1914-03-31

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 130, respecting certain Patents of Thomas Leopold Willson.-Mr. Fripp.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 131, respecting the Sterling Life Assusrance Company of	Canada.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 132, respecting the W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Johann Andreas Horn.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Bon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Graham thereto, resumed from March 30.
Mr. A. SEVIGNY (Dorchester):: during the fifty year lease of the Grand Trunk Pacific, Canada will lose, every year 1617,570.46 if we take as a basis $223,514,092.98 as being the cost of the road up to the 1st January, 1923, when the Grand Trunk Pacific must begin to pay interest. And the total loss to the country, during the whole term of the lease, ensuing from the difference between the interest that we pay and the interest that we get, will be $30,878,523.
If the Grand Trunk Pacific do not earn 3 per cent over and above the working expenses from January 1st, 1923, to December 31st, 1925, they will be under no obligation to pay the government their 3 per cent rent during that same period, and consequently, they will have enjoyed the absolute possession of the road for a period of ten years without disbursing anything. But in this ease, the road will cost the country $244,239,884.28 and the difference between the interest to be paid afterwards at the rate of 3 per cent, and the three and a half per cent interest which we pay, will amount to $908,687 per year and represent a total loss to Canada of $45,433,000 for the term of the lease.
This is the way we own this road which . was to be ours, according to the reiterated promises of the Liberal politicians.
The present generation has made great sacrifices to build this line, and yet that generation will have vanished away before deriving the least advantage from the enormous expense it has incurred, and during fifty years from now on, it must comply with the desire and the will of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.
The methods resorted to from beginning to end, by the late Administration, in this enterprise, are somewhat curious to examine.
Since the beginning of this debate, a few Liberal members have alluded to Mr. S. N. Parent, the ex-president of the Transcontinental, as being a great lawyer of the city of Quebec. Evidently, those gentlemen do know but very little about Mr. Parent as a lawyer; otherwise they would not have spoken as they have done. True it is that Mr. Parent is a lawyer, but true it is also that he never pleaded a single case and never was considered as a legal light in his province.
It may be well to recall under what circumstances the Liberal Government had entrusted to Mr. S. N. Parent the presidency of the Transcontinental. It was in 1905, and at Quebec, was being written a page of the history of the Liberal party which will surely not be considered as one

of its brightest. In fact, the great majority of the Liberal members of the Quebec Legislature had turned against their Prime Minister, who was the hon. S. N. Parent, and Sir Lomer Gouin and the hon. Adelard Turgeon were leading the movement. Those Liberal members had lost all confidence in the man who, so far, had been their chief. The Liberal party was in full revolt and refused to follow the direction of Mr. S. N. Parent any longer. Shall we ever know the reasons why Mr. Parent's followers had ceased to have confidence in him? However, the public has always been under the impression that the rebels of the time had serious grievances against their chief, and after all, the fact of having lost the confidence of his followers was nothing that could recommend him for such an important position as that of president of the Transcontinental. Setting decorum at defiance, Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself offered to Mr. S. N. Parent, the position of president of the Transcontinental commission, and he then and there declared that he was giving him the most desirable position at the disposal of his Government. Mr. Parent went to work and to understand the methods resorted to in order to build the line from Winnipeg to Moncton, a distance of 1,800 miles, is a real impossibility. That work was divided into twenty-one sections, all of which were very important. It is obvious that the Transcontinental commission, at the time, paid much attention to the big contractors, and in order to make things easier for them, it was decided that the contractors having no fortune, although they might have some talent, should be excluded from the offices of the Transcontinental, and here are the means which were used in order to obtain that result. It was said in the advertisements for tenders which were published in the papers, that those who wished to make a bid should comply with the following conditions:
And we do hereby declare and agree that in case of refusal or failure to execute the said contract with the commissioners, and also to furnish the approved security required, to an amount not exceeding one-third of the estimated total consideration of the contract, for the faithful performance of the said contract, within ten days after the acceptance of this tender the said cheque shall be forfeited to the said com-missionners to liquidate damages for such refusal or failure, and that all contract rights acquired by the acceptance of this tender shall be forfeited.
Those conditions were the surest means of turning out contractors who had no fortune. The commission reserved for itself the right to require from the contractors, as

a deposit, a sum of money equal to the amount of their tender, adding that if the contractor failed to make that deposit, they would have the right to forfeit the cheque representing the deposit, which he would send in with his tender. We shall more readily understand what this meant, when we know that, as to contract No. 1, the *Transcontinental commission reserved for itself the right to require a deposit of $327000, and if the contractor could not make it, the commission had the right to forfeit his $75,000 cheque which he had sent in with his tender, and thus it was with each of the twenty-one contracts. What was the result of such tactics? To have the whole con struction of the Transcontinental let to eleven contractors. And those eleven contractors have become the absolute masters of the former Transcontinental commission and also of the Liberal Government.
What was done by those eleven contractors, the favourites of the former commission? They sold all their contracts and realized profits varying from 10 to 30 per cent, and this, in many a case, before they had touched a shovel or a pick. Owing to the inqualifiable methods used in letting those contracts, these gentlemen have realized profits amounting to millions, and those who sustained losses were the subcontractors, who got no more protection than the public did get from the commission or from the Government.
I shall take this opportunity to submit to the House what has happened, to my personal knowledge, in the district extending eastward from the Quebec bridge, in the counties of Levis, Dorchester, Bellechasse and L'lslet. The main contract in this case had been let to Davis, under conditions which were quite irregular, as I shall prove further on. Davis had sold his contract to the Quebec Contracting Company, but it was thought among the public, generally, that the work was being executed directly by DaviSj and that is the reason why so many persons supplied goods to the Quebec Contracting Company, to the amount of thousands of dollars; they believed that Davis was responsible for the price of those goods. The Quebec Contracting Company was unable to fill the contract which it had got from Davis, and was wound up. This had a disastrous effect in all those counties; many a tradesman has lost important sums of money and the salaries of hundreds of workmen have remained unpaid. It will be noticed, however, as I shall prove a little further on, that in this enterprise, Mr. M.
P. Davis and Mr. J. T. Davis have realized enormous profits.
Another case is that of Messrs. M. Naud and Perreault. These gentlemen did some work on that section of the Transcontinental for which Davis had the contract and which extends westward from the Quebec bridge, a distance of fifty miles. Messrs. Davis had a sub-contract with Roberge and Chag-non, and these latter had let a sub-contract to Naud and Perreault. In filling that subcontract, Naud and Perreault made an excavation, under water, of 2,886 yards of solid rock, for which they were to get 75 cents per yard, whereas the price paid to Davis was $1.50 per yard. Naud gnd Perreault have filled their obligations, but Davis made a final settlement with his sub-contractors Roberge and Chagnon, unknown to Naud and Perreault, with the result that Naud and Perreault have not yet been paid the sum of $2,100 which is due to them since 1908. Roberge and Ohagnon are now in parts unknown and Davis has received big profits, whereas those who should have been paid first have not received anything so far.
The former commission never cared to protect the public, and in many a case the contractors have committed abuses on the properties crossed by the Transcontinental and have laughed at the farmers, at the tradesmen and at their workmen.
I say again that the Transcontinental commission, of which Mr. Parent was president, has shown exceptional kindness to the eleven big contractors with respect to the twenty-one contracts, and that if some detectives of the Burns agency had been called upon to watch what has been going on at the time, as they have done last winter at the Quebec Legislature, surely the detec-taphone would have revealed the true causes of that protection which was bestowed on some all-powerful contractors, and that we would have also an explanation of those fortunes which were amassed in so short a time by certain persons.
I wish to say a few words of what has happened as regards contract No. 8. This contract was for the construction of the Transcontinental on a distance of 150 miles eastward, from the Quebec bridge. As you see, this was a very important contract. The engineers of the Transcontinental say that they have handed to Mr. Parent himself the estimates of the Government for this con. tract before the tenders had been sent in. Did M. P. and J. T. Davis see those estimates after Mr. Parent had got them, in order to prepare their tenders? Here are the facts and I leave it to the House and to the public to draw their conclusions. The esti-

mate handed to Mr. Parent by the engineers contained no price for the wooden piers. Those estimates were remitted to Mr. Parent on the 23rd of January, 1907. The tenders were to be received on the 14th of February, 1907. After he had remitted to Mr. Parent, on the 23rd of January, 1907, the estimate which did not contain any price for the woodwork, the chief engineer noticed having forgotten something and he prepared a new estimate in which he included the woodwork (trestles, etc.); but he did not remit that estimate to Mr. Parent. The tenders were received on the 14th of February, 1907, and after a calculation of those tenders by the engineers, as was usually done, in order to ascertain who had the
lowest, the said	engineers	reached the	
following result:			Difference
			between tenders.
Grand Trunk Pacific			
Railway	$5,078,334	77	M. P. & J. T. Davis.	5,105,389	24	$ 27,044 47O'Brien & Mullarkey Russell & Chambers	5,245,586	55	140,197 31Co	5,269,671	22	24,084 67Difference between highest and lowest tenders	
$191,326 45
The bid made by Davis was, consequently, $27,044.47 higher than that of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the contract should have been awarded to the lowest bidder as the public interest demanded that it should be done.
Mr. Parent was there and then informed that the chief engineer had corrected, as it was his duty so to do, the first estimate given to Mr. Parent on the 23rd of January, 1907, that is, three weeks after the tenders had been sent in. Mr. Parent was not satisfied with that. It was then the 18th of February, 1907, the tenders had been opened and Mr. Parent knew their contents. He knew that Mr. Davis did not have the lowest tender; but the contract must be awarded to Davis. In order that this might be done, Mr. Parent ordered the chief engineer to stick to the estimate which had been handed to him by this latter on the 23rd of January and which was erroneous, and he had that estimate signed by the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, and by the assistant chief engineer, Mr. Macpherson, on the 18th of February, 1907.
As I have said, the tenders had been sent in on the 14th of February, 1907, but the figure was taken off the estimate signed on the 18th of February, 1907 by Lumsden and Macpherson, in such a way as to create the

belief that the estimate had been prepared on the 8th of February, that is, before the tenders had been received.
Had Mr. Parent shown Mr. Davis the estimate which had been handed to him by the chief engineer on the 23rd of January? He says in his deposition that he does not recollect having done so. One thing is certain and it is this: Davis got the contract by means of this estimate, and he could not have got it had the right estimate such as corrected, been taken as a basis.
This contract was awarded to M. P. and J. T. Davis for the price of $5,011,343.50, and up to the 31st December, only 80 per cent of the work had been done, and however, the work called for by this contract should have been completed by the 1st of September, 1908. On the 21st of December Davis had estimates to the amount of $6,341,855.99, or $1,330,609.40 more than implied by his contract.
This contract contained 103 items, and with respect to one only, that is, the item of the filling by train, Davis had estimates for 2,700,000 cubic yards. This item gave Davis 45 cents per yard according to his contract with the Transcontinental commission, and he had sold his contract to a sub-contractor who got 29 cents per cubic yard, which left a net profit of 16 cents per yard for M. P. Davis, who realized $432,000 net profit on this one item.
Here are a few of the prices which Davis got from the Government and paid to the
sub-contractors:	Main	Subcontractors.	contractors.Item 4, solid rock	$ 1 45	$ 1 26Item 5, loose rock ... .	65	42Item 6, common excavation	27	22Item 59, concrete 1-2-4...	15 00	11 00Item 62, concrete 1-3-5...	10 50	8 15Item 63, concrete 1-3-6...	10 00	7 60Item 74 c. train filling....	45	29
As you see, it was important that this contract should be obtained, and it is probably for this reason that such serious irregularities as those above mentioned were indulged in without any hesitation, in order to favour a powerful friend. No doubt that, realizing such profits, Davis must have often repeated the words ' very decent,' ' very decent.'
Contract No. 8 is not the only one by means of which Davis has realized profits extraordinary and altogether unjustifiable. By means of contracts Nos. 16 and 17 he received many hundred thousands of dollars for which he did no work. Those contracts, Nos. 16 and 17, were awarded to M. P. and J. T. Davis on the 29th of

