1910-03-11

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill No. 95, now under consideration by this House, respecting the naval service i f Canada, to provide for the establishment, under regulations in that behalf, to be made by the Governor General in Council, of pensions and gratuities for the permanent naval service; such pensions or gratuities not to be larger in amount or granted upon more favourable terms than the pensions and gratuities authorized under the Militia Act.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. In the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, while my name appears as having voted against the amendment of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup), it is omitted in the record of the vote on the main motion. This omission occurs both in the Votes and Proceedings and ' Hansard.' It is obvious that some error has been made, because it will be remembered distinctly that the vote on the main motion was exactly as was the vote on the amendment, but the total in the main motion, as recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and ' Hansard,' is put down at 118, whereas it was announced by the clerk of the House as 119. I think all hon. members will recollect the fact that I was present at both divisions, that I voted against the amendment to the main motion and in favour of the main motion, and I would ask that both ' Hansard ' and Votes and Proceedings be corrected in that regard, so as to conform with what actually took place.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: 



THE LUMSDEN INVESTIGATION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to an extraordinary mistake which seems to have been made by the chairman of the committee now engaged in making an investigation into the charges preferred by Mr. Lumsden. On looking at the proceedings of the committee, it will be seen, at page 3, that the following resolution was passed:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that the proceedings and evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day.
This was agreed to, but for some reason which I cannot understand, the chaiiman of the committee, in reporting that to the House,'left out the very important words and reported to the House so that the committee is represented to have recom-. mended only that the proceedings and evidence taken by them should be printed. That seems to be an extraordinary step for the chairman of the committee to have taken, and I think we should have an explanation from him why such an omission was made, and have that omission immediately rectified.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: The report was prepared by the clerk of the committee and submitted to the committee, and nobody objected. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by saying that the chairman omitted any words at all. I submitted the report which was prepared by the clerk, according to the order of the House, which says that the committee shall report to the House frpm time to time.


Robert Laird Borden: I regret that either I seem to have a very imperiect realization of what took place, or else the hon. gentleman has. I am not talking about the order of the House, but about the recommendation of the committee, which it was the duty of the hon. gentleman to report to this House in the terms in which it passed the committee. The motion which passed the committee was as follows:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day, which wag
agreed to.
That is plain, is it not? But here is the way in which the chairman of the committee reported that resolution:
Your committee recommends that their proceedings and any evidence taken by them be printed from day to day.
Carefully leaving out the important words ' and reported to the House.' What has the order of this House to do with the matter? The hon. gentleman had nothing

to do with the order of this House, but only with the recommendation of the committee, words which were essential to it, omit from the recommendation of the com-mitee, words which were essential to it, and he has given no explanation for that omission which can be regarded as satisfactory.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Has my hon. friend taken the trouble to compare the printed report with the printed record of the motion?


Robert Laird Borden: I have taken the trouble to ask members of the committee who were present when that motion passed. I asked the hon. gentleman who moved that motion, and moved it in writing, and he tells me that the printed report is exactly in the terms in which he put his motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not the slightest wish to reflect on my hon. friend, but errors sometimes do occur in the printing. He may recollect that some days ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) put a question on the paper containing an extract from a speech delivered by me in Toronto. It happened that the printed extract was not a -correct printing of the hon. gentleman's question, and I thought that possibly a similar error might have taken place in this instance. The chairman of the committee, taken by surprise, does not know that there was a discrepancy, but his attention being drawn to it, he will see that it is rectified


Mr. MACDONALD.: The hon. the leader of the opposition knows very well that the chairman of a committee usually presents to the House the report prepared by the clerk of that committee and does not himself draft that report. I would suggest that the supporters of my hon. friend, who were appointed to that committee, should go there and settle these matters before hand.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a matter to be dealt with in the committee at all, but in this House, which has the right to have the recommendation of a committee reported to it in the terms in which the motion passed that committee.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My hon. friend's remarks are out of order because they relate to a proceeding before a com mittee which that committee has not re ported to this House. He has not taken the trouble to ascertain whether the printed record agrees with his version.


Robert Laird Borden: I have done so. I have gone to the hon. gentleman who moved the motion and he says the printed document is exactly as he moved it. He
is as certain of that as any one can be of any fact. The hon. member for Pictou has a very extraordinary idea of what we should do. First, he suggests that when the recommendation of a committee is brought before this House in terms other than those in which they passed, the matter cannot be raised in this House. In other words when a committee recommends that its proceedings shall be reported to the House from aay to day, and when that recommendation has been omitted from the report without a word, of explanation, we cannot raise the question in this House because the committee has not reported, and it has not so reported because that recommendation has been omitted for some mysterious reason. Is that my hon. friend's argument? If so, I do not think it would commend itself to any one.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is too hasty in presuming that there is something mysterious in this. What is much more likely is that an error has occurred, as often happens. There is a disparity between the report as moved in the House and the resolution of the committee. But, my hon. friend knows that the chairman does not draw the report, That is drawn by the clerk, and it is very likely that the chairman signed it without looking at it carefully. Now that his attention is drawn to the matter, he will look into it.


Robert Laird Borden: The proceedings of the committee, as recommeneded by the committee should have been reported to the House day by day. But the fact that- that recommendation has been altered by some person-I do not say who is responsible-before being brought to the House, and that the report has been confirmed by this House should prove that any explanation of that alteration-


Wilfrid Laurier: No person noticed the alteration.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I was about to remark. The House had no explanation; the House was misled. The matter should have been corrected at once, and, for the reason suggested by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald), the fact of these proceedings not having been reported day bv day, prevented hon. members from making reference to the proceedings of the committee. One might think there was a certain connection between the alteration and the result of the alteration as argued by my hon. friend from Pictou. That hon. gentleman took the point at once: there is no report of the proceedings of this committee, and, therefore, the matter cannot be referred to. Why is there no report of the proceedings of the committee? Because the recommen-

dation of the committee was altered. The hon. member tor Pictdu is very quick to take the point, and gives us a clue, perhaps as to why the alteration was made. It is a very astute point, but rather an obvious one; I think it must have occurred to almost every member of the House before my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) had the remarkable candour and frankness to raise it.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: May I permitted, though perhaps out of order-


Mr. SPEAKER.: The matter cannot be discussed


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) has made reference to me.	_


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: There is nothing before the Chair.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has made three speeches-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I wish the hon. gentleman to understand that there is nothing before the Chair.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I agree with that; but Mr. Speaker, if you will hear me-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member has taken a very bad precedent-


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I rise to a point of order-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The custom of the House here and in England is, when the Speaker rises, for the member who claims the floor to be seated.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This remark applies to both sides. The same thing occurred yesterday. I say, there is nothing before the Chair. I cannot allow this discussion to go on.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: When the discussion is wholly out of order, as it admittedly is and was. and when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) spoke three times out of order, and made a personal reference to myself, I submit that it is quite in order for me to reply to it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) cannot raise a discussion on that.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It seems hardly fair for-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that a point of order was to be raised-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understood that a point of order was to be raised.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Yes. When, in a debate is admittedly out of order, the hon. gentleman discussing the matter makes a personal reference to" another hon. member, I think that other hon. member should have a right to reply. That is the point of order I make. But if you rule that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition Mr. R. L. Borden) can make three speeches out of order and I cannot make one, I accept the ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Government orders.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are entered upon, 1 ask the permission of the House to say a few words on a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Louder. Come forward.


Murdo Young McLean: If it is not out of order, I would say that the acoustic properties of this chamber are so defective that it is impossible for any one at the back of the chamber to hear what is going on at the front, and for any one at the front to know what is said at the back. However, as I said, I wish to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I say a word on a question of privilege. I received from a friend this morning a clipping from a newspaper, a report of a special Ottawa correspondent, and I may say that a similar statement has appeared in several other Conservative papers. Before proceeding to read the statement itself, I may say that the statement is headed with a large scare head as follows :


An M.P.: Rebuked by his own Party-M. Y. AIcLean (S. Huron) stirs up an unpleasant scene by interrupting Geo. Clare and declining to be shut up.
The despatch proceeds:


George A.: Clare, the German-Canadian representative of South Waterloo, was interrupted by Mr. McLean while in the course of an amiable speech, which was being listened to by the largest attendance seen during the naval debate, since the premier and Air. Borden addressed the House. [DOT]
Air. Clare, who has been in bad health for some time, was obviously speaking under difficulties, and the Conservatives resented the sneer with which Air. AIcLean accompanied his interjected question, ' AVould you favour sending $25,000,000 to England for Dreadnoughts ? '
They shouted ' Oh, oh ' and ' Sit down.' Air. AIcLean refused to sit down, and the hubbub grew boisterous. The Speaker intimated that Mr. AIcLean couldn't break into the debate without Air. Clare's permission, but AIcLean refused to take the hint. He said something which was inaudible, owing to shouts of ' Order, order,' and ' Put him down.'
The premier nodded to the Speaker and gave AIcLean a warning look. Mr. Fielding

also turned round and signed with his hand to McLean to sit down, but the member for South Huron wouldn't.


The Speaker:: I have already told the hon. member to sit down. The hon. member for South Waterloo has the floor and cannot be interrupted.
Mr. McLean still endeavoured to proceed, and, amid cries of ' Name him/ the Speaker formally ordered him to sit down.
Mr. Clare then remarked that never in his years in the House had he interrupted any one, and when a gentleman was in poor health, he had always endeavoured to assist him. General applause, in which Mr. Fielding joined, greeted this, and the incident closed.
I am not in the habit of taking very seriously to heart any statements that the Conservative papers or the Conservative politicians may make about or against me, because I know that if I did not say something that was worth while and something that hit hard, they would not pay attention to me. And, Sir, I have been lighting them nearly all my life and I have learned to take hard knocks as well as soft knocks with the greatest equanimity and to return them with interest when I could. But this statement goes beyond what is fair. It accuses me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Murdo Young McLean: If you will wait for a moment-that is one of the things that creates difficulties. I say that, if not by direct statement, at least by insinuation, this accuses me of taking advantage of the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare) in order to interrupt and annoy him. Now, I have to say this: that, although the hon. member for South Waterloo represents my native constituency, I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance. I really did not know who he was until he got up to continue the discussion, nor had I the least idea that he was suffering from ill health. Had I known that it is quite possible that I should not have interrupted him, because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend himself, that no one could have more sympathy with a gentleman under such circumstances than I would have. But while he was suffering from ill health he was not so ill but that he could pay his attentions to myself as he went along, and not do it in a very becoming or generous manner. However, I will alloy/ that to pass. As the hon. gentleman was proceeding with his argument, an argument which I thought very involved and difficult to understand, I desired, for my own information, to find out just where he was at. I got up, as I think I had a right to do, at least to do what has been done a hundred times in this House, I got up and asked the hon. gentleman if he would permit me to ask him a question, and he replied: Yes, certainly. I submit-165
ted that question, but instead of answering it he proceeded with his argument, entirely ignoring the question. Under these circumstances I again asked him the question, and still he did not reply. My statement of the case is borne out by the official report of the debates which I have on my desk. Now, I think that under the circumstances, if there was any discourtesy it was not on my part, but on the part of the hon. gentleman who, having permitted me to ask him a question, saw fit to ignore it and would not answer either, yes or no. If there was any discourtesy it was on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite who, when I was exercising my right in this House, endeavoured to howl me down; and, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to your decision on that occasion, I must say that I think I was perfectly in order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr, SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman cannot discuss a ruling of the Speaker.


Murdo Young McLean: All right, Sir, there is no person more desious of obeying the rules of this House than I am. Although I have no personal acquaintance with the hon. member for South Waterloo, I have heard of him frequently, being as he is the representative of my native county. I have nothing but the greatest respect for that gentleman, and nothing would be further from my desire than to annoy him, or injure him in any way whatever. I have only to say in conclusion that I think I cannot be accused of unduly interrupting hon. members in this House, because, although I have been here for the greater part of three sessions. I think this is only the second time that I Have had occasion to do anything of the kind. I may also add this, that if hon. gentlemen opposite have left the hon. member for South Waterloo and myself alone, any difference that had arisen between us would have been settled very amicably.



SUPPLY-RECIPROCAL USE OF CANALS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['In that event I would suggest that the members from the various provinces in the west be a sub-committee. They know the local conditions better than we do.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. G. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: On the 24th of February last I asked this question:
Have Canadian vessels carrying freight the right to use the canals of the state of New York? If so, what statute authorizes it? If not, what statute or regulation prevents it?
The Minister of Justice replied:
By the treaty of Washington the government of the United States engaged to urge upon the state governments to secure to British subjects the use of the several state canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by, or contiguous to



the boundary line, on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, but this government is not aware that such urgency has, up to the present time, been productive of any practical result. The _ matter is,_ of course, not governed by Canadian legislation, and the government is not in a position to answer as to the legislation on the subject (if anv) there may be in the state of New York.'
I judge from this reply that the Department of Justice does not think that at the present time Canadians have a right to use the canals in the state of New York on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, and up to a short time ago that was my own idea on the subject. My reason for bringing this matter up at the present time is that there has been a feeling in this part of Canada, at all events, for a great many years, that the United States did not give us fair play under the treaty of Washington in relation to the canals in the state of New York. It has been generally understood here for many years that we have no right to send a vessel of Canadian register from here to New York city. I remember years ago when I first started business here everybody said that we could not send a vessel of Canadian register through to New York, and I have felt that way about it ever since. However, within the last few months, I have had some talk with the American Consul General here, the Hon. J. G. Foster, on this subject, and he assured me that we were mistaken in our idea, and that a boat of Canadian register could go through all right. I have a letter written by Mr. Denis Murphy, of the city of Ottawa, a gentleman who has been in . the transportation business all his life; it is written to the United States Consul General, under date of March 1, 1909:
Dear Sir,-In reference to our conversation of Friday last, I now have much pleasure in giving you what information I have in regard to the stopping of Canadian barges at the Champlain canal.
About the year 1870 or 1871, the late firm of J. W. McRae & Company built six small barges called the A., B., C., D., E. and F., with the intention of running them through to New York with lumber and having them return with cargoes of coal. The first trip they were stopped at Whitehall and after considerable correspondence and much delay to the barges, they were allowed to proceed with the understanding that in future they would not be allowed further than-Whitehall. These barges loaded coal in New York and came back to Ottawa and were kept in the trade here.
About this time the forwarders here found this class of barge too small for the trade, and the larger barges then were built. These barges were too large to go through the Champlain canal, so that there was never any further trouble from that source. I might state that this one occasion is the only time I Mr. PERLEY.
know of Canadian vessels being stopped at any of the American canals.	,
Trusting this information will be satisfactory,
I am, yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
My impression is that the reason why it was supposed all these years that Canadian vessels could not use the New York state canals on an equality with the inhabitants of the United States, was because of this incident away back in the '70's. I have been unable to find any case of late years where a Canadian boat has been stopped from using the New York canals. The American Consul General in a letter which I received from him a few days ago says: The present constitution of the state of New York was adopted November 6, 1894, and went into force January 1, 1895. Since the adoption of this constitution it is my understanding that the canals have been absolutely free to vessels of all nations.
I took the opinion of a gentleman from New York who is conversant with the statutes of that state, and he says that he is unable to find any provision of law or Act of the legislature which discriminates against the free use of the state canals by Canadian vessels. That is his very positive statement. It seems that under this constitution of the state of New York which came into force in 1895 it is provided by article 97:
No tolls shall hereafter be imposed on persons or property transported on the canals, but all boats navigating the canals and the owners and masters thereof shall be subject to such laws and regulations as have been,, or may hereafter be enacted, concerning the navigation of canals.
This clause in the constitution seems to be a perfectly clear one, and it explicitly abolishes all tolls on persons and property transported on the canals. It seems evident that at least from the adoption of the constitution of 1895 the canals of the state of New York have been free to all comers, including Canadians. The constitution of the state places the management of the canals, and their control and operation as well as their maintenance and repair in the hands of the superintendent of public works in the state of New York.
Robert Laird Borden: Are all the canals in question the property of the state or are any of them under private ownership?


George Halsey Perley: All these canals are the property of the state. Article 100 of the constitution of the state of New York provides as follows:	.
The legislature shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the Erie canal, the Oswego canal the Champlain canal the Cayuga and Seneca -canals or the Black River canal, but they shall remain the property of the state and under its management for ever.


Mr. A. BRODER.: There are some private owned canals as well?


George Halsey Perley: There may be; I am referring only to those owned by the state. I may say that I am not going to find any fault with the government on this subject, I am not asking an answer, I am simply putting on record what I understand to be the exact state of affairs today. It has been my impression for the last thirty-five years that we could not send a Canadian boat through to New York and evidently the Minister of Justice thinks that that is at present the state of affairs, because in his answer of February 24, he says, speaking of the efforts of the United States:
The government is not aware that such urgency has up to the present time been productive of any practical result.
That is in the way of the state of New York agreeing that we should use their canals.
As the superintendent of public works of the state of New York has this matter entirely in charge, and must be cognizant of all the facts concerning it, I wrote him last month, and this is his reply:
State of New York,
Superintendent of Public Works, Albany.
February 16, 1910.
Subject: Discrimination as to boats.


