:
This is a sample of the whole.
Then the right lion, gentleman quoting from Mr. Farrell:
It is established that the region between Winnipeg and Quebec is a fertile clay belt rich in good land, rich in timber, rich in powers, rich in all those resources which go to make a fine agricultural and industrial country. Such being the facts

And it is very important to inquire if they are facts, because if they are facts they are utterly inconsistent with the proposition that we have practically 1,800 miles of solid rock road bed for the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway-
Such being the facts, what is the conclusion to be drawn from them? The conclusion seems to be obvious and imperative, that is, that we must at once provide for a railway to tap these rich and fertile territories.
Farther on, the Prime Minister deals with the question of cost, and I would like to challenge my hon. friend who interrujpt-ed me a moment ago to get up in the House and refute the statement that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made it as clear and as emphatic as a proposition could possibly be made, that the total money cost to Canada would1 be between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000, and not a cent more. This is what the Prime Minister said:
Assuming the road across the mountains is 600 miles long, the cost of construction will be $18,000,000, and the total interest for three years will be $3,780,000. This is the whole of the liability which is incurred by the government for the construction of the railway from Winnipeg to the Pacific ocean.

I understand that the Tight hon. gentleman meant independent of the guarantee on which he had stated that we would not ultimately lose one cent. Then, coming to the eastern division, he said:
The same abatement of rent is provided also as in the case of interest on the western section. During seven years the company will he exempt from the payment of rent, so that here again the whole of the liability which is incurred by the government for the building of that section from Moncton to Winnipeg is simply seven years' interest. The sum total of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of that line from Moncton to the Pacific ocean will be in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000, and not a cent more.
Is that reasonably definite for my hon. friend? He said further:
Now, Sir, what is $13,000,000 in the year 1903? It is about the surplus of our revenue over the expenditure. The surplus for this year will pay for the construction of this road.
What the right hon. gentleman said then was correct- $13,000,000 in 1903 was $13,000,000; but when we come in 1910. it has grown as the Tock has grown, and it has grown into what would appear to be a fabulous sum were it not that I can prove and establish it by the records handed out by the government from time to time. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very important question at this juncture, and it is fair to see upon what pledges the government *committed us to this scheme, for the purpose of insisting on the government giving evidence of their good faith in What they then stated ; and, having regard to the subsequent developments which are now on record, we believe that it is full time that we should have some inquiry to see how these enormous discrepancies were brought about. As to the general character of the country, the right hon. gentleman said :
The information we have at this moment is to the effect that for three-fourths of the distance between Quebec and Winnipeg the line will run over a level plateau over which the construction of a railway will be almost as feasible as over the prairies. But even as to the general character of the country we have to-day abundant information that it is possessed of a character in regard to soil and climate which will be a painful disappointment to those gentlemen who have taken a morbid pleasure in maligning it.
It ought to be a painful disappointment to the government to find that for some cause, honest or dishonest, I know not which, the character which has been stamped on that country by the returns as to the expenditure is the very opposite of that Mr. LENNOX.
described in the language uttered by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion. The right hon. gentleman said:
Once upon a time I made the statement on the floor of this House that we had in regard to this tract of country mountains of information. That statement was received with a great deal of sneering incredulity.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the returns which are being sent in from time to time in regard to the construction of this road are accurate,, as the government supporters , have been contending, were we not rather wise in sneering with a good deal of incredulity at the statements of my right hon. friend and his government at that time? Then, in support of his statements, the right hon. gentleman quotes Father Alband in reference to the country between the grea't lakes and Hudson bay, and here the right hon. gentleman ridicules the opposition, saying that the reverend gentleman was evidently picturing Her Majesty's opposition :
They have not seen those vast and dense forests, those beautiful plains, and those wide prairies bordering the rivers in various places, and covered with every kind of grass suitable to the maintenance of cattle. I can assert that on the 15th of June there were wild roses here as beautiful and fragrant as those at Quebec. The season seems to be farther advanced, the air extremely mild and agreeable. There was no night during my visit. Twilight had not yet faded from the west when the dawn of day appeared in the east.
This is all very beautiful, and, as far as the reverend gentleman is concerned, I have no doubt very true. The right hon. gentleman then says, as something he knows :
This is the character of the country that new railway will cross.
It will be recollected that the opposition did not oppose this scheme in toto; they were as anxious as were the government to construct a railway for the purpose of carrying the grain of the west to the markets of the world. But the opposition thought it was wise to have some necessary explanations, some preliminary investigations, some data more reliable than the flowery language of gentlemen who happened to see one or two spots of the country. But my right hon. friend, anticipating how reasonable would be that demand, before we ever made the demand, before he sat down after making his delivery upon the occasion of introducing this project, used this language. It is very striking, very picturesque," but it is not so distinctly characterized by good judgment or common sense:

To those who urge upon us the policy of to-morrow and to-morrow, those who tell us wait, wait, wait, to those who advise us to pause, to consider, to reflect, to calculate, our answer is, no, this is not the time for deliberation, this is the time for action.
And we have evidence now of how wise was the course taken by the government.


An hon. MEMBER.: Unwise.


Haughton Lennox: paid during construction is a part of the capital. Every railway company constructs its roads in that way. Therefore any money that we may pay during the construction is of course chargeable to the capital account, and the interest thereon is also added to capital. So that the road when completed will represent in capital,, not only the actual money which we_ have put into it but also the interest which has accumulated, in the meantime.
Then he says as to the interest:
In the first year we would spend only a very small sum. After that the expense would increase very rapidly. We would .spend twelve to thirteen million dollars a year. Distributing the amounts over the period of construction in that way I estimate that at the end of the period instead of the capital of the road standing at $51,300,000, it would stand at $51,609,676. The annual interest on that sum would be $1,638,290.30.
Then he said:
to four-tenths of one per cent grade, the highest standard of road construction. He says:
But if we are to have the high-grade perhaps I should say the low grade * road called for by my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), perhaps these estimates are not high enough. I am prepared that the millions of a balance should be devoted to the improvement of that road. I propose to add 25 per cent to the first estimate of the cost of construction of the eastern division, and so add 25 per cent to the present value of the seven years'1 interest of that portion of the road. That is an equivalent to an advance on the cost of from $25,000 per mile to $31,250 per mile for one part, and from $28,000 to $35,000 for the other part. That is a pretty liberal estimate and ought to build even the fine road called for by my hon. friend from Norfolk.
Therefore, what we are out of pocket is just seven years1 interest on the amount of the capital as it would stand on the completion of the road.'
And he multiplies that annual interest of a little more than $1,500,000 by seven, and tells us what it would cost, as will be seen later on. The Finance Minister then deals with the declaration of the First Minister as to the cost of the road. He says:
My hon. friend the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech said that we could meet the responsibilities of this contract by setting aside the present year's surplus which is roundly stated at $13,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite have thought that "was a rash statement. I am convinced that the figures I shall be able to give to the House will show that my hon. friend's statement is substantially correct.
Then the hon. gentleman proceeds to show that, by setting aside a sum of money which will be mentioned in the figures I shall give for each part of the railway, taking m the eastern division, the Quebec bridge, and the money we pay on the guarantee as interest on the western division, the whole will amount to $11,512,329.02. He does it in this way:
I add these items together. The present value, by actuarial calculation, of the cost ol the seven years1 interest on the eastern division is $8,853,502.47. Seven years1 inrarest on the Quebec bridge represented by the present value, $324,246.65. Seven years1 interest guaranteed bonds, mountain section, represented by $2,334,575.90. These sums making a total of $11,512,325.02. Why, we have some millions of a surplus left yet.
Then the hon. gentleman proceeds to say that, in order to bring up the road to the high standard of construction proposed by Mr. Charlton, then representing North Norfolk, he is prepared to place further money at interest so as to bring it up Mr. LENNOX.
He is asked whether he has had expert advice upon these points, and he answers that he has. So, we have the statement of the Minister of Finance there, not only as to the matter of the $13,000,000 referred to, but also as to the cost of construction of the road. And you will notice that the highest estimate the hon. gentleman places on any part of the eastern division is $35,000 a mile for the 1,404 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec, and for the 400 miles from Moncton to Quebec he places it at $31,250. The result then, is:
400 miles, Moncton to Quebec, at
$31,250 per mile	$12,500,000
1,404 miles, Quebec to Winnipeg, at
$35,000 a mile	 49,140,000
Total	$61,640,000
This is the entire cost of construction of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg as announced by the Minister of Finance, as he said, upon the actuarial and expert opinion furnished him. This is without interest. Now, taking the actual facts as they have turned out, and still counting without interest, what do we find? Taking the figures furnished us by the government, and which I will refer to later on, we find that the road has actually cost $153,920,100, or more than $85,000 a mile. That is the difference- on that basis. Now, I might refer just for a moment to the western division, and I do so because it emphasizes very clearly how egregiously the government has erred in its calculations. And there is a very significant parallel. It was represented that what, as a matter of fact, we were to pay as a subsidy for the western division of the railway through that wonderfully rich country-and what must be a paying proposition-was $3,024,000. As a matter of fact we are paying for that portion of the road $13,690,000, or practically the same money as the Finance Minister said we

should have to pay both for the eastern division-with highest grade of construction-and as subsidy for the western division as well. Before I deal more fully with that, let me quote a word or two from the Prime Minister again. Those who were in the House at that time will remember in what a jaunty iway the Prime Minister introduced the amendments which were agreed upon between the session of 1903, and the session of 1904. He said it was a little thing, in fact that the opposition would be disappointed because it was so little. Here is what he said, speaking of the amendments proposed:
The propositions which they made to us and the concessions which were made bv us are now before the House. They are not numerous, and I venture to say that our honourable friends opposite, when they saw the narrow extent of the concessions which we had agreed to, were surprised at the moderation of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the comparatively unimportant modifications which we were called upon to make. Not only were they surprised at the moderation of the concessions which we made, but I believe they were vexed, because it deprived them of a good deal of the thunder which they were prepared to fulminate here.
Mr. Speaker, you represent that rich and beautiful county of Bonaventure. I represent a great riding, that of South Sim-coe. When we reflect that, by a wave of his hand, the Prime Minister was giving away practically the value of a county, I am not quite disposed to join with him in speaking of the great moderation of these proposals. Taking now the mountain section, the Finance Minister gave us these figures:
Mountain Section.
Statement-under contract of 1903. Guaranteed not to exceed $30,000 a mile, and interest on the guaranteed sum.
Finance Minister, 480 at $30,000-
liability	$14,400,000
Interest for 7 years on this amount 3,024,000 Under amended agreement of 1904.
Guarantee of J of total cost, and interest on amount guaranteedtotal cost is	 67,056,000
Bonds at 90 per cent to produce this. 74,506,667
Our liability, J of this	$55,880,000
We pay interest on this for 7 years at 31 per cent	$13,690,000
In 1903 our guarantee was actually. $25,170,000 In 1903 our guarantee was declared to be.. .. -	 14,440,000
An error of	$10,630,000
In 1903 we were committed to pay
interest amounting to	 5,285,700
In 1903 we were told we were paying	 3,024,000
A blunder of	$ 2,261,700
When the Prime Minister tells us that we are practically giving no important concession, I call attention to the fact that we were increasing our liability then from $25,000,000 to $55,000,000, or a difference of $30,000,000; and we are increasing our cash contributions- from $5,285,700 to $13,690,000, or a difference of $8,404,300. Now, that brings us to this proposition, that in so far as the western division is concerned we are paying for the construction of that branch of the railway in cash as much as the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister said we would pay as our contribution to the entire scheme. Now, as to our actual cash contribution to this railway scheme, taking it as a whole, it figures out in this way: We are paying interest seven years on bonds for the mountain section, $13,690,000; we are paying interest on cost of construction of the eastern division for seven years, $42,690,560; interest on unreported expenditure, say, $1,000,000; investigations, legal expenses, etc., $500,000, making a total of $57,880,560. Then between the actuarial figures as given by the Finance Minister and the actual round sum at which the amount appears to stand, the difference after all is only between 10 and 11 per cent. Making a computation on the same basis and taking off upwards of $5,000,000, we have $52,000,000 left as the actual cash outlay that Canada will pay on undisputed items, or four times the amount at which the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister put it. If you add our share of the Quebec bridge, the four-ninths the Finance Minister said that we would be called upon to charge against this scheme, and if we add the difference in interest, one-quarter per cent, for 43 years during which we borrow money at probably 34 per cent and only receive back 3 per cent as rental, we wiil have $76,000,000, or six times the amount that the government said we would have to pay.
Now we have this fact to consider. After the government had made these declarations, then we had the surveys, costing about $4,000,000, and the engineers' reports to the government, and on these the contracts' were let. At that time, for all the items that were embraced in those contracts, the engineers estimated the total cost would be in round figures $65,000,000. Taking those same figures, the actual working out shows that instead of costing $65,000,000, the road cost us $105,000,000, a very good reason for believing that there may be a good deal in the proposition which the government is so sedulously advancing now that the expensive surveys which we had there after all were only guess work, that the government was working in the dark. Now, in reference to that, assuming that the surveys were really guess work, I would like to show you upon high authority how fatal

a matter that kind of thing ia. There was a royal commission appointed after a portion of the Canadian Pacific railway was built, that is, the portions built by the government, and Judge Clark and some other prominent gentlemen, Mr. Keefer and Mr. Miall, composed the commission. It was argued in the course of that investigation that it was not necessary to have accurate surveys before the work was let to contractors. It was pointed out, that there were investigations much more thorough than these surveys are now alleged to have been made by this government. They said:
During the progress of the evidence it has transpired that in the case of the first four contracts for roadbed construction between Thunder bay and Red river, tenders were invited and contracts let before sufficient examination had been made of the projected line to enable the engineering department to state, in most cases, even approximately, what work would require to be performed.
The bills of works offered to tenderers were invariably calculated from nothing more reliable than profile plans. In every case the contract was let before the quantities had been made up from cross-sections.
Now, the government has the hardihood in certain quarters to put forward the statement that in some cases there was no profile plan at all, and what is more essential, that in some cases there was no location before this work was let to contract. They are either on one horn of the dilemma or the other; they neglected their duty to the people or else the statement put forward is a subterfuge to deceive the people. It was contended, however, in the Canadian Pacific railway case, that it made no difference. The commission said:
The evidence leads us to a different conclusion. If the quantities upon which the tender is based should turn out to be approximately correct, and the various tenders consistent as to prices, the relative position of the tenders, when subsequently based on executed quantities, might not undergo much change, but should the prices affixed to the tenders be incongruous and the relative proportions of earth excavation, rock, masonry, &c., bo materially altered during the process of construction, then those tenders which seemed to be the lowest might turn out to be considerably higher than others.
That is just what happened in this case.
To exemplify this a statement has been prepared

And so on, They sent out a long statement embracing twenty different features, but they summarize it in this way:
It will be seen by referring to the above statements that the five tenders which were assumed to be the lowest, were as follows:-
1.	Martin & Charlton, actually 6th.
2.	Sutton & Thompson, actually 5th.
3.	J. A. Green, actually 3rd.


Haughton Lennox: I submit and charge that the attitude of the government, and commission in regard to _ persons making complaints of wrong doing in the carrying out of the work- notably in the cases of Major Hodgins and Mr. Lumsden-is calculated to deter engineers, and others in charge, from effeci-ently, honestly and fearlessly discharging their duties, tends to encourage dishonesty, and the allowance and payment of unjust claims, is distinctly opposed to the public interest, and is deserving of the severest censure.
The enormous differences shown to exist between ithe estimated, and pledged expenditure, and the alleged or actual cost are far too great to be accounted for upon any basis of reasonable error-they necessarily involve, upon the part of those having the initiation, management, and carrying out of the work, ot of many of them: incompetency, or dishonesty, or both; and are of such grave public concern as ito demand an immediate and thorough investigation into the circumstances under which this undertaking was launched, and the causes -which have brought about this unwarranted expenditure of public money.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in concluding with a motion, I will ask that the House shall appoint a royal commission to investigate the whole matter; and let me say, although I have not incorporated it in my motion, because I think it will better come in this form, that I demand on behalf of the public that it shall be a fair appointment, and that the people shall have a fair chance. And let the criticism be what it will, I know with what vile criticism we were met when we demanded what were the people's rights in the Lumsden investigation. I have no fear of criticism either at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite or at any other hands. I claim that no investigation will be satisfactory to the members of the opposition-that is not important, but no investigation will be satisfactory to the public-which does not recognize three or four essential conditions to which I will refer. One of them is that the leader of the opposition shall be conceded the right of nominating at least a minority of the commission. It is beyond question that it will be the government that will be on trial, and it is manifestly in the public interest and manifestly just that the proposition that I submit in that regard should be conceded. Further, no commission will be satisfactory or will command the public confidence unless the opposition are afforded reasonable means of bringing forward the evidence necessary to thoroughly sift the question as to whether too much money is being paid or not. To that end it will be right and just, and we will demand-or at least, speaking for

myself, I demand, and I'believe the people will demand-that the leader of the opposition shall have the right, not only to engage reasonable professional assistance in the nature of engineering experts, but also to nominate at least one or two of the counsel who shall be engaged in the prosecution of the inquiry. I have outlined as briefly as I could, and I am sorry I could not make it more brief, the situation as it presents itself to-day. I am not putting it as a question whether the government is guilty or not guilty, but I am saying that the government is on trial today in the minds of the people of the Dominion of Canada, and I am asking that the people shall put upon trial those who have misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise, the true situation, or who are maintaining in the management of the construction of this road those who must be squandering the people's money and defrauding the people of their just rights.
I, therefore, move, seconded by Mr. Blain:
That all the words after the word 'that' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor:
1.	In the debate upon the proposed construction of the National Transcontinental Railway in 1903 and 1904, the Prime Minister and other members of the government declared that they had gone thoroughly into the whole question, and were in possession of abundant, expert and general information as to the character of the country through which the road would be built; that 'for three-fourths of the distance between Quebec and Winnipeg the line would be run over a level plateau over which the construction of a railway was almost as feasible as over the prairies;' that the government were then competent, to correctly judge as to the extent of the undertaking and its cost; that delay for investigation was unnecessary and inexpedient, and that they had definitely ascertained that the total cost, to Canada, would not exceed $13,000,000.
2.	That the Minister of Finance in the session of 1903 expressly professing to speak upon reliable information from competent expert authorities, declared to parliament that the actual cost of the eastern division would amount to no more than $51,300,000, or including interest during construction to the sum of $54,609,676; and moreover that with a grade of four tenths of one per cent, about 21 feet to the mile, and construction accord ing to the highest known standards the cost without interest would not exceed $61,640,000, or an average of $34,170 per mile.
3.	According to official returns since laid upon the table of the House this eastern division, without counting anything for interest, and with many items of construction as yet not included, will cost not less than $154,000,000, or an average of more than $85,000 per mile.
4.	According to these official returns and statements of ministers, the total cost of the eastern division will actually amount to not
less than the sum of $218,467,314, made up as
follows:-
Payments under 21 contracts.. .. $104,530,905 Four-ninths share of the cost of
the Quebec bridges	 7,594,091
Terminals at Quebec	 2,000,000
Share of terminals at	Winnipeg. 1,156,252
Share of shops at Moncton	 750,000
Share of terminal yards at Moncton	 97,000
Numerous items (not covered by contracts) as per statement recently furnished by the government	 37,797,852
Total exclusive of interest.. $153,926,100
Interest on outlay during one-half period of construction, that is average of four years' simple interest at 31 per cent	 21,549,654
Cost at time road to be handed
over to company	$175,475,754
Add interest at 3| per cent for seven years after road handed over, during which country is to bear the charge	 42,991,560
Total at end 7 years' period. $218,467,314
Making an average expenditure of more than $120,000 a mile, and representing a fixed annual charge of $6,554,020.
5.	To this cost of construction, and to interest account, must be added very large sums for entry into Winnipeg, for locomotive accommodation there; also for additional terminal requirements at Moncton and at other points; and for further probable interest charges.
6.	According to the estimates upon which the contracts were awarded for the eastern division, rock excavation was to cost $23,322,976, whereas according to the official returns now brought down, the cost of such rock excavation alone upon that division will be not less than $52,000,000, a sum exceeding the Finance Minister's estimated full cost of the complete construction of this part of the road; and in many cases the contractor is being paid for rock work alone more than he was supposed to be entitled to be paid for fully completing all work upon his section.
7.	Taking interest account alone computed on the actuarial basis adopted by the Minister of Finance, and granting that the company may take over the road and pay the stipulated rental, and leaving out of account our annual loss on the difference between the rate of rent received and the rate of interest paid out for forty-three years, Canada will be out of pocket in actual cash an amount more than four times as great as the amount stated to parliament as the cost to Canada for the purpose of inducing parliament to approve and pass the Transcontinental legislation.
8.	That having regard to the astounding and unexplained increase in the cost of the said railway it is absolutely essential in the public interest that there should be a broad and thorough investigation into all matters

connected with the building of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway.
9.	Therefore this House is of the opinion that a royal commission consisting of not less than three competent persons should be appointed to make inquiry into and concerning all the facts and circumstances connected with the inception of the Transcontinental railway project and undertaking, the conduct and efficiency of the various persons acting for the government or the country, the mode in which the work has been carried on both from an engineering and financial point of view, the manner in which the commissioners and the various officials and employees have discharged their duties, the manner in which contracts have been entered into and executed, accounts verified and payments made from time to time, and generally an inquiry into all facts and circumstances relating to or affecting the public interest in regard to the undertaking, with all powers usual in such cases including those provided for in an Act respecting inquiries into public matters.
10.	That this House is also of opinion that the government should take immediate and effective action to investigate the danger of diversion of Canadian traffic to foreign parts and to prevent any such diversion.
I may say that the concluding part of the resolution is based upon the form of order made in the case of the Canadian Pacific railway investigation already referred to.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) on his industry, which is only exceeded by his imagination. If there were a fund earmarked for the destruction and not the construction of this great international undertaking, my hon. friend's indemnity might well be charged to that fund, because he has spent his whole time this session and most of it last session in digging and delving to see if he could not find something somewhere which he could add to the accumulation of injurious things that have been said about this great national work, said by companies and their agents on the other side of the line who are interested in not having this constructed, said by others who are interested in not having this road constructed, and reiterated by hon. gentlemen in this House, not with the object, perhaps, of injuring the undertaking, but with an object which can only be attained through the injury of this great undertaking. I imagined that once the Canadian people had approved of this project everything possible that could be said against it had been said, that the representatives of the people, no matter what their politics might be, would take some pride in this undertaking which is to assist in making Canada one of the greatest dominions in the British empire. But, no, Sir, every possible straw is grasped


Haughton Lennox: in order to make it appear as if this road should never have been constructed at all in its entirety, and these attempts having failed and the people having given a mandate to build the road, the object of the attack has since been against the method of constructing the road and against its cost. Now, I just want to point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that the only thing that can be attained, if his words have any influence at all, and I do not think they will have, the only object that can be attained by such a speech is to make it difficult for the great company associated with this undertaking to carry on its finances in the old land. That is the only thing that could be attained. All that he has said to-day has been said before by able men on the platforms throughout the country, and has been written by hired men who filled columns of the newspapers in the United States, copies of which papers were spread broadcast throughout Canada. But in face of all that, the people of Canada said again, knowing all this, we want Sir Wilfrid to finish his work and to go on and complete-the Transcontinental. I am happy to say to the members of this House and to the Dominion of Canada, that the results that followed the attacks on this undertaking in the year 1908, still remain. that is. the attacks have no effect at all. because after a discussion only yesterday with the president of the Grand Trunk railway, who has just returned from the old land, I am happy to say that the financial standing of that organization is good, and that the work will pe carried out speedily. I am surprised at my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox), who is usually mild-mannered, using the long line of expletives which he has introduced into the concluding part of his speech. I noticed that he read that part where the large adjectives were, which leads me to believe that in his own mild wav he could never have used them in making an address if he had not carefully written them out previously. In all my' experience of public life, which extends over a few years, I have never listened to a more unfair presentation of a case than that of my hon. friend this afternoon. I say that advisedly. The insinuations made about men just as honourable as any member of this House, just as respectable, just as capable, were not called for, and should not have been made by any man unless he meant to make a distinct charge and face the issue squarely, The figures quoted about the .cost of the line, concerning which there was a difference of opinion. I say, are misleading to the House and to the country, and I think I can prove to the House that the inference drawn from those figures by my hon. friend were not warranted by the figures themselves