October, 1908, at prices much higher than those generally given by the Transcontinental Commission to the other contractors. The following list compares the prices awarded to Davis for those contracts, Nos. 16 and 17, with the prices awarded to the other contractors for work of the same nature on the Transcontinental:
Average price on other Prices paid, contracts.
1.	Clearing	$ 60 00	$ 50	003.	Grubbing	175 00	145	004.	Solid rock	1 90	1	605.	Loose rock	85	606.	Common excava-	tion	43	297.	Ex. in founda-	tions	1 50	97S.	Ex. in cofferdams	5 00	3	1210.	Piles delivered. . .	40	28112.	Sheet piling . . . .	80 00	57	0013.	Sheet piling, Wake-	field type .. ..	100 00	74	0015.	Pole drains . . . .	75	5216.	French stone drains	2 00	1	5217.	Paving in culverts	7 00	4	0118.	Crib filling . . . .	4 00	2	2419.	Riprap, hand laid.	5 50	2	9820.	Riprap, randim . .	4 00	1	9022.	Round logs in	cribs	40	26123.	Cedar mudsills per	M	50 00	40	5024.	Framed trestles per	M	90 00	52	0025.	Caps, &c., per M.	90 00	51	4026.	Ties and guard	rails per M . .	90 00	50	7727.	Stringers per M. .	90 00	62	0028.	Cedar in culverts.	50 00	43	5029.	Plank in crossings.	45 00	32	5030.	Timber in culverts.	50 00	43	5030a. Timber in coffer-	dams	60 00	44	0030b. Timber in cais-	sons	100 00	66	4358.	Concrete in 1-2.. .	30 00	16	4059.	" 1-2-4 .	18 00	14	0060.	" 1-3-5 .	17 50	13	0061.	" 1-3-6 .	16 00	12	0061a. " 1-2-5 .	18 00	14	6062.	" 1-3-5 in	arch culverts . .	17 50	13	0063.	Concrete in 1-3-6 in	arch culverts . .	16 00	12	4264.	Concrete in 1-3-6 in	box culverts . .	16 00	11	5065.	Concrete in 1-4-8 .	14 00	10	7566.	" 1-4-8 in	walls of build-	ings	16 00	11	6867.	Masonry, first	class	25 00	17	0068.	Masonry, second	class	18 00	13	5069.	Masonry, third	class	16 00	10	3070.	Masonry, dry.. . .	10 00	7	0071.	Masonry, in arch	rings	30 00	23	4076.	Ties, first class. .	70	5177.	Ties, second class..	65	4678.	Switch ties, per	M	70 00	45	00
141 i
The work relating to contract No. 16 should have been completed on the 31st of December, 1910, and the work to be done according to contract No. 17 should have: been completed in March, 1911.
Several months after those contract? were signed, Messrs. Davis had not yet begun to work. Of this the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific complained bitterly in a letter addressed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself on the 2nd of August, 1909:
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-On the 29th day of October, 1908, the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners awarded two contracts for the construction of about 204 miles on sections ' D * and * E ' of the National Transcontinental Railway. The first section starting on the west end of Fauquier Brothers' Abitibi contract, in the province of Ontario, about 100 miles west of Cochrane, for a distance of 104.24 miles; the second contract commencing at the termination of the first and joining Fauquier Brothers' contract north of Lake Nipigon, a distance of 100 miles. By the terms of these contracts the work was to commence immediately after the execution of the agreements to be proceeded with continuously and diligently under the personal supervision of the contractor until completed, the date of completion being December 31, 1910.
This work is remote from rail transportation, the closest point being 100 miles west of Cochrane. The prices at which the work was awarded were very high and consequently sufficient to allow contractors to build tote roads or some other means of transportation and getting in supplies so as to immediately commence work. To the best of our knowledge no attempt has been made as yet to open this work, and the indications are that while the work, as before stated, was let at very high prices on account of the difficulties of transportation, it is now the intention of the contractors to haul their material over a portion of the Fauquier Brothers' track work, on which will be completed the present season, say about 50 miles, and haul along right of way to their own section 50 miles distant. This delay will add largely to the profits of the contracts with no commensurate advantage so far as the National Transcontinental railway is concerned, and under the circumstances I will ask that the Government arrange for the cancellation of existing contracts and ask for new bids which can undoubtedly be obtained on very much reduced schedule prices, particularly so if it is known that the contractors will be enabled to haul their material and supplies over such portion of Fauquier Brothers' work as track has been laid up.
Yours very truly,



CHAS. M. HAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hays also sent a copy of this letter at a later date to Mr. Parent, asking for the cancellation of the contracts, and that new tenders be called for this work. Mr. Parent refused to take any action, and we do not fi^d that any pressure was brought to bear on the contractors to take steps to ensure the early completion of these two oontractr.
The Transcontinental was in duty bound to cancel these two contracts awarded to
[Stage Direction]
Davis, and they had a perfect right to do so under clauses 8 and 20 of the agreements. But Davis was not interefered with and clearly he had elbow room with the commission and more control over the matter than the very men who were bound to protect the public interest. Those contracts awarded to Davis were not canceled, and on September 16th, 1909, they were sold by Davis to O'Brien, O'Gorman and McDougall. These gentlemen agreeing to pay over to M. P. and J. T. Davis 10 per cent of the total cost of the work which was to be done on those two contracts.
The Transcontinental Commission under the control of its president, Mr. Parent, and the Liberal Government itself, sanctioned those two transfers. This handsome transaction, up to the month of October, 1913, had yielded over to Mr. Davis net profits amounting to $740,000, and Mr. Davis made this profit out of the contract without having to turn a spade or risking a cent himself.
These two instances show how truly solicitous the Transcontinental Commission *was for its contractors, and it is on good ground that the investigation commission states in its report that throughout this great national undertaking the late Government sought to encourage extravagance without ever troubling itself about economy.
How are we to account for the Grand Trunk Pacific Company having encouraged such a recklessness and wantonness of expenditure? Simply for this reason, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had been awarded five contracts for the construction of ,353 miles of the Transcontinental. On the 31st December, 1911, this company had government estimates amounting to $15,365,000.
The former Transcontinental commission, in its dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, exhibited the same extravagance with the other contractors, and should that company have advocated economy, it would have suffered from it, in the carrying out of the five contracts it had been awarded.
The Grand Trunk Pacific Company made enormous profits out of its contracts without taking any risk, by sub-letting all its contracts at a profit of 5 per cent, and on the 31st December, 1912, it had already received net profits amounting to $768,250, accruing from that 5 per cent. The contracts awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company by the Transcontinental Commission were as follows and were carried

out by the contractors whose names appear opposite each contract:
No. 1-50 miles to Corbett and Floresh.
No. 2-39 miles to Toronto Construction Co.
No. 4-67 miles to Toronto Construction Co.
No. 11-46 miles to Macd and O'Brien.
No. 14-15S miles to J. H. Reynolds, Foley, Welsh and Stuart.
None of the guarantees given by the Liberal Government in connection with this undertaking were adhered to, and there is no better way of proving it than by examining each one of the 21 contracts.
Contract No. 1, engineer's estimate of cost, $1,017,051.43; contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, the latter undertaking to carry out this contract for the sum of $989,895.90.
The date for the completion of the work was September 1st, 1908, and it was not yet finished in 1912, but on 31st December 1911, the contractors had an estimate of $2,214,311.20.
Contract No. 2, chief engineer's estimate of cost, $326,341; contract awarded to the J. W. McManus Company, for a sum of $289,190.62. The date of completion for this contract was August 1st, 1908, but it was not yet finished in 1912, and the contractors had already estimates for an amount of $587,081.
Contract No. 3, estimate of the cost of construction, $933,137; contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, for $767,435. The date of completion of the work was September 1st, 1910, and it was not yet finished in 1912. The contractors had then estimates amounting to $1,042,618.
Contract No. 4, estimate of cost $3,356,389. Contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for $1,898,124. The date of completion of the work was September 1st, 1910, and it was not yet finished in 1912. The contractors had then estimates amounting to $2,805,000.
Contract No. 5, estimate of cost, $2,232,891. Contract awarded to the Willard, Kirchen Co., for $1,646,253. The date of completion of the work was September 1st, 1910, and it was not yet finished in 1912. The contractors had then estimates amounting to $3,023,784.
Contract No. 6, estimate of cost, $1,478,395. Contract awarded to Lyon and White, for $1,385,941. The date of completion of the work was September 1st, 1908, and it was not yet finished in 1912. The contractors had then estimates amounting to $2,409,112.
It would be superfluous to mention each contract, but let it suffice to say that in each contract the conditions as to time and

prices were not complied with by the contractors who benefited thereby, without any consideration for the public interest.
Let us now come to what the old Government did in connection with certain transactions in the city of Quebec.
We have evidence that in those transactions thousands of dollars were paid by the Transcontinental Railway Commission out of sheer favouritism and the Government had received no consideration whatever for the sums thus paid by them. I am referring to Mr. Bergevin's transactions. One Adolphe Chevalier had a dock-yard in the city of Quebec, which was located on a piece of ground belonging to the Duchess of Bassano. Chevalier occupied that piece of ground under a lease which was to expire on the 30th April, 1912. He had been advised that his lease could not be renewed after that date. Mr. Raoul Bergevin, a close friend of the hon. S. N. Parent, who was well aware that Chevalier would have to remove his graving-dock on the 1st of May, 1912, offered to buy his rights for the balance of his lease for the sum of $4,000. This took place in August, 1911, a few week's before the general election. Bergevin told Chevalier that he was buyer for the Transcontinental and that he would give him this $4,000 for the balance of his lease provided Chevalier promised him not to work for the Conservative candidate in the division of Quebec West. That Bergevin was aware that the lease was to expire on the 30th April, 1912, is shown by Bergevin's evidence before the Investigating Commission, (page 575) which is as follows:
Q. But his right was over on the 30th April?-A. Yes.
Q. You knew that?-A. Yes, and that was in September.
Q. And he was to keep possession?-A Until the 1st of May.
Q. Then he would have to get out anyway? -A. Yes.
Being well aware of the fact, Bergevin paid over to Chevalier $4,000, and Chevalier remained in possession of the graving-dock, the plant, etc., and continued to keep possession of it till the lease was over, and on the 1st of May, 1912, he removed everything himself and remained the owner of it.
There is no doubt that Chevalier himself could have got nothing from the Transcontinental Commission, but Bergevin sold to the latter for $4,250, absolutely nothing, and we have the evidence of Mr. Bergevin himself, page 617 of the report, which is as follows.
Q. You did not own the Bassin de Radoub?- A. No, only the right to the 1st of May.
Q. You knew quite well you did not own that Bassin de Radoub?-A. Yes, I did not buy any property.
And yet the deed of sale, dated October 10th, 1911, passed before C. E. Taschereau, notary public of the city of Quebec, says that Bergevin was the owner of the graving dock, as evidenced by the following extract from the deed of sale:
Whereas the said parties of the other part, for the ends of their railway line, require the demolition of a graving dock belonging to the said party of the one part situate upon the lot number two thousand five hundred and twenty-five (2525) on the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre for Champlain Ward, in the city of Quebec, which is the property of the said R. R. Bergevin, he having purchased it from Adolphe Chevalier, by deed of the twenty-sixth day of August, 1911, before Jos. Allaire, N.P.
There is no doubt that this clause was inserted in the deed, in order to have people believe that Bergevin was the actual owner of the graving dock, and yet Mr. Parent who is a lawyer and Mr. Taschereau who is a notary public had before them when they passed that deed, the notarial deed passed between Chevalier and . Bergevin, on the 20th August 1911, before notary Allaire.
Mr. BUREAU (translation):: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to tell him that what he has just stated shows that Bergevin was the owner of the property?


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the Duchess of Bassano was the owner of that property.


Jacques Bureau: What does
he sell?


Albert Sévigny: Nothing, absolutely nothing, as will be seen by exhibits 35 and 36 of the report,
But there is another most serious feature to be pointed out in this transaction. Mr. Parent tells us that he resigned his position as president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission on the 6th October, 1911, and yet it was by an authentic deed passed before notary Taschereau, on the 10th October, 1911, (exhibit No. 36) that he undertook, on behalf of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, to give Mr. Raoul Bergevin $4,000 for nothing.
Bergevin states that he really made that transaction with Mr. Parent himself as shown by his evidence, page 576 of the report:
Q. With whom did you make it?-A. Mr. Parent.

Q. He is a lawyer?-A. Yes.
Q. And a very distinguished lawyer?-A. I had to pass that before the notary, Taschereau.
Q And you made the bargain with Mr. Parent himself?-A. Yes.
Let . us now review the transaction made by Mr. Parent and Mr. Bergevin in connection with the Martineau ice-house, (exhibits 32 and 33 of the report). Mr. Bergevin tells us again that he made that transaction with Mr. Parent, on the 11th August, 1911. Bergevin bought an ice-house from Martineau for $2,000; and here again he took good care to tell Martineau that he should abstain from working against the Liberal candidate in the division of Quebec West,
On the 30th September, 1911, after the general election was over and a few days before Mr. Parent resigned his position as president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, Bergevin sold this ice-house to the Commission by a deed signed by Mr. Parent, for 53,700. Within the space of one month, that ice-house had increased $1,700 in value. There is no doubt that Martineau himself could not have got a single cent from the Transcontinental Commission for this ice-house; but it was quite a different case with Mr. Bergevin who was then doing campaign work in the county of Montmorency, as he himself states, for the son of the president of the Transcontinental Commission, who was then running in that constituency as a Liberal candidate. The hon. member for South-ReiHrew (Mr. Graham) has denounced in this House the change made by this Government in the site of the Transcontinental shops which the old Administration had decided to build at Cap Rouge, about eight miles from Quebec. A few political friends of the old Administration having heard that the Transcontinental shops were to be built at Cap Rouge had bought a considerable tract of land in that locality, with a view to making a most profitable speculation. But then you should have seen- how they raged and fussed when it was decided that the shops were to be built at Saint-Malo, instead of being built at Gap Rouge, and one of those speculators even went to the length of saying that he would spend $25,000 to defeat Napoleon Drouin, the mayor of the city of Quebec, because he had approved of the project of building the shops at Saint-Malo.