Mr.   G@: Perley,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-Answering your letter of the 9th instant, addressed to the superintendent of Public Works, I beg to say that there has never been any discrimination either by the rules for the management of the canals, or by statute, against Canadian owned boats, nor is there at the present time.
Section 172 of chapter 13, laws of 1909, known as the Canal Law, prescribes rules for the registration of canal boats. This section, after providing that the owner of boats navigating the canals shall deliver to properly designated officials a certificate of registry, containing the name of the owner, his residence, name of the boat and the hailing point, provides that such registry shall be signed by the owner, if a resident of this state; if not, by the master of the boat as the owner thereof.
Yours very truly,
WINSLOW M. MEAD, Deputy Supt. Public Works.
My object in rising is that I think it is only fair that this evidence and correspondence should be made public in this way, because I believe that if the impression which every one in this section of Canada has had for a great many years that the state of New York does not allow Canadian boats to use the New York canal is a wrong impression, we should disabuse the public mind of it. As I read this correspondence and evidence particularly this i65a
letter from the deputy superintendent of public works, unless there is some other evidence to be found of which I know nothing, it seems to me absolutely that the state of New York allows us to use the canals of that state on an equality with the inhabitants of the United States if we wish to do so. If the Minister of Justice finds anything to be said on the other side, and his department thinks that we have not the right to use these canals, I wish he would inform the House of that fact.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: If I say anything with regard to this subject it is not that I think that I can enlighten the hon. gentleman or this House with reference to the very important question he has brought up. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) who is a keen and acute business man, with the investigation he has made into this subject knows more about it than I do, probably more than any Canadian lawyer, and I have no idea that I can add to his knowledge by anything I can say. I should explain that the circumstance that I made the answer to the question which my hon. friend put upon the order paper some days ago, was merely an accident. Some one had to answer it, and the First Minister asked me to do so. The subject is one not depending in any way upon Canadian legislation, it is not a question of the interpretation of any Canadian statute or Canadian regulations. So far as I am aware, so far as I have ever heard, there is no treaty existing between the United States and Great Britain which would cover this matter except the treaty of Washington, and in making the answer the other day to the question propounded I simply referred to that treaty and stated the substance of its provisions with regard to this matter. I take it that the only way in which the question can be practically determined would be by diplomatic representations to the United States government, and through the federal government to that of the state of New York; or possibly by proceedings before the courts of that state if the right to use the canals on the part of a Canadian vessel was challenged or refused. It would necessarily be a matter in regard to which the only person competent to give advice which would be of any value would be some one acquainted thoroughly with the statutes of the state of New York on the subject, some local practitioner whose opinion would be of value in regard to their legislation, and the regulations under which their canals may be used. No one in this country would I think be competent, to do so. I can only say with reference to the whole subject, and especially to the points which my hon. friend has called attention to, that I shall examine with great interest what

he has said when it appears in ' Hansard, and that if there is anything which can be accomplished toward the end which no doubt he desires, by correspondence, diplomatically or otherwise, I am sure that I should be only too happy, and that any other member of the government would be only too well pleased to facilitate the objects which the hon. gentleman has in view.


Andrew Broder: As a matter of fact, I believe it is without dispute that for the last forty years no Canadian vessel has any privilege of going and coming through these canals. When the Washington treaty was negotiated in 1871 the United States federal government went only so far a3 to agree to urge the state to give the Canadians that privilege, but they did not succeed, so that we are just in the position we were in before we made a treaty at all. There are not only state owned canals in the state of New York, but there are privately owned canals, and even if they had acceded to the wishes of the federal government under the treaty, they would still have control of these private canals. I believe that as a matter of fact for forty years Canadian vessels have not frequented these canals. What can you do now? The federal authorities cannot oblige the state of New York to give the use of these canals, all they can do is to urge the 3tate to do it and it will end just where it ended before. It is a very awkward position to be in, but if you look up the protocols of the Washington treaty you will see that all they agreed to do was simply to urge on the state the wisdom of giving us the use of these canals, and the state refused to do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) is right in saying that according to the treaty of Washington the United States authorities undertook to urge upon the state of New York to give to Canadians the use of their canals just as by that treaty the use of the canals of the St. Lawrence was given to American citizens. It is a long time since I have looked into the matter, hut I have a distinct recollection of what took place in this House when my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) and I were young members, and I believe in that discussion it was assumed that the state of New York had actually passed legislation to give to Canadians the use of these canals, but by subsequent regulations applying to the canals, the object of this legislation was practically defeated. There was discrimination against Canadians, and while the legislature of the state of New York gave the use of the canals, it was made nugatory by subsequent regulations. My recollection is, however, vague as to that, but I have sent Mr. AYLESWORTH.
to the library, and I think in a few days I will be able to give exact information.


Mr. E. L. BOBDEN.: That may have been brought about by some arrangement [DOT] of the tolls, but it would seem from the official communication to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) from the deputy Superintendent of Public Works of the state of New York, that all tolls have been abolished, that no tolls whatever are charged now, and that the canals are as open to the citizens of Canada as to the citizens of the United States. It would be extremely desirable that the matter should be cleared up officially, as it appears to have been pretty well cleared up in the statement received by the hon. member (Mr. Perley) to whom I think a great deal of credit is due in the matter. The official in charge of these canals has informed him in the most unqualified terms that the canals of the state of New York are as open to the citizens of Canada as they are to the citizens of the United States. It is quite true that a contrary impression has prevailed for a long time, but I presume that is due to the fact that thirty-five years ago when we wanted to use these canals we could not use them by reason of the discrimination which undoubtedly did exist, and having got out of the way of using them, and not being aware of the change in the regulations, no one has attempted to use them in recent years. For that reason the real condition of affairs has not been disclosed to the public. I may be entirely wrong in that conjecture, but surely if we can trust official assurances at all it is perfectly plain that the citizens of Canada can use these canals.


Hon. JOHN HAGGAET.: I remember the circumstance perfectly well, and the right hon. gentleman, and the hon. member (Mr. Broder) are perfectly correct in what they say. The treaty of Washington gave us the right to use canals belonging to the United States, and the United States promised they would use their influence to get us the use of the state canals on the same terms as the federal canals. There was a correspondence between this government and the government of the United States in reference to the Sault Ste. Marie canal, which at that time belonged to the state of Michigan, and I think the state of Michigan refused us the right to use that canal on the same terms as citizens of the United States. That difficulty was gotten over by the United States government obtaining possession of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, and it became a federal work. I do not think, however, that the United States federal government used their influence except in reference to the Sault Ste. Marie canal which at that time was the only canal in the United States owned by a state government that we were inter-

ested in the navigation of, except it be the New York canal system on which lumber was carried from Ottawa to New York. After the effort was made by Mr. Murphy and his friends, McRae & Co., to get their barges down to New York, there was no other effort made to obtain the use of the New York canals.


TRENT VALLEY-CLAIMS FOR FLOODING.
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: On the 17th of February last I obtained information from the Minister of Railways in reference to lands that are alleged to be flooded in connection with the Trent waterways system, and particularly in reference to payments near the village of Hastings. I asked the minister as to payments to certain people, I asked who acted as valuator for the government, and the minister answered James Dickson. I also asked who acted as solicitor for the government in each case, and what amount the solicitor was paid for his services in each case, and the answer is:
L. F. Clarry. Nothing has yet been paid, but his accounts have been approved by the Department of Justice, and will be paid as soon as the money is available, April 1, 1910.
I may refer to Return No. 83 brought down on the 15th of March, 1909, showing the amount paid property owners for damages caused by holding the water in the Otonabee river between Hastings and Peterborough.' These payments amount to some $24,000. The amounts paid out altogether by the government are very considerable, and if I am instructed correctly the conditions under which they are paid are very unfavourable to the interests of the public. In other words, there is reason to believe that the person who is acting on behalf of the government is also, in some instances, and perhaps in many instances, acting in tie interests of the persons who are obtaining payments and upon terms that he will receive compensation in proportion to the amount he obtains from the government, which, of course, is not likely to stimulate him to try and get the best possible bargain on behalf of the government. Now, in this return which has been brought down the names are set forth, and in every case not only is the name of the owner mentioned, but the name of the lawyer as well. The persons to whom the cheques are issued are not the owners of the larid alone, but the owner and the government agent, that is the government lawyer. And when I tell you, Mr. Speaker-and refer to some documents that I will read -when I tell you that not only is the lawyer paid by the government, but that he is paid a commission by the
owner of the land, you can realize why it is arranged that the cheque is not made payable to the owner alone, but is made jointly payable to the owner and to the solicitor. I have read what the government says in reference to Mr. Clarry in their answer: That Mr. Dickson is the valuator and that Mr. Clarry is the solicitor acting on behalf of the government, that his accounts have been passed and that he will be paid by the first of April. I might also add the further information that Mr. Clarry is a defeated Reform candidate in the last Ontario elections, and I add, so that the government may be on the alert in order to right this matter if possible, that it is reported that Mr. Clarry has sold out his practice and is about to move away within a short time. I will read to the House the method by which Mr. Clarry seeks to advance the public interest on behalf of the government. I have here a copy of a letter-I have also the original here, fortunately-and this letter shows the methods by which he seeks to obtain business for himself and to forward the public interest, I presume. This is a sample of the letter which he sends out:
Hastings, Out., February 9, 1909. Mr. Graham, Westwood, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Enclosed you will find retainer which I will ask you to kindly have your brother fill in and sign in your presence. Please then return it with Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Dickson is the valuator:
Please then return it with Mr. Dickson and I will have your brother's claim forwarded to Ottawa without delay. I am glad to advise you that I am having good settlements with nearly all my claims, and I think your brother will be dealt with all right. Have him hang out for 12 or 15 acres, and show where the water flows in the spring, and make the settlement with Mr. Dickson and I will be perfectly satisfied.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) L. F. CLARRY.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman who is acting on behalf of the government. Then, the retainer is made out in this way:
I,	, of the township of
Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, farmer, do hereby request and authorize L. F. Clarry, Esq., solicitor, of Hastings, Ontario, to make claim on my behalf against the government of Canada for damages to my lands in the township of Asphodel, caused by the flooding of the waters of Rice lake, and I agree to pay the said L. F. Clarry a commission of 20 per cent of all moneys awarded to me as damages aforesaid for his fees and compensation in the matter.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: The usual rake
off.


Haughton Lennox: It goes on to say:

la case no damages are awarded to me, I am to pay nothing.
Dated the 9th day of January, A.D. 1909.
It does not require any great stretch of imagination to know that Mr. Clarry would be reasonably zealous on behalf of the parties claiming damages, and reasonably anxious to make out as large a claim as possible, seeing that his compensation is dependent upon whether he shall get anything and upon how much he shall get.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. What is the date of that letter?


Haughton Lennox: The retainer is dated the 9th January, 1909, and the letter is dated the 9th February, 1909. This retainer is, of course, quite in harmony with the statement of the letter: Have him hang out for 12 or 15 acres.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Who is Dickson?


Haughton Lennox: And Mr. Clarry says in this letter: You settle with Mr. Dickson and I will be perfectly satisfied.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Who is Dickson?


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Dickson is the Valuator employed by the government. And so, Sir, we have the solicitor and the valuator going hand in hand and we have the fact- for I am told it is a fact-that although these Grahams had never approached this * gentleman in any shape or form or suggested to him that they had any claim, this letter is sent out by the hand of whom? By the hand of Mr. Dickson, the government valuator, and sent from the solicitor.


Mr. SPROULE.: It is a good way to work up claims.


Haughton Lennox: It is not surprising under these circumstances that it is asserted in that neighbourhood that people are being paid who ought not to be paid, and who have no claim. This is not an isolated case. There are men in that neighbourhood who have bona fide claims and who have not been paid by the government. Mr. Humphreys, whose declaration I will read, is a wealthy farmer living a little way outside of the village of Hastings, a man of excellent reputation and high standing in the neighbourhood, a man who is 69 years of age, and who has been, 1 am sorry to say, a Liberal all his life. He tells' me that this same Mr. Clarry demanded from him 15 per cent on his claim, and told him that unless it was put into his hands and the 15 per cent was paid to him he could not get anything. Whether that is correct or not I do not know; whether the payment of his claim depended on its passing through Mr. Clarry's hands or not I do not know; but I do know that a year ago Mr. Humphreys came down here and advised the department of the position of Mr. LENNOX.
things, and the department promised to look into it, but no result has followed, and Mr. Humphreys' claim has not been paid, and he thinks there ought to be a general inquiry into the whole system of payment in that neighbourhood. Under these circumstances, with a lawyer, so zealous, acting on behalf of the government, a valuator acting in harmony with this lawyer in adjusting these claims, and the lawyer depending for his compensation and the amount of it on having the claims recognized, it is not surprising if we find that claims have been paid that should never have been paid at all. Now, I never saw Mr. Humphreys until I was notified that he wanted to have this matter investigated, and I state from actual knowledge that he is a gentleman that the government will not have much hesitation in believing, and I would be glad if the Minister of Railways would have an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee, and have Mr. Humphreys, Mr. Clarry and Mr. Dickson brought down here. There is no reason why the opposition should always do that sort of thing. I ask the government to institute a new departure in this respect, because the blockers will not then be in the way, and ascertain whether these allegations are true or not. This is Mr. Humphreys' declaration:
County of Northumberland.
To wit:
In tlio matter of lands in the township of Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, said to be flooded by the damming of the Trent river at Hastings:-
I, Henry Humphries, of the township of Asphodel, in the county of Peterborough, yeoman, do solemnly declare that-
1.	I am of the age of sixty-nine years, or thereabouts, and I have always lived in the said township of Asphodel.
2.	Ever since I was a schoolboy I have been familiar with history and conditions of the River Trent as it passes through the village of Hastings, and up this river for many miles to the west, and with the history and conditions of the river or stream called the Ouse, emptying into the Trent at its mouth, and up to and beyond the land of G. A. L Humphries, hereinafter mentioned.
3.	I am informed and believe that the government of Canada has paid to the following persons the sums hereinafter set forth for lands alleged to be flooded or drowned by reason of the dam maintained by the government on the River Trent, at the said village of Hastings, namely:-John Sayent, for 60 acres, $600; G. A. L. Humphries, for 50 acres, $550; C. M. Birdsall, for .. acres, $550; Charles Faux or Fox, for 80 acres, $720; M. Breckonridge, $380: James Warner, 30 acres, $330; John Breckonridge, jr., for 6 acres, $60; and Thomas Davidson, for 5 acres, $45.
i. Not one of the parties above mentioned has any land whatever drowned or flooded by reason or on account of the dam at Hastings, and I am clearly of opinion that there is no justification whatever for payment of any of the said money.


HENRY HUMPHRIES.
[Stage Direction]
H. W. Foulds,
A Commissioner.
This is declared to by Henry Humphries before Mr. Foulds, a commissioner. I have also a declaration which I will not take time to read, from a mill man up there, who says that he has cut green timber on some of these lands, and if you find large standing green timber on the lands there can be no more cogent evidence that it is not a case of flooding any more than a temporary flooding that may occur in the springtime. Now, what are the conditions? This vallev of the Ouse is mainly timbered land, and in a case of that kind there is always more or less temporary flooding in the spring; but the point Mr. Humphries makes here is that he has known of this since his boyhood days, and that it has always occurred independently of any dam that has been erected on the river, and long before the high water on the Trent, the flooding has subsided. In order to ascertain what induced the government to settle these claims, and whether they have taken any proper step to ascertain whether these parties were entitled to payment or not, I thought the proper course was to get a return of the levels of these lands as compared with the high water
level where the Ouse flows into the Trent.
You will hardly imagine that these claims would be settled without levels being taken. But, yet if I understand the meaning of a telegram submitted to me the other day-the minister' furnished me a copy of it-no levels were ever taken. It is suggested now that it will cost five hundred or six hundred dollars to take them. But I said I did not want the levels now. Since no levels were taken I am not anxious to add greater injury to what the eountrv has already suffered bv insisting on levels being taken now. I have inquired of the minister, and I find that these cheques, in the eases of the several parties mentioned here and those mentioned in the answers obtained on the 17th February, were all paid jointly to the owners and Mr. Clarry, as in the case of the other return brought down. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Humphries he feels_and he- says he expresses the opinion of a great many in that neighbourhood-that the government should not settle these claims in a hole and corner way, but should appoint two or three men to investigate the whole question and deal with it on a business basis.
I hope that before any other moneys are paid out, the minister will bring this matter up himself in the Public Account Committee and have it investigated, and particularly will examine Mr. Clarry, Mr. Dickson and any other parties who have been acting on behalf of the government.
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: If I understand my hon. friend, his chief attack is upon one of his fellow lawyers, Mr. Clarry, for some connection he may have had with some of the men who had claims. As to any connection that Mr. Clarry had with these men, this is the first intimation I have of it. My hon. friend knows well that so long as there are claims to be paid, the men who do not get all they want are convinced that other people got more than they should. They are all inclined to take that view. They think that others get too much and that they do not get enough. That is the foundation of the entire complaints, I am afraid. The department has nothing to fear in this matter. My hon. friend went so far as to say that these settlements were made in a hole and corner manner. He has no ground for any such statement, he insists that the department should have engaged engineers to take levels before making any payments, and he bases his whole argument on the word of one man who never pretended to take a level. What is the method adopted by the department?-a simple business method. A man highly recommended such as Mr. Dickson was asked to make these valu-

ations and he did so under instructions. Here is a quotation from the instructions:
It is necessary for the surveyor to ascertain, first, the area of the property actually submerged, and secondly, the area injuriously affected in consequence of the increased height of water. Claims for land over 3 feet above the level of the water cannot be considered. The valuator should submit a fair price, having regard to special conditions of each case, and he should know or ascertain, the fair value of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the property affected, this being the way that Commissioner Ayles-worth always fixed his valuations. It is not of eoiirse necessary that an actual measurement and traverse should be made in every case, as any land surveyor can approximately arrive at the several areas affected.
Be pleased to inform Mr. Dickson accordingly.
And Mr. Dickson is a surveyor, although my hon. friend would lead us to believe that he was just an ordinary individual who would not make a fair valuation but would be governed by party proclivities. It was according to these instructions that Mr. Dickson went and made his valuations. Mr. Henry Humphries, an old and respected resident, I understand, and Mr. Dickson did not get along harmoniously. Mr. Dickson, as I am informed, contended that he was asked by Mr. Humphries to put a valuation on some property, which did not belong to him at all. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) can easily understand how this might affect the valuation; but after Mr. Humphries had cast some reflection on these valuations, another surveyor was sent out to make a valuation on the' same properties, so that no injustice would be done either the public or the department. I have the valuations of most of these properties in the various townships made by Mr._ Fitzgerald, and in nearly every case his valuation was higher than Mr. Didksori's', showing that Mr. Dickson's valuation was within the mark. Mr. Fitzgerald did not know Mr. Dickson's valuations on these properties. The valuations of Mr. Fitzgerald were not taken but the claims were settled on the valuations of Mr. Dickson. As a rule members of parliament come to me to urge that we do not pay enough, but my hon. friend urges that we have paid too much.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know anything about whether the minister has paid too much or not, but I said that, in cases I have mentioned, the minister should not pay anything because no levels were taken and they were not flooded lands.