The first part of my hon. friend's remarks were entirely ancient history. He dealt with the assertions of the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and others as to what this road would cost. That has been threshed out time and time again. This resolution which the hon. member has presented, may be divided into two parts- possibly three. The first we might call the substructure-the recital found in sections 1 and 2. The rest we may call the superstructure, except the last section, which may be not unfitly termed the tower, because I think it was put on at the last as an afterthought. I am inclined to think that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition added the last clause as a sort of antidote to his anti-conduct on a Canadian-made navy; I take it that it is intended rather for consumption in Halifax and the maritime provinces as an offset to the hon. gentleman's position on the naval question.
Now, let me deal with these sections as I have outlined them. In the first place, there is the substructure, this long recital found in sections 1 and 2. This House is asked to vote seriously upon the statement that the Prime Minister tried to induce the House and the country to believe that this road would cost but $13,000,000. No matter what play there may be with words, that ha3 been laughed out of this House, it has been laughed off the platforms of Canada, it has been laughed out of public discussion by the people. Did that statement deceive any hon. member of this House? My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) stated that the road would cost $125,000,000, and, speaking in all fairness, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. friend from South Simcoe, I say that if I wanted an accurate statement as to the co3t of railway construction or any other accurate information in that line, I would prefer to take the statement of the hon. member for South Lanark, probably, to that of any other man in this House. My hon. friend from East Grey made the same statement-that the cost would be $125,000,000. These hon. members were not deceived. I think that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) estimated that the addition to the debt of Canada as the result of this construction would be in the region of $100,000,000, but I think he said it would be impossible to estimate it within $10,000,000. So, these leading members on the other side were not deceived by anything said on this side into believing that the cost of the road would be only $13,000,000. But, I want to show by the words of the hon. member for South Simcoe himself that he acknowledged in this House that he knew better, that he knew that what the Prime Minister intended to convey was not the entire cost of the road, but something entirely different. I will read his expla-262
nation. On this point of an estimate of $13,000,000 he said:
We the members of this House understood that the Prime Minister did not mean that the total expenditure in the construction of the road would be $13,000,000. He intended to convey the proposition that the money that would be paid and not received back would be $13,000,000.
Now, my hon. friend from South Simcoe himself acknowledged what everybody else acknowledges. And while I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite should occasionally refer to it, I am surprised at them seriously placing that statement as a clause in a resolution on which they ask the members of this House to vote. There i3 not a member of this House who believes that the attempt was made -to convince them that the entire cost of the road would be $13,000,000-not one. And I give the public credit for knowing as much as I do about these matters, or as much as any member of this House.
Now, take section 2 of the resolution. My hon. friend gives here the statement of the Minister of Finance and proceeds to make that the foundation for some other clauses. The Finance Minister gave an estimate to the House based on the opinion of an engineer; and my hon. friend from South Simcoe will not gainsay the character, the reputation, the honour, the ability of that engineer, Mr. Schreiber. The Minister of Finance like every other hon. member, other hon. members who had had practical experience, like my hon. friend for South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart), made their statements on our estimate of the chief engineer. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) might as well have iplaced in the resolution a clause referring to the statements of other members who made estimates. And when he assumes to attack the Finance Minister because he gave an estimate given to him by a man as prominent as Mr. Schreiber, and asks this House, and asks an intelligent public, to believe that he is seriously making that a reason for this resolution, he is going a long way indeed.
Now, I come to section No. 3, and I am getting along to what might be called the superstructure. The hon. member goes into a series of figures, and makes a statement from the official returns. I am not going to quarrel with that part of the statement or dissect his figures, but I think a very short consideration of the matter will show that I have been so generous in bringing down figures for my hon. friend's consideration that he has got lost in the mazes of the calculation.


Haughton Lennox: That might easily be.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member figures out that this road will cost $85,000 per



mile. Now, let us stop right there for a moment. I do not concede that this estimate is correct. But, if it were correct, what about it? Has the hon. member the right to make this the basis of abuse of every person who has had to do with the road? I say, no. Let him look up the cost of building railways at a time when material was not nearly so expensive or labour nearly so high as at present. Let me give a few samples of what roads have cost in years gone by. In New South Wales, the roads have cost $64,000 a mile; in Germany, $107,000 a mile; in France, $126,000 a mile; in Italy, $109,000 a mile; in Russia, $83,000 a mile; in Austria-Hungary $87,000 a mile; in Great Britain and Ireland, $272,000 a mile. And in the United States, with all their poor railways, with all their small branch lines, where some have grades of one to twu and a half per cent, where some have 67-pound rails, where they have no compensation on the curves or grades-the cheapest kind of road [DOT]-and even there the roads have cost on the average $58,000 a mile. And take the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friend will know that we have in this Dominion some very poor roads, improving it is true, but some of them even yet mere colonization roads with 50-pound rails, very little ballasting, and the cheapest of construction. If my hon. friend will look into it, he will find that the average cost of these roads in Canada, including cheaper colonization roads is $56,000 a mile. Take the Intercolonial-and my hon. friend will not complain if I use this as a comparison for his friends had something to do with the construction of that line as well as ours-the Intercolonial has cost for construction $63,000 a mile. So, I say, if I stopped at that point, if I took the figuies given by the hon. member, together with the quality and standard of this road from Moncton to Winnipeg, and assume that we have a road of that kind at a cost of $85,000 a mile, I say it will stand comparison with the construction of any railway system in the Dominion of Canada or on the continent of America.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask a question?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the government know of the cost of these other roads at the time when they gave these assurances to parliament? Had they taken the trouble to investigate the question to that extent?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) is asking me a question that he knows I am not in a position to answer. If I could tell what was in his mind when Mr. GRAHAM.
he made his estimate, I might have some sort of mental telepathic knowledge that would tell me what the government were thinking about before I became a member of it.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister (Mr. Graham) think that they ought to have investigated the question to that extent?


George Perry Graham: Possibly they did. Whether they did or not, I am stating the facts. If they had not investigated, the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) should have given them this information, when he discussed the matter, because, no doubt, the opposition knew all about it. Now, we come to No. 4, and I want to say candidly that I cannot quite see how the hon. member reached the figure of $104,530,905 in his resolution.


Haughton Lennox: I will tell the hon. minister, if I can be of any use to him. I got it by taking thirteen contracts with the amount that has been expended, and the amount reported as necessary to complete them. I add these together. Then, I assumed, as I stated, that on the other contracts on which work will be done will amount to about the same.


George Perry Graham: I do not find fault with my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox), because I can understand his difficulty in arriving at the results. I do not intend to go into all these figures, but I may say that there is a mistake of $16,000,000 in this one item. Now, I will take up those figures without going into details. On that item there is a mistake of something like $16,000,000. I think he took $67,890,697 up to December 31, as including only the twenty-one contracts, while as a matter of fact it included $20,358,679 that had been spent on items not in the contracts.


Haughton Lennox: No, I took what the returns show as being expended, and what is yet to be expended, I added these two together, I took 13 contracts, because there are only 13 contracts on whieh there appears to have been considerable work done. I add the two sets of figures together, and I find they amount to some $60,000,000, while they were to have cost about *17.000. That means that they are actu-allv costing at the rate of 62-8 per cent more than they were to have cost. I assume those on which very little work has been done will work out as I said on about the same basis. The minister, with the greater information, may be able to show that they do not work out on exactly the same basis. It may be that the warnings these parties have got have already had some effect.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend is through, perhaps he will now allow me to proceed. Now, I will try and point out wherein my hon. friend's figures may be inaccurate. In making his estimate he was pretty positive, because he figured interest on these items. By his method of calculation, which I have now found out, a man could figure himself into affluence or penury in fifteen minutes if he had a good strong pencil, by adding a lot more to his revenue and capital expenditure on which interest must be charged. Now the amount actually paid up to December 21, 1909, on these 21 contracts is $48,578,614.19. The contract reserve-my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) will understand what that means-the contract reserve is $3,247,295. The estimate made by the chief engineer to complete is $35,949,958; total $87,775,867.19. But there was an amount omitted in the December estimates of $929,721.57. This makes a total $88,705,588.76 as against the $104,530,905; consequently there is an error in the first item of $15,825,317, if the chief engineer's estimate be accurate.


Haughton Lennox: In the returns brought down the minister states there are several contracts on which a subsequent estimate has been made, and no work done. When he deals with figures in this way, he assumes there will be no extra money paid upon those other contracts. I am dealing with actual results already attained,


George Perry Graham: I am dealing with figures given to me by the present chief engineer. My hon. friend is making an estimate without information given him by any person on which he could correctly make an estimate.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman pledge his word that the percentage increase on the other eight contracts will be less than upon the thirteen contracts included in the official returns brought down?


George Perry Graham: I never object to any person asking me a question, but the hon. gentleman knows that that is a question that he should not ask, and that I could not answer.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason I ask it is that the minister stated that the alleged error of $16,000,000 is based upon the assumption that there will be no such increase.


George Perry Graham: I made no such statement, and again I say that the results obtained are based on an estimate made by the chief engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask another question -because it is important just now to get 262i
down to hard-pan. There is an increase, according to the returns brought down by the government in thirteen contracts, of 68-8 per cent, and there are eight other contracts. What percentage of increase, if any, has the minister allowed upon thesa other eight contracts in making his statement as to this error?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has asked me another question to which I will reply in the same way that I answered the other one, that the chief engineer, who is a greater authority than any on.e of us upon that point, has given certain "figures, and from these figures I am taking actually what has been paid out and his estimate for the future.


Haughton Lennox: The minister stated a moment ago that he had just seen these figures that required my computation to be amended. Does he forget that on the 31st of March, coming down to the condition we are now dealing with, to the actual figures exclusive of interest, that I presented exactly the same figures then as I presented to-day? And has the minister been able to show that my statement that $104,000,000 was the amount the government showed were expended, of which $60,000,000 in round figures was expended on these thirteen contracts, was incorrect? If he has not, what is he talking about?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is so very polite to-day that I suppose I might answer him in the same way. I am talking about what I think is an error of nearly $16,000,000. I told my hon. friend that I was not surprised that he should make this error in his calculations, and I told the House that I was not finding fault, but in order to be more accurate I was giving my authority for the figures given to me, and if these are correct, he has made a mistake of about $16,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is aware that he has not answered my question at all.


George Perry Graham: Because my hon. friend wants me to give an answer to a question which he knows that I, not being an engineer, am not in a position to answer.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not an engineering question.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend insists on asking me a question which can only be answered on the authority of the chief engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister mistakes the question if he says that.


George Perry Graham: That is my understanding of it. Now, we take up another item-

and I do not want to quarrel with these items-but I want for a moment to take up the Quebec bridge item. Whatever may be said about the Quebec bridge, everybody will admit that the Quebec bridge was a project before there was any thought of the Transcontinental railway. If there had never been a Transcontinental railway built the Quebec bridge would have been constructed. Every person admits that, but I am here to argue that the construction of the Transcontinental railway, instead of being a burden to the people in so far as the Quebec bridge is concerned, is going to assist in bearing that burden. It will assist to the extent of the amount that it will pay either in interest on the cost of construction or in rental for the use of the bridge. The people would have had to build the Quebec bridge had there never been a Transcontinental railway, and this is one more customer to help to pay the interest on the cost of this bridge. Therefore, the Quebec bridge should not be considered as part of the cost of this road. The $7,000,000 that my hon. friend has in his list there should come out because the Quebec bridge should not be part of the Transcontinental railway per se, as the legal gentlemen would say.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did the Finance Minister take four-ninths of it into consideration in making up his own estimate in 1903 and 1904?


George Perry Graham: Because, I presume- and I may say I was not here-that the Transcontinental railway will probably pay an amount equal to four-ninths of the cost of the bridge for the right to run over it. If it is not part of the Transcontinental railway it will pay it in rent. If it is part of the Transcontinental railway it will pay it in interest. Going on a little further mv hon. friend got down to large figures. I have already pointed out a few discrepancies, but I -want to go on a little farther. I do not know what arrangements may be made as to Quebec terminals or the Quebec bridge. These are pretty large questions, and at the present time I could not give an estimate of the cost of the Quebec terminals because the commission has not decided as to what ought to be done there, but they hope to very shortly. I may say for the information of the House that I have suggested that the different railways interested should get together and form some kind of a company or combination by which they would secure the terminals in Quebec as well as the Quebec bridge for their general use. I do not know if that can be carried out, but if it can be carried out to that extent others besides the Transcontinental railway would assist in bearing the burden. It would be a reasonable solution, and it would be the better way of handling the Mr. GRAHAM.
traffic of the city of Quebec. It may not be possible to work it out. but shortly after the House rises I shall endeavour to get the views of the various railways interested in this question, and see what can be accomplished. I find that my hon. friend then makes up an item of $21,000,000 interest. I am not going to stop to quarrel with that, because by making the principal large it is easy enough to make the interest large, but I am going to ask my hon. friend and the House to judge of the fairness of this statement that contains this $42,000,000 the seven years' interest. However, that has nothing to do with what I am going to say now. A few minutes ago my hon. friend-and he says so in the resolution-in figuring out the cost of this railway, made it $218,000,000. He pointed out that at the rate of 3 per cent the fixed charges to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway would be $6,000,000 per year, and he turned around and asked his followers: Will any company pay it? By his own figures he put $42,000,000 into his calculation on which the Grand Trunk will never pay interest and never will be asked to pay under the contract. My hon. friend knows, tins House knows, the country knows that the interest to be paid for seven years does not go into the principal or the rental and is not a fixed charge on the Grand Trunk Pacific. It only shows that my hon. friend has not treated the subject as fairly as he usually does in making out his case. The only result that can be accomplished is to make it difficult for the Grand Trunk Pacific to finance its undertaking, and if that can be accomplished then this road may be crippled, but I want to tell this House that that is not going to be allowed to be done, and that if it were to be the case that the Grand Trunk Pacific did not want this section of the road there is another strong company ready to take it in five minutes and proceed with the running of the road. Now. there can be a difference of opinion about this error of $16,000,000 that I pointed out, but there can be no difference of opinion about the $42,000,000 error, and the hon. gentleman, therefore, knows that this amount does not go into the capital upon which the fixed charge is made. Therefore, is it fair to ask, who is going to run this road?	.


Haughton Lennox: I made the calculation to show what the cost would be at the end of the 3even-year period, and I will challenge the minister, with all his eloquence, with all his extreme energy, to show that the statement is not correct.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that he made that statement. I will ask him to deny that he made the statement. Did he not, within the last hour, say that the fixed charges on this road would be $6,000,000?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


George Perry Graham: And did not he turn around to his friends and ask: What company will pay it? And did they not say: No?


Haughton Lennox: I quite admit that I mentioned' that the 3um of $6,000,000 would be the fixed charge upon the cost of this railway.


George Perry Graham: And that some company would have to pay it?


Haughton Lennox: I pointed out that probably the Grand Trunk Pacific would not take over the road, and I was asking if the Grand Trunk Pacific does not take over the road, what position will Canada be in? Is it not a fact that it has a fixed charge, of six and a half million on the actual cost of the construction of the road?


George Perry Graham: I suppose we must accept this explanation, but I submit again, and I leave it to the hon. gentlemen who responded, when he asked that question: What company would pay this $6,000,000? -to say who is right in this matter. Now, coming to the resolution, we find the same calculation, and I am glad in this instance1 that my hon. friend wrote it down. It says:
Making an average expenditure of more than $120,000 a mile.


Haughton Lennox: That is right.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend say that when the road is constructed and trains are running on it the road will cost $120,000 a mile?


Haughton Lennox: As far as Canada is concerned, certainly.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman knows that he made a mistake, and he knows that he cannot get out of it. I have read his resolution. In addition to the $120,000 a mile-and this is the only way in which he can work it out, this is the only way in which he can send the impression to the country-the hon. gentleman proceeds to declare in his resolution:
Making an average expenditure of more than $120,000 a mile and representing a fixed annual charge of $6,554,020.
After reading that figure, he turns around and asks his friends if any company would pay it. He went on to argue that the Grand Trunk Pacific would not pay it.


Haughton Lennox: I will correct the minister if he will allow me. He says that after reading that figure, I turned around and asked my friends that question. I did not ask my friends any question after reading that statement.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend had the very same figures in his other notes, the identical calculation with which he ended the speech, and it is also in his resolution.
I want to point out again to the people of this country, and to impress it upon them, because the House understands it, there is not a man in this House who does not know that what I have said is absolutely correct, that in again repeating that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have to pay $6,000,000 interest at 3 per cent on $218,000,000, my hon. friend, according to his own figures, was exaggerating the cost by $42,000,000.	_
I have always endeavoured to bring down every return asked for by my hon. friend, and to give him every figure, every estimate, whether it was in accordance with my ideas or not, of what this road would cost the people of Canada who must construct the Toad, and who should be informed from time to time what it is costing. When there has been an increase in an estimate I have not hesitated to give it to the House. My hon. friend has figured out his calculation on a very broad basis. I have told the House that the estimate of Mr. Lumsden was, in round figures, $63,400 per mile. I think that was in 1908. I have asked the chief engineer of the National Transcontinental railway to, so far as possible give me an estimate now of any increase or decrease, approximately of course, but as far as possible, so that I could lay it before the House. The return brought down for my hon. friend shows that there are yet to be paid on items not included in the twenty-one contracts, $16,149,084, and this is included in the statement I am about to give. I think it is fair to tell the House that since Mr. Gordon Grant became chief engineer there has not been a complaint of over classification, either verbal or written, made to the Transcontinental commission. Let me give the statement as it is furnished me by Mr. Grant:
Total payments to December 31, 1909, not including December estimates of contracts for construction paid
in January	_
December estimates of said
contracts	
Contract reserve	
Amount estimated to complete 21 contracts for construction

1,010,014 #0 3,247,295,00
35,949,958 00

Estimated to complete items not included in said 21 contracts for construction (but not including terminals at Moncton, Quebec and Winnipeg, entrance to Winnipeg, and shops east of Winnipeg), viz.:

Steel superstructure for bridges $3,115,193 00 Right of way.. ..	771,566	00
Rails, fastenings
and switches .. 1,782,220 00 Stations and divisional point buildings ..	.. 3,657,105 00
Engineering and
contingencies .	3,675,962	00
Substructure Red
river bridge ..	116,738	00

 16,119,081 00

Less paid account rental of terminals	 85,312 00
Less paid account shops east of Winnipeg ....	334,911, 00

$	120,223 00

The amount of $35,919,958 estimated to complete the 21 contracts for construction is only approximately correct and will be subject to revision, as no estimate for uncompleted work has as yet been made by engineers in the field.



[Stage Direction]
Chief Engineer.
Ottawa, April 5, 1910.
This estimate made by Mr. Grant is of
course, like all engineers' estimates, approximate. If my hon. fnend desires that I should assume the responsibility of saying whether it is absolutely correct or not 1 could not do that, we have to take the best information we can get from the ablest men we have. Adding to the figures I have just given the $16,000,000 I mentioned a moment ago as being payable on items not included in the twenty-one contracts we have $124,247,049. We deduct from that the items paid, either on interest or on principal, for works at Winnipeg, and we get $123,826,826. This calculation was prepared in order to make a comparison with Mr. Lumsden's estimates of the cost of the road. Mr. Lumsden's estimates of a few years was $63,400 a mile, not including terminals, and I had the chief engineer exclude terminals from this statement. So that 1 could make a comparison between the figures I then gave the House, and what I think should be given to the House now on the same items. My hon. friend will see that there is an increase in the entire cost of $9,000,000 over Mr. Lumsden's estimate. I wish to give to the House the figures to show how this increase comes about as it is the balance between some increases and some decreases. The figures are as follows:
Items.
Preparation and excavation	
Tracklaying and ballasting_______
Trestles and bridges	
Sundry	
Rails and fastenings	
Steel bridges	
Buildings	
Right of way	
Surveys, engineering and expenses.
Estimate of June, 1909.	Estimate of April 5, 1910.	DlFFEIiENCES.	
		Decreases	Increases.
$ cts. 54,748,176 00 8,188,247 00 11,63S,222 00 2,198,055 00 12,945,281 00 7,993,809 00 1,962,628 00 1,168,342 00 13,550,415 00	$ cts. 63,893,276 00 8,473,863 00 13,521,328 00 2,960,356 00 11.984.000	00 5,217,503 00 3,710,500 00 2,153,000 00 11.913.000	00	$ cts.	$ cts. 9,145,100 00 285,616 00 1,883,106 00 762,301 00 1,747,872 00 984,658 00
			
			
		" 961,281 00 2,776,306 00	
			
		1,637,415 00	
114,393,175 00	123,826,826 00	5,375,002 00	14,808,653 00
Or a total increase all told of $9,000,000 in round figures. Thus Mr. Grant's estimate is $68,640 per mile as against Mr. Lumsden's estimate of 1908 of $63,427, an increase of something over $5,000 per milfe.
I wish now to give an explanation of the figures in these various items. In the preparation and excavation the increase is very large, $9,145,100. The explanation is as follows:
Preparation and excavation. Increase $9,145,100. This is due to substitution of embankments for wooden and steel trestles at points in districts ' A ' and ' B,' greater quantities of rock encountered during progress of the work than was first estimated for, the nature of the material encountered in districts ' B,' ' D ' and ' E ' requiring flatter Mr. GRAHAM.
slopes, washing out of banks in district ' B ' owing to unprecedented high water; extra rip-rap, elevating grades, train hauled material, additional grading in divisional yards, rock borrow for lake fills, &c.
Tracklaying and ballasting. Increase $285,616, due to greater mileage of track in divisional yards, 5 miles having been estimated for ordinary yards which was all that was considered necessary by the Grand Trunk Pacific authorities at the time, their later suggestions and plans requiring 10 to 12 miles; also, increase quantity of ballasting owing to shrinking of banks.
Trestles and bridges. Increase $1,883,106, due to greater depth of foundations found necessary in places, raising height of bridges, piers, cribwork, building larger culverts than first estimated for, when no information regarding high water was available, &c., &e.

Sundry. Increase $762,300. Due to outlay for gravity water supply doing away with the expense for future pumping; also $332,335 for extra work performed by chief engineer's orders, principally temporary trestles, &c., to expedite the work.
Rails and fastenings. Decrease $961,281, due to being purchased at less than was estimat-
Steel superstructure of bridges. Decrease $2,776,306, owing to bridges having been purchased for less than was estimated, certain bridges and viaducts thrown out and embankments substituted and on account of changes in line.
Buildings. Buildings increased $1,747,8/2, due to 12 and 18 stall engine houses being put in with heating, piping, repair shops, &c., instead of 10 stall buildings without these items; also, station buildings now estimated on bases of plans furnished by Grand Trunk Pacific being more expensive than those at first contemplated and larger structures at such points as Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane.
Right of way. Right of way now increased $984,658, due to increase of cost of land in ISIanitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec over prices estimated and provincial government lands now estimated at $10 per acre instead of $5, damages on timber limits, &c.
Engineering and expenses-
My hon. friend will notice this heading of engineering and expenses, because he dwelt very largely on the villanies of these engineers, and the amount of money they were spending. There is a decrease in the estimate for engineering of $1,637,415.
Haughton Lennox: Has there been any decrease in the estimated expense for engineers since the minister gave me that return about a week ago?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell my hon. friend. I am giving the figures given to me by the engineer.
Engineering and expenses:	Decrease $1,-
637,415.00. In the estimate of June 23, 1908, an amount of ten per cent was added to all grading estimates to cover engineering and contingencies in addition to $3,300 per mile for surveys. In the present estimate engineering, transport and headquarters expenses have been carefully estimated with the result stated.
Net increase of all items over estimate of June 23, 1908, $9,433,651.00, exclusive of entrance to Winnipeg.
That does not include, as I have said, the terminals. The figures show the cost to have been increased some $5,000 per mile. The next item of the resolution is No. 5, referring to the disaster to the Quebec bridge. I will not discuss that, as I have already discussed it. In the sixth Item of the resolution my hon. friend points out that the rock excavation has cost a good deal more than the estimates. There is no question about that, and I submit that there is nothing astonishing or astounding about it. I am not going
into the details, but I could point out a work costing several millions of dollars being carried on in this country by one of the greatest corporations in the world, the cost of which has been more than double the estimate, although it has been going on only two or three years, and the cost will perhaps be trebled before the work is completed. No person charges the chief engineer in charge of that work with being dishonest or inefficient. I know the head of the company, and I know the chief engineer, who is one of the best men on this continent for that kind of work, and everybody has the utmost confidence in him. Jokingly discussing it with him the other night, I asked him if he was not some kind of a sinner who ought to be looked after, seeing that his estimates had been more than doubled. He said not at all, and he expressed to me some opinions which I will not stop to give to the House, but which convinced me that the engineering world is not at all surprised at discrepancies of this kind. What the country is interested in is this. Let the hon. gentleman make his statement as strong as he likes, as to the men who are building this road playing into the hands of American competitors, or as to the miscalculations in the beginning, what the people of Canada want to know is, are they getting value for the money they are putting into this road?