Mr. ETHIER:: (translation) Would the hon. gentleman allow me to put a question? Could the hon. gentleman name the men who were to derive such enormous benefits [M~. Sevigny.]
from the transactions he has just referred to?


Albert Sévigny: Yes. In answer to my hon. friend, let me tell him that I was referring to Mr. Amyot, a legislative councillor and the owner of a large tract of land at Cap Rouge. When he heard that this gentleman had decided to build the Transcontinental shops at Saint-Malo, and that the mayor of Quebec, Mr. Drouin, had approved of it, he stated that he would spend $25,000 to defeat Mr. Drouii. at the next contest for the mayoralty.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (translation) Who are the men who were to derive such considerable profits from those transactions?


Albert Sévigny: (translation) I named Mr. Amyot.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: (translation) Who are the men who were to make such large profits? You are proceeding by innuendos and insinuations, whereas you should give the names of the people who were to derive such enormous profits from those transactions.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order, Order.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I raise a
point of order. I ask the hon. gentleman to name those people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any point of order; it is merely a question that the honourable member is putting to the member for Dorchester.


Albert Sévigny: Evidently there is no point of order.
The old Government had decided to build the shops at Cap Rouge. I stated that certain speculators had bought land at Cap Rouge with a view to making money thereby, seeing that the Liberal Government had decided to construct the Transcontinental shops there, and when finally it had been desired to buy a site at Saint Malo with a view to building those shops there, these same speculators, when they realized that they could reap the profits they were in hopes of deriving from their property at Cap Rouge, uttered threatening words, among others against Mayor Drouin, as I said a little while ago.
They have also found fault with the Gov-ernmeht because they had decided to build the union station on the Champlain market site. Yet, this decision has met with popular approval in the city of Quebec, because the Champlain market site had

been forced upon the city of Quebec and against the will of the citizens in general, with the exception of a few speculators who had bought all the properties in that quarter, for which the Government would have had to pay exorbitant prices, had the station been built on the Champlain market site.
How strange to hear our opponents finding fault with what the Government is doing for the city of Quebec, when everybody knows that, during theii long lease of power of fifteen years, they never troubled themselves about the interests of our city.
In the city of Quebec, friends of the old Government have succeeded in making considerable money, and particularly the office of Taschereau, Roy, Cannon and Parent. On the 2nd October, 1911, after the downfall of the Liberal party, Mr. L. A. Cannon applied to the Exchequer Court at Ottawa, for 99 warrants in possession for the Transcontinental Commission on all the properties situated in lower-town between the Champlain market site and Cap Blanc, and yet it was already a matter of public notoriety that this Government would not carry out the project of the Liberal party in that regard. Mr. Cannon succeeded in making a few thousand dollars which were paid to him by the Transcontinental Commission, and this shows that before resigning his position, Mr. Parent had unduly favoured his political friends, without troubling himself in the least about the public interest which he was bound to safeguard.
Mr. Speaker, one could make endless speeches and weary himself out denouncing all the scandals perpetrated by the old Administration in the building of the Transcontinental.
In conclusion, let me tell the House that the Liberal party went to the people in 1908 with the slogan: ' Let Laurier finish his work.' The Transcontinental had been decided upon by the Liberal party in 1903, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier then said that time would not wait, and that there was no opportunity for pausing and deliberating, before taking action.
He then told the people of Canada: ' Let us hurry up and build the Transcontinental, in order to keep the trade from the west for our Canadian ports, and if we neglect to construct that line now, we shall soon see our western traffic diverted to the United States.' A few years later, when the country had spent hundreds of millions of dollars, in defiance of the promises made to the public, for the construction of that railway,
the same Liberal party came down and told the people that they must approve of the reciprocity treaty entered into with the United States, and by the very fact they were asking the people of Canada and particularly the western provinces to send their products to the United States and to American ports. There was a gross discrepancy between what the Liberal party had promised us in 1903 and what they proposed to us in 1911, and the people of this country refused to approve of such inconsistency and that is why on the 21st September, 1911, they made up their minds that the Liberals had governed the country long enough. The Liberal party wanted to construct the Transcontinental as a testimonial to their leader, without troubling themselves about the interests of the country, forgetful of the fact that men may come and men may go but the country goes on forever. This Transcontinental undertaking such as carried out by the Liberal party shall stand as a monument to the Liberal party in the future, but the record shall never be a credit to that party.
Mt. ARTHUR LACHANCE (Quebec Centre) (Translation) Mr. Speaker, the House, I presume, does not expect me to follow the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, through the field which he has thought fit to cover. My hon. friend from Dorchester has been proceeding by innuendos with regard to men who have been held in the highest esteem and have enjoyed the full confidence of their fellow countrymen. To mention only one name, the Hon. S. N. Parent upon whom my hon. friend has tried to cast suspicion as to his integrity in the administration of the Intercolonial, is so much above those attacks that it would be a needless task to repel those attacks, because public opinion has already undertaken to refute them. For fourteen years, Mr. Parent has enjoyed the confidence of the rate payers of the city of Quebec; moreover, for eight or ten years, he has been a Crown Minister and even Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, and after so many years passed by Mr. Parent in the public life of this country, no one has yet been able to point out a single instance in which he has been guilty of a breach of the laws of honour and integrity in the discharge of his official duties. Such is my answer to the remarks of the hon. member for Dorchester, and to the speech which his frame of mind has inspired him to make.
For my part neither in public life nor in private life have I ever made it a practice to proceed by innuendos. This course I

have ever adhered to during the many years I have practised law and I have always endeavoured to see facts in their true light and to turn them to the best account. Therefore, I have made up my mind to adhere to such course, letting alone any insinuation or innuendo, and strictly confining myself to facts, when addressing this House. In reply to the insinuations of my hon. friend from Dorchester who would fool people into believing that the transaction in question was engineered with a view to getting money for replenishing the exchequer of the Liberal party, although he has refrained from so saying in so many words, I shall take Mr. Bergevin's affidavit and under the circumstances such a solemn declaration should carry more weight than the groundless insinuations resorted to by the hon. gentleman, in his endeavour to cast odium on the Liberal party.
Let me now read Mr. Bergevin's affidavit.
(Mr. Bergevin's affidavit.)
Canada.
Province of Quebec.
Quebec District.
I, the undersigned, Raoul R. Bergevin, of the city of Quebec, merchant, solemnly declare : That I have taken cognizance of certain parts, reproduced and commented upon by same newspapers, of the investigation held by Staunton and Gutelius in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental Railway the report on which was lately brought down in the House of Commons and in which I am referred to as having received from the Transcontinental Commission the sum of seven thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars ($7,950) for my rights to an ice-house and other buildings coming from Napoleon Martineau, jr., and to a graving dock coming from Adolphe Chevalier, which I possessed in the Champlain ward, and in which it is stated that this transaction, made only with a view to the electoral contest, cannot be justified in law or in morals;	#
That as I am justified in believing that those unjust attacks are levelled at me, merely with a view to making political capital, I owe it to the public and to myself to give explanations on the various items or charges brought against me;
That on September 30, 1911, I accepted from the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners the sum of three thousand seven hundred dollars ($3,700) as an indemnity for rights which I possessed in the ice-house built on lot No. 2525, of the cadastre for the Champlain Ward for which I had paid $2,000 to Napoleon Martineau, jr., under a deed of sale passed before Couture, Notary Public, on the 19th August of the same year;
That this ice-house had been valued at the sum of $3,703.5IJ by Messrs. J. G. Scott, Georges, Emile Tanguay and Edmond Giroux, the three valuators named by the commission and who had the duty of making valuations of all the properties which the commission wished to take possession of in the city of Quebec ;
That on October 6, 1911, I sold to the said commission the rights which I had to a graving

dock situated at the same place for $4,250. I had acquired the rights thus sold from Mr. A. Chevalier under a deed of sale passed in mv favour on August 26, 1911, and I paid him the sum of $4,000 as purchase price ;
That two valuators, Mr. Tanguay and Mr. Giroux, had valued the graving dock at $3,500, while the third one, Mr. J. G. Scott, had differed in opinion from them and valued -the property at $6,000 ;
That those transactions had been approved of before the execution of the deed by all the officers of the commission appointed for that purpose, and it was only after the required formalities had been complied with that the Transcontinental commissioners signed the deeds, through their president;
That although I am charged with having made those transactions with the commission with a view to procuring funds for the election of September, 1911, I must declare that there has never been between the Hon. S. N. Parent or anybody else and myself any agreement or promise, either directly or indirectly in this connection and that as a matter of fact I never subscribed any money for that election ;
That the money which I paid as purchase price for the said ice-house and the graving dock came out of my own funds and was not given me either directly or indirectly by the Hon. S. N. Parent, who has not in any way, any more than myself, benefited by that transaction ;
That the purchase made by me from Chevalier had no connection with the election of September, 1911, and the payment of $4,000 which I made to him had nothing to do with the election, and in proof thereof, Mr. Chevalier did work during that election exclusively in the interest of the Conservative party ;
That it is not true that the bargain was made with the Hon. S. N. Parent, but with Mr. A. Tremblay, who had been appointed to purchase properties for the commission ;
That T never w'as shown nor did I read the books of the Transcontinental Commission, and that the charge brought against me by some newspapers is untrue;
That, since my rights to the graving dock and the ice-house above referred to have been sold to the Transcontinental Commissioners, the latter have administered the property, since they have taken possession of it. It seems evident, notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated by the newspapers, that I had something to sell and that I have disposed of it in their favour;
That I never exhibited my title-deeds to the Hon. S. N. Parent, but that I merely handed them over to the notary intrusted with their preparation and I have received from the latter the cheques in payment of the above mentioned consideration in the same deeds :
That by a deed dated September 30, 1911, Mr. Jules Grenier who, I believe, is a good Conservative, disposed of his rights to an ice-house which he ow7ned next to mine, in ' favour of the Government for a sum of $2,500. and as this deed is exactly similar to the one signed by me and as the agreements are absolutely identical, it is evident that the investigating commissioners Staunton and Gutelius did not deem it fit to debate his case, no doubt choosing to level their attacks at me, one of their political opponents ;
And 1 make this solemn statement believing it to be true and knowing that it has the same

force and effect as If it were made under oath and under the Statute of Canada of 1893.
(Signed.) Raoul Bergevin Made before me, in the city of Quebec, on the
19th February, 1914.
(Signed.) Cyrille F. Dfelage, N.P., C.C.S.
A true copy of the original
H. L. DeMartigny.
When the Hon. Mr. Parent was examined before the investigating commissioners, Mr. Staunton and Mr. Gutelius, he also denied under oath having, either directly or indirectly, received any money from Mr. Bergevin, and that the contract was a bona fide contract and that he believed that Mr. Bergevin had never subscribed any money for the election.
I need not dwell any further on that affidavit which absolutely sets at naught the laboured argument of the hon. member for Dorchester.
I now come back to the main subject matter and I wish to point out under which conditions and circumstances took place the investigation held by Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton and the report made by them, as also the positions taken by the different political parties in Canada on that matter. In this connection, it may be said that the Transcontinental National Railway is exclusively the work of the Liberal party. From the very outset, when the project was mooted in 1903, the Conservative party opposed it in the House of Commons as outside of this House, and ever since they have never missed any opportunity of showing their hostility.
Upon two different occasions, at the general elections of 1904 and 1908, the people did approve of this undertaking; but our opponents stuck to their guns and maintained their fighting attitude. For a while they entertained the hope of battering in the project, by instigating the Hod-gins investigation, but they were disappointed in their hopes and their investigation proved to be a flash in the pan. Such was the frame of mind of the Conservative party when they came into power, after the general election of September 21st, 1911.
From time immemorial the Conservative party have had a political ally in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Now this tried and unwearied friend saw in the Transcontinental a work which was indebted for its existence to a strictly Liberal initative, a most formidable competitor, owing to the immense superiority of the latter, resulting from its hauling power and the working facilities of the line, a superiority which has no equal throughout the American continent and gave it the undisputed control over the traffic in the districts accommodated by it.
Then or never was the time for the allies to pledge, acording to an antique and solemn custom, in an unmistakable manner, their friendship, and could there be found a more convincing pledge than handing over to the tender mercies of the unkind mother the young giant, so that she might crush the life out of him? That is why the Conservative Government hastened to give up their property, that is to say, the eastern section of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton to the discretion of Mr. Leonard and Mr. Gutelius the latter having been, up to then, in the service of the Canadian Pacific Company, and the former having been in the employ of the same company for many year5'. As there was an obstacle in the way, I mean the composition of the Transcontinental Commission, the Government did away with it and as there remained another impediment, I mean the superintendence, inspection and acceptance of the works of the eastern section by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, the Government ignored that difficulty by dispensing with such superintendence, inspection and acceptance, contrary to clause 7 of the contract passed by Parliament in 1903.
Still, as the Government wished to put public opinion on the wrong scent, and draw a red herring across the track, as they wished to find some kind of pretense for mutilating the Transcontinental, as they intended to do,, we have had, consequently, the investigation and the report of Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Staunton, a report adorned with digressions and so exaggerated that from its every page oozes out the constant thought, the deliberate endeavour of finding against the whole world crimes and criminals as also the greediness of salaried commissioners who are anxious to justify the $65 daily remuneration paid to them by the Government for running down and disparaging a national undertaking.
All the same, notwithstanding the warmth displayed by the investigators, what a disappointment this report has proved for the Government! What was to be done? Where there is nothing Csesar loses his rights, and where there is no evil the devil himself is powerless. I say it again, what a disappointment! For, our public undertakings have always admitted of a special meaning for our political opponents: the Pacific scandal in 1873, the Quebec harbour scandal in 1889, the Curran bridge scandal and how many others were impressed in their memory with glistening