George Perry Graham: Then we must have paid them too much. But such is not the case.
I have pointed out that valuations can be made without a survey. A man who is not Mr. GRAHAM.
a surveyor can go on to a property and easily tell the high water mark in order to have a fair idea of the quantity of land flooded. But a surveyor was engaged as a protection to the public, and then a second surveyor was appointed, and the second surveyor gave in every case a higher value. That this was a proper precaution will be admitted by any reasonable man, and I would not take the responsibility of casting a reflection of two members of the land surveyors association, merely because some one has complained that he' did not get as much out of the government as he thought he should, he raises the question of suspicion-and this is the main body of his charge I thought-in connection with Mr. Olarry. The method adopted is that w^hich has been followed for years and years, between the departments. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) will bear me out. I think that any hon. member who is familiar with the working of the Department of Justice will bear me out. The Department of Railways gets a valuation. We do not settle a single claim until the Department of Justice authorizes the settlement of that claim. Thev have to look into the title to see that tne man owning the land is the one who makes the claim in the first place. For that purpose, the Justice Department engaged a solicitor in the locality to do the work. In this case, Mr. Clarry-though my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) was careful not to explain that- was the agent of the Department of Justice, and not of the Department of Railways and Canals. When we get the valuation of the lands, that valuation is handed over to the department for them to make a thorough investigation as to the titles, and to see that we are paying the proper parties. I am informed by the Justice Department that the cheques being made out to two parties is the custom between legal firms doing a large business. That is, when a legal firm, say in Toronto, has an agent acting for it in a case on all fours with this, that legal firm invariably makes out its cheque payable to its own agent, and the other party.


Mr. CARVELL.: And an insurance company in the case of a mortgage the same.


George Perry Graham: Yes, I understand insurance companies do the same thing. It is a matter of business; it is done every day; my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) knows that as a lawyer. There is no suspicion attached to such a transaction; it is a clear matter of business, and has been done by this government ever since there was a government. These two names on the cheque make it necessary, in order to have the cheque cashed, that both signatures shall appear upon it, the agent of the depart-

ment and the person to whom the money is to be paid. It is a safeguard, as I have said, used by large legal firms in dealing with their agents, and which the Department of Justice has adopted for many years, and a proper safeguard in the interests of the public. When both parties must sign the cheque, there is no possibility of the money being paid to other than tlie proper party. The hon. member says that Mr. Clarry was acting as the agent of other parties. That is a matter between Mr. Clarry and the other parties. I have not heard of it, but it ought not to exist if it does exist. I trust the hon. member will see to it, that Mr. Clarry, if he has been guilty of unprofessional conduct shall be chastised by that other great organization of monopolists, the bar association. There is another law under which you could get -at him, I should think. Under the new statute, he has been guilty of taking secret commissions, if what is stated of him be true. I am not sure, but it strikes me as a layman that he would be liable under that statute.
The department is not afraid of investigation, it courts investigation of this or any other transaction, to make clear to ail how it manages its business. This matter having been brought to my attention, I will see what there is in the charge that Mr. Clarry has been acting in the double capacity. As to other matters, they are above board, perfectly fair business transactions, that can be defended on1 business principles.


John Graham Haggart: The explanation of the Minister of Railways is the most extraordinary I have ever heard in answer to such charges as have been made by the .hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). What are the facts? The agent of the government goes to value lands alleged to have been overflowed by reason of the existence of a government dam. As the minister (Mr. Graham) properly said, his department is, to a certain extent, not liable, because, in the first instance, before they pay out a cent, they get the report, of the Justice Department as to the title and the valuation. But, in this case, the agent of the Minister of Justice becomes also agent for the claimant against the government. And the government valuator assists the agent of the Minister of Justice by bringing a request from him to the claimant and saying, in effect: Give me twenty per cent of what you get for your claims and I will see that you^ are properly looked after. And the minister says there is no harm in that. No harm in the agent of the Minister of Justice looking after the business also of the claimant against the Crown for damages? No harm in the agent of the department taking these documents down to the claimant against
the Crown and urging upon him to make the attorney of the Minister of Justice, acting for the Railway Department also, the attoi'ney of the claimant?


George Perry Graham: I do not understand the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to say that Mr. Dickson urged anybody to engage Mr. Clarry.


John Graham Haggart: He carried a letter


George Perry Graham: I know my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) wants to be right with me.
I did not understand the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to say that it was charged that Mr. Dickson himself requested that this man appoint Mr. Clarry agent. That would be serious.


Haughton Lennox: I said that Mr. Clarry is your agent, as you admit


George Perry Graham: No, agent of the Department of Justice.


Haughton Lennox: You can separate the departments if you like. He sends a letter and a blank retainer, and sends it with your, agent, Mr. Dickson, and says: Settle with Mr. Dickson, and it will be perfectly satisfactory; but put in a good stiff claim.


George Perry Graham: That wms, as I understood it, said about Mr. Dickson, not about Mr. Clarry.


John Graham Haggart: He carries the document; takes it to the party who has the claim-that is, the party whom you appoint for the purpose of settling takes the document to the claimant and makes an arrangement


George Perry Graham: No.


John Graham Haggart: That is the statement. I am taking the statement of the hon. member for South Simcoe.


George Perry Graham: As I understand it, he did not make that charge. It would be very serious if he did make that charge, but I do not understand him to say that Mr. Dickson made an arrangement with this man. He carried a letter. If he were a party to that, it would be very serious, t will investigate and find out what there is in that. But that is not the charge that has been made. He carried the letter


John Graham Haggart: But what are the *contents of the letter? The minister has heard it read. It says: That this solicitor advises the party to make an arrangement with Mr. Dickson and to ask a large price. Mr. Dickson knew what was in the letter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How does that appear?


John Graham Haggart: By the affidavit and letters read by the hon. member for South Simcoe. Now, these are very serious I charges. An officer who would do anything

of the kind ought to be dismissed at once; more than that, he is guilty of a crime against the community, and such an action should be punished as criminal. Of course, the hon. gentleman may say that the administration of the law rests with the provincial authorities, and that their attention ought to be directed to it. If this transaction means anything in the world, it means connivance between officers of the government and the parties they are dealing with, in order to defraud the people of this country; it means nothing more or less than that. When the attention of the minister is drawn to it he says:	Inquire into
it before the Public Accounts Committee, summons Mr. Humphries and these agents, and if these charges are proved to be true, let them all be punished. No one accuses the minister of being a party to anything of that kind. I suppose this is the first he has heard of it. Of course, he thinks his department is well administered, he takes the report of his officers in reference to these matters. But when the case is so plain as this, when the documents are brought to his attention, with the affidavit, as my hon. friend says, of one of the most respectable farmers in the county, it matters not whether he is a Conservative or not, I suppose he is a good, honest Canadian, and his word is to be taken until it is contradicted-I say that under these circumstances the minister should take prompt action in this matter. We know there are cases in the past where offenders have gone unwhipped of justice; in this case, if the charges are proved, let the offenders be punished as they deserve.


Mr. BOYCE.: I must confess to being a little disappointed at the minister's reply to the very serious charges that have been made by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). I would prefer to believe that the minister has not sufficiently grasped the gravity of the situation, rather than to believe that, having grasped it, he is disposed to make light of it. Let us see what the facts are. In connection with the valuation of lands which were supposed to have ' been injured by flooding, a gentleman was appointed by the department in the capacity of valuator. Mr. James Dickson. As I understand it, there was no dispute as to what his duties were; they were quasijudicial, he was to ascertain judicially, in a fair, and proper manner, first, as to whether there had been any flooding of certain land; and, secondly, if there had been a flooding, for which the government *ought to pay. what would be a fair compensation for the government of Canada to pay to the owner for the damage caused. In conjunction with that a gentleman was employed by the government, a solicitor by the name of L. F. Clarry, whose duties, the minister says, -were to ascertain the state Mr. J. G. HAGGART.
of the titles and report upon the question of damage.


George Perry Graham: The solicitor had nothing to do with the question of damage, or reporting the amount of damage. The valuator reported the amount of damage, and when we get those reports, the valuation is made by the surveyor. Then to complete it, we hand that over for settlement to the Department of Justice.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Well, we will consider that the solicitor s duties were merely those of searching the titles, and ascertaining what the conditions were as they affected that land prejudicially.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend would understand the duties of the solicitor better than I do. But it was to complete the settlement. The amount was agreed on before he touched it. Then he was to get the title of the property, and to get the relief.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then necessarily the solicitor was an integral part of the machinery whereby these settlements were carried out. He was appointed for that purpose, and he was to perform his duties to the government and to the public without fear, favour, affection, or hope of reward from any one but the Department of Justice. The minister will concede that. Now, when this man, who was supposed to carry out the details of a settlement made by the valuator, went himself and solicited gentlemen to stir up claims against the government and to send those claims to that valuator, to bring back a message from that valuator to that solicitor, for the Minister of Railways to say that that is not a matter that concerns the government, is an extraordinary position to take. I say it dwarfs into insignificance many of the extraordinary statements that have been made in regard to scandals that have taken place under this government.


George Perry Graham: If I had made the statement, but I did not make it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Minister of Justice said that this was a private transaction. But this man has defrauded the government. This government put him in a position of preying upon the public, and when the matter is brought to the attention of the minister in the House of Commons lie says, in effect, ' Let them go on.' Practically that is the only construction to be placed on the minister's words-I do not want to do the hon. gentleman any injustice-* Let him go on,' if there is anything wrong about it, let the hon. gentleman who brings up this matter, himself a lawyer, bring the accused before the Law Society and let him be robbed of his gown. That is the position the Minister of Railways takes. He says the matter might be serious if there could be shown any connivance, any conspiracy between tha

valuator and the solicitor. Well, that which must necessarily follow from their joint operations, has followed in this matter, if I understand the facts of the case correctly.
I cannot get away, and the minister cannot get away, from the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from the letter of this valuator, in the handwriting of the agent of the Department of Justice. When a man acting as solicitor in the settlement of these claims, writes a letter and incloses a retainer to those adverse in interest to his clients. I am driven to the conclusion that this was the result of a conspiracy and an understanding with the valuator whose name is mentioned in it. Again let me read it to the minister, because I think he missed one of the important parts:
Mr. Graham, Westwood, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Inclosed you will find retainer which I will ask you to kindly have your brother fill in and sign in your presence. Please then return it with Mr. Dickson-
With Mr. Dickson, this letter with this retainer from the solicitor to ^ the owner. The person having the claim is retaining privately a percentage of twenty per cent of the damages, his own brother Joeing the owner, and it is to be returned to the solicitor through the valuator. And the minister says that that is a matter to be dealt with by the Law Society.


George Perry Graham: I did not say anythin of the kind.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the minister not see now the grave complexion put on the mat ter?


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but he is putting words in my mouth I did not utter, and has been doing it from the moment he commenced his speech.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am not pretending to say that the minister says it in so many words, but I think he fully appreciates


George Perry Graham: No.
Mr. BOYCE-what I mean. We have nothing to do with that, that is a piivate matter, and what he says and what he did say, is that this is a matter that should be dealt with by the Law Society. He takes no responsibility whatever, he disclaims responsibility with regard to the^ dealings by the department with this solicitor. If that be the case, we have a curious and dangerous state of affairs. A man can be retained by this government to perform certain duties, and he can perforin those duties in a manner which will result in the public being defrauded, and in injury being committed, as has been done in this case. A man is receiving double fees, and otherwise acting in almost a criminal manner, and the minister says: That is a matter that should be dealt with by the Law Society.


George Perry Graham: Again my hon. friend is saying what I did not say.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I misunderstood my hon. friend very seriously if he did not say to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) that this is a matter that should be dealt with by the Law Society, that this man should 'be reported and disbarred. I shall read the rest of the letter:
Please then return it with Mr. Dickson, and I will have your brother's claim forwarded to Ottawa without delay. I am glad to advise you that I am having very good settlements with nearly all my claims, and I think your brother will be dealt with all right. Have him hang out for 12 or 15 acres, and show where the water flows in the spring, and make the settlement with Mr. Dickson and I will be perfectly satisfied.
No man claiming to possess ordinary reason can read that letter without coming to the conclusion that there was a distinct understanding between the writer of that letter, Mr. Clarry, and Mr. Dickson, valuator of the government, that whatever arrangement was made .with Dickson, as valuator, for the settlement of these claims would be satisfactory to the solicitor who was advocating the settlement. The solicitor of the government is distinctly urging the owner of the land to make as large a claim against his clients as_he can. Does the minister approve of that? Does he think that is not a matter that should be dealt with in the public interest, and dealt with summarily? He is also saying: Make your settlement with Mr. Dickson, _ the valuator, who is to return the retainer, and the settlement that you make with Mr Dickson will be perfectly satisfactory to me, namely, that I shall get my 20 per cent on it under my retainer. Unless I am very much mistaken with regard to the ethics of the situation, that presents about as serious a case fox the attention of the government as could possibly be conceived, and if this is not serious enough to invite the minister's immediate and instant action, to summarily proceed and ascertain the truth or falsity of that statement made by the gentleman himself, because he is the man on whose words we are depending, then I know of no condition of affairs which will be suffiieently strong to make tire minister realize that there are conditions when even as between political friends, the interests of the public must be safeguarded and drastic action must be taken, even though it be by the prosecution of the offender. I invite the minister's careful consideration of the letter enclosing the retainer. The retainer has been read. It provides that the owner oi the land, the brother of the gentleman to whom the accompanying letter1 was addressed,

should authorize the agent, the solicitor of the government employed in the investigation of the claims for the government, to make on his behalf as against the government of Canada, a claim for damages to his lands in the township of Asphodel, caused by the flooding of the waters of Rice lake, and agreeing to pay the agent of the government a commission of 20 per cent on all moneys awarded to him as damages, for his fees and compensation in the matter. The significant part of the retainer lies in the last line:
In case no damages are awarded to me I am to pay nothing.
Read that last line in conjunction with the last line of the accompanying letter:
Make the settlement with Mr. Dickson and I will he perfectly satisfied.
Does it look from the whole nature of the transaction as if this gentleman who showed a rapacity that is almost unequalled, wanting 20 per cent, would be satisfied with nothing? No, if nothing was to be awarded, then he was to get nothing, but he says: Make the settlement with Mr. Dickson, put the land up as- high as you can, make the settlement with Dickson, send the retainer back by Dickson, and I will be perfectly satisfied. I say that it is a case in which the minister ought to interfere earnestly and promptly. He ought to get Mr. Dickson and Mr. ClaTry, and all the facts before him, and ascertain whether or not that statement is correct with regard to Dickson, or clear Dickson from the very serious suspicion which rests upon him in consequence of that statement. What is the position of Dickson? Dickson is a valuator appointed by the government. He was bound to see that the correct valuation was obtained, that no more was paid by the Department of Railways, as representing the government of Canada, than should be payable for the actual damage which had been done, and for which the government ought properly to pay under its liability. How did Dickson prostitute that position if that statement be correct? He was the means of conveyance of a retainer from the owner of that land to the government solicitor, and he was the means of satisfying the government solicitor that a fee of 20 per cent of the land, upon a valuation which, according to this letter, must be made as large as possible should be paid. I commend the matter to the earnest attention of the Minister of Railways, and I hope he will change the view he expressed with regard to this not being a grave matter. The minister said that if Dickson was a party it would be serious; have I read this letter in vain, that the minister shakes his head and says that if Dickson is not a party, it is not serious?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 


George Perry Graham: I may tell the hon. gentleman that I did not make any such remark, and when he hears my statement, which I will make in a few minutes later I think he will be convinced that he is endeavouring to express thoughts for me which I certainly have not in my mind.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The inference from the minister's statement was that if Dickson was not a party it would not be serious, but, this letter plainly shows that there was an unquestionable conspiracy to defraud the government, and whether the valuator shared in the ill-gotten gains or not I leave to the minister to inquire into. He should find out how far the valuator was implicated, and in the interest of the people of Canada he should see that every cent that the solicitor has collected from the owners of the land is wrested from him by the most drastic operation of the law, and is restored with interest, and with costs to the owners.


George Perry Graham: The matter brought to my attention by the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is of course new to me. He had the advantage that he had copies of my documents, and I of course had no copies of his. It is the first I have heard of this letter, and what I was trying to elicit was the connection of Dickson with this letter. If the agent of the Department of Justice has been charging a commission at that end, he has been acting improperly, and all the money he has got in that way ought to be handed back to the people from whom he took it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: There is no question about that. I would say to my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce) that I never led any one to think that such was not my view, and I was surprised at my hon. friend getting excited as if he thought I was endeavouring to screen somebody.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman says that if Dickson was a party it would be serious.


George Perry Graham: I have not dealt with Dickson yet; I was dealing with Mr. Clarry his fellow legal luminary. As to Mr. Dickson, I was trying to elicit the information from the letter, which is all the information I have ever had about this. If it be true that Mr. Dickson was a party in some way in getting a commission or trying to have the amount of a just claim raised, Mr. Dickson can no longer, so far as I am concerned, ever think of acting on behalf of my department for anything.


Haughton Lennox: When the minister says that this is all he knew about it, I may mention that Mr. Humphries came down here last Easter time, and went to the_de-

partment, and made his demand, and said that this man Clarry was holding him up and demanding fifteen per cent, and the department then promised they would see about it, but nothing has been done.


George Perry Graham: That is the first I have heard about that either. There is a possibility he may have said to some one, but I never heard of it before.