George Taylor: They know they are not.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend said that just as strongly in 1908, but the people said they were.


George Taylor: Not in my hon. friend's constituency nor in mine, for my hon. friend's majority was reduced and mine was increased.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was busier in his constituency than I was in mine. They kept him at home very closely. I did not find it necessary to stay at home. However that may be, the people of Canada have decided that question In that way. But the question for us to decide as business men is, are we getting value for our money? If we are not, we ought to find it out.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: If we are, then all this talk, all these fireworks, ail these pyrotechnics about errors, and about the cost being more than the estimate, vanish into thin air when they come to be dissected by the keen business minds of the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friend seems to laugh, but there are keen business minds in the Dominion of Canada, and they are not confined to this House.
I Mr. LENNOX. I did not laugh.


George Perry Graham: I did not refer to my hon. friend, because he does not laugh. In the seventh paragraph of the resolution, my hon. friend says that the road has cost four times as much as the amount stated to parliament. I think I have dealt with that increase fairly well. Then, in No. 8, he says that having regard to the astounding and unexplained increase in the cost of the railway, it is absolutely essential that there should be a thorough investigation. I have shown that according to the standard of this road its cost is not astounding, and will compare favourably with the cost of any other road on this continent. Nor is it unexplained. It has been explained time and again, and before this discussion is through, I think it will be explained again, and satisfactorily explained, to the people of the country. My hon. friend goes on and asks for a royal commission. Of course, it would not do to put him on the commission, for he would not act. Judging by his conduct in reference to the Lumsden Committee, who are the best people to appoint? My hon. friend says in that connection that his leader ought to have the right to put on a minoritv of this board.


Haughton Lennox: Not exactly that-that he should have the right to nominate a minority.


George Perry Graham: His leader did that, but they would not act, on a committee of investigation. While not discussing my hon. friend's point, I would advise his leader, if he got that opportunity, to select somebody who would not run away from the job. But, apart from that, who would be the best people to investigate? Hon. gentlemen opposite have devoted their entire attention to the question of over-classification. Their chief point of attack on the commission and on the engineers has been that they have paid for solid rock or loose rock when they should have paid for common excavation. Who is the best able to judge of that? When this House was not in the heat of a political contest, when there was no striving for party gain, when it had been decided that this road should be constructed, there was a united attempt for a short period to make the contract workable and practicable. What did this House do then-not the government or the Liberals, but my hon. friend from Simcoe, the hon. leader of the opposition, and all the hon. gentlemen opposite? They united in providing for a tribunal of experts who would decide whether there was over-classification or not on this great work. That was not a government act; that was the united voice of parliament. I want to ask my hon. friend now, or any hon. member of this House, if this question of classification as between solid rock, rock in ledge, loose rock, common excavation or what-Mr. LENNOX.
ever you choose to call it, were to be investigated before a board, does he think that he or any gentleman behind him who is not an engineer would be as competent to decide that question as a practical engineer who understands the work? If my hon. friend wanted to have the conduct of a barrister tried, would he bring him before the bar or the benchers, or before a blacksmith's forge?


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister think that the Lumsden Committee, which has just finished its labours, is a competent tribunal to, investigate the question of classification, and does he know that they did it?


George Perry Graham: Without expressing an opinion, I may say that this House ordered my hon. friend to find thaf, out, and he would not do it. If there is any lack in the work done by the Lumsden Committee, my hon. friend cannot blame somebody else. He could have been there, and could at least have tried even if he could not have accomplished. As I was pointing out, this House selected a tribunal of experts to decide. My hon. friend this afternoon played much on the point, and was quite sarcastic about it, that the commissioners appointed to build the road were not practical railway builders. Was he in earnest? If he was, does he not want the men who are to judge as to classification to be practical men dealing with that kind of work. He cannot be on both sides of it, he must take the one or the other. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) dealt very strongly with that point. But let me proceed. The engineers were named by Act of parliament, the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacifie, which company has to pay the interest and is deeply and vitally interested in keeping down the cost and the chief engineer or the commission acting for the government, these two to choose a third party. These are the experts. Now let me ask my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) if he thinks any better arrangement could have been made for that portion of the work?


Haughton Lennox: If the minister wants an answer, I get back to the basis of the transaction. I say that arrangement never was made by parliament, that it is not the meaning of the section, and I will challenge my hon. friend to get opinion of any prominent counsel and see whether the arbitration has been proceeded with under that section or not.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has done what the hon. leader of the opposition charged me with doing. He has not answered the question, but his answer serves my purpose. My hon. friend knows that for the purpose of classification or the straightening out of those differences, it

was the proper thing to do, and parliament did it.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know that.


George Perry Graham: If he does not agree, he will disagree with the statute. That is how legal gentleman live. If they all agreed on the statutes, there would be nothing for them to do. I want to go back again to that tribunal. That tribunal was designated for the sole purpose of settling these matters; that tribunal1 has been at work and will re-commence its work. It has done some work, and I am here to say on behalf of the gentlemen who form that tribunal, Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Grant, that there i3 no man in this House who would not leave his case, if it were his own personal case, in the hands of these three men. For it seems to me it is a business proposition. It is a thing which could not have been done any other way than parliament did it, and I believe that this House will stand by it, and that it is giving satisfaction to the people of Canada. Now, we come to the last clause. As I said at the beginning, this last clause was probably added as an afterthought in order to serve as an antidote to the electors of Halifax for the position taken by the leader of the opposition in opposing a Canadian constructed navy. Now, I -will read the resolution, and who will say: what connection ha3 it with the cost of the Transcontinental?-it may have with the operation, but not with the cost-and I ask the House to reason out what possible connection this can have with the appointment of 'a royal commission, and why it was put there except for the purpose I have indicated. I have been told by lawyers that in a Bill passed by the British House of Commons years ago to define certain rights over public works, I think, there was a clause added granting a divorce to somebody, and this went through as a statute.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. This is to prevent the divorce of Canadian traffic from Canadian ports


George Perry Graham: But my hon. friend made no attempt to marry the traffic to Canada when he had the opportunity. In fact, he could be called as a witness in the divorce proceedings if traffic went away from Canada. In this connection he might almost be called a co-respondent. Leaving out the reasons for it being there, and it has as much reason to be there as three wheels on a cart, what is the situation? Sir, the position that this government ha3 taken, that the party has taken, is that this road is to be constructed on Canadian territory, between Canadian ports. One of the great objects in the construction of this line wras to bring the traffic, not to the American ports, but to Canadian ports.


Adam Brown Crosby: Where is the eastern terminus of thi3 road to be?
Mr, GRAHAM. There will be two when they get through.


Adam Brown Crosby: But where is it to be?


George Perry Graham: I may tell my hon. friend that to-day I heard that the Grand Trunk Pacific have purchased property for terminals at St. John.


Adam Brown Crosby: Does the hon. minister know as a matter of fact that it has?


George Perry Graham: I think I will be able to show my hon. friend in concrete form after dinner. Perhaps 1 should not tell him as it will be disappointing to him, but there will probably be two termini for this road, and traffic enough for both. Now the object of the country, one of the things the country had in view^ was the carrying of goods between Canadian ports, and can we wonder at the astonishment of the people of Canada at the frantic appeals now made by hon. gentlemen opposite on behalf of Canadian ports. Sir, the operation of this line that they fought in every possible way, and with which they are now finding fault, is an operation that will carry all traffic to Canadian ports in the maritime provinces. If the plan which was proposed had been adopted, of taking the road to North Bay, and then dodging out to some other point to get the traffic of Montreal or Toronto, there would have been every possibility of that traffic going to Portland, as the Grand Trunk railway has its terminus there now. If that had been the case, there would be some grounds for alarm over the reports I have indicated, but as a Canadian I feel no alarm that Providence, Rhode Island, will take the place of any Canadian port either on the St. Lawrence or in the maritime provinces. In the first place there is going to be sufficient traffic for all the ports we have in Canada, and in the second place Providence has not the harbour that we have in the maritime provinces, and will never be in a position to handle the traffic that we will be in. We are not afraid of Providence. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox), went into hysterics about Providence being a port, but I am not a bit alarmed about any of those ports reaping the traffic of Canada. I want to point out to my hon. friend, and to the people that it was only by the determined effort of the government of the day, by the encouragement given to them by their followers, and by the people of Canada that there is a road being constructed that will take the traffic not to American ports, out to free-Canadian ports. Now as I said a moment ago, I am not at all alarmed about anything that these other ports will do injuriously to the Dominion of Canada. I have faith

in this Dominion. I have faith in the country in which I live. If j. were so weak-kneed as to feel alarmed by <eomebody in some small town saying that they were going to get our traffic, 1 would not be a Canadian, and I would not be in the House of Commons. I would go away to the United States or somewhere else. But we are not a bit alarmed over those speeches made by our friends in the United States about our ports. They are pleased to hope that they will get some of the traffic. We are pleased, in fact we feel confident, that the ports of the Dominion will have all the traffic they can handle. Sir, this is a big country, and this is a big proposition. The transportation problem is too large a question to deal with generally, but I just wish to remind you, Sir, first of the ever increasing riches of our great west. We have our wheat lands there, and there will shortly be three lines through to the coast, for I believe that the Canadian Northern will be constructed shortly to the west; and then there is the Hudson Bay route, and in a few years there will be the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, and the Welland canal.	.
And why should my hon. friend from Sim-coe get alarmed at Providence, Rhode Island? I want my hon. friend to join with me in the opinion that, when we have all these transcontinental lines, the Dominion of Canada will only be in the eve'of her great development and will not have solved the question of transportation even of her own products. My hon. friend has shown alarm, and has spoken about Providence, Rhode Island, carrying our trade away. Sir, it rests with the people of the Dominion of Canada not to have the United States take our carrying trade from us, and not only that but to do a part of their carrying trade as well. That is the ambition of the people of Canada. This country has an advantage in transportation. We have the St. Lawrence route, because we own the outlets to the sea of that great river. When the St. Lawrence comes to the town of Cornwall it bids farewell to Uncle Sam and Tuns on through the Dominion of Canada to the ocean. That is our entrance to the Atlantic and it belongs to no other country. Sir, in knocking these great questions which the country is trying to solve, in finding fault and making it difficult for the men who have tliis work in hand to finance their undertaking, in aiding, knowingly-or, I would rather say, unwittingly -to make it diffieult for us to have oux own transcontinental line, hon. gentlemen opposite are undertaking a responsibilitv that men in any Canadian legislature ought to hesitate to assume. There are some things on which we should unite. And when it is a question of this kind, with the competition that to-day exists between | Mr. GRAHAM.
our maritime ports, the city of Montreal, the city of Quebec, and the United States ports, instead of trying to tell the world that we shall never be able to compete with the United States, we ought to join hands in this House, and in the country to assert ourselves, and show the people of the world that we are able to compete with any other country. Sir, the people of Canada have undertaken this work. They have said to the present administration, and to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wil frid Laurier) at its head that this work is to be put through. And, after it had been begun and carried on a few years, they said again:	Though we know what has
been said as to the cost, though we have had put under our door mats, and in at our front doors and back doors all kinds of circulars showing that we are going to be ruined by this undertaking, though it has been pointed out that the Grand Trunk Pacific will never run this road, still we command the government of the day to proceed with the undertaking-or, in other words, ' Let Laurier finish his work '. In the face of that, why do not hon. gentlemen opposite accept the verdict? Why do they continue to rehash old statements to the effect that the head of the government said some years ago that the road would cost $13,000,000? Why my hon. friend from South Simcoe said himself that he knew that was not what the Prime Minister meant, but only meant, that this was the amount of money that was to be paid out and not got back.


Haughton Lennox: I stated as distinctly today as my command of language would allow me to state that I distinguished between the total cost of the work and the amount that Canada will have to pay. I said that it was recognized that the First Minister meant that Canada would be out of pocket $13,000,000. And I have shown that the Dominion will be out of pocket fully four times that amount.


George Perry Graham: I am glad to have my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) explain again that he did not mean to have the country understand that the Prime Minister had said that the construction of the road would cost only $13,000,000. It was rather indefinite before. But wfiv rehash it? What influence has that on the country?


Haughton Lennox: A good deal.
Mr. GrRAHAM. Must history repeat itself again? It will be when the next opportunity is afforded the people. The matter has already been decided by the people. And I say again, in all sincerity, that Canada would look better in the eyes of the world if it _ were known that, once a public undertaking in this country- is settled, we unite and bend all our energies to have that undertaking carried out so as

to give the people, as soon as possible, the benefit of it. If that were done, we should present a united front to the world. The men at the head of this enterprise could then go to the old world and have no difficulty in getting cash. They would not meet the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite in the hands of the financiers of London and elsewhere when they seek money to carry out this Canadian enterprise.	_
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken too long. I only wish to say that I believe the people are satisfied with the way the government is carrying on this work. That work has its difficulties. If the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) should, some day, occupy 'the position which I occupy, and to which, I know, he aspires


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: I say that without prejudice in the absence of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster)-I say that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) should occupy this position, he will find out that in carrying out these great works there are innumerable difficulties. He will realize how easy it was for him to find some little *wrong done, some error in subtraction or addition; he will find how easy it was to criticise. But he will find also how difficult it is to carry out a great enterprise of this kind, particularly if men in the House of Commons and elsewhere, who should be encouraging the enterprise, are doing their ' best to give it a black eye every day. This work will be carried out. The people of Canada have undertaken it; the financiers of the old world, notwithstanding the efforts made to discredit it, are willing to stand behind it and will stand behind it, for they believe that what the people have said shall be done, will be done. And, in view of this, I have no hesitation in asking hon. members of this House to vote against the resolution of my hon. friend (Mt. Lennox) which can only serve one purpose, if carried, and that is to injure this great enterprise in the eyes of the financiers of the world.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) i3 to be congratulated on the eloquence with which he defended his cause. I believe also that the people of Canada should be deeply indebted to the hon. member for South Simcoe for the very exhaustive manner in which he has brought ttiis National Transcontinental muddle before the public. As I am to devote some attention to the subject, it will be necessary for my purpose to give a brief history of the undertaking. It is evident that certain interests in this country considered another transcontinental road necessary. I understand that the Grand Trunk railway was prepared to extend its system from North Bay westward to Winnipeg and on to the Pacific coast. That, I have heard, was not agreeable to some friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, who insisted that the road should be carried down to Quebec and on to Moncton, New Brunswick. I have not attempted to verify these statements, as they are not of much account in the argument I am about to make. We know this, that in 1903 a bargain was arranged between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, the offspring of the Grand Trunk railway, whereby the Grand Trunk Pacific was to build the line from Winnipeg westward to the Pacific coast; the people of Canada were to endorse the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the extent of $13,000 a mile across the prairies, a distance that was afterwards determined at 916 miles, and that, for the balance of the distance to the Pacific, [DOT] across the mountains, some 839 miles, the people of Canada were to endorse the securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of that section of the road. Then, Sir, coming to the eastern division between Moncton and Winnipeg, a distance of 1,805 miles, the arrangement was that Canada was to build the road, that upon its completion it was to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific under a fifty-year lease. During the first seven years, no rental was to be paid, but for the balance of the period the annual rental wa3 to be an amount equal to 3 per cent upon the total cost plus the accrued interest up to the date of completion.
There was some other details in connection with the transaction which it is unnecessary for me to refer to. I will not attempt to trace up these wild guesses that were made by the government regarding the cost of this road, which I understand commenced with $13,000,000, and which the Finance Minister subsequently extended to $50,000,000. We have had estimates of the cost placed before us to-day by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), and so far as I could see the hon. Minister of Railways has failed to give us any estimate of his own as to the probable cost of this road in Canada from ocean to ocean when completed.


George Perry Graham: I did not deal with that point, because it was not covered by the resolution; I was dealing simply with the resolution.


Charles Alexander Magrath: The hon. gentleman at one point stated that no part of the cost of the Quebec bridge should be charged to this National Transcontinental railway. Are we to suppose that when the railway gets down to the St. Lawrence river there will be balloons to carry the cars across?

This road is to be carried from Moncton to the Pacific coast, and I cannot see how we can leave out of the cost of construction of the Quebec bridge.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess,
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was stating that the hon. Minister of Railways appeared to think that no part of the cost of the Quebec bridge should be included in the cost of the National Transcontinental railway as if our trains would approach the river from both sides and be taken over in balloons. Of course, the Quebec bridge will form part of the National Transcontinental railway system and I believe that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has practically made an admission to that effect by presenting a statement to this House in which he has charged up against the National Transcontinental railway four-ninths of the cost of the Quebec bridge. After all, Sir, the question is what interest have the people of Canada in this
matter? The hon. gentleman's view is that the people will be satisfied if they are getting value for their money. That was the statement that the hon. gentleman made. Now, I beg to take issue with him. Were the government to invest the money of the people in an elevated railway system we know that it would cost an immense amount of money. The people would have their money invested in that system, but will any one attempt to say that the people would be satisfied with such work ? I hold, Sir, that the people of the country are concerned in securing transportation privileges at the lowest possible cost. Therefore, the question of cost is a very essential feature of this matter. As the government do not appear to be disposed to submit an estimate at the present time, I must make use of the figures which have been placed before us by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I have prepared a statement showing estimates of the cost of the Transcontinental railway under construction from Moncton to Prince Rupert, and the proportions to be borne by Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
Statement showing Estimates of Cost of Transcontinental line under Construction from Moncton to Prince Rupert and proportions to be borne by Canada and Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
-	Miles.	Estimated Cost.	Proportion to be found by :	
			Canada.	G.T.P. Ry.
Moncton to Winnipeg		1,805 916 839	$ 218,000,000 (a) 33,007,449 (b) 67,056,000 (b)	$ 218,000,000 11.908.000 50.292.000	$ Nil. 21,099,449 16,764,000
				
				
	3,560	318,063,449	280,200,000	37,863,449
				
(a)	Estimate by hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).
(b)	Estimates by Mr. Schreiber, who placed cost of prairie section at $36,034 per mile.
Now, Sir. it appears from this statement that Canada will be behind this enterprise to the extent of about $280,000,000, while the Grand Trunk Pacific will be called upon to find about $38,000,000. The figures show this rather interesting feature that while the western division consisting of 1,755 miles and is to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific at an estimated cost of $100,000,000 we find that the eastern section, being built by the government and practically the same distance-1,805 miles -will cost Canada about $218,000,000, and it must be borne in mind that the section being built- by the Grand Trunk Pacific penetrates the Rocky mountains for sev-Mr. MAGRATH.
era! hundred miles and we do know that there is any quantity of solid rock to be found there. What reasons can be advanced for such excessive cost and, after all, there is where the people of Canada are interested in this matter. If we have excessive cost we cannot expect very low rates. We know that 'at the very outset of this undertaking the government undertook to depart from the ordinary rules which govern business people in the opening of new territory by projecting railways therein. We know that the principle is to lay down a moderately fair road and, as the traffic increases, to set aside from the "earnings from time to time amounts for the

betterment of the road. No fault can be found with the government for endeavouring to secure the very best location, no fault can be found in the matter of securing proper alignment or easy curves, but when it comes to insisting that the gradients shall not exceed four-tenths of one per cent, which is practically a level road, in that wilderness for several hundred miles east of Winnipeg, it.is a case of extravagance let loose. Why, Sir, the very gentleman whom the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) placed in charge of the Railway Department of this country at that particular time would not father this project. The very gentleman who was supposed to know something about railway matters and who was placed in charge of the railway affairs of this country refused to continue in office and resigned. I refer to the late Hon. Andrew G. Blair.
Then, the Grand Trunk Pacific had held up before it as a standard the roadbed of the parent company between the cities of Montreal and Toronto, a roadbed that has taken fifty years to bring it up to its present standard of excellence. It is a wonder that these government railway experts of that day did not go to the extent of insisting that the face ol the rock cuts should be sandpapered because evidently
they looked upon the Canadian taxpayer as a cheerful giver, an easy prey and ready to freely part with his money.
Now, Mr. Speaker, fake the section of the road between Quebec and Moncton, where we already have a railway of our own and the hon. Minister of Railways is getting thin chasing the country looking for traffic to get rid of the deficits. I refer to the Intercolonial railway. We are going to build a road over the same territory. It is true that the government stated that the road would be 120 miles shorter than the Intercolonial railway. As it turns out the road is now only about 28 miles shorter and the estimated cost of the National Transcontinental railway between Quebec and Moncton is something like $28,000,000. That shorter distance is secured at about a million dollars per mile while the National Transcontinental railway from Quebec eastward to Moncton, for over 100 miles, parallels the Intercolonial railway and within a distance of 15 miles therefrom. As to this extraordinary cost of the Transcontinental railway, I wish to show the extent to which it will be embarrassed by fixed charges. I have prepared a statement making a comparison with the Canadian Pacific railway based upon the figures that have been brought before us.
Statement showing comparison of probable fixed charges G.T.P. and C.P.R.
G.T.P. Ry.
-	Miles.	Cost to G.T.P. Ry.	Fixed Charges.Moncton to Winnipeg	1,805	$ 175,475,754 (a) 33,007,449 67,056,000	$ 3%=5,264,272 3%= 990,223 3%=2,011,6801,755	
3,560	275,539,203	8.266,175
			
(a) This is the estimated cost to the Grand Trunk Pacific. The cost to Canada will be about 8218,000,000. The difference is due to the G.T.P. Ry. having the use of the road without rental during the first 7 years-all of which time Canada has to pay interest on the investment.
C.P. Ry.
-	Miles.	Cost.	Fixed Charges.10,543	$ 302,196,637 (b)	$ 9,427,032
(b) Railway and equipment as shown in last annual return.