remarks in reference to the address in answer to the speech from the Throne: I quote his words:
Now, Sir, about what my hon. friend said for the port of Quebec. Whilst I said let us do what is right for the port of Montreal, I say, at the same time, Providence has given us in Quebec one of the finest ports to be found in the world. But this port has not been equipped so far. Though the city of Quebec has been represented for years by members of the Liberal party in this House, there is not to-day- there was not before we came into power-[DOT] accommodation of berths for more than three ships in the great port of Quebec.
In other words, once more, the Liberal Government since 1896 has not done anything for the harbour and the city of Quebec. Such a statement presupposes a great deal of audacity and very little truthfulness, and no one will trust its sincerity. Who do you expect will he made to believe that the falling off of ocean shipments within the last fifteen or twenty years is due to lack of accommodation? Hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as we do that the only cause is the insufficiency of ocean freight, whether outgoing or incoming, which Quebec supplies, so much so that steamship companies, rather than have their ships stop to load or unload such freight, find it more to their advantage to ship it direct to Montreal and thence to have whatever is needed in Quebec sent back at their expense. The hon. Postmaster General is well aware of the fact, how many a time has the board of trade, and even the city council, strongly protested against that practice and insisted that the freight destined to Quebec firms should be unloaded on the way up. But all was in vain, the answer was always invariably the same: cargoes outgoing or incoming are not important enough.
Moreover, the hon. Postmaster General has himself given another reason besides the lack of accommodation. In the annual report of the council of the board of trade for the year 1913, at page 50, I find a summary of the meeting of April 16, 1913, where reference is made to two letters of the hon. Mr. Pelletier, one relative to the mail service, which is of no practical interest to us just now, and the other concerning the freight question. The views attributed to him in the latter connection are as follows :
The minister expresses the opinion that it is important to clear up the question of the cost of labour at Quebec, which according to the companies' contention, is from 65 to 70 per cent higher than in Montreal. That accounts for the freight being shipped to Montreal thence to be forwarded back here by rail. The

minister thinks it would be a good thing if the Harbour Commission undertook the unloading of the ships having their landing port here at a rate per ton on a par with that exacted from the companies in Montreal.
So that, according to the hon. minister, that wicked Laurier Government is alone responsible. As regards proofs of the zeal of the Liberal' Administration for the welfare of the port of Quebec, our opponents have had them constantly under their eyes since 1896 and have been in a position to record day by day its unmistakable manifestations. They surely must have noticed that the breakwater was extended over thousands of feet, at an expenditure of $2,500,000. That extension has rendered possible for the last five or six years the unloading at one time there of three of the largest of the great modern steamships. How is it that only one company practically made use of that wharf by bringing a steamship there every fortnight? There was nothing to prevent any other company from having its ships land at that point; why did they not take advantage of the opportunity if not solely on account of lack of traffic. Thinking people are aware of those facts, and hon. gentlemen opposite are wasting their time trying to have them view things otherwise than in their true light. That which accounts for the lack of traffic at that port, is the isolation of Quebec, especially during the winter season, from all the large railway and trade distributing centres. What would have been the use of the most improved plant and facilities as long as we remained unable to supply sufficient traffic to induce shipping companies to have their boats stop over at our port? That is j.ust the very point in connection with which the Government endeavoured to help us.
The building of the Quebec bridge originally had no other object. That is another undertaking which the hon. Postmaster General apparently knows nothing of, an undertaking the cost of which was estimated originally at five or six millions, put at the disposal of the Quebec harbour. When the bridge company was formed, the building of the Transcontinental was not yet being considered; that bridge had then as its main object to afford an entrance into the city of all the railways along the south shore: the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk, the Quebec Central, the Delaware and Hudson and several other minor lines running inland and having their terminals at Levis over one or the other of these lines.
I do not wish to provoke reprisals. But,

since our opponents are constantly repeating that the Liberal Government has not done anything for Quebec, I shall answer that we can proudly compare in that respect the action of the Liberal Administration with that of the Conservative Government from 1878 to 1896.
A single contract is found to the credit of the latter, the Louise Basin and pier, at a cost of about two million dollars, out of which from seven to eight hundred thousand dollars were fraudulently taken; and everyone knows that it was not to benefit the friends of the Liberal cause, but in favour of the friends of the Conservative cause.
To all accounts was not the construction of the Transcontinental the work par excellence which was to revolutionize the port of Quebec and make it one of the most active in Canada; and that thanks to the Liberal Government who took the adequate legislative measures to make it the principal terminal of that line? Then, if the Transcontinental is an accomplished fact the citizens of Canada, and particularly those of Quebec, surely owe no gratitude to the Conservative party for it; have not the Tories sufficiently fought against this enterprise in this House as well as on the public platform; have they not denounced it during the general elections of 1904 and 1908; but the electors, better advised and with better intent, marched on, and now congratulate themselves that this road has become an urgent need of this country. Moreover the antithesis is most amusing; it is really pleasant to see our adversaries take so much pains in trying to force upon the Quebec people the belief that the Conservative party is the saviour of our harbour exactly because of the works performed to implement it, and which are a necessary consequence of the Transcontinental. Would anything be said of these stations, these elevators, these warehouses, these docks, etc., were it not for this line?
Nevertheless, one feels that the present Government have a grud*; against this Transcontinental; the Hon. the Minister of Finance gave' it the cold shoulder last year in a speech in this House-perhaps in the Budget speech-and it was only unwillingly that they accepted the financial obligations deriving from it. He almost blamed it on the Liberal party for having placed this strong enterprise on the shoulders-weak it is true-of the Conservative party; I understand these complaints by comparing the vigorous new performer and the peevish purveyor that the Tory party is towards him. From that state of mind, the hon.
the Postmaser General, although a Quebecker, has not escaped, and we had the counterpart of it, in Quebec, in the decisions which he took with the hon. the Minister of Railways and canals and Mr. Leonard.
They evidently chose to destroy the logic of the whole plans of the Transcontinental. Thus it was logical to locate the shops near the road at Cap Rouge, a point where all the rolling stock must pass from Prince Rupert to Moncton, to build the line along the river in order to have an independent and free circulation, to erect the elevators, stations, warehouses, freight yards at the Champlain market and vicinity, up towards Wolf's Cove and Lampson's Cove; all of which would have been bordered by deepwater wharfs which could have been lengthened at will to thousands of feet according to the growth of traffic. Everything harmonizes in this unity; the Transcontinental is at home, in furniture of its own as we say in law, having exclusive control of its line and terminals and being in direct and immediate communication with oceanic navigation through deep water docks. Anybody can appreciate the strong advantages of such an organization without being an engineer. I will incidentally quote Mr. A. Allan's opinion, who said, in connection with the docks owned by his company near Champlain market:
'I deeply regret,' stated M.. .a.. Allan, ' to be compelled to leave such a fine site which ought in reality to he the center of oceanic trade of the harbour from the standpoint of navigation.
' This site,' added Mr. Allan, ' offered to steamers facilities that are not for the present met with anywhere else, and which the breakwater will never offer later.*
It is then natural that the construction commission guided by those engineers and the advice of the railroad shipping companies, and representatives of all shipping interests should have accepted this enterprise and that the Liberal Government should also have approved it, with the satisfaction, furthermore, of seeing the Board of Trade and the city council of Quebec then and now concur in these views. In fact, in the annual report of the council of the Quebec Board of Trade for 1913, I find a summary of the meeting held on January 30th, 1914; the chairman, Mr. W. A. Marsh, makes therein a review of the year's customs, and I read the following words on pages 10 and 11: The change of government at Ottawa some sixteen months ago brought about a change of plans as to the terminals of this railway, and it is now proposed to have a union passenger

Quebec. Strangely enough, the true reason for this decree is not given. Why this mystery? Modifications to plans are alleged; two years were not needed to change the site of the station and shops; well, that is the only visible result of that slow and equivocal gestation; beyond that there is nothing at all. The last rail between Cochrane and Quebec was laid in November, 1913; this being the case, freight trains oould arrive from the West at Quebec when navigation opened. But there is absolutely nothing there to receive them. The national object of this line is above all to give an opening to the western products, and for the present, and for a long time to come the principal product of exploitation will be grain; henceforth the first facilities needed are elevators and docks to store and ship it. Where are the docks and where are the elevators? Absolutely nothing. But, in fact, the Harbour Board have erected an elevator on the Louise pier; but there is no water there at low tide and it will require years of dredging to reach a depth of from thirty to forty feet. Nevertheless the Transcontinental has no line in the city or outside to reach there; such is the real position, which no one can gainsay.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 125, for the Relief of Walter James Liscombe.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Ethel Cora Robinson.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of George Fullerton Forsythe.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
After recess Mr. Lachance resumed the debate and said:
Mr. LACHANCE:: When you left the
chair at six o'clock, I was speaking of the absolute lack of accommodation at Quebec for the traffic of the Transcontinental, of the trains which could come to us at the opening of navigation, towards the end of April or the beginning of May, and I was recalling to memory the campaign waged by the press of the Conservative party before 1911, against the then Liberal Government, who, they claim, jeopardized the interests of the

City and port of Quebec by the slowness of the terminal works.
Amongst the newspapers patronized by the present Government which gainel distinction in this campaign, I could mention i'Evenement and the Chronicle. Previous to 1911, both dailies denounced the supposed inaction of the then Administration with reference to the terminals; what censure should they not carry against the present Administration, who let two years elapse without a remedy? It must then be that they were not late, if the masters of to-day in Ottawa look placidly on the running out of months and years without raising a finger, even if they claim, however, that-they do not jeopardize the interests of Quebec.
How can one explain the somnolence of the present Government in the face of so disastrous a situation obtaining in our city, if it is not that this apathy is voluntary; and then for what object? Is it to make out of Quebec a secondary terminal which will receive but a small share of the western traffic, or even have to be satisfied with local traffic only? Numerous facts authorize us to conclude so; the most serious and the most peremptory is the scamping of the Transcontinental between Cochrane and Quebec, a scamping which, if not remedied at once, will necessarily reduce that part of the line to a purely local railroad between the two cities. Yes, in the face of the change in grades we must conclude that our lot will result in costly and almost useless buildings that will have served to lead us astray and to meduse us during the time required to plot our ruin and destroy our supreme hope.
In 1903, the Laurier Government had the construction of the Transcontinental voted by Parliament; the contracts stipulated that the western division from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert would be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the eastern section from Winnipeg to Moncton by Canada. This latter section was to be then operated by the company in consideration of a rent of three per cent of the cost of that eastern section, the lease being for fifty years. It was also decided to at once organize a perfect line able to give- the greatest hauling capacity and the greatest operating facilities that modern civil engineering could produce. And why? Because the progress of the West was so rapid that it would give to that new line at its very inception the full quantity of freight that it would be able to haul.