Haughton Lennox: He said it to Mr. Butler.


George Perry Graham: I want to say again that the department will immediately investigate this matter.


Haughton Lennox: That is right,


George Perry Graham: Neither the Department of Railways nor the Department of Justice desires to screen anybody. If men have acted dishonestly with us we will get rid of them as quickly as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One important feature of this case the Minister of Railways seems to treat with great unconcern, and that- is as to the determination of what was, and what was not submerged land. I understood the minister to say that it was not necessary to get an engineer to determine what was high water mark.


George Perry Graham: I said that it was not considered by the chief engineer necessary that a survey should be made in every case. It was quite evident what was high water mark in most cases, and as a matter of fact this valuator was a surveyor himself.


Haughton Lennox: He took no evidence, and these lands were three miles away.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot understand how you could divide the land which was not submerged from the land which was submerged without first determining what was high water mark. I remember once hearing a case tried in court with reference to submerged land, and the court demanded that evidence should extend over twenty-one years, and when they did conclude, after a great deal of evidence, as to what was high water mark they were able to decide the case, and not before. We have here a statutory declaration made by Mr. Humphries who has lived there for sixty-nine years, and who must be familiar with the condition of the lands in the spring, and in the fall, and he declares that considerable amounts have been paid in respect of land that is not submerged at all. That evidence of Mr. Humphries is not contradicted, and yet the minister treats it with levity. We have here the charge that this government agent is doing exactly what was done by one of their agents in "the Yukon, a man paid $4,000 or $5,000 a year to advise the Yukon council in legal matters, and who then took $700
from a man who was brought before the authorities for violating the customs law. When that was brought to the attention of the government they treated it with^ levity as the Minister of Railways has done in this case, and made no inquiry. If that is the moral standard that the Minister of Railways is going to set. up for his officials, then it is no wonder that we have so many cases of graft, and dishonesty, and improper conduct to ventilate in this parliament. We are getting to a very low ebb in the moral status of our people when the officials know that when wrong-doing is brought to the notice of the government the government will pay no attention to it. I do not think the country will regard the hon. minister having done his duty when he treats this matter with levity, and says that it is not our duty .to prosecute a lawyer for taking a double commission, that belongs to the province of Ontario, or that we should bring the case before the bar association, and have his gown taken from him; but he is quite unconcerned whether the lawyer has done the right thing or not. Well, let the country judge. If that is the moral standard, set up by any department of this government, then it seems to me that it has got to a very low ebb.


Mr. SMYTH.: Looking at the matter from a layman's standpoint, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to pay this man the amount that has been passed, as stated in the question of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox)? I would also like to know what services the minister thinks this man has rendered. It seems to me that he has been paid at one end, and that the department should not pay him at the other end.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: A good deal has been said during this discussion about a gentleman who has been referred to as the agent of the Department of Justice. I would like to prevent, if I can, any misapprehension on the part of any hon. gentleman as to the meaning of that expression. The Department of Justice, at the present time at any rate, has no standing agent anywhere in this country. When I took charge of the department four years ago, I found that, in some parts of the country at any rate, there were legal gentlemen who considered themselves, and who were possibly entitled to consider themselves, as standing agents of the Department of Justice in their respective localities. I did not think that was a desirable condition of things, and I put an end to it as soon as I could. In the province of Ontario there was nobody in that position at that time, and there has been nobody in that position since. I had the advantage, or disadvantage, -of having been

in active legal practice in the province of Ontario for some thirty years, and I was personally acquainted with the great majority of the legal practitioners in that province, and the course I adopted, not only in that province, but all over the Dominion, was the course which I think any ordinary business man, or any lawyer, who has business to be done in another part of the country, or in a foreign country, would adopt. It was simply to select for the particular piece of business in hand the man who I thought would be best qualified to do that business satisfactorily; and that particular piece of business being ended, there was an end to that man's employment, unless he were instructed to do some other piece of business at some future time. Of course, the ordinary business man who has any considerable amount of legal business commits each piece of it to the same solicitor, and thus in a sense has a standing solicitor. So long as he has confidence in him, the solicitor does practically all his legal business; and I am quite free to say that at a place where we have, in connection with the Department of Justice, a. considerable amount of legal business going on, perhaps practically all through the year, unless there seems to be some reason for making a change, or sending some new piece of business to a different practitioner, the one in whom we have confidence, and who has given satisfaction, gets each new piece of business that goes to that locality. But the usual practice in seeking agents for a particular work i3 that which I have described. With reference to the particular gentleman whose name has been mentioned in connection with the matter under discussion, I have no personal acquaintance with him, and I do not know that I have ever met him; but I have known him by name and reputation for ten or fifteen, possibly twenty, years. I have never heard his professional honour, or his honesty questioned, until I have been told what has been said to-day. I cannot at the moment recall how it came that this particular piece of work wa3 sent to him. My best recollection is that his name was recommended to me for the work by the late deputy of the Department of Railways and Canals, who, if my recollection is correct, said he had personal acquaintance with him. But the selection of Mr. Clarry to pay over these amounts to the different men whose lands have been damaged in his locality, and to satisfy himself and certify to the department that these men were the legal owners of the land damaged, and the right men to pay, was simply the ordinary piece of business which every lawyer in the carrying on of his office business might have at any time to do. If a client of any practising lawyer has a piece of business at the other end of the country, and tells his Mr. AYLESWORTH.
lawyer to get it done for him, the lawyer-can but go to the law list, if he is not personally acquainted with the legal practitioners in a distant place. He assumes, in the absence of any reason to think the contrary, that a man who appears to be practising in good repute, is a man of ordinary honesty who will do the work with which he is entrusted, and will report the result of whatever he may do. It was precisely in that sense, and in no other that Mr. Clarry was instructed by the Department of Justice to take up these various claims, to look into the titles of each piece of property, and satisfy himself and certify to us that the claimant had the right to be paid for the damage to the particular land which was in question, and then to pay the amount which had been agreed upon as between the owner, and the department interested. The check, as a matter of ordinary business precaution, was made payable to both the land owner and the legal agent, for the very purpose that neither could cash it without the concurrence of the other-in order that the agent could not do it without the land owner getting the money, and in order that the land owner could not do it until the agent was satisfied that the man was entitled to the money.
That was a simple, ordinary business precaution. It is now charged that this legal gentleman was guilty of impropriety by taking money from the land owner with whom he was dealing. If that be so, he not only did something for which he would be liable to discipline by the law society, but something which, if it were in the shape of any secret commission, would render him liable to criminal prosecution. For my part, although I do not .know the man, I give him, from the mere circumstance that he is a legal practitioner at the bar of Ontario, apparently in reputable standing, the simple justice of believing that the charge is not true, until I see some evidence to the contrary. Let me just mention as an illustration an incident which occurred some time ago. A complaint was made to me regarding a legal practitioner in a different part of the country, who had been entrusted by the Justice Department with the work of searching a title to a piece of land taken for right of way and with the paying over of the money after the title was established. The owner of the property made the very serious charge against this gentleman that he had taken from the cheque, endorsed by both of them and cashed by him, some fifteen or twenty dollars. I inquired at qnce and the explanation was perfectly clear and simple. The title of the owner of the land was very defective. It required the preparation of several deeds from men who had outstanding claims

against it and from women who were the wives of predecessors in title and had never signed to bar their dower, and' defects of different characters had to he made right, before the owner was in a position to receive the money. That legal work was an obligation on the land owner. He had to get it done by somebody, and he had it done by our agent. There was no impropriety in our agent doing it and the owner paid our agent the proper legal fees. There was no reason in the world why the man, who was acting as our agent and certifying to the correctness of the title and handing over the money, should not be paid by the owmer for making that title right. I merely mention this as an instance where, upon inquiry and explanation, there turned out to have been no irregularity whatever, although a serious charge had been made. With regard to the gentleman whose conduct has been under discussion, I can merely say that what has taken place is quite sufficient to warrant my calling on him for explanation. If he has been guilty of any misfeasance or wrong-doing, or betrayal of confidence, I shall make it my business to see, not merely that no more work is entrusted to him, but that such a course is taken as will likely prevent a repetition of it on the part of any one else.


William Ross Smyth: Have the fees been paid to Mr. Clarry by the government?


George Perry Graham: No.


William Ross Smyth: Do you intend to pay him after what you have heard?


George Perry Graham: He is an agent of the Justice Department, to be dealt with by that department. The other man is in my department, and I will look after the investigation in his case.


Haughton Lennox: Ask the Minister of Justice not to pay until the matter is investigated.


Mr. FIELDING.: The Minister of Justice does not pay.


Robert Laird Borden: It is paid by the Department of Railways on. an order from the Justice Department.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister see that the money is not paid until a proper investigation has been had.


George Perry Graham: I will start the investigation to-morrow, so far as I am concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Surveys and construction, National Transcontinental railway, $27,000,000.
Robert Laird Borden: The minister made a statement showing the cost in 1908. His answer is contained in two memoranda from the Transcontinental Railway Commission that are to he found on pages 12238 to 12242 of the 'Hansard' of 1908. The information given as to cost and estimated cost was pretty full up to that time and was followed by a debate. I would like to have the hon. minister bring that information down to date. Certain matters, which were onlv estimated then, are matters of actual expenditure at present. Also with respect to matters which were then estimated and still must be estimated, the minister no doubt has fuller information now. If he would give that information, it would be an advantage to the committee.


George Perry Graham: That would take up all the tenders.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not mean necessarily all the tenders. My hon. friend brought down information in a very simple form then, in the form of a statement, carefully prepared, which gave the cost up to date and the estimated future cost of the eastern division. He also gave us estimates as to the length and cost of the western division, distinguishing in that regard the Prairie from the Mountain section. What I would like is to have that information brought down to date.


George Perry Graham: The information with reference to the western section, I have brought down. It will all be found in a memo by Mr. Schreiber which I brought down some time ago. Possibly I referred to it in my remarks, but I am not sure.


Robert Laird Borden: I looked at the minister's remarks on February I, but could not find anything about it. I may have overlooked it.


George Perry Graham: Take the eastern division. The total expenditure up to December 31, 1909, was $67,890,697.59. The estimate made by Mr. Lumsden was about $63,500 a mile, and no change has been made in that estimate since. The total grading done to December 31, 1909, was 1,062-1 miles. The total track laying was 727-118 miles, of which 621-003 miles was on the main line and 106-115 on the sidings. The total contracts for steel superstructure in bridges and viaducts awarded to December 31, 1909, amounted to 34,030 tons, of which completed bridges represented 11,800 tons and erected bridges 15,350. I could give a memo showing the total amount on the western section. If I remember the figures, the prairie section as given in the returns is about $33,000 a mile. One hundred miles east of Prince Rupert is under contract and

the track is being laid for a portion west of Wolf creek and supplies being taken in. The track is laid from'Winnipeg to Wolf creek and trains are running. As to this western section, I cannot now give any nearer figures than I gave some time ago. As I stated, this estimate of $63,500 a mile for the eastern section does not include the terminals at the city of Quebec, the^ approaches to the terminals or the terminals or shops at Winnipeg.


John Graham Haggart: Nor the Quebec bridge.


George Perry Graham: Nor the Quebec bridge which, as I have always contended, is a separate undertaking.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. minister give us the figures showing a comparison of the estimated quantities with the quantities as actually returned?


George Perry Graham: I have a statement here which I think it would be well to put on ' Hansard.'


John Graham Haggart: Before the minister reads that, can ha tell us whether the total quantities are exactly the same as the estimates, the differences being only in the kind of classification within that figure, or do the totals of the returns show a difference as compared with the total quantities estimated?


George Perry Graham: The figures will show that?


Haughton Lennox: For what contract is that?


George Perry Graham: I have here the figures with relation to each contract. There are twenty-one contracts in all.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister read the classification, so fax as returned,-on each of the 21 contracts, giving the estimates?


George Perry Graham: 
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister state what percentage of the work on each
of the 21 contracts has been accomplished? Mr. GRAHAM (reading):


George Perry Graham: 


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Statement Showing Districts, Mileages, &e., and Amount of Sundry Items of Work Done to December 31, 1909.
i District. ,,	i Contract No.	Contractor.	j Through Mileage of Contract.	i	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co	o-	[DOT]502	J. W. McManus & Co., Ltd	50.	' -58A	3	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co	58-	90-424	|| ,,	90-42- 103-80	5	W. Kitchen Co., Ltd	103'8	195-586	Lyons & White	195-58 256-01	7	M. P. & J. T. Davis	250-61- 310-22	8	H " ii (East Que.Bridge)..	310-22- 400-45	H	9	H it H (West Que. Bridge)	400-45- 510-31	10	Macdonell & ()'Brien	510-31- 010-41	11	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co	(>10 41- 056-83	12	Macdonell & O'Brien	050-83- 703-83	C	13	Macdonell & O'Brien	70.3-83- 878-80	14	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co	878-80- 950-74	14	Grand Trunk Pacific Con. Co	950-74-1028-80	D	15	E. F. & G. E. Fauquier	1028-80-1128-77	16	M. P. & .T. T. Davis	1128-77-1172-85	10	M. P. & J. T. Davis	1172"85-1232"85	E	17	M II II	1232-85-1332-85	18	E. F. & G. E. Fauquier	1332-85-1407-85	19	O'Brien, Fowler <te McDougall Bros	1407-85-1428-04	E	19	O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall Bros....	1428-04-1534-04	20	n ii ii it ....	1534-04-1557-80	21	J. D. McArthur	
Boundaries Between Districts.
Moncton, N.B. (256 61 Miles.)
New Brunswick and Quebec Boundary.
(507-22 Miles.)
107 M. west of Weymonta-chene, One.
(192-91 Miles.)
Que. and Ont. Boundary.
(216-11 Miles.)
144 M. west of Cochrane, Ont.
(255-19 Miles.)
339 M. west of Cochrane or 125 M. east of present Lake Superior Junction., (376'80 Miles.)
Winnipeg, Man.
Hi
94-3 02 0 85'0 08 3 73 0 85'9
40 7 07 9 75 3 87'7 00'5 8'S
| Nil. J 28 2
i Nil.
J
Nil.
45 3
! 21 5
J
75-0 93 7
-c.s
[Stage Direction]
155 8
8 5 108 5
30 0
310 3
Miles of Track laid in District.
J o^5
rr 2 S3 be*-
Sidings 24 9 Main 1331
158'0
Sidings 14"5 Main 174-1
Nil.
Sidings 99 Main 57'9
®.g
a.___
Sera ^ ft
a>
oor Tj
Nil.
Sidings 50'8 Alain 255'9
312 7
728.1
8.3
Nil.
Nil.
Nil.
386
p. c. [DOT]54
03 9
Nil. 10-7
Nil.
S
bo
G
[Stage Direction]
ro5
w
109 2
93*8
Nil. 23 5
Nil.
439 8
Remarks.
c. V). 107 m. transferred from C. to B.
d. c. 31 6 miles transferred from D to C.
Total i>ercentage of work done on all 21 contracts, 57 "2 p.c. Ottawa, February 26, 1910.
H. MacPHERSON,
Asst. Chief Engineer.
5233	MARCH 11, 1910	5234
John Graham Haggart: The estimated cost to complete that will not exceed Mr. Lums-den's last estimate?


Mr. GEAHAM.: I could not say that. The last estimate we had on the whole of it was $63,437 per mile.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PEIVATE BILLS.
Mr. NESBITT moved:: That the order for the consideration in Committee of the Whole House of Bill (No. 146), respecting the Kingston, Smiths Falls and Ottawa Railway Company he discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.


John Graham Haggart: What reason is there for that?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Deputations from Kingston want to be heard on the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Nelson River Railway Company-Mr. Rutan.
Haughton Lennox: This Bill has been allowed to stand over in order that it may be considered with another similar Bill containing water-powers which is not yet reported.


George Perry Graham: There are some Bills in respect to which the water is international, but they are not similar to this. The Minister of the Interior has full control of the rates for power on a river such as is referred to in this Bill.


Haughton Lennox: My point is that we should have some policy by which we can protect the public interest in these waterways, and by which some revenue will be secured either to the Dominion or to the province, and some provision made by which we will not conflict with the rights of the provinces. I do not think we ought to take up any time over this to-night, as the Bill can very well stand, and when the policy of the government is declared it will go through swimmingly, I presume.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection to it standing over, because if you are going to talk it out we had better take up some other Bill. So far as this Bill is concerned the government has a policy, because Mr. GRAHAM.
for a year past the Minister of the Interior can issue licenses for a fee which goes to the revenue of the Dominion.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I have here the regulations of the Minister of the Interior and there is nothing to indicate in them what that fee is. The fixing of it is entirely in the hands of the minister, and my contention is that there should be some well defined policy, and that the fee should be fixed.


George Perry Graham: You cannot have a fixed fee.


George Henry Bradbury: No minister should have absolute control in these matters. For instance, if I am a personal friend of the minister I may be able to get a waterpower on more favourable terms than could another person, unless there is some well defined policy. The statement of the Minister of the Interior the other night that the regulations cover these two water-powers is not correct because they are situated in the territories, and not in the provinces, and there is no regulation covering the territories. This is a very important question. The Minister of Railways may not know' it, but the fact is that the Nelson river contains a number of great water-powers. I do not believe, that on any river in all Canada there are more water-powers than on the Nelson river. The Sea Falls alone 250,000 horse-power can be developed. There is a whole series of falls right down to the bay, and I do not think any company ought to be allowed to interfere with them. The government should keep control over them.


George Perry Graham: I know my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that it would be impossible to provide for fixed fees, because a water-power in one place may be worth only $1 per horse-power, while in another place, owing to its proximity to a populous locality, it may be worth $20 per horse-power. Some department must handle the matter, and take into consideration all the circumstances, and grant a lease by order in cojmcil after a fair rate has been fixed after full investigation.