This is not a fair comparison for the simple reason that for the Grand Trunk Pacific no amount is given for equipment or for terminals at the Atlantic ocean. Yet this statement shows this condition of affairs that the Grand Trunk Pacific, a trunk line solely, of 3,560 miles has fixed charges amounting to over $8,000,000 and the Canadian Pacific railway, with a trunk line of practically the same length and with feeders having mileage equal to double the length of the trunk line, has practically the same fixed charges. That is rather a serious state of affairs for people who live in Western Canada and who hope to have the enjoyment of very low rates on the Grand Trunk Pacific road. I might point out also that the bulk of the fixed charges for the Transcontinental railway axe on the National Transcontinental end where there is practically no local traffic, outside of possibly 500 miles. I then hold that not only is Canada's credit being impaired by such unnecessarily heavy expenditures, but it is very questionable if (the Grand Trunk Pacific Will be able to meet its heavy obligations, and I want to say that the impression is gaining ground in this 'country not alone among railway men, that the Grand Trunk Pacific will be forced to drop a portion of the National Transcontinental railway and the actions of the Grand Trunk railway, to which I shall presently refer, lend some colour to that opinion. It is no pleasure to me to make a statement of that character. I have not got sufficiently far into politics to wish to discredit any undertaking, no matter what government has set it on foot, but I hold that to be the situation and I think it is my duty as a member of this House to bring it forward.' The right hon. gentleman claimed that this railway shall be a Canadian railway for the development of Canadian trade for the benefit of Canadian ports. The language of the agreement made on July 29, 1903, between the Dominion of Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is very explicit. Section 42 of that agreement reads as follows :
Section 42. It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the Government of Canada for the express purpose of excouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The (Company accepts the aid on these conditions and agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its branches, mot specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada be carried entirely on Canadian territory or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater by a Canadian than by United States ports, and that all such traffic not Mr. MAGRATH.
specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Section 43. The company further agrees that it shall not in any manner within its power directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects, in good faith, use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted namely: the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ocean ports.
The opposition, the Conservative party in this House, at that time did not consider these covenants on the part of the Grank Trunk Pacific were of much use so long as the parent company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, was allowed the fullest freedon, especially in view of the language used by the Minister of Finance, speaking of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in 1903, at * Hansard * page 8570:
We have not been content that they shall stand behind it. We have required and they have readily consented that they shall be in it and of it and form the whole thing.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company then, Sir, is the whole thing according to the Minister of Finance, and at the same time it is free of the covenants contained in sections 42 and 43 in the matter of developing Canadian ocean ports with Canadian products. Then we have the valuable opinion of the Minister of Railways, when addressing this House last session, speaking of the Intercolonial Railway, at ' Hansard,' page 2694, 1909, he said:
We have, it is true, an understanding and agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway but the Grand Trunk Railway has its own connections to Portland and will shortly have connections further east. And while it may live up to its agreement with us, it does not give to the Intercolonial railway a pound of freight that it can get out of giving to that road. It gives as much as it can to its own line and carries it to Portland.
Mr. Speaker, that is ordinary business sense on the part of the Grand Trunk railway. The opposition saw the situation very clearly in 1903, when the Grand Trunk Pacific Act was under consideration. The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) moved an amendment to the seventh clause,
' Hansard,' page 12711 of 1903, in which the following sections appears:
(a) That the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company so long as the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall hold the common stock of the said Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to the amount of $24,900,000, shall perform, fulfil and carry out according to the true intention and meaning thereof, all the provisions of this Act, and of the covenants, stipulations and conditions in the said agreement contained, which according to the terms thereof, ought to be performed, fulfilled or carried out by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

(b) That neither the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, nor the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada shall in any matter within its powers, directly or indirectly permit, advise or encourage the transportation of traffic by routes or at rates other than those in the said agreement, provided that each of the said companies shall in all respects and in good faith use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted and accepted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ocean ports.
I cannot do better than read two or three paragraphs from the hon. gentleman's speech in support of this amendment: When we consider that we are making a contract with a company whose whole line when completed will be mortgaged for every single dollar that it cost to build the line,
1 think no further comment is necessary to show of how little value the covenant of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway company really is.
Again he said:
If we look at the position of the Grand Trunk Railway Company we find that company by the Act being enforced to accept practically the whole of the stock, we have the Grand Trunk Railway Company controlling the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company without any obligation whatever.
Elsewhere the hon. gentleman stated: Therefore as to this subclause (a), I think we are justified in assuming, that, as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which after all is as clay in the hands of the potter as between itself and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Grand Trunk Railway Company should covenant that it, itself, will see that the child of its creation shall carry out the contract which has been entered into. Another feature of the contract is as to the carrying of trade through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports. I will not occupy the time of the House in reading clauses 42 and 43 of the contract, which provide that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company shall see that freight is routed through Canadian channels and through Canadian ports. Subclause (b) of the amendment which I moved provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company shall do, in fact, itself what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is bound by the contract already made with the government to do. It also provides that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, itself, shall not in any roundabout way defeat the true intent of the agreement by itself doing what the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would be liable under its covenant for doing.
Now, Sir, we know that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has built a branch from Lake Superior Junction on the National Transcontinental railway down to Fort William, a distance of about 200 miles; we know that it has terminals and elevators at Fort William; we know that the Grand Trunk railway has terminals at Depot Harbour and at Midland on the Georgian bay; we know that the Grand
Trunk railway has the Canada Atlantic running from Depot Harbour to Coteau, we know that the Grand Trunk railway has its own line running from Midland to its main line, and thence to Coteau; we know that the Grand Trunk railway controls the Vermont Central, which runs southward from Montreal to New London in Connecticut on the Atlantic; we also know that the Ontario government railway intercepts the National Transcontinental at Cochrane due north of North Bay. So that there are two outlets from the Grand Trunk Pacific whereby freight can be diverted down towards the Grand Trunk railway system, and it appears to me, with that in view, that it would have been wise for hon. gentlemen opposite to have accented the amendment offered by the hon. member for Hastings. The following information as to distances may be of some interest to the House:


TABLE OF DISTANCES.
[Stage Direction]
Miles.
Quebec to tidewater at Portland, Me., via Grand Trunk
railway	 319
Quebec to Moncton via Grand Trunk Pacifio
railway	460
Moncton to tidewater at
St. John, N.B	 90
[Stage Direction]
	550
Cochrane, on Grand Trunk Pacific railway, to tidewater at Portland, Me., via Grand Trunk railway and its connections (including Canada	Atlantic)	..	..	939Cochrane, on Grand Trunk Pacific railway to tidewater at Providence, R.I., via Grand Trunk railway and its connections (including	Canada	Atlantic)..	998
Cochrane to Moncton via Grand Trunk Pacific
railway, say	1,015
Moncton to tidewater at
St. John, N.B	90
[Stage Direction]
	1,105
Finally, I wish to bring before the House some evidences of Grand Trunk railway activities in acquiring another ocean port at Providence. R.I. I suppose it is only reasonable that the Grand Trunk Tailway should wish to get as much freight business as possible for its lines, the Canada Atlantic and the Central Vermont, but I do not think it will appeal to the people of this country, especially in our maritime provinces, to see so much activity on the part of the parent company in securing another ocean port when there is practicallv no activity on the part of its offspring or itself as the ' whole thing,' according to the Minister of Finance, to establish ocean ports on the Atlantic in this country, especially in view of the agreement which the government made with the offspring ' to promote the internal and
[Stage Direction]
foreign trade of Canada and to develop the commerce through Canadian ports.' I find that a Bill (H 78) substitute A, was presented to the general assembly of the State of Rhode Island in January, 1910, and being "An Act to incorporate the Southern New England Railway Company.' This railway -is designed to connect with the Central Vermont, and the measure was originally opposed bv local railway interests and only became law a few weeks ago. The incorporators, according to section 1, are Charles M. Hays, E. H. Fitzhugh, James S. Kenyon, D. F. Sherman, Herbert W. Rice, Henry A. Carpenter, George H. Webb, G. C. Jones, E. C. Smith, Albert Tuttle, E. H. Baker, M. M. Reynolds and C. W. Witters. Section 3 provides that ' said corporation is hereby authorized and empowered to construct, maintain and operate a lateral branch from some convenient point on its road, through the city of Providence, to tide-water, etc.' Now, it is well known that Mr. Hays is president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and Mr. H. Fitzhugh is its first vice-president. These are responsible gentlemen, and their utterances either directly or through -agents to the people of Providence justify'me in giving some extensive quotations from the press of that city. From the Providence ' Journal dated February 16, 1910, there is a long article under the heading:
Business men favour Grand Trunk project. Men representing millions of capital endorse move. Board of trade approves. Emphatically supports extension of railway into Khode Island and appoints committee to investigate details of charter-Governor Pothier makes significant statement.
Ar?ong t.11? expressions of opinion cited m the article, the following appear:
Governor Pothier-It lias been the dream of my life a9 a Rhode Islander to have Providence become the terminus of a great transcontinental railroad.
I do not want to say what I think of the Grand Trunk Railway's application for a charter, for I shall probably have to act upon that matter and I do not want to appear to prejudice the case.
Governor Pothier continues:
So far as a connection with a Canadian railway is concerned, I said recently, speaking m Boston:-	' ^
The export trade of the Dominion in years to come will open the eyes of the commercial world, lhe development of her wonderful fes°urces, the stores of iron and coal, the fertile helds and virgin forests will result m an immense and increasing yield. The port that handles that trade on the Atlantic eea-board will assume a place of power and influence in the maritime circles of the world.
In the same article Frederick W. Aldred, connected with one of the mercantile houses in Providence, states:
Providence has the greatest opportunity in Mr. MAGRATH.
its history in the knocking at its doors of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Every manufacturer and merchant in Rhode Island ha9 a vital stake in forcing the question to an issue at once in the General Assembly and in forcing our legislators to grant a reasonable charter now-not next year or next month, but at once.
The entrance of the Grand Trunk Pacific into Rhode Island means that Rhode Island will have, as a competitive railroad system, one of the most aggressive on the North American continent. It means that Rhode Island manufacturers will oome into direct touch with the fastest growing, most prosperous and potentially richest sections on this continent-out Pacific Coast States, the Canadian Northwest and Alaska.
Mr. Aldred further states:
It means finally competition, rivalry and resulting improvement in pur transportation facilities, lower freight rates and a great commerce on land and sea.
Mr. Rathbone Gardner is credited with saying:
Taking Mr. Hays' statement as sincere, and that the Grand Trunk railway intends, if allowed to enter Rhode Island, to afford full connections with its system throughout the western and northwestern parts of this country and Canada, it is certainly a very desirable thing for the legislature to grant the privilege asked for.
In the same issue of the 'Journal,' under the heading:
Hays declares Road Acts in good faith-Reasserts Grand Trunk's intention to build if chartered.
(From a Staff Correspondent of the 'Journal.') Montreal, February 15.
The intention of the Grand Trunk railway to build a line into Providence if the charter now pending in the Rhode Island legislature is granted was reiterated emphatically by President Hays of the Grand Trunk in an interview with a ' Journal ' representative to-night
* *
To the question, What prospect is there under the Grand Trunk plans of Providence being made a great port for ocean service from the Canadian grain fields?
Mr. Hays replied, ' There is this to he said: When the Canadian wheat fields are developed there will not be ports enough to handle the great production from that area. There will be 250,000,000 acres under cultivation, with a yield of 20 bushels to the acre.'
##***#*
I now propose reading some interesting paragraphs from the Providence 'Sunday Journal' of February 27, 1910, which presents five large photographs showing 'scenes at Montreal, freight centre, and in the vast grain growing territory whose development has been the decade's marvel.* The titles under these photographs are: Harvesting oats in Saskatchewan, modern methods of harvesting in the new northwest; threshing wheat in Saskatchewan, Grand Trunk elevator in Montreal, Grand Trunk freight

terminals in Montreal, and the article is introduced under large headlines reading, 'How the Grand Trunk system taps the new northwest.' The following extracts are taken from the article in question:
Rhode Islanders will have several large slices of wholly new geography to learn, as a matter of purely local knowledge, if the Grand Trunk system is brought into the state, for that will mean the joining of Nar-ragansett bay's tidewater to the immense tracts of the new northwest, which only yesterday were regions unknown to civilization, and even to-day have barely made their bow to the world.
Already men who desire to appear well informed speak familiarly of the resources of Saskatchewan and the mineral wealth of the areas just being tapped by the army of workmen who are busily adding to Canada's railroad mileage. But few, save those who have actually visited the country, have much conception of the development that is taking place.
No small part of this is due to the activities of the Grand Trunk system, under the direction of President Hays. In a general way these have been described since the petition for a charter was presented to the general assembly, but perhaps nothing could make it more graphic than the prediction, freely made by railroad men, that the Grand Trunk will ultimately be able to claim the title of 'America's greatest railway,' with America in this case the whole western hemisphere., *****
Down along the water front of Port Arthur there are seven rows of huge, circular bins, not unlike the gas tanks so common in eastern cities. Ask a native about them and he will tell you that they are wheat wells; that they have a capacity of 25,000,000 bushels; and that they are only a part of the number that the railroad intends to erect. Some day, he will say, there will be enough bins to handle 40,000,000 bushels.
In those wells you have the secret of the Grand Trunk Pacific's anxiety to open up the far northwest-it is wheat and nothing more. Prom Winnipeg westward a hundred million bushels a year is being grown now, with only one-tenth of the soil being tilled. A hundred million bushels of wheat means much freight; its transportation means that thousands on thousands of freight cars must be brought into use.
This great northwest that the Grand Trunk Pacific will tap is mainly a wheat-growing country. Nowhere on earth are the condi-ditions more conducive to raising wheat than here. Southern Alberta says with pride that it has the finest winter wheat lands on the continent. In the district around Calgary the average yield of wheat in T908 was 31 bushels to the acre; on the best lands of the United States in the same year, it was little more than half that amount.
*
Such is the country with which the Grand Trunk railway, now desiring to gain another outlet to the sea by way of Providence, will connect Rhode Island. It is as full of vast posibilities as was our own northwest a hundred years ago. It is waiting only for people to develop it to make it one of the great food 263
sources of the world. It is already up and doing; and it deserves more than any other country on either side of the Atlantic or the Pacific the name of the ' land of to-morrow.'
And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to some rather important and interesting statements attributed to Mr. William Wainwright, the second vice-president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I am quoting extracts from the Providence 'Journal,' Providence, R.I., March 2, 1910:
Grand Trunk Steamer lines here planned- Officials find City's Tidewater Facilities excellent-Portland not satisfactory.
Vice-President William Wainwright of the Grand Trunk railway declared yesterday that the tidewater facilities of Providence are an important consideration, in his company's plans, and that steamship lines are contemplated in connection with the projected local branch of the road-the Southern New England Railway Company.
Hereto the officials of the company have been cautious in their statements as to immediate development of steamship lines. VicePresident Wainwright, according to despatches from Montreal, is very candid in his statement of what the railroad is planning here if the charter is granted.
The officials until yesterday confined themselves to the assurance of adequate accommodation of the freightening interests of the section, and the prediction that, with the development of the Canadian west, there would be export business for all the tidewater terminals of the company.
The statement by Mr. Wainwright, however, aims directly at the establishment of an ocean steamship line or lines from this city.	.
Best Port on Coast-'We consider Providence the best place between Nova Scotia and Florida for our purpose,' said Mr. Wainwright, who has been connected with the Grand Trunk for many years, in an interview in Montreal.
' Both the Canadian Pacific and ourselves, he continued, ' have had surveyors and experts up and down the Atlantic coast for the last 10 years looking for the best place to bring our rails to tidewater. We have Portland, but Portland is unsatisfactory in many ways.'	.
' We consider Providence the best place. It will do us out of any mail subsidy for our steamers if present conditions continue to exist, but we believe we shall more than make up for this in other ways.'
Mr. Wainwright declined to discuss plans further until a charter had been granted in Rhode Island to the Southern New England Railway Company.
Finally, the company's plans to extend the Grand Trunk system into Providence appear to have been ratified Dy the London directors on or about the 11th March last, as would appear from the following extracts from the same journal in its issue of the next day:
An announcement that the Grand Trunk directors in session in London yesterday had unanimously endorsed the plan of a branch
[Stage Direction]


to Providence furnished a sensation at the House hearing on the Southern New England's application for a charter at the State House yesterday. *****
Mr. Murdock then unfolded a telegram received only a few minutes before by VicePresident Fitzhugh from Montreal. As he read the message the big gathering listened intently. The telegram said-' Following received from Mr. Hayes to-day-Providence Branch discussed by Board this morning. Action taken fully approved, and you may so state.'
*

A complete stenographic report of the Grand Trunk hearing, at which Mr. Murdock, the company's attorney, made such a sensation by announcing the decision of the London board, appears in the Providence 'Journal'" of March 12. I propose trespassing a few moments longer on the time of this House by reading some statements taken from that report and made by certain prominent officers of the Grand Trunk Company:
Providence, R.I.,
Room 313, State House. Hearing before the House Committee on corporations on ' An Act to Incorporate the Southern New England Railway company,' H. 7-18, beginning at 1.35 p.m. on Friday, March 11, 1910. *****
JOHN S. MURDOCK. 'Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee I appear in behalf of the petitioners. I think it is no exaggeration to say that this is the most important question that you have had before you during your legislative career.'
* * # *
But in the proposition now before you you have, without any asking of financial aid, opportunity to give to the people of this state the outlet that they longed for forty years ago, and through a connection with a line which as I have said before, extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific-or will when work under construction is completed.
* * *# * ^ * * Therefore you will be concerned, as members of this committee with the questions which must be uppermost in your minds, which I put as follows: First who are the people who are behind this petition? Second, what is their object in seeking an entrance into Rhode Island ? And, third, will they build the road if this charter is granted? These questions gentlemen, being answered to your satisfaction, it seems to me that it leaves no doubt, must leave no doubt, in your minds, as to what your actions should be on this petition.
Now as to the first question. The person whose name first appears on this petition is Charles M. Hays-a man who has had a most remarkable railroad career. ******* Mr. Hays conceived the idea of a road extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and for a road more northerly than any other road across the continent.
Such a project as that, of course demanded government aid; it was beyond the means of a purely private enterprise; and Mr. Hays sought and obtained that government aid after a fierce political battle-the fiercest in the Mr. MAGRATH.
annals of politics in the Dominion of Canada; so that line is now under way. It is opening an absolutely new territory-a territory rich in possibilities, which Mr. Hays believes will be in the future the granary of the world. And upon that proposition he is expending these millions of dollars; and, if his judgment is wrong why his whole structure will fall.
On the possibilities of the agricultural development of that section of this continent we are intensely interested for two reasons. In all probability we will have to look to
that portion of this continent for our wheat, I am informed that now we export only about three per cent of what we raise and with the increased population and the decrease in the areas devoted to wheat growing, we will be dependent upon the Canadian northwest for our wheat supply.
The full story of the Grand Trunk Pacifio and the development of the Grand Trunk proper reads like a romance.
*
Now as to the advantages of this line. We have what we believe to be one of the finest harbours on the Atlantic coast, Mr. Hays and his associates believe that, when this vast territory about which you will hear more from Mr. Loud, is developed, that they will have further need of ports, to take care of this vast amount of grain that is coming out of this wonderful country. Besides Portland they have Montreal, which is closed during a large part of the year. *****
I am authorized to state that if we can offer adequate harbour facilities, if the improvements now projected in the harbour are carried to completion, that when this line is built we will have a transatlantic service running from Providence to Europe. Mr. Fitzhugh was cautious in his statement. He says, if we have the facilities. We will not promise to spend the vast sums that will have to be spent upon our harbour itself; but if the expenditures now authorized are carried through and facilities are afforded we will have that service.
*
Now if these g_entlemen are acting in good faith-and I believe they are, and you will believe so when you hear it from their own lips-they see the advantages here in Providence, see them much more clearly than we see them ourselves, and they offer to come here to spend a great many million dollars within this state and all that they ask of you gentlemen is favourable consideration of this charter such as you have given to other roads.
*
Mr. Fitzhugh:	Mr. Chairmain and gentlemen, the question of extending the Grand Trunk system to run to the State of Rhode Island and Providence is one that has been before the company for a number of years and has been considered from time to time.
* * ,
* *
I want to assure you gentlemen that if the charter is granted upon reasonably fair terms the railway will be built, that the great corporation which I have the honour to represent, I would say has not only the means but also the charter to make the railway in this community a paying proposition, but in order to do so we must have the goodwill of the community, and we hope that, if permitted to build the Southern New England railway we will receive liberally of your help.

Gentlemen, on account of the difficulties under which I speak I want to ask Mr. Loud, our general traffic manager, to tell you some of the advantages to be derived by this community by the operation of the Grand Trunk system to tidewater, through the State of Rhode Island. Mr. Loud, who is the traffic manager of all the Grand Trunk railway system, is entirely familiar with not only the conditions that exist in New England but throughout the western states, the central western states, in which we operate, as well as the Canadian and the great northwest and the eastern provinces of Canada, In conclusion I desire to again assure you that if this .charter is granted on reasonable terms the road will be built by the Grand Trunk system.
Mr. Loud. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will endeavour to explain to you the advantages that a connection with the Grand Trunk system would give or rather afford in the way of distributing traffic from this territory. You are all familiar with the situation in the east, for instance, the Grand Trunk is at Portland, Me. It is at New London and from a point in New London you have been told it is intended to run to Providence and on to Montreal through White river.

The Grand Trunk has to-day its steamship lines at Portland in the winter and at Montreal in the summer, running to European ports. It has been pointed out to you in connection with this city that a steamship line, the advantages of a steamship line from here would be great. A successful steamship line not only needs to take business away from you such for instance as grain and the product which the United States has to ship, but a steamship company also needs to have inbound cargo in order to give it business in both directions. One of the conditions of a steamship company is in having a port where there can be imports. *****
Now the Grand Trunk system is the parent of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk Pacific to-day is in the course of building the road. It starts in New Brunswick running to St. John, N.B., Nova Scotia, through to Winnipeg on what is called the Transcontinental Commission of the Canadian government. A great deal of the mileage is already laid, but it is not connected up.
From the La Superior Junction to Winnipeg the rails are down and cargoes are actually taken over there, and it is expected during the year it will be in full operation from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. The Grand Trunk Pacific proper has built a branch line from Fort William to Lake Superior Junction, there connecting with the Transcontinental section and with the Grand Trunk Pacific proper at Winnipeg. The line is complete and in operation from Winnipeg to Edmonton a distance of 790 and odd miles. There are also branches at points to Yorkton.
Then follows nearly a column of material in which Mr. Loud deals with his company's railway development in the far west and dilates at some length upon the productivity of that section of Canada, especially its grain growing possibilities. He proceeds:
To give you some idea of this territory a thought which is suegested by some questions asked with regard to the grain production, it 263£	I ;
is a fact that the United States is ceasing to be an exporter of wheat. Of course it exports a little wheat to-day but as a matter of fact it is getting less each year and there are probably two reasons for it. One is that there is a larger consumption of wheat in the United States, and the country of itself is increasing in its population and is needing more flour each year. People are consuming more flour and the flour exporting certainly is decreasing. We are coming to a time when the United States will want more wheat, Mr. J. J. Hill has said that they are going to get it from the Canadian northwest. He is building his lines to go in to the grain traffie.
The Grand Trunk is building branch lines through different portions of that country for the interchange of business. In the future there will be a great interchange of business in that territory. With the greater interchange of business and with the Grand Trunk system extending its lines to Providence I believe that Providence will be greatly the gainer in being able to reach such a tremen-duous distributing country as it affords now. Even if you are not interested in anything going on in Canada you are interested probably to some extent in the export to Japan and China. It is intended that the Grand Trunk will have its steamer lines from Prinoe Rupert, and when that line is opened it will be the shortest line from the Atlantic coast to China and Japan by several hundred miles.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not know what all the plans of the Grand Trunk railway are in the state of Rhode Island. I do not, however, think we would be very far astray if we concluded that their expenditures for terminals and building this new road would amount to at least ten millions of dollars, and without any financial aid given to them by the people of Rhode Island. Yet, we in this country obligate ourselves to an enormous amount in order to get another road across the continent. Our western provinces obligate themselves to assist the Grand Trunk Pacific, and we have a set of very prominent gentlemen coming here on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific making a contract with our government to in no way attempt to divert traffic from that road to the detriment of Canadian ocean ports, yet we find some of the same gentlemen acting on behalf of the Grand Trunk railway, dealing with the state of Rhode Island and certainly leading the people of that state to believe that they are to have an ocean port, to a certain extent built up by traffic to be diverted from the Grand Trunk Pacific. I felt it necessary to quote very extensively from the Providence papers, so that no one can say that they were merely accidental statements! that were made by irresponsible parties to the legislatures of that state, and I consider, Sir, that is sufficient justification for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the country.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, every condition which surrounds

Ahe moving of this resolution and the debate so far as it has progressed, indicates That the resolution is not offered in this House in any serious way or with the idea that there are any grounds why the proposal of my hon. friend from North Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) should be adopted. It has been brought forward at this very late period of the session, though my hon. friend has had in his possession for some weeks all the information upon which he thinks he is warranted in presenting this motion. A complete opportunity has been given him to investigate the integrity of the engineers connected with the construction of the Transcontinental railway, an opportunity especially open to my hon. friend, but it was deliberately refused by him and without warrant or reason. This motion _ is brought forward without any ground being given why a royal commission should be appointed. Surely, when the intervention of a body of that kind is sought, some reasonable ground should be given to parliament why the request should be granted. There should be something to be ascertained which parliament, even with all its machinery, could not ascertain.
My hon. friend has not ventured to suggest anything of that kind; on the contrary, he studiously avoided making any suggestion which would afford any ground for invoking the aid of a tribunal like a royal commission. No allegations of impropriety on the part of the cabinet are suggested, and no suggestion is made that any other course could have been adopted by this government during the past seven years since the inception of this project has been given to the House. We have simply and solely the assertion that because the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, or the National Transcontinental railway, to use its legal designation, is costing a great deal of money, that fact should be investigated. One needs only to state that proposition to realize the absurdity of it. If every proposition that comes before this House which involves the expenditure of a sum of money of $50,000,000 or $100,000,000, should be followed by a royal commission simply on account of the size of the expenditure, why, there would be nothing going on in this country but royal [DOT]commissions, having regard to the way in which Canada is advancing and prospering and its expenditure increasing. 'Of course it would suit the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), nothing would de-li-s'ht him better than royal commissions going on all the time. If he would devote more of his time to perfecting the legislation going through this House, instead of asserting incompetence where none exists, he would be performing his parliamentary duties much better. Some hon. gentlemen have suggested that the reason why thp hon. member for Simcoe has brought for-Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
ward this resolution is because the country is beginning to realize that he and his colleagues have played the baby act when they withdrew from the Lumsden committee, and that fact has become so much appreciated all over this country, that he thought he would put up a big bluff before the session expired, and talk about a royal commission, which he did not want, and would not know what to do with if he had it. 'then there is another suggestion, that this resolution is a bold attempt on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to try and resussitate some relic of a policy in which they once stood together with a united front before the country. If you recollect recent political history, you will realize that never since 1904, have our friends opposite ever stood united on anything in this country which has been the subject of legislation. Of course it is natural that they should endeavour to rally together their shattered ranks, very much shattered this session, ranks which are somewhat decimated, and before the close of the session to rally them together on attack upon the National Transcontinental railway administration. Then was the other hope that if they got back to first principles, at least they might stand together for the old policy. Let me commend to my hon. friends this one fact, that if they want to rally their party together they must catch some glimmer of the old faith, the old patriotism and the old belief in Canada that dominated the grand old man who led them in days that are past. If the Conservative party was dominated by the traditions of Sir John A. Macdonald to-day, you would not find them raising quibbles, and all kinds of false issues about the development of that northern country, and about the construction of a second trans-continuental railway, about attacking the credit of Canada, or the men who are building that road, you would find them standing together for that proposition and standing for the building up of this country. But fchat is not the position of hon. gentlemen opposite. They are back where they were in 1904, no further ahead, and just as far off from the promised land for which so many of them sigh. The one assertion upon which my hon. friend started out in this resolution was indeed a matter of ancient history. After their assertion that the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister of this country had stated that the Transcontinental would only cost $13,000,000 in 1903, and after my right hon. friend at a previous period in this session absolutely disclaimed any idea of that kind, we find him bringing to the front and putting in his resolution the allegation that this country was practically deceived, because the right hon. gentleman had said that this proposition was only going to cost this country $13,000,000. My hon. friend went

back on that proposition this afternoon; when reproved by the Minister of Railways he took it back in a most unqualified way. But they put that in the resolution for the purpose' of deluding some people in this country who still believe in the Tory party, and who still listen to that old story. My hon. friend knows very well that the right hon. gentleman leading this House, was speaking about the interest upon the cost.