It is then evident that the most important point was to secure the greatest possible uniformity of level on the whole line. In order to realize this, the engineers fixed the maximum of eastward grades to four-tenths of one per cent or twenty-one feet per mile of rail, and the westward grades to five-tenths of one per cent, or twenty-six feet per mile; and subsequently they brought the latter to six-tenths of one per cent, or thirty-one feet per mile; but it must be remarked that these grades were only to be used where it would be impossible to avoid them, the constant preoccupation being to build a road of uniform level wherever it was feasible.
Such were the instructions given by the chief engineers to their assistants and upon which the line was organized up to 1911.
Owing to these measures, a locomotive could haul at least double the freight weight that she could have hauled on the other lines then existing in Canada and even in the Americas. The highest authorities have given their opinion on that point. Thus Mr. Elliott Cooper, president of the Civil Engineers Institute, of London, wrote on November 5th, 1912, speaking of these twenty-one feet per mile grades as follows:
On the Grand Trunk Pacific, the standard 2,000 ton freight train can be hauled without assistance from Winnipeg to Prince Arthur by a locomotive, the hauling power of this locomotive thus being four times above that of the Great Northern, Northern Pacific and Union Pacific locomotives, and five times superior to those of the Sante Fe, and seven times superior to those of the Canadian Pacific.
Mr. Leonard, speaking on the same subject at a banquet tendered to him upon his appointment to the Construction Commission, expressed an opinion similar to that of Cooper:
It is not easy to say what the completion of that [DOT] line to Moncton will cost; but most *of the works are under construction, apart from 400 or 500 miles between Cochrane and Quebec. The Quebec bridge which, when finished, will be the greatest in the world, will absorb 48,000 tons of steel, and its construction will take five or six years. Eastward, our line has a 0:4 grade, and a locomotive can haul 1,600 tons, whereas on other roads where there is a 1:0 p.c. grade locomotives can only haul 800 tons.
I can quote on the same question the opinion of Mr. Macpherson, to-day Mr. Leonard's assistant, and previously assistant to the chief engineer of the building commission. On June the 2nd, 1909, he spoke before the British Association for the Progress of Science and said:
The distance of the Transcontinental road will be 1,351 miles from Winnipeg to Quebec and as the maximum of the grade for eastbound trains is 21.12 feet per mile, with allowance for curving, tbe most powerful engine built to-day, the Mallet Articulated Compound, of which an excellent description is given in tbe Railway Age Gazette of April 30, 1909, can haul a dead weight of 4,200 tons behind the tender on that grade.	.
Assuming that the tare is 33J p. 100 per ton, the net paying load would be 2,860 tons, averaging 95,333 bushels of wheat for each train. Supposing the profits of that train to be $4.40 per mile of train, exactly double that of tbe profits realized by the Canadian Pacific on every mile of freight train in 1908, it is seen that the cost per bushel for the whole distance of 1,351 miles between Winnipeg and Quebec, is $4.25. The lowest cost prevailing to the knowledge of the writer from Fort William to Montreal, by way of the lakes, canals and St. Lawrence river, on a distance of 1,216 miles, would equalize 4 :44 cents for 1,350 miles, so that at $4.40 per mile of train, the locomotives above mentioned could haul grain eastward on the Transcontinental, from Winnipeg to Quebec, for 0:19 cents per bushel less than the cheapest water route could carry on the same distance, and at 10 :86 cents a bushel cheaper than the present rail and water route could carry between the two points in question.
Under these conditions, transportation cost for every bushel of wheat was to be reduced by one half of what it has been up to date. Such are the enormous advantages that the Liberal Government wanted to extend to Canada in building this road under the conditions that I have just recalled.
More than any other, the city of Quebec was interested in this uniformity of level. The maximum of those twenty one foot per mile grades had been fixed with the object of assuring the entry of western grain in the harbour. The Liberal government had promised to the people that the road between Winnipeg and Quebec would be built in such a way as to give the St. Lawrence route the greatest possible volume of traffic; this is why it assured, by proper gradients, the greatest hauling power to the locomotives.
But as soon as the present government came to power, they replaced the construction commission by a single man, Mr. R. W. Leonard, one of the first acts of whom was to increase the gradients from twenty one feet to as much as one hundred feet per mile, and he repeated this operation in from fifteen to twenty cases between Cochrane and Quebec; he put in lieu of first grades, some momentum grades that the trains ascend owing to the momentum acquired. This is good if all goes well; but if anything defective occurs in the mechanism when the train reaches the bottom of the grade or when it ascends the slope, the train stops and is moreover in-
REVIskD EDITIOX

of the station site. Who will profit by that? Less the Transcontinental than the Canadian Pacific, the political ally of the present Government. The late Government were to organize at Quebec, for the Transcontinental, for a terminus of the highest class; the Canadian Pacific Railway, properly speaking, have there no facilities for handling freight; by the changes made in gradients, the Transcontinental will be nothing more than a line the volume of traffic of which will be almost equivalent to that of the Canadian Pacific Railway from lake Superior to Quebec; there is no more disproportionate competition for the latter, then. Let us add to this that the Government seek in the offices of the Canadian Pacific Railway the authors and the in-spirers against which we protest.
Owing to these modifications, the Canadian Pacific railway will build a so-called passenger union station for the use of which this Government Will pay a rent above the interest on cost and of which the Canadian Pacific railway will finally be the only beneficiary, passenger traffic on the Transcontinental being necessarily very limited for years to come. Moreover, the Canadian Northern and the Quebec and Lake St. John have their own station and terminal a few hundred feet further off.
The station will be built at the Palais; the Transcontinental have no line reaching thereto. It is proposed to build a tunnel, a work of many millions and of many years and that when western trade would come to us at any moment and that when for two years the Government did not even think of building a station of some kind for freight at the Champlain market.
Will that tunnel ever be built? It is doubtful. In fact, in the correspondence between Messrs. Chamberlain and Leonard, I find a letter from the latter to the former in which are the following words. The letter is dated from Ottawa, May the 13th, 1913. The words aforesaid read as follows:
I agree with you that the immediate construction of a tunnel is not justified by the traffic that we have a right to expect and it might be possible that such a tunnel will not be necessary for two or three years and possibly before the completion of the Quebec bridge so that we do not seek to take that into consideration now.
Do you think that the city council would have agreed to a change in the site of the station if they had known of that letter? I do not believe it. According to the letter, the tunnel would be opened only if the traffic increases sufficiently to justify

the undertaking, but in the meantime the Transcontinental will remain without any access to its station. Anyhow, the estimate of the new terminals do not mention a cent for that tunnel and the plans on which these new estimates are based indicate nothing for a tunnel. We are then compelled to conclude that this tunnel is a project the realization of which is most problematical and that at all events it will be constructed only in a very distant future. In order to abandon the site of the Champlain market, the Government pretended that that space was insufficient. We have on that point the opinion of Messrs. Hoare and Doucet, who declare to the contrary, and in relation to this, their judgment must be worth that of Mr. Leonard. It is also alleged that for the unity of the terminals, the ground in the location of Cap Diamant is not large enough; here again the three engineers appointed by the sub-committee of citizens have stated the contrary and Mr. Leonard being alone against them I see no reason why preference should be given to the latter. Nevertheless the working area in platforms from the market going up towards Lampson and Wolfe's Cove is larger than any other in the city.
The hon. the Postmaster General declared in this House tlat nine-tenths of the population were opposed to the building of the station at Champlain market . I beg to be allowed to contradict him flatly. I live in Quebec, I meet as much and perhaps more than he does, the different classes of the population, and I declare that the majority have accepted the decision of the sub-committee of citizens and acknowledged that the station and the deep water docks were greatly advantageous.
It is said that the city council approve the change of the site of the station. Yes, but if they had known one half of the facts we now have, to-day, I am sure they would have refused to concur; and Mr. Leonard sent this ultimatum to them: accept or else you run the risk of having the same delays you so much deplored, and at the same time, the Canadian Pacific railway said to the same council: give us certain streets of lower St. Roch and St. Sauveur, or else you will not have our grounds to build a *station. One must admit that the Government, the Canadian Pacific railway and Mr. Leonard took good means to attain their object.
Nevertheless, this question of a passenger station is secondary; the only important thing for the time being is the freight

station and the terminals; but I wished to question the correctness of certain declarations made on the scarcity of grounds and about- the objection of the majority of citizens, and according to the report of the. Board of Trade that I read a moment ago, one can see that- the opinion of the citizens is still what it was in 1908.
Thus, for two years the Government, have taken up this secondary question of the union station and set back the only important one, that of the freight terminals; owing to the glaring of that union station, they succeeded in hiding their inaction, in deceiving us, and perhaps, also in dissimulating the objects that we are justified in believing to be contrary to the interests of Quebec.
As to change in site of shops, many observations., that I just now made, apply.
I represent Quebec and it would be far too stupid on my part if I did not look after all that can favour that city; but I deem my fellow-citizens to be too intelligent not to have immediately understood that the shops were destined before long to serve the interests of the road and that the Liberal Government had acted logically in locating them near the line at Cap Rouge, a point where the rolling stock must necessarily pass from one to the other end of the country. However, in my humble opinion, the shops at Cap Rouge, would have, in a better way, promoted Greater Quebec; they were as a rod pinned outside of the limits and in all the immense intermediary highland with limitless horizon, a new residential city would have arisen which, by the natural and inevitable course of things, would have become part of this "city before long. To concentrate all in a small ratio is not the best means of promoting expansion.
However, the Liberal Government have a peremptory reason: it is that they intend to immediately utilize the road along the river and establish terminals at Cap Dia-mant. Their plans did not comprise, for the present at least, any communication via Cap Rouge in the valley of the St. Charles river; it was then impracticable to establish these -shops in that valley.
It is now more opportune than ever to recall these facts and to compare the attitude of the parties on the divers questions of the Transcontinental with regard to Quebec. We thus see that at the beginning of the enterprise, and always since, the Liberal government worked with the competent authorities in order to give the greatest efficiency to the road, serving thereby the
best interests of Quebec, which were to derive therefrom more benefit inasmuch as the line and facilities would be perfected; all partisanship had been banished in the original plans of the building commission. Very different would be the thought of the Conservative party, if we have to judge by the declamations of their newspapers. Not a single day passes but that they number by thousands- and thousands the workmen that will work in that shop, and the millions of dollars that will be derived from it, and as a -conclusion they already claim a victory in all the ridings of the city -and -surroundings. -Chance may help them; but this effervescence would justify us in understanding that there was more in this change than -a pretence to make political capital.	_
And, after all, when the public discussed this question, in 1906, it would have been easy for the Liberal party to use it as a partisan exploitation in locating their shops in the city; the government, with reason, refused. It would have been a breach in the adequate plan prepared by the competent authorities as the most advantageous for the unity of the service. And it would be because we have followed this conduct simple, disinterested, patriotic, would I say, that the electors would blame us! Never. The events will give us reason, even before we go to the country.
And there is already a large spot in the picture: the establishments that are erected at St. Malo are by far less important than those that were planned at Cap Rouge; the latter included thirty buildings, those at St. Malo number only fourteen. Moreover, it was intended to build local shops at Wolfe s Cove, covering an area of fifty acres for urgent repairs and to accommodate twelve engines at a time. Furthermore, at a distance of a mile westward of the Champlain station, the road was to be branched and from there twelve parallel lines were to run for one mile forming the freight yards: all that is erased from the new plan. _ According to these facts the change in the site of the shops would rather be an appreciable lot to Quebec.	[DOT]
Moreover, a new and essential factor arises to the detriment of our city: the Grand Trunk does not consent to these changes in site of terminal station and shops. Their assent was indispensable under clause 7 of the contract, quoted a moment ago, and that company will be able to rest upon this clause in refusing to take charge of the road with the results aforesaid.
On pages 31 and 32 of the debates of the present session, the Right Hon. the Prime