John Graham Haggart: The contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) is that the power with reference to these matters should not be in the hands of a minister, but should be statutory. You can put these rights up to competition if you like, and in that way you would get over any difficulty as to fixing the fees.


Mr. BARNARD.: I think the Minister of Railways is sufficiently broad minded to not being adverse to taking a hint from what has been done in connection with these powers in the province of British Columbia. We have a large number of very

valuable water-powers there belonging to the Crown in the right of the province, and we have a very comprehensive code dealing with them and the obtaining of rights by companies to use these water-powers. To a very large extent that province is undeveloped, and no doubt as the minister says, some water-powers are much more valuable than others. But they have, after some years of experience, deemed it wise to provide a scale of fees by order in council according to the number of cubic inches of water taken. The result is that if the power is valuable it is developed; if there is no market for it, it is not developed; but it lies there available to anybody who comes along and complies with the Act; and all are treated equally. Surely it is undesirable that it should be left to the arbitrary decision of any minister, however willing or anxious he may be to do what is right, to say what revenue should be paid by a company for the use of power. We have found the other system to work very satisfactorily, and the province derives considerable revenue from a regular tariff which anybody can ascertain without going to the minister of any department; and I should think that the same system might very profitably be adopted in connection with water-powers belonging to the Dominion.


Mr. RUTAN.: I hope that this Bill will not be held up again to-night. The powers asked for are no more than have been granted by the Railway Committee and this House to other companies, not only in past sessions, but even in the present session. The power of expropriation has been omitted from this Bill. The Bill to which the hon. gentleman referred, the Raiuy River Company's Bill, is of an entirely different character, because it relates to the province of Ontario, where the province owns all the lands and water-powers. This Bill relates to the Northwest Territories, which belong to the Dominion, and to a portion of those territories which is undeveloped; and the people who live in that part of the country are anxious to see it developed as well as other parts of the Dominion, as they believe that it will prove to be very valuable.


George Henry Bradbury: Will the hon. gentle. man tell me where there any people living within a hundred miles of the proposed railway and water-power?


William Windfield Rutan: The people who live nearest to that country are in my own constituency. My hon. friend seems to be talking of Winnipeg and its vicinity. I ask him if there have been any petitions or communications from the city of Winnipeg against this^undertaking? We might say that it is a Winnipeg undertaking. It is for the pur-166i
pose of giving Winnipeg the cheapest and most direct connection with the Hudson Bay railway. Both the clause in the Bill giving the right of expropriation, and clause 15, with reference to a tramway, have been cut out in the Railway Committee, and it seems to me very unfair now to hold up this Bill when it asks for no more than has been granted with practically no opposition to many other companies. In the Bill that passed the Railway Committee to-day, the power given by clause 11 is practically the same as the power asked for in this Bill, and it passed the committee without any objection.


George Henry Bradbury: What Bill is that?


William Windfield Rutan: The Bill incorporating the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company. If capital is willing to go into these undeveloped territories and develop them, I do not see why we should not allow it to go there. We who live in that northern country know, from what we have heard from people who have gone into these territories and prospected, that there is untold wealth in them. It seems to me that the hon. gentlemen who are opposing this Bill are only talking against their own interests. People who live in the Northwest and who know what the development of a new country is, should be ready to receive that kindly assistance that other people are willing to give. Though the Bill is in my name, the only interest I have in it is the interest of having the country developed. I do not believe it would be possible for the Minister of the Interior, whether a Liberal or a Conservative, to grant any right or privilege to an individual or a company, that could not bear criticism. I would ask hon. gentlemen to grant this Bill fair play and give this company the same privilege as others. We are not asking for any special privileges; we are not trying to gobble up any water-powers. Neither these or any other powers which are in our rivers, whether provincial or Dominion, are of any good until they are utilized. This company asks the right to acquire water-powers and make whatever arrangement it can, either with the Department of the Interior or with the province, as the case may be.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman mistakes altogether the opposition to this Bill. The Bill i3 a very simple one. It is only intended to give to a corporation the powers which an individual would have. The hon. gentleman says that they struck out the expropriation clause. They might well do that because you cannot expropriate against the Crown. I am not opposed to the Bill. I would like to see it go through, and I think it will because it is a very simple Bill giving a corporation the same powers as an individual. But

what we want is a declaration of policy from the government as to the manner in which they intend disposing of these valuable privileges, either to individuals or to corporations.


George Henry Bradbury: If this Bill is going to stand over, I have no intention of trying to block it, but I would point out that the matter is a very serious one. These water-powers are nearly 350 miles from Winnipeg, and there is not a white man living within one hundred and fifty or sixty miles of where this company is asking for these water-powers. The power they propose generating would be simply for the piece of railway they intend to build. They do not say where this railway is going to start. It is to start either at the mouth of the Nelson, or at the mouth of the Saskatchewan, which are 150 miles apart. The whole scheme is immature. And outside of all that is the fact that we have no regulations governing these water-powers. They are at the present outside the province, and the regulations provided by the Interior Department affect only water-powers within the different provinces. My hon. friend says that we have been giving these powers to other companies. That may be true, but that is no reason for continuing that policy. What I urge is to stay proceedings until the government investigates this matter thoroughly and brings down some policy regarding the distribution of these great water-powers. There is no question in my mind that this is 3imply a power scheme. The hon. gentleman talks about reduced rates between Winnipeg and Hudson bay, but every man who knows anything about Lake Winnipeg, knows that it is frozen up six months in the year, and in the other six months we have the water route. This is simply a scheme to control the great water-powers. If the rights of the people are protected, I have no objection to this Bill, but I do want to see their rights safeguarded. Another question is this. Within a very short time these great powers will likely come within the territory of Manitoba. The argument is used that Manitoba has no rights in her waterways; but I hope the day is not far distant when all that will be remedied. Our province should have control of our great water-powers. I believe the time is coming when Manitoba will have the control of its fisheries. That control is essential to her development and the proper protection of our fisheries. That is one of the .reasons why this government should stay its hand. I do not think we should give away rights, or any thing that may affect the future of any province. There can be no question that the province of Manitoba will have those rights in years to come, and nothing should be done here to make it impossible or difficult for the province to legislate with regard to her water-powers. I am Mr. JOHN HAGGJ RT.
not holding up the Bill, or objecting to it on personal grounds, but I realize my position, representing a constituency more directly affected than any other, as these powers are at the head of Lake Winnipeg.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: I see in the Ottawa ' Free Press ' to-night that an impassable muskeg on the Hudson Bay railway route, extending many miles, has stopped the survey work. Last year I explained, in a speech I made on the twelfth of March in this House, about this muskeg, f explained that there were miles of that Hudson Bay railway route composed of frozen muskeg, covered with a kind of moss two feet, or three feet thick. This acts like sawdust in an ice house, and keeps the muskeg frozen all the year round. So long as the ground remains frozen underneath, the muskeg is passable, but as soon as it is broken up as it must be in building a railway the heat gets in, and the ground thaws out, and (the whole road-bed sinks into the muskeg. If the route of the Hudson Bay railway is to be changed, it would be well to let the Bill before us stand because, the company it proposes to incorporate is to connect with the Hudson Bay road. I think it would be as well, therefore, to let it stand over until the hon. minister gets more particulars.
A trial line should be run at once between Prince Albert city and Hudson bay to see if a better route cannot be obtained for the Hudson Bay railway. The lakes in thePascountry are so nearly on a level with the land that the water backs up, and soaks over an immense territory, and that is what causes the muskeg. I was told in Prince Albert last year that a million muskrat skins had been taken out of that country during last winter, which would indicate that there must be a considerable extent of low land there. If that be the case, I am afraid that any attempt to build a road through that section of country will be a failure, and as the road mentioned in this Bill is to connect with the Hudson Bay railway, it would be well to hold it over for reconsideration. A trial line from Prince Albert should be run at once because there are no high hills, impassable muskegs, big rivers, or other serious obstacles to be met with between northern Prince Albert; and Hudson bay.


John Graham Haggart: I must urge that this matter stand over. It seems to me as if there were some concerted action to monopolize this territory. We had a Bill the other day, a canal Bill, but it was really a water-power Bill, to build a canal upon the streams reaching all the way between Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg. This Bill is a railway Bill in name, but it is really a water-power Bill, as has been set forth by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). I would call the atten-

tion of the House to the part of it which defines the line of railway. Under section 7 the railway is to start at Grand Rapids (at the mouth of the Saskatchewan) or at the outlet of Lake Winnipeg (that is, the Nelson river) or at any point between. One of these points is in the north east of Lake Winnipeg and the other is in the northwest. And there is at least 100 miles, perhaps 150 miles, between them. Does the railway run north, south, east or west? The Bill does not say. It runs to intersect the Hudson Bay railway, wherever it may be located by the government. That road is not located yet. So? as the hon. member for Selkirk has said, it has no starting point and it ends nowhere. That is the railway part of the Bill. It is just possible by giving that a liberal construction that the road may run all the way down the banks of the Nelson river to somewhere near York factory. And, with the powers in the original Bill-I have forgotten just how far the Bill was amended-to build tramways around the rapids-


George Perry Graham: That is cut out.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: That is cut out. Well, it can run all along the Nelson Tiver for hundreds of miles. The province of Manitoba looks forward to the time when this territory will be included within its boundaries, and we would like, when this territory comes to Manitoba, that it should come unencumbered by legislation of this kind. We find that already a good deal of the puDlic domain has been alienated. We would not like to acquire this new territory and find a practical, grafting politician-well, that is too strong a word; I will take that back-sitting upon every waterfall that is among the few assets we have left. If there were any immediate necessity for the construction of this road, we should be the last [DOT]to oppose it. As the hon. member for Selkirk has said, there are not fifty white men between Lake Winnipeg and the proposed terminus of this road at York factory or any other part of that territory. If the gentleman is ready with his friends and their capital to eo ahead and develop that territory he will find not only the people of Winnipeg but the people of Manitoba behind him. But they would like to have some more definite scheme than this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to ask him a question? Does he understand the law at present to be such that, if this territory were added to Manitoba under the present conditions, the province of Manitoba would control the water-powers?


Haughton Lennox: We have the minister-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am asking the. hon. member for Winnipeg (A. Haggart). If he does not wish to answer, all right.


Alexander Haggart: The law is by no means clear on that point. There are few water-powers in Manitoba as the province exists. It is a ' prairie province,' a level province. The only water-powers of any importance are those on the Winnipeg river in the eastern part of the province. They have been administered in this way: Parties have applied to this government for a license or a lease of the falls, or the right to develop the water-powers upon that river. But what the authority of this government is. I am not very clear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One more question, if I may be permitted. In the case of the Win-nipeg^ river, has the province of Manitoba exercised any jurisdiction over these water-powers?


Alexander Haggart: They have to this extent, that they have granted charters to people to develop these powers, and the city of Winnipeg-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the incorporating of a company, but have they exercised any powers or rights of ownership over the water-powers themselves?


Alexander Haggart: I am not aware that they have. A water-power is a peculiar kind of property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very simple.


Alexander Haggart: With reference to Winnipeg river, if the Dominion owned the land all along that river no doubt the Dominion would own the lands under the river, and would have a sufficient grip upon that water-power to control it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would seem so.


Alexander Haggart: But, if the Dominion had alienated these lands along the river- and they have alienated a lot of them, for some of these lands are what are known as swamp lands and have been conveyed to Manitoba and are Crown lands in the right of the province of Manitoba-or if they had been patented either to the province of Manitoba or to individuals who are now riparian owners, and if these held and own sufficient of the fee simple on both sides of the river, I have no doubt that, as riparian owners, they would have the right, perhaps, to develop that power in so far as that development did not interfere with navigation. But, with reference to navigation, while there are stretches in that river that are navigable for ten or twenty miles, it is not valuable as a navigable river. We do not -want to do anything to prevent development, but I -would urge upon the government to have this

Bill stand over until we know a little more -about it.


William Windfield Rutan: It seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. A. Hag-gart) has shown a good deal of feeling in this matter. He speaks of grafting along _ the river-


Alexander Haggart: I took that back.


William Windfield Rutan: The hon. gentleman makes a point of the fact that Lake Winnipeg is open only part of the year, and infers from that fact that this must be a water-power Bill entirely. But there are many things in this country not operated all the year and that yet pay dividends. Lake Superior is not open all the year. If we go back to our farmers, we find that many of them own binders, costing them up to $200, which they use for only ten days in the year. And one individual, or a number of individuals clubbing together, will buy a threshing machine at a cost of several thousand dollars, for use only about sixty days a year, and still the use of these articles are the foundation of our wealth. There is nothing in this Bill that can authorize any m in to state that it is only a power Bill. This is an undertaking to build the Tailway, and, in connection therewith, making an arrangement to build steamers to ply in connection with it, to acquire power for the undertaking and to dispose of the surplus power. This is a concession which _ is given to other companies-has been given to other companies since this Bill started through the Railway Committee. I cannot see what will be gained by putting the Bill off. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) said that this was hundreds of miles away from settlement; then he turns round and says that it is so valuable that it should be given all the protection possible, and we should wait and see what arrangement can be made with the province of Manitoba. I don't think that is the right stand to take. If we do not carry on works of development in any of the provinces until they have developed all their natural resources, we shall witness continued stagnation.


George Henry Bradbury: In answer to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan), I would like to say that when this matter was under discussion the other evening, some question was raised about the authority of the province over these powers. The minister stated, I think, in reply to something I said myself, that even if the boundaries of the province were extended, the province would have no more rights than it has at present. We all understand that. But the point I raised was this: While 1 recognize the fact that we have at present no authority over our water-powers, I believe the time is coming when Manitoba will have control over its water-powers and Mr A. HAGGART
over its lands; and in view of that fact, 1 think the government ought to go very slow in giving control of a power where there is absolutely no necessity. There is nothing urgent, there is no present need of developing that power. If a charter was ''givbn to it, I am satisfied that there is nothing to warrant the expenditure this Bill contemplates. By the mere fact oi giving that charter we tie up that_ waterpower, which I think is a wrong principle. Now, in the interest of Manitoba, I feel that I must urge	the government to defer this Bill. I do not want to be considered as blocking the measure, but I feel that there should first be formulated some well defined policy regulating the powers on the Winnipeg river, as well as at the head of Lake Winnipeg. In answer to a question with regard to the Winnipeg river, I said that the province has some power over that river. It obtained that power largely through the fact that the swamp lands which came under its authority gave it* some rights along that river. There was a charter, I think, granted by the Dominion, but although it was granted by the Dominion, they had to seek some powers in the province of Manitoba before they could do anything with that power. Now we have 15 or 16 immense powers on that river, and if the schemes that are before parliament are allowed to go through, it would be a serious matter for that western country. On the Winnipeg river, there is no canal scheme that it is possible to carry out without injuring every water-power along that route. But I do not think myself that there is anything very serious contemplated in regard to a canal scheme. The scheme is to get control of these powers, there is no question about that; and that is one of the reasons why I have taken such strong ground against granting the powers these companies are asking for. If we grant the company in the Bill that is under discussion now, the powers that are asked for, I am satisfied that for years to come nothing could be done there in the way of development.


William Windfield Rutan: That being the case, if there will be nothing done, would not the powers lapse at the end of the two years?


George Henry Bradbury: My contention is that nothing should be done that would embar-ras the action of the government in future regarding these powers. That country is developing rapidly, we need all the power we can get in the city of Winnipeg, and the time may come when the power from these very falls would be most essential to the prosperity, not only of Winnipeg, but of other great towns in the west. When that time comes, the government ought to be in a position to handle that power,

which it could not do if it were tied up by1 the legislation that is now proposed. As I have pointed out with regard to the railway scheme, I think every hon. gentleman who has paid any attention to the proceedings of the committee, knows very well that there is no well defined scheme. If it starts south, say at a point on Lake Winnipeg, or at the mouth of the Nelson, the two points are 150 miles apart, and I do not think it is fair to ask this House to grant a railroad charter without some more definite knowledge than we have regarding where it is going to start and where it is going to end. I would, therefore, ask the minister to defer this Bill in order that the government may be in a position to bring down some well defined policy with regard to these water-powers, and espe-ically the powers outside the province. The government at present has no scheme, the legislation they have does not in any way cover the water-powers outside the boundaries of the different provinces. There are three or four water-powers on the Nelson, perhaps as great as the first powder at Sea falls, and there is not one of these powers protected by the regulations issued by the Interior Department. I think that is a-matter that ought to receive the serious attention of the government before anything further is done.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Looking over the Bill I do not see any limitations within which the company shall start operations or complete them.


George Perry Graham: The general Railway Act will apply.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand that the general Railway Act will apply, but if the company fail to commence its operation within the time limited by that Act and they should come back for a renewal of their charter, there would be no difficulty in getting the charter renewed, because the Railway Committee, since I have been in it, has adopted the policy of automatically renewing charters without any question. There has been some spasmodic opposition to the renewal of these charters, but it has practically had no effect at all. I think the time of the members of this House is too much occupied in fighting the aggressions of those private companies. These private companies introduce Bills that purport to be Railway Bills, but in reality they are water-power Bills. Not only this session, but last session, our time was occupied for days and days fighting these private companies who desired to gain control of water-powers that should be left within the jurisdiction of the various provinces. It seems to me an anomaly that matters affecting the province, for instance of British Columbia, should be decided by members from the
provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec.


George Perry Graham: The Burrard Inlet Bridge and Railway Company.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It seems to me an anomaly that members from Quebec can settle the terms upon which a radial railway company shall enter the city of Toronto. I think there should be some declaration of policy on the part of the government, laying down stereotyped rules and regulations upon which every company can get its charter automatically on well defined conditions. I also think that a regulation might be made that all these matters should be referred to a sub-committee from the province affected by these railway companies. For instance, if a private railway Bill is brought in affecting the province of British Columbia, that might be referred to a sub-committee of members from that province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What would the hon. gentleman say if it affected the Northwest Territories? Would he refer it to the member for the Yukon? The Bill now under consideration affects the Northwest Territories alone.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In that event I would suggest that the members from the various provinces in the west be a sub-committee. They know the local conditions better than we do.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired the House resumed in Committee of Supply.
National Transcontinental railway, surveys and construction, $27,000,000.
['Some Bills on the Order Paper, and then Supply, Public Works.']
Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister state the character of the work done to ascertain the necessary data with respect to classification for the purpose of tendering?