Haughton Lennox: I know exactly what I stated this afternoon, and it is correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has stated so many things in resard to this matter, and put such quite different things in his resolution, that one hardly knows how he stands on the resolution. What are the facts? In that same session of parliament when the Finance Minister gave to this House the estimate which had been made by Mr. Schreiber of $55,000,000, or, if certain gradients were used $62,000,000, my hon. friend would like this House to believe that because Mr. Schreiber had given that estimate the country was deceived, dreadfully deceived. That is the allegation in the resolution, if it alleges anything. What are the facts? Every one knows full well that Mr. Schreiber had never made a survey of any kind in that country.


Haughton Lennox: Then why did the Finance Minister quote him as an authority?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because he knew very well the conditions under which that statement was made; it was made from information gathered from exploratory surveys in that northern country made by engineers, from the information in possession of this House, and of the whole country	*


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman state whether that report of Mr. Schreiber was ever laid before this House?


Haughton Lennox: And did the Finance Minister mention Mr. Schreiber at the time?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) dispute the fact that it was Mr. Schreiber who made that estimate?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Finance Minister made it to the country.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Don't let us resort to quibbling in this matter.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that that estimate was based on the statement of Mr. Schreiber; I ask him: Will he state whether that report of Mr. Schreiber was ever laid before this House?


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend state where anybody ever demanded Mr. Sehreiber's report, or questioned the ac-curracy of the information which the Minister of Finance gave?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend knew that when the Minister of Finance made that,statement in the House he made it as the statement of an engineer who was speaking from the information that had been gathered by exploratory surveys, before any location survey had ever been made by any engineer in this country. Every hon. gentleman in the opposition knew that that information was given, not upon any location survey, preliminary or otherwise, that had been made in that northern country, and they knew that no survey of a preliminary character had ever been made in that land.


Mr. BOYCE.: Did not the Prime Minister say that they had ' mountains of information ' to give to the House?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, he had mountains of information. Is my hon. friend so green, is this erudite gentleman who comes from that northern country so green, that he did not know there never had been any location surveys made in that northern country? My hon. friend knew that, of course, and so did every other hon. gentleman opposite


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did not the hon. gentleman know that their campaign literature was headed, ' A New Transcontinental Railway for $13,000,000 ' ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is living in the past.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He has not seen Halley's comet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In lyU3, when the government came to this House and when the government went to the country asking for a mandate to build this road, they knew that no location survey for a railway had ever been made, and parliament knew that. They knew that there had been exploratory surveys, just as there are now exploratory surveys going on all over this northern country, certain information was coming into this government-mountains of information, if you like-and on that information Mr. Schreiber made this general estimate which was laid before parliament. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not satisfied with the information or with the estimate. They did not believe it then.
An hon MEMBER. And they do not believe it now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And they do not believe it now. Let me give one or two statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite as to what their judgment was with reference to the cost of this Transcontinental railway just for the purpos# of showing

whether there was any deception in so far as they were concerned. The then hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), at page 9171 of 'Hansard,' said that the road would cost $73,000,000. Mr. Bennett said that it would cost $72,000,000. The hon. member for Lennox and Addington (Mr. Wilson) adopted the estimate of the Toronto 'Mail,' whose estimate was that it would cost $114,000,000. Then my hon. friend from Peel estimated that it would cost $100,000,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: At least.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At least. So that my hon. friends are not at all put out when they find it costing more. Mr. Le-furgey stated that the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), being tne director of a railway company, ought to know, and that the hon. member for West Toronto believed that the railway would cost $280,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER.: That is pretty near it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friends knew better than we did apparently, and now they say that they were deceived.


Mr. BLAIN.: What did Mr. Blair say it would cost?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Lefurgey said that he did not think that the estimate of the hon. member for West Toronto was exactly right, but he thought it would cost from $120,000,000 to $150,000,000. The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) said that it would cost $150,000,000, and Mr. Clancy said that it would cost $120,000,000. Then the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) made up an estimate of $75,000,000, and later on he stated that no one could estimate within $10,000,000 what this railway, with four-tenths of one per cent grade, would cost. So that neither the leader of the opposition or anybodv else was deceived by the statement that this railway was only going to cost $13,000,000, because every one of these hon. gentlemen were perfectly satisfied that it was going to cost over $100,000,-
000.	The hon. leader of the opposition went so far as to say that nobody could tell within_ $10,000,000 what it was going to cost with a grade of four-tenths of one per cent. My hon. friend went to the country asserting this.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my hon. friend whether he and other hon. gentlemen did not rise in their places and declare over and over again that our estimates were wildly and absurdly extravagant?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am surprised at my hon. friend the leader of the opposition putting forward a tu quoque argument like


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: that. I would not expect that from the hon. gentleman; I would expect a back bencher to do that. Does the hon. gentleman remember that he made the statement that noboby could tell within $10,000,000 what it would cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I challenge any member of the government to do it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Now my hon. friend is complaining and he says that he was deceived as to the cost of the road. g


Robert Laird Borden: I have never said that I was deceived.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What does this resolution say?


Robert Laird Borden: I have said that there was an attempt, successful for the time being, to deceive the country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The country was not deceived.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Fortunately for this Canada of ours the people were not deceived by hon. gentlemen opposite on this question.


Robert Laird Borden: Was my hon. friend deceived as to the cost of the road?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In regard to being deceived as to the cost of the road, I may say that I wanted to see this road built, no matter what it cost, for the benefit of Canada. I was not in the House at that time, but irrespective of the question of estimates or anything else-1 would not have been bothered with estimates-I would have said that Canada must have this road, that Canada should have it in the interest of the country and in the interest of its future.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not quite an answer to the question. Will my hon. friend state whether he was deceived as to the cost of the road?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all, for the simple reason that the leader of the opposition assurely should know that while he fought as a maritime province man against the construction of the only link which will enable those little provinces down by the sea to participate in the development of the west and take their part in the national life of this country, I was prepared to stand for it no matter what the cost was.


Robert Laird Borden: I will challenge my hon. friend to produce one line or word in support of what he has said in parliament or out of parliament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not in parliament at that time, but perhaps my hon. friend will tell me why he supported the

resolution of his friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) who did not want the railway from Winnipeg to Moncton, but who wanted it to come to North Bay?


Robert Laird Borden: What resolution does my hon. friend refer to?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did you support it?


Robert Laird Borden: I know of no such resolution.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was read by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Ma-grath) a few minutes ago.


Robert Laird Borden: There was no such resolution read here to-day. I challenge the hon. gentleman to produce any such resolution that I supported.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is taking a very bold course. Let us have this question settled. Either the leader of the opposition was in favour of the construction of the railway from Winnipeg to Quebec or he was not. Was he in favour of it, or was he not?


Robert Laird Borden: I stated that I was in favour of it. I stated further that I was in favour of the construction of the road from Quebec to Moncton, and I stated in this House that I thought that the line from Quebec to Moncton ought to be constructed as part of the Intercolonial railway and not as a competing line with the Intercolonial railway.


William Stevens Fielding: Did my hon. friend not hear the hon. member for East Hastings state that every member of the opposition agreed with the policy that the road should terminate at North Bay?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear the hon. member for East Hastings state anything of the kind.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that he said it?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that he said it.


William Stevens Fielding: I will furnish the hon. gentleman with his words if he desires.
Mr, R. L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman can furnish them or not, as he likes. The hon. member for East Hastings spoke for himself, and I for myself never made any such statement as that. I spoke for myself in regard to that line; I made my views known on the floor of parliament both by speech and resolution, and I challenge the Minister of Finance to produce here or to quote one single word of mine in parliament or out of parliament that will support the statement which has been made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and backed up by the Minister of Finance


William Stevens Fielding: I have no right to participate in the debate at this time, and I will sit down if I have not the permission of the hon. gentleman, but I state that the hon. gentleman for East Hastings made a speech in which he stated, amidst the applause of hon. gentlemen on that side-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Stevens Fielding: I repeat my words that he made the statement amidst the applause of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House that what the opposition stood for was a line of railway from North Bay westward and not one mile of road east of North Bay. He was applauded, and * Hansard ' will show that he said in view of the cheers which he received. I am glad to see that I speak for the party.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 never before was aware that cheers in this House were the equivalent of resolutions. The hon. member for Pictou made the statement that there was a resolution, and the Minister of Finance has got up to support him in it.


William Stevens Fielding: I never said anything about a resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance should not have arisen.


William Stevens Fielding: I am the best judge of that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman should be seated when I rise to a point of order.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Neither the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden), nor the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), has any right to the floor. The floor is now in the possession of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and it can only be taken with his consent.


Robert Laird Borden: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I had a perfect right to arise. I was


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Unless the hon. gentleman has himself risen to a point of order, he has not the right to address the House at this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: I have always understood, subject to your ruling, that when I am absolutely misquoted in this House I have a right to get up to a point of personal explanation. That has been my understanding up to the present time, and I have yet to learn that that is not the reasonable and fair rule of this House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have given, I think, ample opportunity for personal ex-

planation. It is not an absolute right of a member to rise to a point of personal explanation. He must rise to a point of order, otherwise he cannot rise. In this ease, I have allowed the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to continue for some time. They have both interrupted the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald), who has the floor. There is no point of order before the Chair. There has been ample time for each hon. gentleman to make any personal explanation. I must now rule that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has the floor and has the right to continue.


Robert Laird Borden: I have the right to rise to a point of order, and I do so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Certainly, if the hon. member rises to a point of order, he has the right to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to know whether, when I am deliberately misrepresented in this House, I have not the right to rise to correct that misrepresentation.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to dqj>ate the point of order. I object to the hon. gentleman's rising under any such circumstances. He has a right or I have to give a personal explanation later on, but neither he nor I has a right to interrupt the hon. member except by his permission.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then why did the hon. minister rise?


William Stevens Fielding: I rose to ask a question of the leader of the opposition, and I asked his permission to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: I was engaged in an endeavour, which I thought proper under the rules of this House, to put myself right in respect of a statement made with regard to me which was not founded on fact. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who was not concerned in that personal issue between the hon. member for Pictou and myself which I was endeavouring to settle with that gentleman in all courtesy, rose to make a political point and to interrupt me.


William Stevens Fielding: I rose to ask a question, and I asked the hon. gentleman's permission.


Robert Laird Borden: That was the point, and I say with respect to that, and with all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was exercising only my just rights as a member of this House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have given my ruling in the case, and I still maintain that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) is entitled to the floor. Ample opportunity has been given to the hon. gentleman

	"


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


Robert Laird Borden: I do not deny that the hon. member for Pictou was entitled to the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden)-


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order; I have the floor and not the hon. gentleman. 1 have risen to order. The hon. gentleman has .been given ample opportunity, more, I believe, than the rules of the House warrant under the circumstances, and I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to take the floor from the hon. member for Pictou, who even now stands waiting to continue.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, may I put myself right with you? The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) had very courteously yielded the floor to me for the purpose of making a personal explanation. I would not have arisen unless he had yielded the floor to me. I thought I was perfectly right in arising to make a personal explanation when the hon. member for Pictou had yielded the floor to me, and yet, Sir, with some vehemence, that I do not think was called for by any action on my part, you have seen fit


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. The hon. gentleman must not in that way criticise the action of the Speaker. The Speaker is giving the very best judgment he possibly can to the situation. The hon. gentleman has, I think, been repeatedly out of order. I do not acknowledge the right of the hon. member to interfere with the hon. member for Pictou, who has the floor, unless he has arisen to a. point of order.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not question that.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must not interrupt the Speaker in that manner. The hon. member for Pictou has the floor. I have given, as I said, ample opportunity for personal explanation. When it became a personal debate between the Minister of Finance and the leader of the opposition, I think I was amply justified in refusing to allow it to continue. The leader of the opposition has had ample opportunity to place himself in a correct light and is not, I think, at liberty to continue a debate with the Minister of Finance as to which of them was right as to certain statements of fact.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not claim-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: May I be permitted just to say this. I do not desire, with all

deference to you, that you shall be under any misapprehension as to my attitude, I did not claim and I do not claim the right to take the floor away from the hon. member for Pictou, but when the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) yielded the floor to me for the purpose of enabling me to make a personal explanation, I thought, with all deference to you and I still think, that I had a perfect right to rise and make that personal explanation.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I ruled and I rule again, that the hon. gentleman was given that opportunity, but he broke into a discussion with the Minister of Finance -possibly tempted to do so by the Minister of Finance-and when that point was reached, then, in my judgment, was the point to stop it. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has the floor, and I must now insist on his right to continue.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman, I think, has time and again been out of order in this case, and I regret very much that it should be necessary to say so, but it must be closed at some point, and I presume that neither hon. gentleman is satisfied with the particular point at which it is stopped. However, I shall allow the hon. gentleman if he wishes-


Robert Laird Borden: Will you do me the justice to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order.


Mr.  R. L.@: that I did not
break into the discussion with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance broke into a discussion with me and that is all I have to say about it.


William Stevens Fielding: I also must ask permission to put myself right. I asked the permission of the leader of the opposition to put a question to him. That was the beginning of my interruption. If he had said no, that would have ended it. I accept the ruling; I have nothing more to say about it.


Robert Laird Borden: Nor have I-at present.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. the leader of the opposition has again made friends with you, Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be permitted to go on. I desire to say that I welcome the leader of the opposition to the ranks of those who believe that it is in the interests of this country and has been in the interest of this country for the last seven years, that a line of railway should be built as proposed by this government from the city of Winnipeg down to the city of Moncton.
The fact that he occupied that position wras not altogether clear to me. I was under the idea that he had had two or three different policies at various stages of the game in regard to this matter, and it is therefore a matter of satisfaction to those of us in the maritime provinces, who realize the importance to us as a portion of Canada, in order that we may be identified with the future greatness of this whole country by means of this railway transportation- it is a matter of gratification to us to know now that the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is at one with us for the establishment and maintenance of that railway. But my hon. friend unfortunately through his followers comes to this House and declares that there is something wrong about this proposition for the reason that it was stated that this railway was going to cost Canada only $13,000,003. True, the next clause of the resolution asserts that it was going to cost $55,000,000 or $62,000,000 although both those statements were made in the same session of the same parliament. In that respect they are a little inconsistent, although the statements have no weight or reference to the proposition at the close of the resolution. This much is certain that my hon. friends on the other side vociferously asserted that the railway would cost all the way from $70,000,003 up to $200,000,000.


Samuel Barker: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can refer my hon. friend to 'Hansard' where Mr. Lefurgey, speaking at page 9549 of 'Hansard', 1903, said that the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) estimated it at $280,000,000.


Samuel Barker: Will you allow me to say one word?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is rather difficult to get along with the hon. gentlemen.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: They cannot stand fire worth a cent.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman is referring to two distinct subjects. One is the cost to Canada and the other is the cost of the whole railway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nobody wanted to introduce into this discussion any question or doubt about the cost, it is the hon. gentlemen who have been quibbling about the $13,000,000. Nobody ever thought until these gentlemen attempted to deceive the electorate of this country with their assertions that the government declared it was going to cost only $13,000,000, that that was what Canada was to pay for the railway, and yet my hon. friends are going back on that representation of their party in the back districts all over Canada where their supporters were asserting in 1908 that Laurier had promised to build this rail-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman should not attribute to anv hon. member of this House a desire to deceive.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: man who has had 25 years experience as an engineer in this country. He is a graduate of the Royal Military College. He is a man who in addition to his engineering experience did service for his country in the Riel rebellion in the Northwest, where he distinguished himself, and was wounded in active service. His whole record has been an absolutely clean one all through his business career, and no man who knows Mr. Doucet, and he is known not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the whole of Canada, will question his capacity or integrity as an engineer. Then another district engineer was Mr. Poulin, who had served for long years with the Canadian Pacific railway in the days of its government construction and with the company afterwards, in South America, and all over Canada, who had been connected with various enterprises, and had spent 34 years of his life in fitting himself to carry on this great work. Both of these men are Canadians. Could you find in this country anywhere, two men with better records than those two to put in charge of the different districts they had to construct.
Now my hon. friend (Mr. Magrath) is a true apostle of the doctrine of 1904. He did not think that the railway to the east should be built, and in addition to that, he did not think we should have this four-tenths per cent grade. Too good a road, he said, for Canada, we should have gone on and spent our money, putting the rails down in any old way so that trains could run over them and afterwards the country could spend a lot more money in getting better grades. That, Mr. Speaker, would be a penny wise and pound foolish policy. Why, two years ago, I was in a position to know, that the Canadian Pacific railway, in one year spent over $40,000,000 in improving the construction of their road.


Mr. HUGHES.: Not in re-constructing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well the hon. gentleman knows.


Samuel Hughes: Double tracking its lines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Two years ago the Canadian Pacific railway spent $40,000,000 in improving the construction of its road, and at this very moment the Ontario government proposes to spend between one and two million dollars in reducing the grades on the Temiskaming and Ontario railway, in order to connect with this Grand Trunk Pacific railway of ours and in order to get the four-tenths per cent grade, so that they may haul up and down to the main line. They are spending this year on that comparatively small line, nearly two million dollars. Would it have been wise for Canada to have gone on with a policy of building any old kind of a line, a line with poor gradients and dangerous curvatures and all that ? Is it Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
not better, would it not be better, did not the country stand for it in 1904 and 1908, and would hon. gentlemen in their honest hearts not say that if we are going to build a national highway, let us build it of the very best, so that we will have a connection between east and west maintained under conditions the most favourable? There should be no difficulties of transportation anywhere. Hon. gentlemen say, Oh, but the percentage of cost is so much greater than the estimate. I do not know what estimate they are making their comparison on. I find that at various times within the last 20 years, the Canadian Pacific railway, on the scheduled rates in the northern part of Ontario and throughout the west, paid from 20 to 65 per cent in different cases more than what was estimated in the preliminary estimates at the time the contracts were let. The figures are at hand, and if necessary I can quote them, giving the contracts. Hon. members opposite, however, make an estimate and declare that the disproportion is very great. There has never been anything yet of an estimate brought down to this House with any degree of authenticity or indicating that there was any work put behind it from the time of the final location, with the exception of the estimate brought down by the minister two years ago of one hundred and fourteen millions. Those estimates were made up between November, 1905, and January, 1906, and they did not include in a great many cases some of the unforeseen difficulties that were encountered as the road went along. Let me give you one or two illustrations of the conditions that have arisen in some of those sections that show how legitimately and naturally the cost of construction is necessarily greater than it would be determined in any preliminary survey.	AfteT the estimate
was prepared, a	large contract was
let in contracts numbers 9 and 10 on section B. There had only been a first location of 90 miles ouit of the 150. On the other 60 there was not then a preliminary location, no revised location, no final location, but basing the estimate of the balance of the 150 miles on the information they had from the 90 they made estimates which were sent up to the commission. Now, what followed when they came to the revised location and to the final location? As of necessity it would follow anywhere, in going into a new country under conditions like these, from the 56th to the 65th mile the final location was changed two miles from where it had been in the original preliminary location, because it was necessary to get the four-tenths per cent grade. Of course, if the road could have gone right along on the preliminary location it wrnuld not have been necessary