Mr. F. B. McCURDY:: (Shelburne-
Queens): Mr. Speaker, it is to be regretted that hon. members opposite have not given the country a clear, concise and succinct statement showing why there has been such an appalling over-expenditure in connection with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.
The Laurier Administration, as a result of the polling on November 3, 1904, received a mandate from the Canadian people to proceed with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway.
Disregarding the warnings and heedless of the admonitions of the responsible head of the Department of Railways and Canals of that day (Hon. A. G. Blair) the members of the House of 1900-1904 supporting the Administration and a majority of the

electors of the country chose rather to listen to the voice of the Premier of that day when he urged unnecessary haste and said: 'We cannot wait because time does not wait.' I quote from ' Hansard,' 30th July, 1903, page 7691:
The whole of the liability which is incurred by the Government for the building of that section from Moncton to Winnipeg is simply seven years of interest. The sum total of the money to be paid by the Government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean will be in the neighbourhood of twelve "million or thirteen million dollars, and not a cent more. Now, Sir, what is thirteen millions in the year 1903? It is about the surplus of our revenue over the expenditure. The surplus for this year will pay for the construction of this road.
What an estimate!
Mr. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance, and on whom would fall the responsibility of finding the necessary money for the construction of the road, took counsel with a railway expert. Mr. Fielding was also acting Minister of Railways. He consulted Mr. C. Schreiber, who was then, as now, regarded as an engineer of the very highest standing, and who- the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) [DOT]informed the House on Tuesday last, possesses his utmost confidence. He was,
I take it, best qualified to give the most intelligent and reliable opinion available as to what the actual cost of such an undertaking would be, for a government would not be justified in undertaking a work of such magnitude without first having secured the advice which in their opinion was the best available. Mr. Schreiber's estimate of July 12, 1903, was as follows:
I estimate the cost of construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway as a road of an ordinary character, such as has been built in Canada with maximum grades of 1 per cent or 52.80 per mile being less than the maximum grades upon the Intercolonial railway, the maximum grades on which road are as follows:
Bedford grade.. ..1.80%, or 95.00 ft. per mile Folleigh	" .. ..1,22%, or 64.42	"Metis	" .. ..1.22%, or 64.42	"
Estimated cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Per mile.
Moncton to south approach to Quebec bridge	$	25,000
Quebec to Winnipeg	 28,000
Prairie section	 17 500
Mountain section	 67,000
Terminals at Pacific coast	 3,0041000
Mr. Fielding wrote to the then Minister of Railways, under date of May 11, 1904, as follows:
Dear Mr. Emmerson:
Last summer, while I was acting Minister of Railways, and when the Grand Trunk Pacific 
scheme came up, I asked Mr. Schreiber's opinion as to the probable cost of constructing the eastern division (Government portion) of the road. Mr. Schreiber gave me the information although not in the form of a written report, and I used it in the House, mentioning his name as my authority. His opinion was that a road could be constructed from Quebec to Moncton for $25,000 per mile, and from Quebec to Winnipeg for $28,000 per mile.
These estimates were made for a road of an ordinary character, such as is constructed elsewhere. In order to make a sufficiently liberal allowance for a road of better character, I added 25 per cent, making the estimate $31,250 per mile from Quebec to Moncton, and $35,000 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg. I have not spoken to Mr. Schreiber on the matter of late, but from other experienced railway men I have received assurances that my estimate was a most liberal one, and that the road could probably be constructed well within these figures.
As above stated, I did not obtain a written report from Mr. Schreiber. I think it might be convenient to have a report from him. May I suggest that you discuss the matter with him and, if there is no objection, ask him to make a short memorandum, putting in writing the information which he gave me last summer.
Tours faithfully,
W. S. Fielding.
It will be observed that Mr. Fielding did not rest his conclusions altogether on the estimates of Mr. Schreiber, but he states that he also consulted, as a careful minister would, other experienced railway men, and received assurances that his estimate was a most liberal one, and that the road could probably be constructed well within those figures. Mr. Fielding informed the House that the total cost of the Transcontinental would be $61,415,000.
The point I wish to make clear is this, that in asking the mandate of the'people of Canada, which was obtained on November 3, 1904, the Government of that day represented that the total cost of the road would be $61,415,000, and the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in presenting the project to Parliament and to the country, evidently used this estimate of cost as a basis for his statement that the cost to the people of the country would be seven years' interest on this sum, or, as he stated, in the neighbourhood of twelve or thirteen million dollars and not a cent more.
Therefore, I take it, it would be fair to state that on the understanding that the National Transcontinental railway could be built for approximately $61,4i5,000, the Government was, on November 3, 1904, authorized to go ahead. Add to this amount, interest for seven years at 3 per cent, and we have another $12,897,150, or something less than $75,000,000, beyond which the total cost should not go.

Now, it is clearly apparent that by the end of the year 1921 when the country will if fortunate, begin to .receive rental from the Grand Trunk Pacific, the road will have cost the country for principal and interest $234,651,521, made up of:
Cost of construction (per estimate
of Gordon Grant)	
Interest on cost of construction to end of

Interest cost from beginning at 3i
per cent to end of 1921	 54,651,521
Total to Dec. 31, 1921	$234,651,521
It will therefore be seen that the capital rental cost instead of being $61,415,000, as estimated by Mr. Fielding, in 1903, has risen to $180,000,000, or 300 per cent higher, while the * $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 and not a cent more* which the then Premier assured Parliament would be the cost to the country, has proven to be $54,651,521, or 400 per cent higher than the right hon. gentleman's estimate of 1903.
Is it surprising that the country demands an explanation of this unparalled expenditure of Canadian public funds ?
I listened with curiosity for an explanation from the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). The hon. member for South Renfrew and other hon. members less responsible for the shocking over-expenditure in connection with the construction of the road, have expended much time in personal abuse of members of the investigating commission. They say that an ex-employee of the Canadian Pacific railway is not qualified. It must be patent to hon. members that, far from Canadian Pacific exemployees being debarred, a selection is practically forced from the Canadian Pacific railway staff or graduates for the following reason:
Canada has four railway systems, the Grand Trunk, the Intercolonial, the Canadian Northern, and the Canadian Pacific, and necessarily those engineers best qualified to give an intelligent opinion regarding Canadian railways and their operation must come from one or the other of these systems.
Because the Grand Trunk is an interested party through the ownership of all of the common shares of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the leasing company, there are patent objections to going to that road for engineering advice, although I admit that engineers might possibly be secured from the ranks of the employees of that company. The objections which would be urged to the appointment of an employee of the Government on the Intercolonial railway to an investigating commission of this nature are so apparent that I need not detail them. The Canadian Northern is still under construction, and therefore its staff is not so likely to contain experienced engineers with construction and operating experience combined as is the fourth system mentioned, viz., the Canadian Pacific railway. That company, on account of its methods of operation and on account of its great prosperity is, and has been for a long time, in a position to attract the best engineering talent of the country to its ranks, and is the logical field from which to secure expert engineering advice.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was so concerned over the nonessential qualifications of one of the engineers of the investigating commission that he interrupted the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) to inquire if Mr. Gutelius was a naturalized Canadian, and if so, when he was naturalized. The fact that Mr. Gutelius has had upwards of 27 years' engineering experience, nineteen years in Canada and eight in the United States, under varying conditions, appears trifling in the eyes of the hon. member in comparison with the present or past nationality of the engineer. The hon. member is a staunch believer in Canada and Canadianism. Rumour has it that when in 1911 the party with whom he is allied was being attracted by trade policies leading away from the National Policy, the hon. member dissented and ineffectively threw his influence to a continued adherence of his party to the existing policy. The hon. member would prefer to have the evidence of an engineer Canadian born, and with international experience. I would therefore like to refer to the evidence of Mr. W. F. Tye. Mr. Tye was born at Haysville, Ontario, in 1861, and is and has been a robust Canadian even if measured by the standard of the hon. member for Pictou. At the age of twenty-two he began his experience as an engineer on the Canadian Pacific. After four years' experience, he went into the Great Northern railway; he has al o had varied experience in different parts of the States, and in Mexico. With this experience, he re-entered the service of the Canadian Pacific and rose to the position of chief engineer of the whole system. In 1906 he retired from the Canadian Pacific, and has since been engaged in consulting practice. Here is an authority rich in experience-a Canadian born



'2246 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
engineer, resident in Canada, who has occupied the highest engineering position attainable in Canada, and it might be interesting to	refer to his opinion
regarding some of the decisions of the commission on standards for the railway, the abandonment of which was dubbed by the hon. member for South Renfrew as the * degrading ' of the road.
On page 453 of the report, Mr. Tye, in answer to a question, stated:
There cannot be any doubt that in rough, crooked country, this rule (re maximum degree of curvature) rigidly adhered to, especially in connection with the rule making the minimum length of tangents between the ends of easement curves 300 feet, must have resulted in tremendous expenditures that have absolutely no value whatever.
With regard to the use of momentum grades and other expedients to keep down the first cost of construction, he says (pa*e 466):
The use of momentum grades, wooden trestles instead of high embankments, sharper curves, shorter tangents, and other expedients to keep down the first cost of construction were surely justified here if on any road. Such expedients do not decrease the haulage capacity of locomotives, do not increase the running time of trains, and only slightly increase the cost of maintenance, but do materially decrease the fixed charges by decreasing the cost of construction, and do permit of an improvement in standard, when required, without extra cost.
So that no more conclusive evidence condemnatory of the Railway Commission's style of construction is given in the whole report than that given by Mr. Tye.
In an effort to belittle the opinions of the commission with regard to the advisability of substituting, in various places, momentum grades and other improvements, the hon. member for South Renfrew, after searching North America, finally produced Mr. J. B. Berry.
As reported on page 2173 of ' Hansard,' the hon. member for South Renfrew states that Mr. Berry took hold of the Union Pacific when it was a bankrupt concern, and, by changing the grades and curves and shortening the line, brought it up to a position in which it pays dividends to shareholders. Mr. Berry may have been responsible for the rejuvenation [DOT]of the Union Pacific, but the average man -on the street, as well as many well-informed railway engineers, thinks that a man by the name of Harriman had something to do with the rehabilitation and consequent prosperity of the Union Pacific road.
The hon. member furthermore tells us that Mr. Berry is at p""sent assistant 
to the president of the Rock Island railway, and it is stated that he has held that position £or some four years past. I know nothing about the engineering qualifications of this gentleman, but if the estimation in which the public hold the value of the securities of the Rock Island Company is any index to the progress of the road under Mr. Berry's operation and of the value of Mr. Berry's services, it will be interesting to the hon. member for South Renfrew and the House to know that whereas four years ago Rock Island railway common shares were selling at $55 per share, they are selling to-day at $3.87 per share. The preferred shares of the same company, which in 1910, sold at $92.50 per share, are now .quoted on the market at $5.75 per share. The four per cent bonds sold in 1910 at $83 and this year at $37, and the whole securities of this road are selling at such prices as would appear to justify the belief, held in different financial quarters, that the road is heading straight for insolvency. Surely the progress being made by the Rock Island under Mr. Berry's guidance does not warrant us in assuming that his opinions on engineering questions are final.
However, this is quite beside the point at issue. The hon. member for South. Ranfrew was, during the expenditure of practically all these moneys, in control of the Department of Railways and Canals, and being the responsible minister, a lucid explanation of the appalling overexpenditure was due the members of this House a,nd the country. I hoped that, for the sake of Canadian credit and the good name of Canadian public business, a lucid and sufficient explanation would have been forthcoming. That the maladministration of this great enterprise has dealt a body-blow at the prestige of the great Liberal party is undoubted. Speaking for myself,
I would gladly have seen any and all party advantage sunk in an explanation which would justify the gross over-expenditure. I regretfully have to say, however, that the statement of the hon. member for South Renfrew did not satisfy me, and, speaking in all frankness, I am sure that it will not satisfy the country.
What I wish to emphasize is that the Laurier Administration, on their statement that $61,415,000 wgs a liberal estimate of cost, and which experienced railway men stated would not be altogether required for the construction of the line, were authorized by the electors in 1904 to go on with the building of the Transcontinental railway.