George Perry Graham: It would be what is known as the preliminary surveys of the country. The estimates were based on the surface indications found by the engineers and some soundings or borings.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking for information because I am in an unhappy state of ignorance in regard to all these matters. I would suppose that where advertisements were sent our for tenders, these tenders to be based on a schedule of prices for each class of work, it would be absolutely essential for the government to know the character of the country and to have some reasonable idea as to how much solid rock, how much loose rock, how much earth excavation would have to be paid for

in the final result. I am not able to understand how the government could arrive at the conclusion that one tender was higher or lower than another unless they had that information in their possession, and I cannot understand how they could come to a reasonable conclusion about the relative merits of the different tenders unless that information in their possession was reasonably accurate and reliable. The information which the minister vouchsafed to the House this afternoon shows that there are discrepancies of a most extraordinary character. Let me give you one example. On contract No. 1, the estimate was that there was no solid rock. Ninety-five per cent of that contract has been done and the final result has not yet been ascertained, but so far as 95 per cent is concerned, it shows no less than 42,219 cubic yards of solid rock. The estimate showed" 129,379 cubic yards of loose rock. The result, in respect of 95 per cent of the contract shows that no less than 938,729 cubic yards have been returned. The estimates showed of common earth excavation 1,841,152 cubic yards. Ninety-five per cent of the work has been done and in that we find only 520,728 cubic yards. If the information in the possession of the government was so absolutely inaccurate as this seems to have been, how was it possible to come to a conclusion about the tenders. I do not wish to draw any conclusion that is not legitimate, but one can easily see how a tender that was really the highest of all might be accepted as the lowest if the information was no more reliable than it was in this case. What is the minister's explanation?


George Perry Graham: The explanation so far as I can make it is this: I am informed that the usual practice prevailing in Canada was adopted by the engineering staff, the preliminary surveys made and the general contour of the country shown on the profile, with the approximate quantities of each kind of material in each district.


Mr. BARKER.: How were the approximate quantities of loose rock and earth ascertained for these estimates?


George Perry Graham: I presume they were obtained as on all railways, but not being an engineer I cannot give a professional explanation.


Samuel Barker: Judging by the results they were never ascertained at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that any one could have shut his eyes, never gone near the country at all, and made as good a guess.


George Perry Graham: The engineering staff followed the usual practice as I understand Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
it. Mr. Dunn is now in the employ of the Grand Trunk Pacific in a very responsible position, and any engineers that have left us have been picked up by other railways and put in charge of the same kind of work. I believe the engineers were good men. The engineers estimated, and the tenders were based on the approximate' quantities given by the engineers, and the contract was given to the lowest tender on that basis.


Robert Laird Borden: If the engineers were good men, and if they followed the practice usual in Canada, I assume it is a practice that must give satisfactory results. I am not prepared to say exactly where the fault lies, but undoubtedly if the original estimates were correct then the charges of over classification must be true. It is utterly impossible to conceive that there is not something radically wrong somewhere. Either the work was done with an incredible degree of incapacity or negligence in the first instance, or else the final classification is not a true classification. Something is inconceivably wrong in the one case or the other. I have had some little experience of this in my profession, and 1 know that no such absurd results as these were ever obtained where the work was properly done in both cases. It seems to be an outrageous condition of affairs. Here is an estimate of 1,841,152 yards of common earth excavation; the contract has now been completed to the extent of 95 per cent and yet we find that the classification of common earth excavation is only 520,726 yards or not quite 30 per cent of the estimate. There is something outrageously wrong in this. Does the minister pretend to tell me that is the way in which other railways are built in this country. I know a little about these contracts and I never heard of anything like this before. I shall be glad to hear what explanation the minister can give.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's point is well taken, but of course,-we cannot tell about the entire classification until the board of arbitrators give their report; and then these quantities may possibly be changed in some respects. In reading over some documents the other day it struck me that the engineers in making their preliminary surveys and estimates might not make their estimate of solid rock, or loose rock open to the same interpretation as that put upon it by the engineers making the excavation.


Samuel Barker: The great distinction is between earth and rock.


George Perry Graham: On the surface there might be no solid rock as would be indicated in the first survey.


Haughton Lennox: The rock has to be more than a yard in size.


George Perry Graham: There is an interpretation in one clause that any material that it is best to move by blasting is solid rock. Engineers classify these things differently from what we would understand, and I find that sometimes an engineer will call a thing solid rock when a layman would not so describe it. But granting all that, I admit at once that to my mind the estimated quantities are not as close to what the real returns are, as they ought to be. There is no use arguing it any other way. But a difference between the estimate and the cost often happens in other railways. For instance, I believe that the Sudbury branch of the Canadian Pacific railway cost 100 per cent higher than the estimate. I am. not saying that was in the classification; I am just taking the cost of the line as a whole. Railway companies in making their estimates often go very far astray but the public do not know about it as they do in the case of a public work like this. To my mind the difficulty is not so much in there being a wrong estimate, except _ that that might lead parliament astray in any case as to what the cost would be, if the country is not paying for more than it is getting.


Samuel Barker: That is not the question.


Duncan Graham: It is the question I am talking about, and when the arbitrators make their final examination, I have full faith that the country will pay only for what it has got, and the classification will be properly laid down by the board.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister must know that there is a proper way to construct a railway. First, there is a preliminary survey, then there is a location .survey. The duty of the engineers in a location survey is to ascertain not only the quantity in the prisms, but the composition. How do they do that? The hon. minister says that they look at the surface. Not at all. They sink test pits on every portion of the road down to grade line, and they ought to know within ten per cent the proper classification. Fifteen per cent, as the minister stated, is an enormous allowance. What do we find on the first section of the road? No Toek returned by the engineers, and as a matter of fact 40,000 yards of solid rock; an estimate of 150,000 yards of loose rock, and there is 700,000 .yards; an estimate of 18,000 yards of clay or earth excavation, and there is 500,000 yards. How can you have proper tenders when such a state of affairs occurs? The estimates were in such a condition that any one who tendered on the quantities returned by the engineers would have no ehance whatever. The minister
says the same thing has occurred in several cases. I defy him to show a case in which such manifest errors in the location surveys have occurred in the construction of any railroad, unless there is found a pit-hole largely in excess of the quantity the engineers estimated. Strange to say, the prism quantities are nearly correct. The only fault is in the classification, the dividing up. If a man who takes out earth is paid for loose rock, and the man who takes out loose rock is paid for rock, it is the fault of the department or of the engineering staff who superintended the location .survey. When there is 40,000 yards of rock excavation where none was estimated, and when the earth excavated is changed into loose rock excavation, the result is that the contractor is paid three or four times the amount he would have been entitled to if the location survey had been correct. There is something wrong. We have no explantion as to when or how it occurred. Everybody knows that in the construction of a railroad the original estimates of the location engineers are kept in a book, and that every week, while the work is going on, a certain portion of it is checked off. The department ought to have a similar book so that they would know at any time when anything went wrong. We have no explanation whether, when they found that these things were going wrong, the attention of the engineer in charge of the work was drawn to the improper classification or not. We should have some explanation, but we have none. It seems that this thing has gone on without any supervision whatever. The hon. minister says that a final estimate is not made, that the classification is still under consideration. I would like to know from the minister, with regard to this section of the road which we are considering, to what extent the contractor has been paid on these estimates, and whether it is not largely in excess of the original quantity as estimated by the engineers, and whether it would not be possible, even with the percentage retained by the government, and the deposit made by the contractor, to secure the government against any charges of that kind? What is the classification on which the contractor has been paid, and what is the amount reserved, over and above the usual ten per cent, for the purpose of preserving 'to the government any right they may have on the final classification?


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister has spoken as if the great difficulty in these matters were a distinction between loose rock and solid rock. Why, that is a trifle compared with what the real facts are. The great trouble here is the enormous difference between ordinary earth excavation and either solid rock or loose rock. If you

reduced this down to a mere question of difference between loose rock and solid rock, there would be a very important difference; but it would be nothing compared to the enormous loss to the country arising from the fact that what was represented as earth work is being paid for as either loose rock or solid rock. The minister says that he has no doubt that the thing was done as it is usually done by railway companies. I hope that it was so, and if it was, the hon. gentleman can show us, yard for yard, from one end of that road to the other, what the engineers did before these contracts were made. It is not a question of guess work. The minister has the papers in his possession; why are they not produced? Why have we not these explanations now when we are asked to vote $27,000,000 for continuing this work? Why does the minister not tell us where, and how these discrepancies occurred? It does not require an engineer to know that if these discrepancies worked against the contractors, and the government attempted to enforce the contracts the courts of the land would relieve the contractors from their obligations because of fraudulent representations made on behalf of the government. That is the case, and the hon. minister knows it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that if the locating engineers estimated that a certain cut contained 75 per cent of rock, and the contractor took the contract under that specification and it turned out only 25 per cent rock, he would have an action against the commissioners for breach of faith?


Samuel Barker: I say that if you should bring before a court such manifest injustice-in this case it happens to be an injustice to the country-to the contractor, as the result of misrepresentations made, the court would relieve the contractor.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One other question. Is the hon. gentleman aware that in asking for tenders for this work the contractors were not given any information whatever as to what proportion was solid or loose rock or common earth excavation, in any of these different works.
, Mr. J. HAGGART. Is the hon. gentleman certain in his statement?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I have had something to do with letting railway contracts. Before a company lets such a contract as this government did, its engineers go over again and again every mile of the work, and by pits and borings and preliminary surveys, they ascertain, as nearly as possible, what is the nature of the ground?


Samuel Barker: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman know that that information was given the contractors when tendering for the work?


Samuel Barker: If a railway company were undertaking to build a new line through a country such as this-and I have in my mind at this moment a similar work-that company would survey every mile with the utmost care, and they would have, as the government has now, if the minister's statement is correct, they would have a record of the borings and surveys of every mile of that road.


John Graham Haggart: Every 100 yards.


Samuel Barker: Every mile would be done by sections of 100 yards. They would be able to show the prism measurements, the tests, the pits and borings; and it would be such evident, downright fraud, if the differences were so enormous as they are here represented to be that no court would hold the contractor bound by his contract, because of the evident, wilful, deliberate, intentional misrepresentation and fraud. The hon. gentleman says there are differences about loose and solid rock. Why the great difference is that enormous quantities of earthwork are turned into loose or solid rock-not loose- rock turned into solid, or solid into loose. That is where the cost estimated by this government has been so enormously exceeded. No one pretends for a moment that discrepancies or errors of 15 or even 20 per cent difference would he an indication of anything but carelessness on the part of the staff for which we could not hold the government or a company responsible, but to say that the directors of a railway company would not be responsible for such enormous differences as are here shown is absurd. Why, they would dismiss the whole staff if they were an honest board. They would kick every man out as incompetent unless they were afraid to do it because they were a party to the fraud. There is no business man which does not know that to be the case. I have known that in similar cases of difficult railway construction, the company has sent their staff three. times over the ground. They sent them first and got their estimate, and then sent them over again, and even a third time before submitting their surveys for tenders. Then the contractors would come in and the company got all the benefit of the money they had had expended on these preliminary surveys. But what have we here? The hon. gentleman is not able to produce those preliminary surveys. He does not know that any are in existence. He can only say vaguely that the government have done what companies usually do. He ought to know whether he has

the results of those surveys. If he has, it was his duty to look into them and see who were responsible for this enormous expenditure, wholly unexpected and wholly unauthorized. That is what I complain of. It is no use for the hon. gentleman to ask for $20,000,000 and tell us he has no doubt that what is usually done was done in this case. He ought to know what was done. He ought to have the papers in his office and see whether there are still in the pay of this government men who deliberately falsified the figures or were so negligent that they were even worse than rogues and falsifiers.


George Perry Graham: I would not dare to follow my hon. friend in his sweeping strictures and denunciations of people as rogues and falsifiers. I am always sufficiently charitable to. consider every man as honest as myself until I find out that he is not. It does not help our argument on either side to call names. My hon. friend is a good railway man perhaps, but I will venture the assertion that there is not an hon. member in this House who has heard him who would think that he has made this clear, and that is that the contractors do not base their estimates on information as to quantities or classification given them by the government..


Robert Laird Borden: Is the government estimate submitted them before they tender?
Mr. GRAHAM No. They know nothing about the quantities which the government engineers have figured out.


Robert Laird Borden: The government makes certain tests and borings, and estimate as best they can what the classifications eventually will be-is that information not submitted in any form to the contractors?


George Perry Graham: Partially it is and partially it is not. There is a profile given the contractors and that profile shows the probable findings in different parts of the country.


Samuel Barker: As the result of your survey?


George Perry Graham: Yes. But the engineers of any company are supposed to find out for themselves, they are not given the faintest inkling of what quantity' there is of solid rock, no quantities are given at all, there is merely given a profile of what is in the different districts. These are not guaranteed. If the contractors are good business men, they send their own engineers over the territory, and base their tenders on their own information, and not on ours at all, and that is what they nearly always do. The government, or any
company, merely gives them the general character of the country on a profile.


Mr. BEST.: Is this contract let at so much per yard for solid rock, so much for loose rock, and so on?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Best: Then what difference does it make to them how many yards there are. But it does make, a difference when it turns out in so many cases that what was first classified as earth has become solid rock.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: The hon. member (Mr. Best) is not going to get me away from the point though I have answered his question. I am pointing out that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) perhaps unintentionally, drew a veil over a certain part of the case in presenting it to the House. He would have left the impression upon my mind, had I not understood the matter, and I have no doubt that he left the impression on the minds of those hon. members who have not had experience, that we gave the quantities to the contractors, and that on these the contractors had made their tenders. They had no quantities, but merely a profile, and they figured out their tenders from their own information, and from the profile given by the commission. The same is true in the case of contractors for a company. The company does not give its estimates of quantity made out by its own engineer. That is for its own information. The contractors have to get the information, and take the risk. As the hon. member (Mr. Best) has asked the question, our schedule prices and amounts taken out are paid for according to the quantities really found there in cuts, and in many cases these have exceeded the estimates of the engineer, not as to quantity, but on the basis of classification.
Mr. .1. HAGGART. What is the difference between giving the quantities, and giving the profile, if, from so much excavation of earth, so much lose rock, and so much solid rock given on the profile


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) shakes his head.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As the hon. _ member refers to me, I may say that it is not so. The commission never gave such information to any contractor. That is not among the papers.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman, then, differs from the minister, who says that the profile is given to the contractor, and on it is marked the classification.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. Haggart) misunderstood

me. The difference between us is only of a word. I said that on the profile the word ' probably ' is the word used. That is done intentionally.


An hon. MEMBER.: Probably what?


George Perry Graham: For instance: 'Probably loose rock


John Graham Haggart: That is how the government gets out in this matter. For, if they marked it specifically, they would be bound by the quantity.


George Perry Graham: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: And, when the contract is made, the government carefully guard themselves against guaranteeing the quantities shown in the profile, or anything else. It is on the probable quantities that the estimate of the contractor is made.
-^r- EMMERSOX. It is not even the probable quantity. It only appears: ' Probably loose rock ', ' probably earth and so on.
-^r- J- HAGGART.	I did not say,
nor had I in mind, the quantities. The quantities are never marked on the profile. But the sections are marked, ' probably rock,' ' probably loose rock and so on. Is it not just as easy for the contractor as for the engineer of the department to estimate the quantity of loose rock, rock and earth excavation?


Duncan Graham: They take the risk.


John Graham Haggart: They take the
risk for this reason-there is a condition imposed in the contract that the government is not responsible for the' quantity set forth in the profile or otherwise. That risk the contractor has to take. But the quantities, for all practical purposes, are marked on the profile. The contractor, before he tenders, knows it. The hon. minister says that most of them go over the work. What an absurdity! Nine-tenths of the contractors before undertaking a railway contract never see the work. They find out what the character of the excavation is-earth, clay, hard pan, loose rock or rock; they rely on the profile for their estimate and they make their tender accordingly. I have never seen anything like the exposition here to-night. The hon. minister says and said in his previous speech: What difference does it make to the country if the country receives value? What we contend is that, either those who originally surveyed and laid out and classified this work were totally incompetent-for which the government is responsible-or there has been fraud in the payment of contracts up to this time. That is what we are trying to unearth, and that is what we have a right to find out. When the government found that the quantities -were being largely


George Perry Graham: exceeded, they should have taken action to find out the reason, and of that action we should be informed. No information of this kind has been given to the House. Quantities so greatly in excess of the estimates should have alarmed the government, and they should have stopped the work and made an inquiry as to the competency of the engineers, and they should have been able to give to the House better reasons than they do at present for this large excess in the quantities. This, enterprise "was initiated by the government and the House was advised by the minister? about what the cost would be. But when they found that cost being nearly doubled, they should have had sufficient reasons to give this House for that increase. However, we are not furnished with a single bit of information in regard to the matter.