to make a change, but in order to get the four-tenths per cent grade, it was necessary that the location should be shifted two miles. Then they came to the Milieu river, and about nine miles of location was changed there, shifted about three miles on account of the continuity of the river bank and in order to get the grade it cost $427,000.
That cost $427,000. At La Tuque, 12 miles of the railway was changed, causing a diversion of about 6 miles and adding 4 miles to the distance in order to get the proper grade and avoid the curves, which were difficult. This cost an extra $550,000. At the St. Maurice river, there was riprapping necessary on account of falling bank, to protect the track from the river, which is deep at that point, and this cost $252,000. Other changes needed owing to the depth of the water and the extra amount of earth to be taken down cost $238,000 more. These things were necessary. Every hon. gentleman who has studied the question or who has talked with the engineers concerning railway construction, must have learned that these things were the necessary result of conditions and the endeavour to get these gradients and curves. It is known that the only information in making the first estimate was that furnished by a preliminary location. The result was that reports sent in by the divisional and resident engineers when the tenders were made showed a largely increased cost in the work. My hon. friend says that this should not have been the case, that they should have spent the money to go out and make ' an estimate. But I have shown very clearly that there is no ground for that position, that it is utterly untenable. There were estimates before the specifications were issued in order that the the great enterprise might be actively undertaken. When the estimates were first made, it was with the intention of having momentum or velocity grades of one per cent. Subsequently, Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer, gave instructions that these were not to be allowed, that there must be a uniform grade of four-tenths of one per cent. That also occasioned extra expenditure. In the estimates on which the contracts were made, there was no estimate for train haul; the estimate was for borrow, which, as the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) knows, would be about half as cheap as train haul. It was necessary to have the train haul in order to get the filling, and this cost $1,211,000 in the 150 miles of section ' B ' alone. Then, there were divisional yards. The location of these could not be determined in any preliminary estimate; they had to be located as the engineers finished the location of the road, and in locating them regard had to be had to local conditions. This cost $513,000 additional. I have referred to these matters merely for the purpose of indicating samples of what would necessarily occur in the location of a transcontinental line. The instances I have given were all in Quebec, but let me give an illustration in Ontario- on section ' F.' There the estimates were prepared by Major Hodgins in the very early stage. They were revised by him and reduced a great deal, according to his statement. But what were the conditions under which they worked in northern Ontario? There, on account of the frost in the ground, and the coldness of the weather. there were practically only four months of the year in which operations could be carried on free from frost. The hon. member for South Lanark, with his experience of railway direction, would know that this is a material element in the work. And it is a fact that has been substantiated on oath and can be proven at any time that the 150 miles of the McArthur contract of section ' F ' running around the north of Lake Superior is said to be the most difficult work of construction of its kind on the continent-far exceeding in difficulty the building of the Canadian Pacific railway around the north' shore of Lake Superior. When we understand this we realize some of the difficulties that were met in carrying on this great enterprise. Well, we heard a great deal about classification, but if the earth ' and loose rock and solid rock were there, they had to be taken out, and this country had to pay for it on the certificate of the engineers who were there overseeing. But when over-classification is spoken of, it is to be remembered that the present chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway has stated on oath that there is not two per cent of the classification of the whole Transcontinental which is in question. With all this talk about royal commissions and investigations, after careful supervision, not only on the part of the government engineers, but on the part of the engineers representing the Grand Trunk Pacific, who have to pay the interest on the cost of construction, not two per cent of the whole classification of that railway is in question between the engineers at this time. Now, of course, I feel that my hon. friends are very well assured of that. The course of my hon. friend from South Simcoe _ (Mr. Lennox) in moving this resolution is an indication of that. I know that we ought not to impute motives, and1 perhaps I wra3 unkind in suggesting motives in the remarks I made in opening. But I cannot but think that the attitude of the hon. member indicates that he has learned some of these facts, which some of us have learned who have looked into the matter a little. But, unfortunately, the press outside cannot be controlled. My hon. friend's
8323 COMMONS 8324	
friends on the press will go on asserting things without the slightest justification. For instance, I have here a copy of the Toronto ' News ' of 19th April, referring to sections ' B ' and ' F ' under flaring headlines : ' Startling conditions on Transcontinental-Table of facts submitted to Canadian people-Public opinion gathering force for honest administration of great undertaking.' And 3o on, with these headlines, which are so easily set up, and which form so important a feature of an opposition newspaper in these latter days. Let me direct attention to a couple of statements made here which are so wide of the mark that they deserve special mention. Referring to residency 10 on section ' A,' they say: A cutting between stations 6,307 and 6,310 residency 10, contains 106,005 cubic yards classified as 23 per cent solid rock. It is described by Mr. Woods and his assistant, Mr. Boulton, as earth, clay, gravel and a few boulders. They report that it should be classified as 10 per cent solid rock, 60 per cent loose rock and 30 per cent common excavation. It works out as follows: The country pays	$ 80,774 It should cost	 62,602 Over-payment	 17,172 The cut on residency 10, given as between stations 6,307 and 6,310, should be ' stations 5307-5320. Yardage handled has been called 106,005 cubic yards, whereas it is actually 11,605 cubic yards, or more than nine times smaller. The gentleman who is writing this classification story for the press added a matter of 90,000 yards to the statement in order to make it read a little better and to afford some groundwork for his headlines. The classification of this is 22$ per cent solid rock, 61$ per cent loose rock, and 16 per cent common excavation. The cut has cost $6,148.17. You will notice that the loss to the country is said to have been $17,172, whereas the engineer shows that the whole thing cost only $6,148.17, at a co3t to the contractor who took it of $9,038, so that he lost about $2,200 in making it up. I do not wish to delay the House, but we could run through the whole schedule in the same way. Let me direct your attention to another thing in the same paper, entitled ' A borrow pit': Another startling case in residency 17 is the case of a borrow pit. The July estimate returned 149,000 cubic yards loose rock, costing $89,400. The engineer is not so specific as to classification in this case, but by his description of the picking, shovelling and ploughing which he found in progress, he evidently means that the work was not entitled _ to classification-was common excavation in fact, and should only cost one-half the amount allowed. This is what the engineer says about that: Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.	On L?sidency 17. Borrow pit station 12661-70. Tfie article states that there was 149,000 cubm yards loose rock, costing $89,400. The tact is, as can be seen by looking over the July estimates, that the returns of that date eo6/,6^'900 ,l?ublc -Tards at 35 cents, $5,215, or &o4,185 less than stated in the Toronto f News , item. The addition of a naught at the end of a statement makes quite a difference in the force of a newspaper article, as it does in the amount of money involved. I could take you through these other districts where we have had comments made on over-classification, and over returns, and when 1 tell you that the present chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway has sworn that all this talk about over-classification was a tempest in a teapot, and that not less than two per cent of the classification on the whole road was in question at this moment, you can see how much warrant there is for hon. gentlemen talking about a royal commission. Now there is only one way in which this country could be cheated in the quantity of earth or rock taken out, and as to classification, and that would be by means of a conspiracy between the district engineer and each one of his subordinates. Every one would need to be in the conspiracy, and if there was any false allowance of solid rock in any residency, it would be speedily known by the other men who are working alongside and the proposition has been made on behalf of hon. gentlemen opposite, though not in this House, that on each one of these districts these reputable men to whom I have referred, the head of each district, have entered into a conspiracy to defraud the government by oyer-classification, and wrongful classification. You can readily see what an absurd proposition that would be. Not only that, but the professional reputation of every one of these men in position would be forever shattered at the instance of any one of these men who could at any time disclose the facts. To suppose that there exists any such condition in connection with this work of construction, is to my mind so utterly ridiculous that, having regard to the ordinary conditions that exists among men to-day, I marvel that presumably intelligent gentlemen like our hon. friends opposite should ever have given it credence. I am glad to note that my hon. friend from Simcoe does not take the responsibility of suggesting any cause of that kind for this commission, but he has confined himself to these extra estimates and figures to which he has treated the House, and which I have not been able to understand, and I do not think anybody else, but himself could understand. I say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of these facts, which I have gathered hurriedly to-night, and in view of the further fact that no reasons have been

presented to justify the conclusion that a royal commission should be appointed, I submit that hon. gentlemen opposite have not seriously put forward this proposition, and that it should not be treated seriously by this House, as I am sure it will not be when we come to decide upon it
I am at a loss to understand why the clause should have been tacked on to the conclusion of this resolution, which asserts that ' the government should take immediate and effective action to investigate the danger of a diversion of Canadian traffic to foreign ports, and to prevent such diversion.' Judging from the remarks of my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Ma-grat'h), I would understand that the talk about the resolution was only put in for filling, and that this clause is the meat of the whole thing; because the hon. member for Medicine Hat read some menacing editorials in American newspapers showing that those gentlemen had awakened to the fact that Canada possesses the best half of this continent. It is gratifying to know that they have discovered that fact down there. But I want to say that it is rather peculiar to see my hon. friends becoming so solicitous about trade through Canadian ports. I did not see so much anxiety here a year or two ago when some hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces were pressing upon the attention of the House the importance of adopting a proposition that the British preference should be limited to trade which came through Canadian ports. Some hon. gentlemen who will vote for this resolution to-night would not, or did not, manifest any particular enthusiasm for the proposition that the trade which came to Canada from the mother country, and which was entitled to receive the benefit of the preference, should only receive it if it came through Canadian ports. It may be that they had had a change of heart, I trust they have; it would be a matter of great satisfaction to know that a good many of the hon. gentlemen opposite stand with us on that proposition. And let me remind my hon. friends who are solicitous about this last portion of the resolution, that were it'not for this government proposition whereby this additional Transcontinental railway is to be provided from Winnipeg down to Moncton, connecting with our maritime points through present and additional railway facilities, this proposition of trade through Canadian ports, so far as the Grand Trunk is concerned, would never be a matter of consideration at all. I cannot understand why this matter should be injected into this discussion, in view of the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, which hon. gentlemen are fully acquainted with, and which guarantees, so far as any thing can be guaranteed in a bond, the pledge of that great enterprise that the trade going to and fro over this road shall,
as far as possible, go through Canadian ports. I am satisfied myself to leave that matter in the hands of this government, as a maritime province man, the government who initiated the idea of giving us a transcontinental railway, and making thi3 Canada of ours one country from ocean to ocean; I am willing to leave in the hands of this government the protection of Canadian interests as regards our maritime ports. I think the last clause of this resolution is entirely out of place in the resolution itself, and is one that will not be accepted bjr the House.


Mr. BROTHERS.: If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) will allow me, I would like to ask him if he thinks he is in a proper state of mind this evening to give a fair and impartial judgment on the report of the Lumsden Committee?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My judgment on that matter is found in the report of the Lumsden Committee, which I am willing to discuss at any time with the hon gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, let me, in the first place, apologize to my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) for having been the unfortunate cause of a considerable hiatus in his speech. I asked him a question in the course of his remarks, and, with his usual courtesy, he was good enough to yield the floor to me for the purpose of settling a matter of personal difference as to a fact. I did not anticipate at the time that my hon. friend the member for Pictou would have been interrupted to the extent that ensued. Otherwise I would have awaited my turn to~ speak without putting a question to him at that time. I can only say that the extent of the interruption was, to a certain extent, a matter beyond my control and that I did not anticipate when I asked the question that the interruption would be so prolonged.	.
Now, my hon. friend from Pictou has said that he gave judgment on the Lumsden charges last night. I would be inclined to think that he would have been a little more accurate if he had said that he had given judgment last year. We have heard a good deal about the condition of mind of those hon. gentlemen who have undertaken to become impartial judges on this question, and I think that the hon. member for Pictou, even if he had not had the advantage of sitting on that committee and making that which he evidently believes to have been a very thorough and complete investigation, would have made pretty much the same speech to-night as that wnich he has made after sitting as a member of that
committee.
I have only a few words to say tonight in reply to his somewhat long and discursive speech. I understand him to take the ground that in the acceptance of


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is that the letter written by Mr. Woods, dated October 7, 1907, because he withdrew the statement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That does not matter.


Robert Laird Borden: Who withdrew the statement?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Woods.


Robert Laird Borden: When?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last night.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say that Mr. Woods declared that these statements over his signature were absolutely false?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, he did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: What did he say?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He said that statements had been made by him there and that he had made a mistake in regard to them.


Robert Laird Borden: Every one of these statements?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not suppose he went into them all in detail. He referred to the statement to the effect that there were directions from the superior that wrong classification must be changed.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the words used by Mr. Woods upon w'hich my hon. friend relies?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find that when we come to discuss the report of this committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry that the recollection of my hon. friend, which goes to a certain extent, does not go farther. I have the statement here of Mr. H. A. Woods, which has been quoted over and over again in this House, brought down in a government return, and which declares that the classification upon this road in more than one of its sections and on more than one of its contracts was so abso-

lutely outrageous-I am not using his exact language-but was of a character that called from him the strongest and most vehement protest as to the extravagance and mal-administration which has prevailed in connection with the construction of this road. My hon. friend from Pictou is familiar with these statements. Let me refer to one or two of them:
Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5S26, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1.
That means common earth excavation, as every man knows who is at all familiar with railway construction. Then he goes on to say:
Very little ledge in this cut.
What is the meaning of the word 'ledge* as used by engineers?-solid rock. Therefore, this is classified as 71 per cent solid rock, when there is very little solid rock at all. He continues:
Some large boulders but a very large percentage is common excavation.
Yet, this is classified and proposed to be paid for by this government on the basis of 71 per cent, or nearly three-fourths solid rock. The hon. member for Pictou in the face of illustration after illustration such as that, declares to this House upon his responsibility as a public man, upon his responsibility as a representative of the people, that there is absolutely no cause whatever for an investigation into the circumstances disclosed by Mr. Woods over and over again in regard to the construction of this railway.
The Minister of Railways referred in a somewhat sneering way to the industry of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). The hon. member for South Simcoe lias his reputation in this House, he has the reputation of being an exceedingly industrious^ and Capable member of parliament. His industry is not to be sneered at by the Minister of Railways, who might very well employ for a better knowledge of his own department some of that industry which he sneers at in the hon. member for South Simcoe. He says that the industry of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was only equalled by his imagination. Imagine a statement such as that coming from a member of the government which had declared that this whole road from Moncton to Winnipeg would cost no more than $51,300,000. What wealth of imagination is that! I would ask whether the sneer of the Minister of Railways was one which we might properly have expected from that hon. gentleman in making an answer to one of the gravest indictments that has ever been levelled against this government or any government in respect to the construction of a railway or any other work? 1 264
The Minister of Railways pumped up a good deal of fictitious indignation in regard to this. He spoke of articles written in the public press by hired men. Might I ask to whom he was alluding in that statement? Did he intend to suggest that any hon. gentleman on this side had hired any one to write articles about this railway?


Some hon. MEMBER.: Answer.


George Perry Graham: If I am required to answer I say distinctly and positively not that members of the opposition in this House, I did not make any such suggestion -but I say that members of the party to which my hon. friend belongs, and which he leads engaged men to write articles condemning the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, and these articles were distributed throughout the country by the cart load.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend state who they were?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is now asking for something that he knows no hon. gentleman would give.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, I appreciate the considerations which animate my hon. friend, and I do not press him. But at times when similar statements are made by members on this side we have had loud shouts of ' name, name,' from the other side, and I would suppose that what is a fair question from one side would be a perfectly fair question from the other.


George Perry Graham: I am not objecting to the question.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is not objecting to the question, but it is difficult, as in a good many other cases, to get him to give any answer to very pertinent questions. I may tell him that so far as I am aware no person with the knowledge of any member on this side of the House ever did anything of the kind. I declare on my responsibility as a public man that if any person connected with the party with which I am allied ever did anything of that kind, to-night is the first occasion on which I ever heard of it. I know nothing of it, and, with all deference to the Minister of Railways, I still have a great deal of doubt as to whether any such thing was ever done.


George Perry Graham: I made the statement publicly the day it was brought to my attention, without any qualification, in Guelph. It was fully reported in the papers and has never to this moment been denied by any one.


Robert Laird Borden: What statement?


George Perry Graham: The statement I have l made to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: That hired men were doing it?


George Perry Graham: The statement I made a few moments ago, so far as I remember, I made in the city of Guelph.


Robert Laird Borden: It was not brought to my attention. All I have to say is that so far as I am concerned or have any knowledge I give it the most emphatic and direct denial. My hon. friend said that the figures presented by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) were misleading, and he would undertake to prove it. I leave it to the judgment of any hon. friend as to whether he did prove it or whether he had got within 1,000 miles of proving it when he arrived at the end of his speech. What was his position? He said there was a substructure, a superstructure and a tower to this resolution. Well neither the substructure nor the superstructure, noT the tower had any such fate as that which befell many of the structures of this government. My hon. friend, with all the dynamite of his very forcible, and somewhat vehement speech was not able to disturb either the substructure or the superstructure or the tower and his efforts from beginning to end were absolutely and utterly unavailing.
The minister referred to the clause of this resolution which speaks of $13,000,000 having been put forward by the Prime Minister as the total cost to Canada for the construction of this road. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) put in the resolution exactly the words which were used by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister of Railways deny that? He does not. Further than that, he gave in this resolution a statement respecting that sum of $13,000,000 which is infinitely fairer than the statement which I hold under my hand, distributed by the hundreds of thousands of pamphlets in the campaign literature of hon. gentlemen opposite in 1904. Does the Minister of Railways deny that? Because if he does I will read it to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


Robert Laird Borden: Transcontinental railway for $13,000,000.
Further down.
The feature of the bargain in regard to which most of this is done is the financial arrangement. It is an actual fact, and an *indisputable fact, that $13,000,000 will cover every cent of the country's expenditure in connection with the railway. If $8,853,502 were invested to-day in some insurance or investment company it would have grown large enough by the time the railway is completed to actually pay all the expenditure the country will make.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Railways referred, as he has on other occasions, to the cost of other roads. He told us that in New South Wales, in France, in Germany, in Russia, in Austria-Hungary, in Great Britain, and in the United States, the average cost of railways was very much in excess of the estimate which was brought down by the government of this country to parliament in 1903 and 1904, and in some cases was a good deal greater than the actual cost of the National Transcontinental railway today. I asked the Minister of Railways what I thought to be a fair question, I asked him whether the government in 1903 or 1904, had taken the trouble to look into the records of the Department of Railways and Canals, and ascertain that fact before they made in parliament their statement with regard to the probable cost of this road. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways has referred to three hon. gentlemen on this side as having run away from the Lumsden Committee. Who was it that did the running away when I put that question to the Minister of Railways? I would have thought that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals was a big enough man not to run away from that. What answer did he make to me? The same answer that he made to me on another occasion-he said he was not a member of the government at the time, and therefore, he could not give me any information on it. That was a bold way to meet that question, which was a very pertinent one. If the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House now rely on the exist of other railways in Canadq and other countries, is it not legitimate to ask why they did not take the cost of all these other railways into consideration, and give the House that information at that time? The Minister of Railways and Canals gave me no answer to that question, but took refuge in the statement that he was not a member of the government then. Surely he knows that he is invested with political responsi-mility for all that this government did in 1903 and 1904, and I would have expected him to have given me a bold and straightforward answer either one way or the other.
Let us come to the next point. He states that no portion of the Quebec bridge should be taken into consideration in dealing with the cost of this road. I have under my hand the statement of his colleague the Minister of Finance, made in 1903 or 1904, and recorded in 'Hansard ', in which he fixed the cost of the Quebec bridge at $4,500,000 as far as the country was concerned, and declared that it would be fair and reasonable to charge $2,000,000, or four-ninths of the total cost, to the Transcontinental railway. Whom are we to be-

lieve-the Minister of Finance at that time, or the Minister of Railways at the present? My hon. friend from South Simcoe did not take the course which I think he might very well have taken, of charging the whole cost of the Quebec bridge against the National Transcontinental railway, which could not become an accomplished fact unless there were a bridge built across the St. Lawrence river. He took the moderate course of accepting the statement of the Minister of Finance, speaking on behalf of the government in that regard, and included four-ninths of the cost of the bridge instead of the whole cost.
Then the Minister of Railways and Canals went on to a very remarkable statement. He said that the contract of 1903 was the united act of the government and the opposition. That is to say, section 7 and section 47 were not the action of the government at all, but the united act of the government and the opposition. Why, my hon. friend is possessed of an ignorance in regard to this matter that is absolutely, appalling. Has he not read this contract even enough to know that it was made by the government before the measure was presented to parliament at all?' They signed, sealed, executed and delivered the contract on the 29th of July, 1903, and the Bill was introduced into parliament on the 30th of July, 1903, and I may tell my hon friend that I had no part in it.


George Perry Graham: Did not parliament ratify that contract, and if hon. gentlemen opposite objected to that part of the contract, should they not have said so in the customary way? By not saying so, does the hon. leader of the opposition hot agree with me that they agreed to ratification ol the contract with that clause in it?


Robert Laird Borden: If jny hon. friend meant that in the course of his speech, he has the very unhappy faculty of saying what he does not mean.


Haughton Lennox: And the Minister of Finance said that they could not alter one line of the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: da, and the award -of a majority of such three arbitrators, shall be final.
If my hon. friend had understood the contract on which he is relying, he would have referred to that, but* he took care not to refer to it, perhaps for the reason that it has never been invoiced up to the present time. But it would not make any difference so far as my point of view is concerned if it had been invoked. What does section 47 do? It simply creates a tribunal for the purpose of determining certain questions between the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government. If [DOT]that tribunal had not been so created where would these questions have been determined? They would have been determined in the Exchequer Court of Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Rail-v ays then is driven to this argument, that because it might be open to the Grapd Trunk Pacific Company to bring an action in the Exchequer Court of Canada, or because the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had brought a proceeding in the Exchequer Court of Canada, therefore this parliament would have no further jurisdiction to investigate the question of extravagant expenditure and possible maladministration in connection with the con struction of that road. Such an argument as that is unheard of and unthinkable. I will give my hon. friend some reasons for that. Suppose we had an arbitration under section 47, suppose my hon. friend had had the advantage of being able to argue that-he has not that advantage and therefore he is absolutely out of court-but suppose he had had the advantage of that, it would not interfere in the slightest degree with the jurisdiction of parliament. In the first place the Grand Trunk Pacific Company themselves are contractors, and in so far as they are contractors, section 7 and section 47, would give absolutely no relief, would afford absolutely no safeguard in respect to classification or cost or anything else, because it would be the interest of "the Grand Trunk Pacific to get the highest classification and to make the most they possibly could out of the contract. On the other hand there would be the question so far as they are concerned of the payment of three per cent during a period of 43 years as rental upon that cost. But the country is interested as bearing the ultimate cost and also in the rental which it does not receive during the first seven years. It is interested because it may receive no rental after the expiration of 50 years. It is interested in the rental during the period of 43 years in so far as that rental is less than the interest which this country must pay. I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Raii-ways and Canals, that a parliamentary in-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
vestigation might be necessaary for the very reason that an action had been brought in the Exchequer Court of Canada or an arbitration had taken place under section 47 and that the disclosures in that action, or in that arbitration had shown that parliament ought to take a hand in the proceedings and find out the conditions under which this road had been constructed.
Now, I have disposed of this which was the only argument from the Minister of Railways and Canals which could be dignified by that name. But he went further. He said he was going to show that there was an error of $16,000,000 in the estimate of the hon. member from South Simcoe, and in the terms of this resolution. Did the. Minister of Railways and Canals show an error of $16,000,000. I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals a direct question with regard1 to that. I pointed out to him, or it was pointed out to him in the course of his speech that the hon. member for South Simcoe had made up his statement on a certain basis. What was the basis of the statement of the hon. member for South Simcoe. First that according to the official returns brought down by this government there were 13 contracts which according to the first estimate were to cost $37,340,723. The official return brought down by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals shows that these 13 contracts will cost $60,792,369. My hon. friend for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) took the other 8 contracts. According to the original estimate they were to cost $26,866,054. My hon. friend the member for South Simcoe correctly stated that the 13 contracts had been increased over the original estimate by 62 -8 per cent, and he made a perfectly reasonable, and legitimate argument, that the other eight contracts will be increased in certainly no less a proportion. Therefore we may reasonably exnect that the $26,866,054 will be increased to $43,737,936 or about $16,000,000 more than the original estimate 'made by the government engineer. What was the course of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals? He took that item of $16,000,000, because his argument did not apply to anything else, and he said my hon. friend the member for South Simcoe has made a mistake of $16,000,000. My hon. friend from South Simcoe made no mistake unless he was not justified in applying the same percentage of increase to the eight contracts they had entered upon by the test of experience of the 13 contracts. Yet when I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals across the floor of this House as to whether he was allowing any increase unon these eight contracts I got absolutely no answer, no satisfaction from him in replv to what was a perfectly fair and direct question.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will allow me, what I said was to try to make it cleaT that my estimate was absolutely made on the estimate and calculation of the chief engineer, and I thought that was the best average I could give. I freely admitted that I did not make the calculation.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the way in.
which it was made up. I understood perfectly from the speech of the hon. member for South Simcoe. He took 13 contracts and said the official returns brought down to this House show in respect of these 13 contracts an increase of 62-8 per cent and he said: I take the other 8 contracts, I have the original estimates for the other 8 contracts, and I am perfectly justified in saying that there will be at least as great an increase in respect of these 8 contracts as in respect of the 13 contracts that we know _ about. And the $16,000,000 difference is the alleged mistake pointed out with so much gusto by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals in attempting t-o answer, and a very poor attempt it was, the indictment of my hon. friend from South Simcoe. Well, what becomes then of the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals? Why, Mr. Speaker, it vanishes just as some light sprinkling of snow in May may vanish before the sun as soon as the light is poured in upon it. We say that there is absolutely no foundation whatever, no scintilla of evidence whatever to demonstrate to this House that my hon. friend the member for South Simcoe has made the slightest error in the estimate of the cost of this road.
Well, let us go on. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals and the hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) ventured upon some verv singular statements in respect of the ' safe-guarding of Canadian ports. I understood both these gentlemen to bewail the fact that the members of the opposition in 1903 and 1904 had not a due, proper and a patriotic regard for the interests of Canadian ports and for the safe-guarding of Canadian traffic through these ports. I do not want to weary this House, but I think this point is of sufficient importance to make it perfectly plain. My hon. friend the member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) has pointed out to this House in his speech this afternoon that the Grand Trunk railway having a great terminal in the United States of America, in the city of Portland, is building a railway and creating another great terminal in the city of Providence, and that the Grand Trunk railway is doing with the express declaration and pledge to the people of Rhode Island and the legislature of Rhode Island, that that city of Providence by means of those terminals and of that railway will be a great port of shipment for the grain
which is to be grown in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, There is absolutely no question about that. If any hon. member of this House ventures to think that these newspaper articles are unfounded, I desire to assure him that I have under my hand here, and can produce, an official stenographic report of the application to the Rhode Island legislature on behalf of the Grand Trunk railway. So, there is^ absolutely no question about the application or about the purpose of the application. Now, how does the government of this country stand in that regard? Are they able to control that situation or are they absolutely unable to control it? And, if they are unable to control that situation, how does it happen that the people of Canada, spending $250,000,000 on this National Transcontinental railway are liable to have the great traffic of the west diverted to ports of the United States? I will tell my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham)-for he was not a member of the government of that time -and does not know anything about these matters-and how it happened. I can tell him that, in 1903, when this measure was being put through the House, a member of the opposition moved this resolution:
That the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada shall covenant and agree as followsThat the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, so long as the Grand. Trunk Company shall control the policy of that company, shall perform, fulfil and carry out, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, all the provisions of the National Transcontinental Railway Act and all the covenants, stipulations and conditions in the schedule agreements, which, according to the terms thereof ought to be performed, fulfilled or carried out by the said Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
And this further resolution was moved by another member of the opposition:
That the Grand Trunk Company shall covenant and agree as follows:-That neither the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company nor the Grand Trunk Company shall in any manner within its power, directly or indirectly, permit, advise or encourage the transportation of traffic by routes or at rates other than those provided in the said agreement and tha't each of the said companies shall in all respects and good faith use its utmost endeavours to fulfil the conditions upon which public aid is granted and accepted, namely, the development of trade through Canadian channels and to Canadian ocean ports.
It is perfectly* true, and I ought to state to the House, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is itself committed to that covenant by the terms of the agreement. What we pointed out, and what I point out now, is that the Grand Trunk Railway Company owns the whole of the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific

Railway Company, and absolutely controls it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) put that in perfectly plain and direct terms and I have his words here under my hand. In 1903, as reported at page 8570 of 'Hansard' of that year, the hon. gentleman said:
We have not been content that they-the Grand Trunk Railway Company-shall stand behind it; we have required and they have readily consented that they shall be in it and of it and form the whole thing.
The Grand Trunk Railway Company is in it, and of it, and forms the whole thing so far as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is concerned. Here was a measure passed upon the recital that its object was to conserve Canadian commerce and traffic to Canadian ports, to protect and safeguard the interests of Canadian ports. And we asked that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, absolutely controlling in everv respect the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, should be bound by the same covenant which was made binding upon the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, receiving through the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company enormous aid for the construction of this transcontinental railway, should not be at liberty to divert traffic brought over the Grand Trunk Pacific railway to its terminals in Portland or elsewhere in the United States. And my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals sits upon the same treasury benches with the gentleman who absolutely refused to accept that amendment, and absolutely refused to impose any stipulation whatever upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company in that regard. So that, to-day we have a singular position. I have not heard that the Grand Trunk Railway Company or the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are purchasing any lands or building any terminals in the city of Halifax. The Minister of Railways and Canals has told us twice in this House during the present session that he has heard that they are buying some lands in the city of St. John. Up to the present time that is only a rumour. But it is not a rumour so far as Providence, R.I., is concerned. They have gone before the legislature of that state and they propose to expend $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 in developing an American port. _ And they propose that this railway, which according to the ex-deputy Minister Railways and Canals, as reported in the public press, will cost $350,000,000-
Mr, J. HAGGART. Butler's report.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether the report is an accurate one, but it is in the press to-day, that Mr. Butler has stated that the whole enterprise will cost $350,000,000. And more than $250,000,000 of that will have been furnished by this Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
country before the road is completed. Well, the position is that this Toad, costing the people of this country at least $250,000,000, is to he used for the purpose of building up and developing a great port in the United States of America. What about the recital of the agreement? What about the stipulation that we asked to have made binding on the Grand Trunk Railway Company? What have the gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches to say in regard to that object? I understand that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company has said that Providence, Rhode Island, is to be used as an overflow. There is nothing in the address of his counsel which indicates that; there is nothing in the reports which appeared in the Providence newspapers to indicate that. Is there any reason why Providence, Rhode Island, should be equipped at enormous cost for the purpose of carrying and receiving traffic from our Northwest, while not a finger is being lifted or a dollar spent to develop St. John and Halifax in that regard? The situation is a most remarkably peculiar one, Mr. Speaker, and one which, I think, demands the attention of this government. Let us 'ook at the circumstances for a moment. I have the figures, but I will content myself with speaking in general terms. The Grand Trunk Railway Company can haul grain to Portland at less cost than it can haul it to St. John or Halifax, for the distance is shorter. It is bound under the contract to make the rates to St. John and Halifax the same as to Portland; it is bound-if I understand the terms of the contract correctly-to make the rates to St. John and Halifax, the same as to Providence.
Well then if it gets the same rate for St. John and Halifax that it gets for Providence and Portland, and if ^ in hauling grain to St. John and Halifax it is obliged to give a certain proportion of the haulage to the Intercolonial, will its interests lie in the direction of St. John and Halifax, or will they lie in the direction of Portland and Providence? Is there any question about that? The members of the government, when we put that point up to them, over and over again in debate were obliged to admit what I am saying now. Then does not every circumstance emphasize the absolute necessity that existed when this contract went through the House, that there should have been some stipulation inserted binding the Grand Trunk Company to conserve the interest of our Canadian ports? My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Magrath) to-day said something with which I absolutely concur; he said the Grand Trunk Company having its interests to carry to" Portland and Providence, would do so, and that in doing so it would only

exercise good business sense. I entirely concur in that view from their standpoint. I find no fault with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for making the best bargain they could, but I denounce this government for having been weak enough absolutely to refuse the imposition of any stipulation or safeguard whatever which would prevent the Grand Trunk Company from doing that very thing. The financial aid contributed by the maritime provinces towards the construction of this railway will not fall short of $35,000,000 or $40,000,000, and if the poTts of Halifax and St. John are to have no safeguard whatever that that enormous grain trade of the west will go in the winter months at least to the ports of Halifax and St. John, I ask whether a contract such as this is to be regarded as fair, just and reasonable to the interests of the maritime provinces. I unhesitatingly declare that it cannot be so regarded. And so, Mr. Speaker, the circumstances to-day suggest either that the government is either in a position to deal with this proposed diversion of traffic to the terminals of the Grand Trunk Railway at Portland and Providence, or it is not; if it is not capable of dealing with the situation, then its incapacity is due to its own default, to its refusal in 1903 and 1904 to impose any stipulation or condition upon the Grand Trunk Railway in that respect. I say if the government are in a position to deal with this question, they should take the matter into immediate consideration and act at once in such a manner as to conserve the interests of the maritime ports of Canada; if they are in a position to do that, if they are absolutely incapable under the terms of the contract they have made of conserving and preserving the interests of the maritime ports, then I say that,	in	all fairness
and in all honour, they ought to give up the seals of office, resign their seats, and give place to men who are actuated by a more patriotic regard for the true interests of this country.
House divided on amendment Mr. Lennox).
TEAS:
Messieurs
Barker,
Barnard,
Best,
Blain,
Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury, * Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron). Crosby,
McCall,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen.
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Owen,
Perley,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Rhodes.
Roche,
Crocket,	Russell,
Currie (Simcoe),	Schaffner,
Daniel, [DOT]	Sexsmith,
Doherty,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Sproule,
Elson,	Stanfield,
Goodeve,	Staples,
Haggart (Lanark),	Taylor (Leeds),
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Taylor (New
Henderson,	Westminster),
Herron,	Thoburn,
Jameson,	Thgrnton,
Kidd,	Wallace,
Lake.	White (Renfrew),
Lalor,	Wilson (Lennox &
Lancaster,	Addington).
Lennox,	Worthington,
Lortie,	Wright.-62.
NATS:	
Messieurs	
Allard,	McCraney.
Allen,	McGiverin,
Aylesworth,	McIntyre,
Belaud,	McLean (Huron),
Borden (Sir	McLean (Sunbury),
Frederick),	Major,
Boyer,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brown.	Martin (St. Mary's),
Bureau,	Martin (Regina).
Carrier,	Martin (Wellington),
Cash,	Mayrand,
Chew,	Meigs,
Chisholm	Michaud,
(Antigonish),	Miller,
Chisholm (Inverness),	Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer),	Murphy,
Clarke (Essex),	Nesbitt,
Congdon,	Neely,
Delisle,	Oliver,
Demer9, Douglas,	Pardee,
	Parent,
Dubeau,	Paterson,
Ecrement,	Pickup,
Emmerson,	Proulx,
Etbier,	Prowse.
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Fortier,	Rankin,
Fowke,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gauvreau,	Richards,
Geoftrion,	Robb,
Gervais,	Ross (Middlesex),
Girard,	Ross (Rimouski),
Graham.	Roy (Dorchester),
Guthrie,	Roy (Montmagny),
Harty,	Rutan,
Hodgins,	Savoie,
Hunt,	Schell,
King, Lachance,	Sealey,
	Seguin,
Lafortune,	Smith (Middlesex),
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Smith (Nanaimo),
Napierville).	Sperry,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Talbot,
Lapointe,	Templeman,
Launer (Sir Wilfrid),Tobin,	
Lavergne,	Todd,
Law,	Tolmie,
LeBlanc,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lemieux,	Tnrcotte (Quebec
Loggie,, Lovell,	County).
	Verville,
Macdonald,	Warburton,
MacNutt,	White (Victoria),
McAllister,	Wilson (Laval).-105.
McCoig,	
834.3

	PAIRS. Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Brodeur,	Foster,
Fisher,	McCarthy,
Knowles,	Fraser, Macdonell,
German,	
Kyte,	Armstrong.
McColl,	Arthurs,
Currie (Prince Edward),	Maddin,
Bickerdike,	Cowan,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
Low,	Smyth,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
Sinclair,	Monk,
Beauparlant,	Crothers,
Harris,	Beattie,
Conmee,	Lewis,
Carvell,	Price,
Papineau,	Paquet,
Smith (Stormon	t), Maclean,
Turriff,	Bristol,
Rivet,	Forget,
Black, McKenzie,	Ames,
	Clare,
McMillan,	Stewart,
Champagne,	Wilcox,
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived.


George Taylor: Before you put the motion, I just want to draw attention to the fact that when the vote was being taken last night the deputy clerk made a mistake in calling the name of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Fraser) for that of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Russell). The hon. member for Kings was away and was paired. The hon. member for East Toronto was in his place, but his name was called as Mr. Fraser.


WESTERN GRAIN TRADE.
Mr. A. MEIGHEN.: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is put, I desire to take occasion to draw the attention of the government to a matter communicated to me by parties in western Canada who are interested in the grain trade. The communication draws attention to the fact that on the 22nd February last a deputation representative of the grain trade of the west waited upon certain members of the government, inclusive of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. King), whom I see present to-night, urging the immediate need of legislation to remedy certain grievances that then weighed upon the grain trade of the west, having relation to the over-classification of grades, to the necessity for suffii-cient registration of terminal elevators, to the necessity of preventing the elimination cf competition by terminal elevators purchasings other elevators, and the further elimination of competition by the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk railway companies leasing their terminal facilities to Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
alien interests. They also salltd attention to the fact that the government has recognized one of these grievances and purposes and are proceeding in an indifferent way, to apply some remedy this session, and to the further fact that the recent fining of certain terminal elevator owners in the police court in Winnipeg emphasizes the correectness of the representations made by the representatives wrho waited upon the minister on the 22nd February. I would like to ask the members of the government who were present at that interview why it is that the application of a remedy to the other three grievances is being deferred by the government.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I have not been able to catch clearly what my hon. friend has said. I did not get a thorough understanding of his question, and, therefore, I am not able to answer at the moment. I would suggest that the matter stand until to-morrow, when there will be an opportunity of seeing the report of what he has said in 'Hansard.-and I will be able to give him a more complete answer than I could to-night.


OBSCENE LITERATURE.
Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, although the hour is iate, I take this opportunity of adverting again to a matter which was brought to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) on April 14. That is the release in a summary manner of the two men, King and Skill, who, upon their own admission, were found guilty of selling and distributing obscene literature. The matter was first brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice on the 14th April, and not then being in a position to give any definite information to the House he postponed his answer until the following day, when he gave to the House certain reasons why he had recommended executive clemency to these men. The reasons given by the hon. gentleman on that day are somewhat extraordinary. I do not desire, Sir, to comment upon any reasons which may have guided the Minister of Justice in recommending executive clemencv where he thought the circumstances of the case were such as to call for the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. But when an hon. gentleman presents a statement such as that put forward in this case I think it calls for some comment, as it has called for considerable comment of a public nature from sources which are generally in sym- ' pathy with whatever views the hon. gentleman advances in this House. But before I refer to that, I would like to remind the hon. gentleman of the concluding paragraph of the speech in which he gave his reasons for recommending executive clemency in this case.

I seek to put no responsibility upon him in this matter.
That is referring to the Attorney General of Ontario.
I willingly assume the whole responsibility myself, I gave the advice to His Excellency that these men should be summarily released, because, in my humble judgment, speaking as a lawyer, they were rot guilty of the offence with which they were charged.
It was not, therefore, a recommendation of executive clemency. It was a statement of the Governor General that these men had been improperly convicted. These men were represented by three eminent counsel in Toronto, and upon the recommendation and advice of these counsel who had seen the literature they pleaded guilty of the offence with which they were charged, and they were severely reprimanded by the learned judge, and were sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the central prison. The Minister of Justice recommends their summary release, because in his opinion as a lawyer they were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged. I do not want to add any more comment: I think the paper I have in my hand is sufficient comment to pass upon the matter, and I think possibly it may appeal to the Prime Minister, coming from the source it does. I refer to the Toronto 'Globe' of April 21, 1910, a leading article which reads as if it came from the pen of the reverend editor himself. It is as follows :
April 21, 1910.
The abuse of executive clemency.
The time has come for great plainness of speech. In the name of everything decent and clean in Canadian life the 'Globe' makes deliberate and emphatic public protest against tile clemency of the Crown being extended to men convicted of traffic in obscene pictures and vilely immoral books. This public protest is made necessary by a suspicious laxness in prosecuting such offenders shown from time to_ time by subordinate Crown officials, and still more by the occasional pardon or release from prison of vicious-minded convicts whose trade in life was more pernicious than a pestilence. Words need not be minced. The 'Globe' protests, for instance, against the release of King and Skill. These two traffickers in prurient and licentious books were sentenced, on their own plea of guilty, to one year in the Central Prison, and their release after serving two months was defended in parliament by the Minister of Justice on Friday last. The 'Globe' protests even more emphatically against the defence offered for their release. This case and other instances in subordinate courts make the situation utterly intolerable.
In parliament the Minister of Justice defended his action in recommending the clemency of the Crown. He represented that the books are 'classics.' He admitted that they contain 'passages' which if singled out or collected and published together might properly be described by the word 'indecent;' but in
this respect he said they were not different from 'that best of books we all revere.' The minister stated that he had 'letters with regard to this case urging clemency' from 'a bishop of the Protestant faith, three other clergymen, one a leading clergyman in the Methodist Church,' 'who are acquainted with the prisoners and knew the style of business that they had been carrying on.' The Minister of Justice made reference to 'a personal discussion of the case with the Attorney General of the province of Ontario,' who 'in his capacity of Attorney General of the province wrote a candid, frank letter expressing his own views and his own recommendation in regard to the case.' The minister closed his speech as reported in 'Hansard' with these words: 'I gave the advice to His Excellency that these men should be summarily re leased, because, in my humble judgment, speaking as a lawyer, they were not guilty of the offence with which they were charged.'
In the clear light of known facts all this conduct on the part of the Ministers of the Crown and of the ministers of the church is inexplicable where it is not impious. It is not a fact, as the Minister of Justice states, that 'the learned judge, upon the admitted facts of the case, made a conviction.' Judge Winchester did not need to make a conviction. The two men pleaded guilty. They did so on advice of eminent counsel, and that, too, after many weeks of delay and the exercise of all the arts and ingenuities by which the giving of evidence in open court is avoided. The evidence of the Crown was damning to the last degree and its publication would have shocked the public. The chief coroner of Toronto, to whom the books were referred for report by the Crown, testified that they are absolutely without scientific value, and 'are unutterably vile, reeking with filth from beginning to end. After a careful examination of a dozen of these books, the 'Globe' endorses that judgment of Dr. Arthur Jukes Johnson. Their only value to science is as samples of the erotic factors in the making of degenerates and perverts. As literature they range all the way from the scrofulous French novel, uuexpurged, vilely illustrated, and elegantly hound, to the still more lecherous exposition and advocacy of the grossest unnatural sensuality.
How comes it, then, that the persistent and even defiant purveyors of this corrupt, and corrupting literature, having pleaded their guilt in open court, were 'summarily released' on the advice of the Minister of Justice? How comes it that, as he declared in parliament. sucli executive clemency was 'urged' by ' a Protestant bishop and a leading clergyman in the Methodist Church' and ' recommended' by the Attorney General of Ontario? The only answer the 'Globe' can give is that no one of these gentlemen-not the minister, not the Attorney General, not the bishop, not the clergyman-could have had personal knowledge of the essential facts. Their ignorance is their excuse. But in this case and under its circumstances to give 'character' letters or to recommend clemency without knowing the facts was itself inexcusable, while to do it with a knowledge of the facts wTould have been criminal.	_
But the obscene picture postcard is even more of a leprous plague than the immoral book. Many of those books are expensive,

while the cards are scattered broadcast in every part of Canada, polluting boys and girls in the schools, and leaving on their minds and memories scars which neither repentance nor lifelong experience will wholly; eradicate. Last week the police authorities in Toronto destroyed 87,000 picture cards of unimaginable obscenity, taken from a man now serving sentence, but for whom, the 'Globe' is informed, the clemency of the Crown is now being urged. More than 50,000 of such cards were circulated in Toronto a few months ago, and thousands of others were sold to towns in Ontario. They are all unspeakably vile. And yet for the assassins of youthful purity who engage in this business, the protection of the Crown is claimed. Such a thing would violate every sense of decency and would rightly involve all parties to it in shame and inevitable disgrace.
The 'Globe' offers no apology for this protest. It will not cease its open denunciation so long as the need remains. This is a matter neither of politics nor of law, but of fundamental morality, and touches the very life of the nation. No quarter can be given in Canada to the vices that ruined ancient Rome and are sapping the virility of modern Europe. Of those corroding vices, the immoral book and the obscene picture are the chief agents. Every citizen, who is not a traitor to private decency and national character, must stand unflinchingly against what makes only for decay.
Those are not my comments on the matter, they are the comments of the Toronto ' Globe,' after, as I understand it, a personal inspection of the literature which formed the subject of the charge. Unless I am incorrectly informed the Prime Minister has been interviewed in regard to this subject. He has been shown some of this literature and is in a position to make a public statement as to whether he agrees with the Minister of Justice in the view he takes, both with regard to law and fact in recommending what he is pleased to call executive clemency in this case. I think it only fair to draw public attention to this article in the ' Globe,' the chief organ of the government in Ontario, in order that both the right hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice may have an opportunity to publicly state in this House, what their views are with respect to offences of this kind.
I have read in another papeT, a letter from a gentleman holding a high position in one of the churches of Ontario, in which he makes a comment, which is very unfair, that a gentleman holding a seat in the House of Commons, not behind the government, he is careful to say, is seeking to obtain some public notoriety by bringing this matter to the attention of the House. There is only one hon. member to whom that letter can refer and that is myself. I resent it utterly. I made no comment on the case, I did not even ask the Minister of Justice if the article in the ' Canadian Municipal Journal,' to which I drew his attention as Minister of Justice on April Mr. BOYCE.
14, was true or not, but I felt it was proper to bring an item like that .to the attention of the government and especially of the minister, in order that such explanation might be given as was called for by the nature of the article which imputed directly to the Minister of Justice, that these men were released as a result of the exercise of political pressure upon him. That feature of the case the Minister of Justice utterly denied, and it is only in view of the second statement made by the Minister of Justice, which called forth this comment from the ' Globe,' that I rise now for the purpose of putting on ' Hansard ' that comment from that organ, and of asking the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Justice, whether they care or feel disposed or feel it due to the public to make any further statement concerning this matter.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWOETH (Minister of Justice).: It will lie in your memory, Mr. Speaker, and in the memory I have no doubt of every member of this House, that when this matter was first brought to the attention of the House by the hon. gentleman, it was by the reading of an ar.ticle in some Montreal newspaper, in which the charge was made, not in any insinuating or disguised form, but in so many words, that these particular prisoners, who had been pardoned then some six weeks or two months before, had been released solely and only because the application for their pardon was made by Mr. Robinette of Toronto, who was said to be a personal friend of my own, and a man who had a pull with me in matters of this kind. That was the gravamen of the charge which the hon. gentleman made, or w'hich he endorsed to the exent of reading the article in question and asking some statement from me on the subject.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, I must ask permission to correct the hon. gentleman in that statement. I neither made nor endorsed any charge at all in reference to this, matter.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have read what the hon. gentleman said when he brought the article to which I have referred to the attention of the House. In saving that he endorsed the article to the extent he did, I mean that he took the responsibility that I suppose any hon. member of this House takes when he reads in the House an article from a newspaper, and asks or suggests that there should be some explanation in regard to it, made by the membei of the House against whom it is levelled I need not stop to discuss whether that con stitutes an endorsation of the charge or not The question I want to bring to the atten tion of the House is whether the recommen dation I made to His Excellency in this

matter was an honest and bona fide exercise of the responsibility which is placed upon me in that regard, or was something which I had done improperly, and as I would think dishonourably, and in contravention of the duty which is put upon me-if I had in fact acted as the newspaper which was read in so many words charged. With regard to this whole matter, I have nothing to say in addition to what I have already said in this House, unless it may be to say that if the same thing were to be considered over again, under the same circumstances, I should act in exactly the way in which I have acted throughout. I have taken the course which I thought was right, and which I still think was right, I am sorry if my hon. friend cannot concur in it. I am very sorry if the learned gentleman to whom he refers as in his opinion the writer of some editorial comments upon my action which appeared in the ' Globe,' newspaper does not concur in the course I took. I have nothing to say in that regard except that the writer of that article is as entitled to his opinion as everybody else in this country is entitled to his opinion in the matter. But the important thing to be borne in mind is that this prerogative of pardon, one of the most important, possibly the most important, of the remaining prerogatives of the Crown, is one which under our system of government cannot be exercised upon the personal responsibility of His Majesty or Mis Majesty's representative in this country. The action which was taken in this matter, and which is taken in any of these cases, is something which can properly be taken only upon the advice of some person who is responsible for that ae tion. I do not know that I can take any exception to the phrase which the hon. gentleman has used to-night, that these men-were summarily released by me. Of course, that is not strictly accurate, as every one knows. My action in the matter was not to order any release; it was to recommend, and I take the whole responsibility for what was done. I thought I made that as clear as I could in what I said on this subject some days ago. I have never sought to place any responsibility upon the legal gentlemen who applied for the release of their -clients, who urged that release^ who made their representations,_ and their pleas for clemency or for executive action in the way of the granting of a pardon. No more did I seek or do I seek to put any responsibility in the matter on the men in the various walks of life, to whom I alluded in speaking be fore, who did not sign petitions, but who wrote independent letters to me on the subject, each urging in his own way his own view. Nor did I ever seek to put the slightest responsibility in the matter upon the learned Attorney General for the province
of Ontario. That gentleman has, according to this morning's Toronto newspapers, made a statement with regard to the letter which he wrote to me in connection with this matter, a statement which I need not say is entirely in accordance with the facts, which gives the purport of his letter, as it was his privilege to do if he saw fit, though I certainly would not have considered that I had any right to give to the public the contents or the substance of a letter which he had written to me on such a subject. I put no responsibility whafi ever upon him in the matter. I do not seek to say that his advice or his views influenced me in the matter. I take the whole responsibility for what was done, be cause it was upon my advice, and my advice alone that His Excellency was pleased to exercise his power of pardon in the premises. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that_this responsibility is not a responsibility upon any of my colleagues-is not a responsibility upon the government as a whole. The instructions to His Excellency from His Majesty himself, under his own hand, are that in the exercise of the prerogative of pardon he is to be guided by the advice of his minister, not by the advice of his Council; and His Excellency acted in this matter upon my sole advice, without my having conferred with any of my colleagues, without there being the slightest responsibility upon the First Minister, or upon any other member of the cabinet. Now,, the question is, was I wrong? If I was wrong, I trust that the hon. gentleman, and every other hon. member of this House, will acquit me of the original charge, the charge that was made in connection with this case, as I am sorry to say it has been made with reference to the same Mr. Robinette on other occasions by other members of this House, that because of the man who applied, and because it was Mr. Robinette, some course was taken in the matter which otherwise would not have been taken. That charge, at any rate, hon. gentlemen see for themselves, has not a particle of foundation.
If I made a mistake it was an error of judgment. I have the satisfaction of knowing that it received the approval of His Excellency and I cannot refrain from saying that I value, in a matter of this kind at all events, the approval of His Excellency the present Governor General of this country far and away beyond any importance I would attach to the approval of the editor of the Toronto ' Globe.' I based my action in this matter as I stated to the House the other day simply and entirely upon the fact that as a lawyer I was of opinion that those men by selling the books in question, which it was admitted . they had done, had not committed the of-