Make no mistake; what the public to-day want to know is why has it been necessary to spend on construction and interest $180,000,000 instead of $61,415,000, which was originally authorized. The hon. member for South Renfrew laid a great deal of stress on what he termed the ' degrading of the road. In other words, the burden of his complaint was that a less expensive road was wrongfully authorized 'by his successors.
This argument advanced by the exMinister of Railways, if_ it leads us anywhere, leads us to the conclusion that the case of over-expenditure is more serious than the report of the investigation commission would indicate. The hon. member censures the Administration for introducing momentum grades, wooden bridges, and other economies which Teduced the total cost, whereas, had these changes not been made, the total cost would have been swollen beyond the $160,000,000, and the astonishing and incomprehensible divergence between Mr. Fielding's estimate of $61,415,000 and the actual cost, with interest added, increased away beyond the present difference. As years elapsed and construction continued, it gradually dawned upon the people that the original estimate of $61,415,000 for the total cost of the line was grossly understated.
The efforts of the Conservative Opposition in the last Parliament to secure such an investigation as would give the public the reason for the over-expenditure were treated by Parliament in a manner not reassuring to the ordinary business man, and it has always been my opinion that the failure of the Government of that day to properly deal with the allegations made had not a little to do with the decision of the public that the carrying on of such public works could be placed in better and more efficient hands; and in my opinion the late Administration lost not a little support in the memorable campaign of 1911 owing to this feeling. This lack of confidence is one of the reasons why the country will not be disposed to hurriedly entrust the administration of public affairs to hon. gentlemen apposite.
I wish to refer particularly to only one of the great errors, or worse, made by the Transcontinental Railway Commission. There are many other features of the work carried on by the commission which are open to severe criticism, but it seems to me that no other course could have been
followed by the commissioners in the letting of contracts as well calculated to prevent competition and swell construction costs as that which they did adopt.
' By reference to page 21, volume 1, of sessional paper 123, will be found a list of the contracts, numbered from 1 to 21, given out in connection with this work.
A perusal of the detailed information following this list will disclose the dates on which the different contracts were advertised, when tenders closed, and when contracts were awarded. The members of the House are no doubt familiar with the standard advertisement issued in the call for tenders; these notices calling foT tenders contained the following clause:
Each tender must be signed and sealed by all the parties to the tender, and witnessed, and be accompanied by an accepted cheque on a chartered bank of the Dominion of Canada, payable to the order of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway, as follows:
For section No. 1, district ' C '..$150,000
(or for special set sums in the different contracts).
Any person whose tender is accepted shall within ten days after the acceptance thereof furnish such additional approved security as may be required by the commissioners.
The insertion of this mischievous clause placed tenderers practically at the mercy of the commission. In actual practice, and in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission, calls might be made foT security on successful tenderers to the extent of one-third of the estimated amount of their contract.
These conditions were so onerous that it -was impossible for any other than the very wealthiest contractors, or those who had an 'understanding' with members of the commission, to undertake to tender on the work. The first work to be put out to tender was that covered by contract 9-10 and 21, amounting to over $18,000,000. On these contracts, the commission would be entitled, should they so desire, to call for deposits of $6,000,000.
It is the usual practice for a contractor to .seek financial assistance from his banker. Just imagine the contractor for No. 21, for instance, going to his banker and asking to have his cheque certified for the deposit to .accompany the tender, viz., $400,000. The banker might consider such a proposition, if that was all, but should he, as a prudent banker would, refer to the advertisements calling for tenders, he would see that before his customer would be certain to secure the contract, even being the lowest bidder, he might be called upon to
[Stage Direction]
put up not $400,000 with the tender, but the amount of $4,336,000. Manifestly no contractor excepting such as were multi-millionaires could get into that game. The only other contractor who would be safe would be he who had an understanding with members of the commission. I would have liked very much to have heard an explanation or justification from the hon. member for South Renfrew of this extraordinary clause in the contract.
Charity would bid us say that although the power of calling for huge deposits rested with the commission, it would never be used. But what happened? On the first two contracts for which tenders were called, viz., 9 and 10 (joint-contract), and 21, very large sums in addition to the original deposit were called for. On the 9 and 10 contract the sum of $224,000 accompanied the tender, while $794,588 was called for as total security. In the 21 contract, $400,000 accompanied the tender, while $1,301,000 was called for security under the contract. Certainly by their action in the first contracts let, the commissioners, in calling for these tremendous deposits, gave notice to contractors that they should keep at a distance, and the procedure of the commissioners was so effective in this respect that it will be seen from the table on page 21 of the investigation commission's report:
That for nine contracts covering half the line, only five firms tendered, and in one case there was only one bid, while In all the others only two, with the result that M. P. & J. T. Davis secured 204 miles, M. J. O'Brien and partners 246 miles, and the Grand Trunk Pacific 256 miles. This affords convincing evidence that the conditions were too onerous for many firms who afterwards undertook the construction of large sections of the road at lower prices, as sub-contractors.
Had the commissioners, instead of dividing the line haphazard into sections of 8 to 247 miles, made them about 50 miles each and prescribed conditions as to security similar to those on any other Government works, there can be no reasonable doubt that many of the more than one hundred sub-contractors to whom the contractors afterwards sublet the work would have been in the field as competitors.
These sub-contractors took the work off the hands of the main contractors at from 10 to 30 per cent less than the contract price. The commissioners in all cases sanctioned the subcontracting.
In view of the fact that the contracts are not yet completed, and that therefore only partial information regarding the final payments is available, it is difficult to estimate the amount of money paid to each of these 
large contractors, but a rough calculation shows as follows:	Grand Trunk Pacific,
$14,609,351; J. T. & M. P. Davis, $17,871,867; O'Brien and partners, $17,812,513. Some of these were also subcontractors, and in addition to these amounts drew profits on their sub-contracts. The hon. member for Annapolis, in referring to the matter of contracts, showed where the profits as between the contractors and the Government varied from 5 to 32 per cent. The advantage of being a favoured contractor under such conditions is too patent to need further comment. The method of handling the tenders had, I am convinced, mueh to do with the excessive cost of this work; the system was further open to the very grave objection of placing the contractor in the power of the commission, a most undesirable condition.
The late Administration undertook a more than ordinarily serious responsibility when they adopted a plan for the construction of a huge public work in opposition to the advice of the responsible head of the department concerned; and the action of the. Government led to the resignation of this responsible minister of the department. The working out of the plan has more than justified the objections urged against the construction of the road by Mr. Blair in 1903, and so lightly attempted by his colleagues. Some-not many-of these colleagues are at present members of the House. The country has heard the unconvincing statement of the late Minister of Railways. It is still waiting with more than ordinary interest to hear from the colleagues of the late Mr. Blair their explanations of the extraordinary breaking down of the roseate scheme held out to the country in 1903.
Mr. WILLIAM POWER (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, when the report which forms the subject of the present debate was made public, I was in England, and on every hand I heard expressions of astonishment at the magnitude and the boldness which the newspaper reports said had characterized the grafting operations of the late Government. The British public was surprised, the warmest friends of Canada were dumbfounded, and on all sides there arose a cry of condemnation and displeasure at a country hitherto pointed out as one of the jewels of the empire, for it was believed that its statesmen had sunk to the level of some of the well-known organiza-

tions which are supposed to flourish in the country to the south of us. The credit of this country,, which had been high in spite of serious attempts on the part of wildcat mining promoters and bogus town-site agents, received a severe setback, so severe indeed that I doubt very much whether it will recover therefrom within the next decade. At. first sight there seemed to be a reason for this dismal state of affairs. The despatches had it that an independent, non-partisan commission had declared that $40,000,000 were wasted, if not stolen, by the members of the late Government. It can be easily understood what a feeling this would produce on the other side where commissions appointed to examine into any question are real commissions' who do their work honestly and conscientiously, and whose members, in many cases, are public spirited enough to make special studies of their subject and to act without any remuneration whatever.
As I have already said, these despatches, purporting to be a report of a commission, were really alarming, but when I knew what I have since learned, that a certain number of newspapers only, and these not altogether unfriendly to the hon. gentlemen opposite, just had access to a half-garbled resume of the famous report and gave it forth to the world before any one had an opportunity of examining the report itself, I began to understand how easily it was to place the matter in the unfavourable light in which it appeared. When I received the report itself, several weeks after, and read it attentively page by page, which I did, I wondered how it was possible for any person, even in the heat of political controversy, to destroy the credit of the country on such grounds and with so little justification.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that this has occurred, not for the party to which I belong, for I am sure that the people of Canada will understand the situation, but I am sorry indeed for my country, since in my humble opinion, its reputation and its honour should stand higher even in the minds of politicians than mere party advantage.	.
However, when I recollect the debates in this House in 1903 and the campaign of 1904, I am not surprised at the report brought in by the star chamber commission appointed by the hon. gentlemen opposite. In those days there were some of us who thought that it would be a good thing for this country if a railroad were built through a hitherto somewhat uninhabited and unsettled country in order
to develop for colonization, for empire and for trade the vast areas in the hinterland of Ontario and Quebec. Were I to go through the pages of ' Hansard ', recalling to the minds of Quebec members the attacks which were made on the hinterland of Quebec and even Ontario, the morning sun would be shining through the windows of this House ere I finished. Suffice to say that our Tory friends did not want the eastern section of the road built. They, who flew the flag in 1911 and did not want any truck with the Yankees, wanted a read built through the western section of the country and they would have ignored entirely the other provinces. In days gone by the party, of which these hon. gentlemen are the successors, wanted taxation without representation in the old province of Quebec and in this case they proposed to tax my native province without any possible benefit to the people of that province. I was proud as a representative of the city of Quebec to sit in this House in 1903 when the Grand Old Chieftain of the Liberal party unfolded his scheme for the building of the transcontinental line. He told the House and the country that iit was necessary to build another transcontinental line and that in so doing he was going to render justice and fair play to all portions of the Dominion, and that he would open the valleys of New iBrunswick, and the great hinterlands of Quebec and Ontario wherein would toe found in the future homes, for hundreds and thousands of people. We in the province of Quebec had lived on the shore of the St. Lawrence for a hundred years and this was the first opportunity which had been offered to avail ourselves of the advantages of a national highway binding the east and the west , and which will enable us to open up our great northern country with its enormous resources. A railway traversing a province for a distance of from 900 to 1,000 miles exerts a beneficial influence over a wide area of country. Let us suppose that this influence extends for at least 50 miles on each side of the line; that means that 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 acres of land will come in for agricultural and commercial development. Even if the costhas exceeded the estimate, I ask my fellow members not only from the province of Quebec but from all parts of Canada, if our country is not the gainer by the carrying out of this great enterprise? Is there a man in the province of Quebec who will have the courage to stand np and say that our northern country should not be developed? No man at the present time can estimate

the resources of this hinterland of ours with its enormous water-powers, its great forests, its pulpwood, and its iron deposits, the last named of which will one day, through the process of electricity, be developed to an enormous extent. Indeed, the great St. Maurice valley, through which this road passes, with its valuable iron deposits', will offer formidable competition to the furnaces of Pittsburg. It is not alone our mineral and forest wealth that will he turned to good account in consequence of the construction of this great Transcontinental railway, but in the valley of the Harricanaw we have acres and acres of virgin soil which will in the near future be developed by the younger element of the province of Quebec. The cry to-day is: keep the young men on the farm; grow more products, and thus give the people cheaper food, but to bring about this desirable condition, railway facilities to transport the increased productions must be provided.
At this late hour, I shall not enter into any detailed statement as to the benefits the National Transcontinental railway was intended, when originally designed, to confer on my native city of Quebec, my hon. friend from Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance) has dwelt at length on that. The hopes of the people of Quebec for a prosperous future were based on the completion of this great railway project with its low grades and high standard, which would enable it to carry cheaply the trade of the West for shipment at our ancient port; but the policy of this Government since it has come to power, in degrading the. character of that road and reducing it from the high standard projected by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, has been a great disappointment to our people who, with reason, fear that the National Transcontinental railway will not prove that great boon originally contemplated.


Mr. JOSEPH DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville):: Mr. Speaker, I should state at the outset that the admirable address delivered by the hon. member for South Renfrew is such a thorough vindication of the course followed by the former government, in connection with the building of the Transcontinental, as well as such a victorious assertion of the national honour and credit endangered by an outbreak of prejudice unprecedented in the history of this country, that I may rightly be taken to task for recklessly interfering in this debate. Accordingly I intend limiting myself to a few and very brief considerations.

This Government, rightly or wrongly, has resolved to have judgment passed on a measure initiated by the former administration. What kind of a tribunal has been constituted for that purpose? What was the procedure followed, and what weight should be given to the findings of such a tribunal?
The two essential conditions required by justice and fair play, and without which elementary conditions no tribunal is entitled to respect, are in the first place, impartiality on the part of the judges, and the right of all parties to be represented and heard. Have both these requirements, or even one of them, been satisfied?
I put the question, though convinced beforehand that there will not be a single member of this House to answer in the affirmative. Two commissioners or judges have been appointed; one of them, an American citizen at the time of his appointment, was gotten from an institution whose interests were in direct opposition to the policy advocating the construction of a new transcontinental line; from an institution which has always, viewed that scheme unfavourably; from an institution naturally jealous of the high class construction of that road, destined as it is to enter into close competition with it and to prevent it from monopolizing henceforth transportation from east to west and vice versa. And it is from the staff of that institution that a man is selected who will draw over $20,000 a year to make an impartial report. But even that was not enough. A year or even more, previous to the making of that report, the aforesaid commissioner was granted a position which I may call permanent, that of superintendent of the Intercolonial with a salary of $20,000 and then he was instructed to " preach economy." I have not the least doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to show thrift henceforth, after making up our minds to pay such huge salaries.
Let us see if the chairman of that commission is better qualified. A Tory and a recognized partizan, an exponent of his party's policy at elections, in 1908, he made the welkin ring throughout Ontario with his invectives against the building of a national railway, basing his opposition at the time on the same grounds which are alleged to-day in his report; and so imbued with partisan notions, that while exercising his duties as commissioner, he despised the rules of the most elementary decency to the point of descending from his com-