Haughton Lennox: The minister has not been as definite as I could have -wished, in reference to the question of survey, as to what was done. But I dare say he ha3 been as definite as his own information enabled him to be. I am sorry he has not ascertained just what was done in order to learn the condition of things before contracts were let. We do not require much information to realize that, if tenders are going to be properly awarded, the department, before it accepts tenders, must have a reasonably accurate estimate of the quantities of material involved in the work. If they do not do this, then what is called the moneying out is not properly based and the profession that they have ascertained which is the lower tender is absolutely false. Either the government did their duty and employed competent engineers who made regular and sufficient surveys, had the ordinary test pits sunk, the ordinary borings made, and the ordinary work of all kinds done to ascertain within reasonable limits the actual quantities of the various materials to be moved and of the various materials to enter into the construction of the work,-either that, or else the government failed in its duty, misled the country and went on with this work without having collected the proper information before proceeding. Though the minister says he had competent engineers from end to end of the 1,800 miles, yet I would still be prepared to find discrepancies in the classification. I would be prepared to find that in some cases they had over-estimated the expensive materials, and in other cases, over-estimated the cheaper materials; but I would not be prepared to find that on one continuous system for 1,804 miles the same thing would occur, that is, that solid rock increased and loose rock increased; multiplied in many cases four or five times, and that in every case without variation, common ex-



[Stage Direction]
eavation decreased. But that is what we have in this case. The statement the min; ister gave this afternoon shows that in every case where any considerable quantity of work has been done, the solid rock has enormously increased, the loose rock has enormously increased, and common excavation has decreased. There are three or four cases where it is different. For instance, on contract No. 7, the estimated quantity of solid rock was 633,000 cubic yards, the actual quantity returned is 533,000; but in this case there is only 46 per cent of the work done. In some other cases it is the same way. For instance, in contract No. 12, the estimated quantity of solid rock was 990,000 cubic yards, the amount returned is only 188,000. Of loose rock the estimate was 633,000 cubic yards, and only 130,000 were returned, but in that case only 8-8 per cent of the work has been done. So it is all down the list. For instance, in contract No. 14, the quantity of solid rock is still below the estimated quantity, but in that ease, loose rock has got up from 210,000 cubic yards to 707,000 cubic yards, and only 28 per cent of the work has been done. Now, this is the position, that from end to end of that 1,800 miles there is one invariable system, namely, that the loose rock and solid have grown enormously, while common excavation has slipped out of sight. We can understand an occasional error. It is said by competent engineers that we should allow perhaps 10 per cent for error as regards variations in classification. But you should have the total quantities correct, and there is no competent engineer who will say that you can have these enormous discrepancies and account for them on the double basis of competent engineering in the first place, and competent and honest classification in the second place. Now look at some other of these figures. Take the first two contracts. There it is said there is no solid rock at all, that there is only a small quantity, in the one case 130,000 cubic yards, and in the other case less than 60,000 cubic yards of loose rock. That makes, in the two contracts, a total of 58 miles. What does that indicate? It indicates an agricultural region, there is practically no stone at all. Yet when we come to figure that out, we have loose rock growing from 130,000 cubic yards to 938,000 cubic yards. Then take contract No, 8, a startling case. Here we had an estimated quantity of 918,000 cubic yards of solid rock, that has grown so far as returned into 1,365,625 cubic yards. We had an estimate of 395,000 cubic yards of loose rock, that has grown into 1,382,000 cubic yards. Of common excavation, we had an estimate of 3,091,000 cubic yards, and that has shrunk to 869,000, and we have only 67 per cent of the work done. ( Now take No. 10. There was an estimate 1
of 776,000 cubic yards of solid rock by competent engineers, and that grows into 2,849,000 cubic yards, and there is only 87 per cent of the work yet done.	We
had an estimate of 278,000 cubic yards of loose rock, and that has grown into almost a million and a half, and only 87 per cent of the work is done. I have taken some of these other contracts, because they were not dealt with in the complaints of Mr. Woods. Take the last contract, the McArthur eontraqt. There was an estimate by the engineers of 3,696,000 cubic yards of solid rock, it has grown into 6,415,869 cubic yards. There was an estimate of 733,000 cubic yards of loose rock, that has grown into 2,056,000 cubic yards. We had an estimate of 11,000,000 cubic yards of common excavation and that has dwindled away to 2,215,000 cubic yards, and there is only 93 per cent of the work done.
These are startling figures to everybody except that commission who are fighting us to-day, and the government which is backing them, and I am going to appeal to the minister, because he is not yet into it up to !he shoulders as some of them are; I am going to appeal to him now and ask him what he is going to do about it? There is no use paltering about this question, there is no use in delaying. The minister has referred this evening to the fact that we have a board of expert engineers at work trying to find out how this is. How much work have they done? Practically none. There is not a syllable for the people, for the government, for the members of this House from that Board of Arbitrators yet. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) was a member of the Hodgins' Committee, and two and a half years ago he and other members of the committee on the government side fought us to prevent us from going on with the Hodgins inquiry, as we were ordered to go on by this House, and as we were ordered by the motion made by the first minister, to go on with that inquiry on all the charges contained in the various papers referred to us. They fought us and by force of numbers prevented us from going on with that inquiry. And why? Because these arbitrators were at work and it would interfere with their work, and we would have a report at once which would be satisfactory and conclusive on all these matters. Two and a half years have gone by and we are not a step closer to a determination of this question, as far as anything practical Is concerned. I appeal to the minister and I say on my responsibility as a member of the House, that instead of that commission endeavouring to find out on behalf of the people what is wrong, the action of that commission from first to last, in connection with the appoint-
[Stage Direction]
ment of this board, has been consistently and persistently to prevent an inquiry in this matter. In the return which has been brought down on the motion of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) every page where there is a line written by the commission is a page and a line showing a desire to prevent a full and thorough investigation of -this matter. That is the action of that commission, and I say to the minister he is the one more than all others who is responsible, and that if he wants to keep his reputation up, to do justice by the people, to see that this railway does not become a perfect scandal from one end of this country to the other, and before all countries, he should take this matter in hand and take some measures by which the people will be protected and this system will not be continued. I believe every word I say in this matter. I have given a good deal of time to it and I intend to give a good deal more to it if necessary, hut I do say that this is becoming one of the most iniquitous works ever carried on on this continent- and some years ago they had some pretty bad ones to the south of us. The minister has not as yet become so deeply immersed in it as some others, but I say to him that he should look at the action of this commission critically and impartially, and if he can believe that this commission is acting in the interests of the public then he should go on; but I have read the records in connection with this investigation, by these arbitrators, these experts, and I can come to no other conclusion, nor can any one who reads the evidence, than that systematically, persistently, and determinedly, the members of this commission-the chairman, perhaps, more persistently than any others-have endeavoured to block this inquiry and to confine it within the narrowest possible limits. I have talked warmly on this, let me come down to calm pleading with the minister. It is up to the minister, it is essentially his duty not to allow this matter to run on any longer, but to take some active, definite action to protect the rights of the people as regards the expenditure of money on the Transcontinental railway.
George Perry Graham: I shall not take up the time of the House following up my hon. friend, and I hope he will not think it discourteous on my part. He said what he said before in discussing this matter and what I would say in reply would be what I said before.


Haughton Lennox: When did I say it?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member spoke with a good deal of heat some weeks ago and I answered at some length. The situation in short is this: When this Act Mr. LENNOX.
was being passed, the House unanimously decided on the method by which any differences as to classification would be adjusted and settled for. It was understood, of course, that in all works there would be differences of opinion, or you may call it something else if you like, that there would be differences in the classification as between the commission's engineers and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific who had to take over the work. Parliament understood that would occur, and, without one dissenting voice, appointed a board to settle all these differences, a board of experts, not like my hon. friend or myself who has to take other peoples' word absolutely for it. They named a method by which a tribunal would be appointed.


Samuel Barker: Meantime you want to spend $20,000,000 more?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact there was a great deal of difficulty and a good deal of cross-firing in getting the board finally appointed. Some work has been done but a report has not been made. As soon, however, as the snow is gone this spring this board, fully equipped with authority will go out and do this work, all precautions will be taken. My hon. friend will agree with me that he would not be a good man to judge of this?


Haughton Lennox: A good man to judge of your commission?


George Perry Graham: Not a good man to judge impartially, he gets too enthusiastic, as I do myself sometimes, in trying to convince people that mine is the only view and that there is no other view that possibly could be right. But the parliament of Canada, including my hon. friend, mapped out the way in which these things should be settled and that is the way they are being settled and will be settled, I hope, to the satisfaction of the country and even of my hon. friend.


Mr. CROCKET.: Are payments being made to the contractors on certificates furnished by these engineers who have made the over-classification, who have been objected to?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend asserts that there has been over-classification. Progress estimates are paid to the contractors on the certificate of the engineers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The same engineers who have been objected to?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend starts out, of course, with the idea that the engineers are guilty.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The classification has been objected to by the Transcontinental

engineers and by the chief engineer of the commission.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will understand that engineers are not discharged because some person objects to their classification.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the government continuing to make payment on certificates furnished by these same engineers just as before?


George Perry Graham: Progress estimates are paid to the contractors on the certificates of engineers approved by the chief engineer, and subject to revision.


Samuel Barker: Are they the same engineers?


George Perry Graham: Some are, and perhaps all. The amount of security held back from each one of these contractors is as follows:	On 'A,5	$1,133,583.81; on ' B,'
$1,701,308.91; on ' C,' $12,942.90; on ' D,' $656,668.07; on ' E,' $193,914; on ' F,' $1,218,143.85, or in round numbers $4,915,742.69.


John Graham Haggart: What form of security ?
Air. GRAHAA1. Cash security.


John Graham Haggart: Is not the most of it the 10 per cent retained by the government on the progress estimates?
Air. GRAHAA1. Alost of it is. Of course as the work goes on these amounts increase rather than decrease.


John Graham Haggart: I want to know the amount paid out to the contractors, and what the amount of the contract would be on the original estimate?
Air. GRAHAA1. We will take No. 1 as a sample. The chief engineer's estimate on No. 1 was $1,017,051.43; the estimate on the basis of the lowest tender $989,895.96; gross amount of progress estimate to December 31,	1909, $1,664,410.07; less the
draw back of 10 per cent.


John Graham Haggart: The original contract was let for $900,000, and the lowest tender taken on the estimated quantities. Your engineer's estimate was $1,000,000, but you have already paid to the contractors $1,600,000. You say that in the revision of the contract it may be corrected, and that it may possibly be not in excess of the original tender. Where is your money to guarantee that?
Air. GRAHAA1. I am frank to confess that I do not think it will ever be reduced on the original estimate.


Samuel Barker: How much have you held back on that contract now?


Duncan Graham: 


Samuel Barker: And when you have pocketed that you are over half a million dollars short.


Duncan Graham: I have not pocketed anything that I ever heard of.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking of the government, and not you. You have already paid over half a million dollars in advance of your estimate.


Duncan Graham: On that contract there are no objections to the classification.


Robert Laird Borden: On contract No. 1 for example, is the engineer who was responsible for the estimate in the first instance the same engineer who is responsible for the classification in the final payment?


Duncan Graham: No, Mr. Dunn is now with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: In how many cases and on what contracts is the engineer who made the original estimate of classification the same engineer, who has certified the classification which seems to have been adopted? If that information is not at hand it would be better to produce a statement later.


Duncan Graham: I will take the district engineer, he is responsible for the whole district.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know who is responsible, but the minister will understand exactly what I want. I want to know in respect to every mile from Moncton to Winnipeg, in what cases the same man is responsible for the original estimate, and for the final result which is so absolutely different from it.


George Perry Graham: I will get that for my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: There are some other things I would like to know. I do not know whether this information will be available to-night, but I want to get it some time-I want to know exactly the character of the investigation that is made upon which these estimates of classification were founded; I want to know at what distances these pits were sunk where theTe was need of sinking pits; I want to know at what distances borings were made; I want full and complete information as to the character of the investigation which was made before this estimate was handed into the government. Then I want to know something more about the engineers.	I
want to know what steps the commission have taken up to date in the way of seeking information from the engineers who made this original estimate which has been so absolutely falsified in the result. I

want that information in respect to every mile of the line from Moncton to Winnipeg. I think the minister will agree, in view of the remarkable situation that has developed that I am not asking any too much.
To put this matter in plain terms, unless there has been the most extraordinary and inconceivable incapacity and negligence in the first instance, then there has been perpetrated on the public treasury of this country one of the most gigantic steals ever heard of. This dilemma the government must face in connection with this matter: the one or the other of these two things must be true.
The minister, then, wall be good enough to give us this further information with regard to contract No. 1, contract No. 2, or whichever one first developed this situation. When it became apparent to the commissioners, who, I assume, were attending to their business, either that the estimates presented to the government in the first instance were absolutely worthless, or else that some one was getting money from the government t.o which he was not entitled, what explanations did the commissioners ask, what investigation did they make, what steps did they take to get to the bottom of this matter? I am not disposed to blame the minister too much, except that I do not think that he has been prompt and vigilant in demanding an explanation from the commission. He has the duties of a great department to attend to outside of this. But these men were there, paid by the people of this country to look carefully into matters of this character, and I would like very much to know, when this situation first developed, what steps they took about it. I have heard some very curious statements made on. the authority of reputable men as to ' what the action, not of all, but of some of the commissioners, was in that regard; and if I should repeat the statements here, which I do not propose to do to-night, or until I verify them a little further, I think every hon. gentleman in this House would be startled by them. But whether these statements, which have been rather free of late, be true or not, certainly this House is entitled to the fullest possible information as to what was the action of the commissioners in this connection-whether they conceived it to be their duty at all to investigate the astonishing ' condition of affairs which has been disclosed by the information afforded to this committee by
the minister. I -would like to know further what is the rate for solid rock, the rate for loose rock and the rate for common excavation on every one of these contracts, in respect to every mile of the line from Moncton to Winnipeg.


George Perry Graham: I can give that now. I will give it by the numbers of the contracts, starting at Moncton and going west:
Common
Contract.	Solid rock.	Loose rock.	excava- tion.No.	1	.. .. $1 50	$0 55	$0 25<C	O	.. .. 1 50	0 50	0 213	.. .. 1 25	0 44	0 294	.. .. 1 45	0 45	0 275	.. . . 1 49	0 35	0 24**	6	.. .. 1 60	0 50	0 237	0 50	0 248	0 65	0 279	.. .. 1 50	0 50	0 2110	.. .. 1 50	0 50	0 2111	0 60	0 2712	.. .. 1 60	0 57	0 2213	0 65	0 3514	.. .. 1 75	0 65	0 3415	.. .. 1 85	0 70	0 4016	.. .. 1 90	0 85	0 4317	.. .. 1 90	0 90	0 4518	.. .. 1 80	0 60	0 3819	.. .. 1 48	0 85	0 2920	.. .. 1 45	0 55	0 2521	.. .. 1 70	0 60	0 30


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN.	Now, would the	
minister be good enough to have a statement prepared, showing the cost of the entire line from Moncton to Winnipeg, based upon the estimates of classification which were made in the first instance, for the purpose of comparison with the estimates which have been certified by the engineers in respect of the work done up to the present time?


George Perry Graham: I could give my hon. friend now the estimated cost, and then I could give him exactly what has been paid up to date on each one of these contracts.


Robert Laird Borden: The estimated cost of course, is for the whole?


George Perry Graham: The estimated cost of solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation Does my hon. friend want it for the whole?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. you have not got it by contracts I suppose? Has my hon. friend got it distributed by the several contracts, or in one lump sum'


George Perry Graham: I have the different contracts :


Robert Laird Borden: (13) The Engineer's estimated quantity of Solid Rock, Loose Rock and Common Excavation in the section of line covered by each contract, and the estimated cost under these headings, based upon the rates of accepted tender, are as follows:-[DOT]
I Contract.	Solid Rock.	Loose Rock.	Common Excavation.	Quantity.	Cost.	Quantity.	Cost.	Quantity.	Cost. *$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1	Nil.	Nil.	129,379	71,158 45	1,841,152	460,288 002	Nil.	Nil.	58,473	29,236 50	529,452	HR 184 923	22,112	27,640 00	492,589	216,739 16	494,030	143,270 444	315,315	457,206 75	1,030,121	463,554 45	1,016,720	274,514 405	252,893	376,810 57	971,224	339,928 40	1,224,284	293,828 166	172,709	276,334 40	64,765	32,382 50	1,676,175	385,520 257	633,900	919,155 00	196,300	98,150 00	407,000	97,680 008	918,381	1,331,652 45	395,645	257,169 25	3,091,210	834,626 709	392,989	589,483 50	38,248	19,124 00	1,795,202	376,992 4210	776,161	1,164,241 50	278,552	139,276 00	4,508,480	946,780 8011	220.200	363,330 00	180,200	108,120 00	1,966,458	530,943 6612	990,600	1,584,960 00	633,700	361,209 00	2,259,000	496,980 0013	462,000	831,600 00	470,600	305,890 00	1,920,000	672,000 0014	203,144	355,502 00	21,646	14,069 90	3,956,566	1,345,232 4415	243,400	450,290 00	51,900	36,330 00	1,127,200	450,880 0016	104,700	198,930 00	45,200	38,420 00	1,618,600	695,998 0017	16,000	30,400 00	8,000	7,200 00	1,677,000	754,650 0018	225,845	406,521 00	25,900	15.540 00	1,046,000	397,480 0019	2,602,000	3,850,960 00	89,000	75,650 00	1,489,000	431,810 0010.. 	493,400	715,430 00	71,900	39,545 00	374,000	93,500 0021	3,696,336	6,283,771 20	733,454	440,072 20	11,233,247	3,369,974 10


Samuel Barker: Do those figures show the actual cost, including the work yet to be done?
Mr.. GRAHAM. No.


Samuel Barker: It is no use unless we get that. We want to know what the whole cost will be, and the system you are going on.


George Perry Graham: I have been giving the estimated quantities, and the estimated cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Of the work up to date?


George Perry Graham: The original estimates. I am prepared to give the cost up to date.


John Graham Haggart: Could you not add the estimated cost to finish it?


George Perry Graham: I can give my hon. friend the amount estimated to finish each contract.


John Graham Haggart: That will do.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the minister goes into that, may I ask whether this statement he has just read covers the entire work of excavation from Moncton to Winnipeg?


George Perry Graham: Yes, twenty-one contracts.


Robert Laird Borden: This statement is headed, 'The engineer's estimated quantity of solid rock, loose rock and common excavation in the section of line covered by each contract, and the estimated cost under these headings, based upon the rates of accepted tender.' As I understand, that is not restricted to the work done up to the present time; it is an estimate in respect of all the work from Moncton to Winnipeg under these items.