fence with which they were charged. I say nothing as to whether they had committed some other offence. The question did not arise for consideration. They were charged with distributing literature which was obscene in character. I mentioned, when speaking before, some of the authors whose works were in question. I referred to those authors whom I mentioned as classics. I have nothing to modify in that respect. I did not pretend to say that those writers whose names I mentioned were the only writers. I stated on the contrary, that there were others, that there were some of the more modern French school. I did not refer to those modern writers as classics. I do not know whether the term could or could not properly be applied to them. The question which was presented for consideration here was upon the undisputed facts of the case, whether or not the books which were in evidence, which were marked by the officer of the court and sent by him to me, were books which properly fell within the meaning of the word ' obscene ' .as used in the particular section of the Criminal Code upon which this charge was founded. I do not know whether all the members of this House would understand the same thing as the meaning of the word ' obscene ' that I understand bv it. I have simply to say that having examined those books which were sent to me bv the officer of the court as being the books in question they did not constitute such literature as I understand would be, as a matter of law, covered by the term ' obscene That is the whole question of the conclusion to which I came in this matter. I looked upon it as entirely a lawyer's question. Long explanations were given of the reason which had led the legal advisers of the prisoners, advising them to enter a plea of guilty. Statements as to why that was done, how it came to be done are matters which I need not enter into, and which I may say at once did not influence me. I do not think that in a case which has been disposed of by a court we need enter into a consideration of what the reasons were which led learned counsel for the defendants to take a particular course in court, and certainly I am not passing one way or the other upon any question of the wisdom of the course which was so advised. The1;, whole importance of the matter is this, that there was no dispute about the facts of the case. The books were there. They had been sold by those particular prisoners. That was admitted, and the question was simply whether the sale of those particular books did or did not, as a matter of law, constitute an offence within that particular section of the Code. I have merely to repeat that in my humble opinion as a lawyer, it did not constitute any such offence. Having reached that clear conclu-aion about which I felt no hesitation at Mr. AYLESWORTH.
the time, about which I certainly feel no hesitation now, and in respect to which I am not in the least degree influenced by anything which has appeared in the newspapers, I adhere to the opinion upon which I acted in advising His Excellency that the thing which those two men confessedly had done did not constitute the particular offence which was described by that section of the Act. I regard that as a pure question of dry law and though I may have my opinion other lawyers may have an opposite opinion, or men who are not lawyers such as the writer in the ' Globe ' i-, I presume, may have a different opinion. As to that, I have nothing in the world to say. Many a time before now I have found gentlemen more learned in the law than I am, having a different opinion from mi no on matters of law.. I have never resented it or considered I had any grievance because they expressed it. In this particular matter I may have a feeling that an attempt has been made to divert popular attention from the real truth of the matter, and from the real facts of the case as I put them before the House when speaking previously. I have simply to rest upon the statement which I made before, ar.d which I am repeating now, that this was a question entirely of law as I understood it then, and as I understand it now, and if 1 have made a mistake in this matter it is just like a great many other mistakes that I have made in matters of law in my time in coming to a conclusion upon a legal question which was in truth erroneous though I honestly believed it to he correct.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
National Transcontinental Railway, s>27,-
000,000.
Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. minister remember the date when this was up last?


George Perry Graham: March 11. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked a question as to the date when it was found that the real cost was differing from the estimated cost. I think he asked also as to the data on which estimates were made, and the names of the engineers who made the estimate. I have a long statement from the secretary of the commission on behalf of the commission, which is as follows :
Ottawa, April 11, 1910. Hon. Geo. P. Graham, P.C.,
Minister of Railways and Canals, Ottawa.
Sir,-In compliance with your verbal request, I have the honour to submit herewith, on behalf of the commissioners, a statement furnishing the information requested by Mr. R. L. Borden, M.P., leader of the opposition, as reported on page 5385 of f Hansard ' (unrevised edition); also a statement from our

chief engineer setting forth the data upon which were based the estimates of the quantities made by the engineers before the work was opened up and the several contracts let, which includes an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the quantities as originally estimated and as returned under the various contracts.
To make clear the distinction between ' solid rock ' as generally understood by the layman, and ' solid rock ' within the meaning of the general specifications for construction, it may as well, at the outset, to quote the approved interpretation of clause 34 of the specifications defining solid rock excavation, as made by the chief engineer, in January, 1908.
Clause 34-solid rock excavation-reads as follows:-
Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer, may be best removed by blasting.
The chief engineer's approved interpretation of the above is as follows:-
I am of the opinion that rock found in ledges or masses as specified must (firstly) be rock, and (secondly) it must be in ledges, conglomerate form (known as plum pudding stone), boulders, or ledge rock displaced (in pieces each exceeding one cubic yard in size), rock assembled, also shale rock, such as in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting.
Accompanying the foregoing interpretation is a diagram in explanation.
When the discrepancies in quantities of solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation as between those estimated by the engineers before the ground was broken and the contracts let, and those actually returned under the several contracts first became manifest; and when difficulties in matters of classification, &c., became apparent in Major Hoclgins' district east of Winnipeg, realizing that, however inaccurate the original estimates might have been, the real and predominating question affecting the public interest was to see that what was returned and paid for _ as solid rock was actually solid rock within the meaning of the specifications; and that, similarly, what was returned and paid for as loose rock was properly classifiable as such under the general specifications for construction; the commissioners determined on the appointment of an inspecting engineer whose duty it would he, under the direction _ and subject to the instructions of the chief engineer, to go over the line, and report directly to the chief engineer on _ all matters of classification, &c., along the line under construction. Accordingly. on Mr. Lumsden's recommendation, Mr. Gordon Grant, the present chief engineer of the commission, was, on the 16th of May, 1907, appointed inspecting engineer.
There appears to be a disposition in some quarters to give currency to the view that where, say 1,000 cubic yards of solid rock *Were originally estimated by the engineers before the work was opened up, and 1,250 or 1,500 cubic yards have been actually returned by the engineers under the contracts, that the difference represents and must be overclassification, or the improper transfer of 250 or 500 cubic yards, as the case may be, from the loose rock or common excavation column into the solid rock column, and that the contractor is paid at the higher rate when he should be paid at the lower. Of course nothing could be more misleading.
Any layman can understand how difficult it is for an engineer to go over a piece of country, particularly if it be a timbered country, with heavy side hills, &c., and estimate exactly, or even very approximately, tlie number of cubic yards of solid rock (even if that be confined to ledge rock and boulders over a cubic yard iu size) in hills, &c., down to a certain grade line.
In the case of contracts Nos. 9 and 10 (150 miles from the Quebec bridge westerly), the quantities were estimated partly on a first location, partly on preliminary, and partly on projected lines and after the crn-tracts had been awarded, it was found necessary to change the location of the line in several places, thus vitiating the value of the original estimates of quantities as a basis of comparison, while at the same time improving the line; in district ' F,' in the case of contract No. 21 (McArthur contract), no allowance was made in the engineers' estimates of quantities for excavation of one foot below grade in rock cuttings; nor was any allowance made for the removal of material outside the regular slopes in rock cuttings or rock borrow; all borrow for fills was estimated as common excavation, although after the work was opened up it was found that from the Canadian Pacific railway crossing at Rennie to Superior Junction, a distance of about 180 miles, the country is all rock; and in district ' A,' from Moncton to the Quebec boundary, there was no outcropping of reck shown on or near the line.
These are some of the reasons accounting for the apparent discrepancy between the quantities as estimated before the ground was broken and the contracts awarded, and as returned under the various contracts. It will be doubtless contended that much more accurate estimates might have obtained had tlie engineers been required to make borings say every one hundred yards over the entire 1,804 miles of line between Winnipeg and Moncton. And this is readily admitted. But, to have done so would have required a large additional expenditure of time and money before the actual work of construction was commenced on any single contract, without any saving in the co-t of construction; such a course, our engineers advise, is rarely, if ever, followed in this country, as it is not believed that the results warrant the additional expenditure of time and money involved.
As has already been pointed out, the important thing is to see that the contractors shall be paid for only what they are entitled to under the general specifications governing the construction of the railway, and that the work is executed up to the standard required. The commissioners believe that they have taken every possible precaution to safeguard the public interest along these lines. Two inspecting engineers reporting directly to the chief engineer are practically continuously going over the work in the different districts. In addition, there are the inspecting engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Com-

pany constantly passing on tlie work as it is performed, and when they do not agree with the engineers of the commission as to the work, their complaints are promptly filed in writing, to be passed upon by a board of experts acting as arbitrators under the authority of the National Transcontinental Railway Act. It would be difficult indeed to suggest any safeguards to protect the public interests which do not already exist on this work.
With respect to the cost of the line, the fact cannot be too much emphasized or too frequently repeated, that when the National Transcontinental Railway is completed, the people of Canada will have a railway constructed to a standard of perfection with respect to gradients and curvature, character of roadbed, and permanency of structures (such as steel bridges and viaducts, culverts, &c.,) which but few railways in the world can equal. Railways such as the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk have within the past ten or fifteen years expended many millions of dollars to bring their lines in some places up to the standard which will prevail over the entire National Transcontinental Railway. The costs of operation wrill be infinitesimal in comparison with those of lines having ruling gradients of one per cent, and the benefits of this economy in operation should accrue to the people of Canada, not only through the development of the country through which the railway runs, but also, eventually, in materially reduced freight and passenger rates.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Tour obedient servant,
(Sgd.) P. E. RYAN,
Secretary.
District ' A.'
Contract No. 1.-Through mileage 0 to 50-00. Length of contract 50-00 miles. Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer, not now in service.
Estimated quantities based on 10 miles 3d location, remainder final location.
Contract No. 2.-Through mileage 50 to 58 -00. Length of contract 8 miles. Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location.
Contract No. 3.-Through mileage 58 -00 to 96-42. Length of contract 38-42 miles. Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location, remainder final location.
Contract No. 4.-Through mileage 96-42 to 163-80. Length of contract 67-38 miles. Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location.
Contract No. 5-Through mileage 163-80 to 195 -58.	Length	of	contract	31 -78	miles.
Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location.
Contract No. 6.-Through mileage 195-58 to 256-61.	Length	of	contract	61-03	miles.
Quantities estimated by Guy C. Dunn, District Engineer.


George Perry Graham: Estimated quantities based on final location.
Remarks as to District ' A.'
Some of the reasons accounting for the apparent inaccuracy of tho estimates of quantities, made before the opening up of the work and the award of the contracts in this district, are as follows, viz:
(1) There was no outcropping of rock showing on or near the line between Moncton and the Quebec boundary, this in large measure accounting for the underestimate of the quantities of solid rock; (2) test pits were not dug in cuttings, as a rule, as to have done so would have involved a heavy additional expenditure of time and money, without any improvement of the line or saving in cost of construction; (3) no provision was made for rock borrow where earth could not be obtained ; (4) quantities were computed from certain heights; no allowance _ having been made for side hill work, of which there is a large amount in this district; (5) no allowance was made for taking out work one foot below grade in rock cuttings; no allowance was made for material moved outside of slopes in rock cuttings.
District ' B.J
Contract No. 7.-Through mileage 256 -61 to 310-22. Length of contract 53-61 miles. Quantities estimated by A. E. Doucet, District Engineer, still in service as District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 53 miles first location.
Contract No. 8.-Through mileage 310-22 to 460 -45. Length of contract 149 -12 miles. Quantities estimated by A. E. Doucet, District Engineer.	_
Estimated quantities based on 20 miles preliminary, 5 miles projected, 92 miles first location, and 33 miles final location.
Contract No. 9.-Through mileage 460-45 to 510-31. Length of contract 49-86 miles. Quantities estimated by A. E. Doucet, District Engineer.	_
Estimated quantities based on first location
surveys.
Contract No. 10.-Through mileage 510-31 to 610-41. Length of contract 100 miles. Quantities estimated by A. E. Doucet, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 50 miles preliminary and first location and 50 miles projected -lines.
Contract No. 11.-Through mileage 610-41 to 656 -83. Length of contract 46 -42 miles.
Quantities estimated by A. E. Doucet, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 22 miles preliminary, 22 miles first location, balance revised location.
Remarks as to District 'B.'
Some of the reasons accounting for the apparent inaccuracy of the estimates of quantities, made before the opening up of the work and the award of the contracts in this district, are as follows, viz.:-	_
(1.) In the case of the 150 miles from the north abutment of the Quebec bridge westerly (contracts Nos. 9 and 10) the surveys were not completed before the contracts were awarded, and the estimates of quantities were based partly on first location lines, parly on preliminary, and 50 miles on projected lines, the demand for the estimates being made by the chief engineer; on revising the work errors in levels were found requiring a change of line in several places and heavier work to get

a 04 grade; the opening up of the work disclosed a vast quantity of mixed material not provided for in the estimated quantities; no allowance was made for train filling where common excavation borrow could not be obtained ; the estimates were based on the use of velocity grades, the elimination of which increased the quantities greatly; the estimates were made on the orders of the chief engineer before sufficient information had been obtained regarding the rise and fall of some of the streams encountered, and this in some cases required the subsequent raising of the grade and in increase in the quantities, thus adding to the cost both of the grading and the bridges; the location ran along steep side hills in many places, thus adding to the difficulty of making accurate estimates of quantities, cross-sections not having been taken; (2) many of the above reasons apply to the district generally, and test pits were not as a rule dug in cuttings.
District 'C/
Contract No. 12.-Through mileage 656-83 to 763 -83. Length of contract 107 -00 miles. Quantities estimated by District Engineer A. N. Molesworth, still in the service as District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on revised location. No changes yet reported.
Contract No. 13.-Through mileage 763 -83 to 878 -80. Length of contract 114 -97 miles. Quantities estimated by District Engineer A. N. Molesworth.
Estimated quantities based on final location 59 miles; remainder revised location. No changes as yet reported.
Contract No. 14.-Through mileage 878-80 to 956-74. Length of contract 78 miles. Quantities estimated by District Engineer A. N. Molesworth.
Estimated quantities based on 6 miles revised location; 36 miles first location; (remainder of contract then in District TF).
Remarks as to District 'C-'
The quantities have been increased on this district owing to the fact that the grades have had to be raised higher than those shown on the profiles from which the first quantities were taken. This was necessary owing to the wet nature of the country; the nature of the material encountered after the cuts were opened rendered flatter slopes in many instances necessary, which resulted in larger quantities of material having to be moved; no allowance made for extra train filling owing to shrinkage on muskeg dumps; no allowance made for catch water ditches, off-takes, etc.; sufficient information could not be obtained at the time to estimate culverts, culvert excavation and bridges; no allowance made for material moved outside of slopes in rock cuttings; no allowance made for spread of material in filling of muskegs and bays.
District 'D.'
Contract No. 14.-Through mileage 956-74 to 1020 -80. Length of contract 72 miles. Quantities estimated by District Engineer S. R. Poulin, still in service, employed as District Engineer, District ' F.'
Estimated quantities based on 54 miles first location; 54 miles revised location.
Contract No. 15.-Through mileage 1028-80 to 1172 -85. Length of contract 44:08 miles. Quantities estimated by John Aylen, acting District Engineer; not now in service.
Estimated quantities based on 31 miles location; remainder final location.
Contract No. 16.-Through mileage 1128:77 to 1172-85. Length of contract 44 08 miles. Quantities estimated by John Aylen, acting District Engineer; not now in service.
Estimated quantities based on 44 miles revised location. No change as yet reported. Remarks as to District 'D.'
The quantities have been increased on this district owing to the fact that grades have had to be raised higher than those shown on the profiles from which the first quantities were taken, this was necessary owing to the wet nature of the country; the nature of the material encountered after the cuts were opened rendered flatter slopes in many instances necessary, which resulted in larger quantities of material having to be moved; no test pits were dug; complete information could not be obtained when first estimate was made for calculating of culvert quantities, culvert excavation and bridges; no allowance was made for divisional yard at Cochrane; many banks were made from muskeg; after being dried out this material shrinks over 50 per cent, necessitating a great increase in train filling. District ' E.'
Contract No. 16.-Through mileage 1128-77 to	1172-85.	Length	of	contract	60	miles.Quantities	estimated	by T. S. Armstrong,
district engineer, still in service as District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 60 miles revised location. No changes yet reported.
Contract No. 17.-Through mileage 1232:85 to	1332:85.	Length	of	contract	100	miles.
Quantities estimated by T. S. Armstrong, District Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location. No changes yet reported.
Contract No. 18.-Through mileage 1332-85 to	1407-85.	Length	of	contract	75	miles.
Quantities estimated by T. S. Armstrong, Distract Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on final location.
Contract No. 19.-Through mileage 1407-85 to 1428-04. Length of contract 20-19 miles. Quantities estimated by T. S. Armstrong, Distract Engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 20 miles revised final location. No increase yet reported. Remarks as to District ' E.'
No test pits were dug, and greater amounts of solid and loose rock were encountered than the surface indicated; sufficient information had not been obtained when the estimate was prepared for the calculating of culvert quantities, culvert excavation, and bridges; no allowance made for removal of rock outside of regular slopes, or below grade in rock! cuts.
District ' E.'
Contract No. 19.-Through mileage 1428 -04 to 1534-04. Length of contract 106 miles.
Quantities estimated by S. R. Poulin, District Engineer, still in service as district engineer.
Estimated quantities based on 106 miles final location. No increase yet reported.
Contract No. 20.-Through mileage 1,534-04 to 1,557-80. Length of contract 24-13 miles. Quantities estimated by S. R. Poulin, District Engineer.

*5360
Estimated quantities based oil final location. No increase yet reported.
Contract No. 21.-Through mileage, 1,557-80 to 1,801 -47. Length of contract 246 -67 miles. Quantities estimated by A. E. Hodgins, District Engineer, not now in service.
Estimated quantities based on first location.
Remarks as to Contract No. 21.
Insufficient soundings were made in muskegs. Jvo provision wak made for rock borrow in bay crossings and very soft muskeg where trestling was not practicable. No test pits were dug in cuttings. No allowance made for spread of material in muskegs. Many trestles were replaced by train filling for which no allowance -was made in first estimates. No allowance was made for grading of sidings. Insufficient allowance was made for lowering of lakes. No allowance was made for temporary haul ways, pipe lines and grading material yards. No allowance made for removal of material outside regular slopes in rock cuts. Quantities were figured from centre lines and bare centre line quantities recorded. No allowance made for side hill work, catch water ditches, offtakes, etc. In rock cuttings no allowance was made for excavation one foot below grade. No details had been procured for the proper estimation of culvert quantities and culvert, excavation, and bridge foundations. In first estimate all borrow for fills was estimated by the district engineer -as common excavation, although it was impossible at the time to know whether nr not common excavation to make these fills was available. The profiles from which the first estimate was made showed quantities in fills far in excess of the quantities in the cuttings. When operations started it was found that common excavation borrow could not be found in that part of the country from the Canadian. Pacific railway crossing at Rennie to Superior Junction, a distance of about 180 miles, as it is all rock, consequently the line in many places had to be revised and thrown further into the side hills to reduce the fills to practicable dimensions and make the only available excavation-rock- balance the fills. This revision was also necessary as it was found that owing to the boggy and soft nature of the bottoms of the swamps, bays of lakes, etc., that trestles could not be built, which, together with the fact that no allowance for rock outside the regular slopes and no rock borrow, and no rock below sub-grade was estimated for, accounts for the rock moved exceeding the rock estimated for in the first estimates.


GORDON GRANT,
[Stage Direction]
Chief Engineer.
Ottawa, April 11, 1910.
My bon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) also handed me a memorandum, which I did not return, and I am not sure whether he wants it to go on ' Hansard ' or not. I will send it to him. It is in relation to the Peterson matter. I have an explanation from the district engineer, and Mr. Gordon Grant on the subject. The other question he asked was as to certain items to complete, and I think I gave them in the short remarks I made this afternoon.
Mr. J. HAGGART.: There was a clause in the agreement by which the Grand Mr. GRAHAM.
Trunk Pacific were to put $20,000,000 of rolling stock upon the road. It was to be distributed, $15,000,000 worth west of Winnipeg and $5,000,000 on the rest of the road.: I desire to ask if any of that rolljjig stock has been placed upon the road. One of the conditions promised by the Minister of Justice and which he said was one of the conditions of the contract, was that there should be no claim or lien of any kind on the rolling stock-it was to be part of the security for the advance made* by the government.


George Perry Graham: So far as the security is concerned, that has been adhered to. I am informed that $10,000,000 worth of rolling stock has already been purchased, and they are getting about $500,000 worth per month. A large portion of tliisj rolling stock is already in use on the line between Winnipeg and Edmonton and east of Wolf creek.


John Graham Haggart: What I am particularly interested in is that no lien is to rest on this rolling stock, that it is to be free from any lien by any one but the government.


George Perry Graham: There are no liens whatever. There were equipment bonds issued under the Act for this rolling stock, but I am informed there is no charge against the rolling stock.


John Graham Haggart: The equipment bonds are not a lien upon the equipment?


George Perry Graham: No, I think not, in the sense the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. Haggart) means.


Haughton Lennox: I do not like to ask too many questions to-night; the minister seemed to think this afternoon that he had given me to-o much information. I hope he will not think there is any hard feeling between us if I ask a question or two. What is the position of the arbitration proceedings of the three engineers under, as the minister alleges, clause 7 of the agreement? Have they gone to work this spring?


George Perry Graham: I have been making inquiries for the last few -days as to what day they would resume, as they had started. I understand that they hope that the conditions along the line will soon enable them to do work.


Haughton Lennox: Nothing this spring?


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: I think the minister is mistaken in saying that they did anything as an arbitration. I saw, by a return moved for by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that the members of the arbitration had met at

Winnipeg and proceeded on the line, but found it was too late in the year. The snow was on, and they could not make inspection. Then, the engineer of the company and Mr. Gordon Grant went together and made some adjustments. I think that that is as much as has been done.


George Perry Graham: The three arbitrators went out on the question of overbreak. As a matter of fact, the weather would not permit measurements in regard to classification. But the chief engineer of the Transcontinental and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific agreed to about 70 per cent of the differences between them on overbreak.


Haughton Lennox: No arbitrator?


George Perry Graham: There will .be no arbitration except as to the thirty per cent remaining, but on this the arbitrators will have to act.
Resolution reported.


FIRST READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 221) for the relief of James Alexander Hurst Forster.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Bill (No. 222) for the relief of Emily Maud Nicholl.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 223) for the Telief of Edna Shib-ley DeMar.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 224) for the relief of Clifford Buell Lillie.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 225) for the relief of Roland James Botterill.-Mr. German.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Some minor Bills in order to make work for the Senate. The Insurance Bill will come next, and later on Supply for the Minister of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 29, 1910.