George Perry Graham: The estimate for the three classifications, solid rock, loose rock and common excavation made at the time the contracts were made.


Robert Laird Borden: We know what has been paid up to the present time in respect of the work done under these contracts. That has been given, I understand?


George Perry Graham: No, I have that in the next statement. I was going to give the amount paid on each of these contracts under each heading.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister distinguish the amount paid from the amount covered by the1 progress estimate, because there is a certain reduction?


George Perry Graham: I am going to give the amount actually paid to the contractors.


Frederick William Borden: And we can add one-ninth to that to get the amount of the progress estimate.


Duncan Graham: I will give both the amount of the progress estimate and the amount paid to the contractor. The statement is as follows:
The actual expenditure under the headings of Solid Eock, Loose Book and Common Excavation, as shown bv progress estimates (December 33, 1909) and the amounts actually paid are as follows:-
Contract
No.
Solid Rock.
Loos:- Rock.
Common
Excavation.
$ cts.
cts.
8 cts.
1..	..
2..	..
3..	..
4..	..
5..	.
6..	.
7..	..
8..	.. 9....
10.... 11... 12 ...
14..	.
15..	.
18..	..
19..	..
20..	.. 21....
Progress estimate..,
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate... Actually paid ...	.
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate... Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate ..
Actually paid	
Progress estimate... Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid

Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate...
Actually paid	
Progress estimate... Actually paid...	.
Progress estimate . . Actually paid	
63,328 50 56,995 65 65,334 00 58,800 60 104,292 50 93,863 35 740,875 33 666,787 80 1,193,771 61 1,074,394 45 402,563 20 362,306 88 773,818 60 696,436 74 1,980,156 25 1,782,140 63 762,495 00 686,245 50 4,274,748 00 3,847,273 20 1,399,115 85 1,259,204 27 301,936 00 271,742 40 36,188 25 32,569 43 23,544 95 21.190 46 427,393 80 384,654 42 974,109 35 876,698 42 499,346 93 449,412 24 10,906,977 30 9,816,279 57
516,300 40 464,670 36 43,864 00 39,477 60 212,942 40 191,648 10 365,735 25 329,161 73 192,085 95 172,877 36 456,594 00 410,934 60 140,481 00 126,432 90
898.758	25 808,882 43
41,358 00 37,222 20
675.759	50 608,183 55 269,587 80 242,629 02
74,157 00 66,741 30 498,638 40 448,774 57 435,581 30 392,023 17 64,446 00 58,001 40 205,851 30 185,266 17 182,491 10 164,241 99 1,233,778 20 1.110,400 38
130,182 00 117,163 80 10,015 95 9,014 36 67,426 74 60,684 07 81,432 54 73,289 29 39,318 72 35,386 85 186,454 33 167,808 90 87,907 19 79,116 48 234,712 62 211,241 36 110,736 78 99,663 11 325,989 49 293,390 55 170,423 73 153,381 36 14,960 00 13,464 00 . 336,903 96 303,213 58 222,260 40 200,034 36 235,632 30 212,069 07 66,323 87 59,691 49 32,264 25 29,037 83 664,762 80 598,286 52
The next sheet I have here would give the amount, not for these quantities, but the amount to complete the entire contract.


Frederick William Borden: Could we get at it by a system of percentage?	[DOT]


Duncan Graham: The note given me here is that 'the classifications have been found to be considerably different from the original estimates.' That seems to be quite agreed upon.


Frederick William Borden: There seems to be no fault to find with that.


Duncan Graham: As a matter of fact, the estimate of the work to be done under these headings cannot be given until the proper Mr. GEAHAM.
borings are made and other investigations held as to the line now being built.


John Graham Haggart: How could the minister get at the percentages for work done if he does not know the work to be done?


Duncan Graham: It was taken on a mileage basis, I understand.


John Graham Haggart: But the minister gave a percentage on the basis of quantity, stating that in a certain contract 8 per cent remained to be done, on another 95 per cent of the work had been done, and so on. If he does not know the amounts to be done, how could he get the percentage?


Duncan Graham: It is taken approximately on a mileage basis-the number of miles

of track laid, the grading done, the bridges to be built, and so on.


John Graham Haggart: Couldn't you give an approximation of the amount required to finish?


George Perry Graham: I can give the amount required to complete each contract.


Haughton Lennox: Last year I moved for returns asking for the original estimates of quantities of each class of material throughout the whole 103 items that enter into the construction of the railway. I asked that the engineers' estimated quantity should be set out, with the cost according to the actual accepted tender; also that I should be furnished with the quantity of work done, or the quantity of material supplied, under each of these headings, and the cost; also, the estimated amount of work of each class yet to be done, for instance, the estimated quantity of common excavation, of solid rock and of loose rock under each contract, and the cost thereof throughout the various items. The return was brought down, and in a great majority of the contracts all that information was furnished. We then had a discussion in the House, and I ventured to point out the effect of it. Now, what I am dissatisfied about is this, that I have asked for other information of the same class on other contracts that were not completed at that time^that was only brought down to December, 1908- I have asked for subsequent estimates as to the other contracts where the information had not been furnished, and the answer in every case was that no estimate had been made. I do not understand, if the department is treating me fairly, how they were able to give information as regards so many contracts before the discussion took place, and that since the discussion they have not been able to give any. Has not the department estimates, as a matter of fact, made subsequently to the contract being let, as to the balance yet to be done in every case? If they have, I think it ought to be furnished to the House. On the first return, in the majority of the contracts, the information I asked of that character was furnished, that is, they gave me not only the quantity that had been taken out, but the estimated quantity of each class that was yet to be taken out; the actual quantity of material such as lumber that had been furnished, the estimated quantity yet to be furnished, the amount of clearing that had been done, and the amount yet to be done; the amount of grubbing that had been done, and the amount yet to be done. In probably 75 per cent of the contracts that information was brought down to December, 1908. At this late date, more 167i
than a year afterwards, I ask for estimates regarding the other contracts, and they say there has never been any subsequent estimate made. I would like the minister to inquire into that and see if it is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: It does seem singular that estimates should have been made in respect of those asked for up to a particular date, and none made in respect to those asked for subsequent to that date.


George Perry Graham: I do not know what the explanation is, but no doubt there will be one. My hon. friend has had, in the returns brought down to him, all the information I have been given to-night. I think he has had all this for some time.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to call attention to another matter. I do not know anything about this of my own information, it is information that has come to another member of the House, and as I understand it, it amounts to this:	On
division 6, station 2670 x 25, presidency 23-I am not mentioning the name of the engineer-there have been two estimates given, one to what is called the station gang and another to the contractors, I do not know whether they are the original contractors. But, at all events, the so-called station gang,	I understand, are
sub-contractors, of	other contractors,
D. W. Murray & Sons. The information I have is this, and I want to ask the minister as to its accuracy. The station gang are said to have received one estimate as follows:
815 cubic yards loose rock at 45c., $ 366 75
,1:1(1 cubic yards loose rocK, under
water, $1.25	 1,862 50
483 cubic yards solid rock at $1.25..	603 75

The letter which accompanies it intimates that these two estimates were given in respect to the same work; one was given to what was called the station gang, and the other was given to the contractors. I do not understand it, it may be capable of explanation, but I think it requires explanation, because there is a difference of about $2,400 between the two estimates. If the minister would be good enough to ob-

tain the necessary information with regard to that, I would be glad to have it.


George Perry Graham: That will have to be investigated, of course, to see what is in it. We will have to instruct the commission to look up the 'Hansard' in the morning and explain it.


Haughton Lennox: The minister said he could not give the estimates of the amount under the various headings to complete. But I understood he could give the estimates of the total amount required to complete under each contract. I think that would
be useful to us.	He might put it on the
'Hansard' where	we can see it.
Mr.' GRAHAM.	I will submit the fol-.
lowing table:	
	Amount
Contract	required to
No.	complete.
1			$ 101,189 93
2			 200,596 18
3			 142,681 32
4			 784,893 87
5			 835,219 79
6			 291,794 07
7			 1,736,969 54
8			 2,349,383 11
9			 641,096 33
10			 1,140,687 92
11			 1,437,142 91
12			 4,193,584 50
13			 3,815,279 10
14			 3,687,360 72
15			 2,502,365 96
16			 3,308,048 25
17			 2,019,908 25
18			 1,121,977 45
19			 4,535,603 23
20			 180,285 74
21			 923,890 26
The above amounts stated as being required to complete are approximate, and are taken from monthly percentage reports of work done, received from district engineers, and are subject to revision; no special estimates having been made for the purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like the exact date at which these discrepancies, to which I have referred, first began to manifest themselves. The minister will see that this is important in connection with a question which I also asked, as to what action the commission have at any time taken with regard to it.


Haughton Lennox: Can the minister tell us what has actually been done by the three engineers who have been appointed recently under the provisions of section 7 of the contract?
. Mr. GRAHAM. It is difficult off-hand to say definitely. The Board of Arbitrators began work and certain reductions have been agreed to between the chief engineer of the commission and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Under the contract if they agree the third arbitrator is not called in.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Haughton Lennox: Is the minister referring to the McDougal contract?


George Perry Graham: The McArthur contract is one.
.Mr. LENNOX. I see some matters have been adjusted with reference to the McDougal contract.


George Perry Graham: That was done by our engineer without reference to the arbitrators. Certain deductions were made by the chief engineer, and under the contract his finding is final.


Haughton Lennox: Certain matters have been adjusted on the McDougal contract independently of the Arbitration Board. Has anything been adjusted by the arbitrators?


George Perry Graham: I am informed about 70 per cent of the differences in reference to what is called over-break, on the McDougal Bros', contract, have been settled.


Haughton Lennox: Has that been reported to the commissioners or the government?


George Perry Graham: They have made no report, they have just started their work, and the chief engineer has made some reductions himself. There are some differences yet before the Board of Arbitrators. They have made some progress and some adjustments have been made between the chief engineers without the third arbitrator. They were acting as members of the board under the Act.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister could give the information as to the reductions by the chief engineer of the commission.


George Perry Graham: We can get that information; I think I gave a good deal of it in my remarks in the House, although there may be one adjustment since then.


Robert Laird Borden: How much excavation remains to be done on the line between Winnipeg and Lake Superior junction?


George Perry Graham: On the line from Springfield, that is the shops east of St. Boniface, there is no excavation to be done, the grading is done; but on the entrance into Winnipeg there will be some grading.


Robert Laird Borden: I notice a reference to three per cent or five per cent of excavation still to be performed on contract 21. I suppose that relates to the locality to which the minister alludes? Is that line being operated?
Mr. GRAHaM. The line from Winnipeg to Superior Junction is in such a position that it could be operated to a certain extent by the contractors. They have offered it to the Grand Trunk Pacific to oper-

ate a certain number of trains each week, but the Grand Trunk Pacific does not care to make the arrangement and it is not being operated except as the contractors use it themselves. I am assured by the engineers that trains can be run over the road at a moderate rate with a fair load.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the cost of completing that line from Winnipeg to Lake Superior junction?
Mr. GRAnAM. The amount required to complete McArthur's contract is $923,890.26.


Robert Laird Borden: They have the entire contract from Winnipeg to Lake Superior junction?


George Perry Graham: They have the contract to the east bank of the Red river.


Haughton Lennox: How far is Lake Superior junction from Winnipeg?


George Perry Graham: 245 miles. I have a note from the engineer on 21.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we are to accept the amount as $963,000?


George Perry Graham: The approximate amount is practically $1,000,000,


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a bridge over the Red river?


George Perry Graham: That does not include the bridge.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the bridge completed?


George Perry Graham: The sub-structure is completed, but not the superstructure. There is a question as to the entrance into St. Boniface, and I have heard the parties interested once or twice, and on account of the level crossings and the crossings of the Canadian Pacific railway there, it is possible we will have to make an overhead entrance through St. Boniface, which will increase the cost.


Robert Laird Borden: When is it expected that the work comprised in that contract of the MacArthurs wijl be taken over?


George Perry Graham: The chief engineer has reported that the line already constructed -it will hardly include the northern entrance into St. Boniface-will be in condition to take over in time for the handling of next year's crop, probably early in the autumn.


Robert Laird Borden: How does the minister account for this extraordinary statement contained in the speech from the Throne:
The eastern division is now ready for traffic_ from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction.


George Perry Graham: It was ready for traffic as I have outlined, and traffic could have been carried over that line for the entire season by the' contractors had the Grand Trunk Pacific desired to make such an arrangement with them. It could be carried by the Canadian Northern bridge over the Red river, connecting with that Dundee branch and running through. The Grand Trunk Pacific, as I understand it, did not care to make that arrangement with the contractors, but traffic could have been carried as contractors do carry on transportation along many lines before they hand their work over as complete.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement of the minister is very different from the statement in the speech from the Throne. The speech from the Throne does not say there is still $1,000,000 to be expended upon it, and that by using the Canadian Northern bridge some trains could be run over jt- had the Grand Trunk accepted the offer of the contractors. The speech from the Throne is much more direct:
The eastern division is now open for traffic from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction.
Why is it that so absolutely a misleading statement-not to use any harsher term- was placed in the mouth of His Excellency by the government?


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend from Marquette would say that the prairie section was open for traffic, although it is being run under the construction company yet. But, it is open for traffic and running through to Wolf creek.


Robert Laird Borden: But this does not even fulfil that condition. I am not concerned with what my hon. friend from Marquette would say, but I am concerned with what His Excellency the Governor General has said, and in this connection the government made him say something that is absolutely untrue. I am inclined to think that His Excellency would be perfectly justified in dismissing all his ministers.


George Perry Graham: He would make a mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think he would make anv mistake. This section never was open for traffic, and could not have been open for traffic until the government took it over and leased it to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It never has been operated by the contractors; they offered to operate it, but the offer has not been accepted.


George Perry Graham: It W'as open for traffic, and the traffic did not come.


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Railways considers that a fair interpreta-

tion of the language of His Excellency, 1 will not argue any more with him. He knows perfectly well that the people of the country who read* the speech from the Throne understood that the line was- open for traffic in the ordinary course, and in that sense such a statement was absolutely and wholly mendacious and. the Governor General has been led into a very unfortunate position. No fault is to be attributed to His Excellency, because I suppose he is obliged to place confidence in the representations of his ministers in matters of this kind. But why the trouble was taken to put these words into the mouth of His Excellency, when it must have been perfectly apparent that the truth would be discovered within a very short time, is more than I can understand.


Haughton Lennox: When this matter comes up again, I want the minister to give us all the items of expenditure that are not included within these contracts, so that we can add the amount of the contracts together, and these other items, and see what the expenditure, so far as estimated to the present, has been on that 1,800 miles.


George Perry Graham: I think I can give my hon. friend to-night all the information that he can imagine, and his imagination has been working pretty hard. I beg to give him the following information on that point:
Statement of expenditure from September,
1901, to 31st December, 1909.
Summary.
Instruments	$	3,200 75Supplies	
425,267	58Engineering	
1,968,704	11Camp outfit.,	
58,749	54General expenses	
559,038	50Freight and express	
44,349	46Medical service	
3,993	77Right of way and station grounds	1,381,433	52Furniture	
14,901	38Grading	
39,106,040	53Clearing	
856.339	87Grubbing	
302,888	21Bridges, trestles and	culverts..	9,905,511	31Ties	
1,741,804	45Rails	
6,121,991	57Crossings, cattle-guards	and signs	33,042	91Track-laying and surfacing..	..	537,849	48Frogs and switches	
137,733	08Interlocking or signal apparatus.	19,558	89Fencing right of way	
242,432	86Telegraph line	
103,781	15Legal expenses	
2,312	92Ballast and ballasting	
642,677	04Water stations	
82,291	87Station buildings and	fixtures..	53,394	48Yards and terminals	
9,292	82Tunnels	
256,639	00Track fastenings	
942,055	43Shops, roundhouses and turntables	
334,911	47Shop, machinery and	tools..	..	588	98Miscellaneous structures	
3,972	68

Less contract reserve	 3,247,295 63


Mr.  R. L.@: Construction	$62,649,453	98Location	
2,947,317	36Transport	
1,028,269	22Headquarters	
1,265,657	03Total	$67,890,697	59


Haughton Lennox: It is well to have that statement, but that is not exactly what I wanted to know. I want to get from the minister a statement of the estimated expenditure outside of the contracts, necessary to complete the whole work; for instance, the cost of the Quebec bridge, and the terminals, and everything not embraced in the contracts.


George Perry Graham: I gave the estimated cost of the Quebec bridge several week3 ago. Outside of the information I have given here. I am not clear as to what my hon. friend wants. The contracts include everything along the line except the steel rails and fastenings, and the steel bridges, and I have given all these.


Haughton Lennox: As far as they have been constructed; but the government has an estimate of what the various items not embraced in the contracts will come to.


Robert Laird Borden: What is wanted, in short, seems to be this. We have a statement of what the contractors have already received, and an estimate of what they will receive. Outside of that, some other things are necessary to complete the road, and to put it in running order before it can be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. What is their estimated cost, outside of the contracts?


George Perry Graham: It may be a little difficult to get that information very promptly. For instance, take the Quebec terminals- my hon. friend knows that it is not decided yet where they are to be, and it is impossible to say what they will cost.


Haughton Lennox: Give us as much as you can* and tell us what you are leaving out.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it would be idle to ask for an estimate of what is not definitely decided on; but, apart from that, the minister might give us_ an estimate, mentioning what is not included, but what must necessarily be provided. I would like the minister also to let us know when we meet again whether there is any change in his estimate of the cost of the Western Division.


George Perry Graham: The Prairie Section is practically finished at the figures already given, and there is no change in the estimate of the cost of the Mountain Section given to me by Mr. Schreiber.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: Some Bills on the Order Paper, and then Supply, Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 14, 1910.