missioner's bench to wage war on the Liberal candidate in South Bruce.
Could the Government in good faith rely on the impartiality of these two men? No one will believe it, and the mere fact of the unfair and ridiculous make-up of this commission detracts largely from the weight of the findings contained in its report, which no one can read without suspicion, a circumstance which facilitates for hon. members on this side the task of answering its charges, as the people throughout the country are not likely to give it greater attention than to any other party machination.
The hon. Solicitor General was wrongly inspiied, indeed, when he thought fit to recall the fact that the former administration, as well, had appointed commissions, namely the Civil Service Commission and the Cassels Commission, for, Mr. Speaker, there is a striking contrast between the policy followed by the former Administration and the policy followed by this Government since the hon. Solicitor General himself was forced to admit that both these commissions comprised men whose political views were not even known. It seems to me the hon. Solicitor General, under the circumstances, weakened his case through sheer indiscretion.
I shall now give further proof in support of my contention, that the Government and the commissioners showed bias and unfairness. The report is dated February 11, 1914. We find that, as a matter of fact, the whole enquiry was closed by the middle of March, 1913, with the exception of the evidence of Mr. M. P. Davis, which was delayed until February 5, 1914. What was the object of that delay, if not to excuse the commissioners' tardiness in reporting, whereby they were enabled to fill the columns of yellow papers and to insinuate and charge, and leave the public under the impression that criminal wastefulness had been indulged in, a wastefulness for which the Liberal party should be held responsible, although that party was afforded no opportunty to vindicate itself. I say that such a course is unworthy of an opponent who wishes to be counted fair.
I shall now refer to an incident which occurred during the speech of the hon. member for South Renfrew. The hon. Solicitor General, whose main characteristic is cleverness, thought fit to interrupt the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew while he was dealing with the question of the Transcontinental shops, and insinuated that the $4,500,000 expended on these
shops were not comprised in the alleged wasteful expenditure of $40,000,000 pointed-out by the commissioners.
Why that? Because the hon. Solicitor General fully felt the force of the argument advanced by the hon. member for South Renfrew and how unassailable was the position of the former Government as regards the Transcona workshops, and he endeavoured to ward off the blow.
Now, either that amount of $4,500,000 is included in the $40,000,000 or it is not. If it is, my hon. friend should not have interposed; if it is not, why does the report devote pages and pages to discussing the matter? Would it be perchance, that it was expected the House would be deceived thereby? But, Sir, I wish to state here that the hon. Solicitor General's interruption has contributed more than anything else to - satisfy me that the sum of $40,000,000 represented by the commissioners as being the minimum amount of useless expenditure, was arrived at arbitrarily and on no sound basis. Having taken the hint, I went to the pains of adding up the various amounts included under the head extravagance, and in spite of all my efforts, I have not succeeded in reaching a higher total than $35,000,000, including that amount of $4,500,000 which I have just mentioned.
So I say the position taken by the hon. member for South Renfrew was sound, well taken, when he discussed the matter on the assumption that this $4,500,000 expended on the Transcona shops was included in the estimate of the useless expenditure.
And after listening to the victorious argument presented by the hon. gentleman from South Renfrew on that point, I say there is no fair-minded man but will say that the findings of the commissioners are at variance with the facts, with the law and with common sense and show conclusively the folly of those who have evolved them.
And while I am dealing with the hon. Solicitor General, I may refer briefly to one of his remarks in reference to the entrance into Winnipeg. He stated, if I understood him well, that as a result of the decision of the former Government, the Canadian Northern had filed in court a claim for damages to the extent of $10,000,000. It must be surmised from this fact that the spot so selected was exceptionally advantageous, and I may add, either the Transcontinental had the right to select that entrance, or it had not such right; if the Transcontinental was entitled to make such selection, how can damages be fairly

claimed? If not, why did they not secure a writ of injunction? I think my hon. friend must have had cases which gave him greater concern than this, and I can only express the hope that this famous Canadian Northern case will not trouble his slumbers.
The hon. Solicitor General referred to the Davis contracts numbers 16 and 17. I do not propose dilating on the merits of this question; I am entirely satisfied with the explanation given by my hon. friends on this side who have preceded me, but I cannot forego drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Solicitor General contended that the contractors in the present instance had demanded and obtained prices from 10 per cent to 100 per cent higher than those granted in connection with other contracts, and that, on account of the difficulties met with in the matter of transportation by those desirous of reaching that part of the line. Then the hon. Solicitor General asserts that the work has been delayed, and that when it was later carried through to completion, the difficulties met with at the time tenders were called for no longer existed, owing to the contracts relating to. sections adjacent to numbers 16 and 17 being completed. The result was that the district was more easily reached and in consequence the contract price, he thought, should have been materially reduced. I think the above is a fair rendering in substance of the remarks made by the hon. Solicitor General. What would be the conclusion if all those statements were true? That Messrs. Davis are far from being the keen business men which they have been represented to us to be. Just think, here is a contract for possibly eight million dollars, the carrying out of which, according to my hon. friend's contention, should yield exorbitant profits, it may be 40, it may be 50, it may be 60 per cent, and the contractors, -who are assumed to be shrewd business men, were willing to hand it over against a payment of 10 per cent, that is less than half the average rate of profits on which contractors figures as a rule.
That strikes one as rather unusual, and leads one to surmise a good many things; for instance, when the hon. Solicitor General states that the contract prices were excessive, there must be some exaggeration; when he contends that the contractors delayed the work, there must have been satisfactory reasons to justify such delays, the commissioners' right to cancel these contracts it is likely was not as clear as the hon. Solicitor General contended, they had no assurance that, by calling for new [Mr. Demers.J
tenders, much lower prices would have been obtained, and the commissioners may have thought that serious results might ensue through further delays; and one sure thing is that the artfulness so profusely displayed by the hon. Solicitor General did not make a very deep impression on me.
I had not intended to answer the remarks made by the hon, member for Dorchester, and what I am about to say is merely in passing. The member for Dorchester, in referring to the former chairman of the Transcontinental commission, endeavoured to minimize the reputation as a business man which he enjoys not only in the province of Quebec, but throughout the whole of the Dominion. He contended that the Government should not have given him such a high post of honour as that of chairman of the Transcontinental commission, because, he said, while he was Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, a group of his followers bolted. If it were laid down as a rule that a political leader, a Prime Minister for example, is no longer worthy of public confidence because a group of his followers attempt to get rid of him, pray, Sir, where would be to-day our Prime Minister, the Eight Hon. Mr. Borden, who, in
1910,	if I well remember had to withstand a memorable revolt which came very near ending in his discomfiture? Had the hon. member for Dorchester been here at the time, he would certainly have abstained to-day from alluding to plots and conspiracies. I may remind him of the old French saw: ' Never mention the rope in the house of the hanged man.'
Then, confidence is apt to fluctuate. The hon. member for Dorchester has more experience in this connection than any of us, and I am acquainted with a goodly number of hon. gentlemen in this House who, in
1911,	had no confidence whatever in the present Prime Minister and who to-day seem to entertain feelings of a very different sort towards him.
Now, I shall revert once more to the famous Staunton-Gutelius report. There is a feature of that report which strikes me particularly as evidence of the nagging and fault-finding spirit which presided over this enquiry. It will be found that in every case where steel works have been put up, the finding of the commissioners is that wood or concrete should have been used; and whenever concrete has been put in, their finding is that either steel or wood was the proper material. When cast iron pipes were put in, concrete, they say, was the thing to use, and so forth; in other

words, it seems as though they had made up their minds to find fault with every thing, and these gentlemen even went so far as to criticize and condemn the very decision of the Canadian people to build a new transcontinental line, as evidenced by the intrusion of a few words casting a slur on the building of that part of the line which runs from Levis to Moncton. I do not wish to concern myself with that_ side issue beyond pointing out the lack of judgment and discrimination of the commissioners who have not seen the propriety of keeping within the bounds assigned to them. But we have no time to lose, and I shall leave the responsibility of that report to the government, as regards the advisability of constructing the line eastward from L6vis, though aware that the electors of Levis, L'Islet, Montmagny, Dorchester and other Quebec and maritime constituencies through which the road runs will at the proper time give vent to their feelings as regards this gross blunder on the part of the commissioners. The people have no longer the right to say what they want before the proposal has been approved by Messrs. Staunton and Gutelius, as a matter of grace on the part of these petty sovereigns.
Reference was made to the original estimates of the line and some made a pretence of being shocked at recalling the estimated cost set down by Mr. Fielding at $61,415,000. But there is no one but knows that this figure is not of Mr. Fielding's own making, and that Mr. Fielding was bound to take the figures given by the government's chief engineer, and that was what he did. The government engineer to prepare that estimate figured on an ordinary railway line, that is having steep grades and temporary works. But the government, supported by the Canadian people, decided to construct a high class road and the result, of course, was to- increase the cost of construction.
It was decided, and rightly so, to build a first class road, for there is no sense in carrying through such a gigantic undertaking and be content with the ordinary requirements. As a simple matter of common sense,'the building of a first class road was in order. It is objected:	Instead of
building permanent works, temporary works, such as pile-work, steep grades, sharp curves, &c., in a word all that goes to make up an inferior road, might have served the purpose until it was known what the traffic would amount to. To my mind such a view is mistaken, in connection with a national undertaking of such importance 143
as this. As far as I can see, it is wholly dependent on the question whether the undertaking is necessary or not. But once that point is decided, the proposal to be content with inferior work and to provide temporary facilities, is not admissible; for if the decision is to build a road, it means that the conclusion arrived at is the undertaking will surely be advantageous to the country, that is to say a success, otherwise such a departure would be unjustifiable.
The Government with the approval of th* people decided to build the Trancontinental. Of course, that was equivalent to deciding in favour of a superior type of construction, the cheaper operation of which would compensate overwhelmingly the difference in cost between a low-grade or average railway and a first class road, and would ensure economy in transportation by allowing the circulation of much heavier train-loads, economy in the shape of reduced expenditure for repairs and maintenance besides the advantages consisting in greater safety and greater speed and everything that attracts traffic.
What are the main criticisms voiced by the commissioners? Properly speaking they are but two.
1st, the road is too good, in other words, too expensive.
2nd, there has been over-classification.
As regards the first of these criticisms it covers about two thirds of the $40,000,000. I shall not go any further into the discussion of this point than I did a moment ago when referring to the necessity of building a first class road; but I may observe that there was no necessity for calling witnesses to show that it costs more to build a first class road than to build an ordinary one. An effort has been made to show that an ordinary road is worth as much as a high grade road, but in spite of the endeavours of the commissioners, they failed to attain their object, so preposterous was it to contend that ' better ' and ' inferior ' are synonymous.
There were mistakes, no doubt; it would have been wonderful if none had been committed in connection with such a vast undertaking; but it will be noticed that this ex parte inquiry has not brought to light, directly or indirectly, the slightest partible of evidence of dishonesty, illwill, neglect of duty or inability on the part of the commission or the engineers. Every difficulty which has cropped up has been discussed. Arbitrators were appointed in a good many cases, in a word nothing that



was likely to ensure honest and fair dealing was left undone.
Such is the outcome of the enquiry, though there was no cross-questioning and despite the particularly adverse conditions, as regards the former administration and the former commission, under which the enquiry was carried on. The great majority of the witnesses heard are still in the employ of this Government. The questions put in some cases are leading in the ftrtreme and put in the witnesses' mouths the very answers they are expected to give; some may be construed as imperative in this regard, and whoever reads the evidence given by the various witnesses cannot help saying to himself that many explanations or developments might have been obtained by cross-questioning the witness, though a pretty clear view of the situation may be had by perusing the volume of exhibits, which, by the way, has not yet been translated into French, or at any rate the French version of which has not yet been distributed.
Then, it appears from the discussion that the commission have carefully recorded every thing that was of a nature to further the object for which the commission was appointed, that is to slander the Liberal party. Comparisons have been instituted to show the excessive cost of certain works as against others on the Canadian Pacific or Canadian Northern lines; but in making these comparisons, no allowance has been made for variations in the situation or the time, or even for dissimilarity in the nature of the work performed.
How explain the discrepancy between the actual cost and the original estimates? We might be content with answering: by the greater difficulty of forecasting results as compared with merely recording them. But I think that such a question should be met with an answer or rather an explanation of a more practical nature, and we provide such explanation by pointing out the difference, as acknowledged by the commissioners themselves, between a first-class road and an ordinary road taken as a basis in the working out of the original estimates. Thus the evidence- shows that the original surveys had not revealed the presence of solid rock over a great extent of the line. Then there are the great difficulties in the way of construction, which it is impossible to prevent or to foresee. Lastly, the increase in the cost of labour and supplies. That is more than enough to show the enormous difference that should be figured on when comparing estimates of 
works previous to their carrying out in 1902 and the cost of these works after completion.
But there is this much to be gathered from the inquiry: the work done"is first class, and the country has the benefit of all that has been done, save in the matter of classification, wherein, according to the commissioners, $3,300,000 were paid to the contractors over and above what they were entitled to owing to over-classification, that is to say, owing to faulty judgment on the part of the engineers, since their honesty cannot be impugned by any one, that no one suspects their good faith, not even the commissioners, and since the great majority of the engineers who made the classification have been retained in the employ of the Transcontinental Commission and are still with them.
After carefully going over the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that nothing, absolutely nothing, can justify the commissioners' finding as to over-classification, and I unhesitatingly declare, that a careful summing up of the evidence would have unerringly led them to a conclusion quite different from that which they reached, and that they should, on the contrary, have stated outright that the classification had been conscientiously effected, from the local engineer up to the chief engineer who was called upon to approve of it finally. That appears from the evidence of Walter Youngman, William G. Brown, Alfred A. Paradis, N. R. Beaudette, Stanley Hawkins, A. O. Bourbonnais, G. A. Buttler, Robertson, O'Leary, Pardee, Holland, Charlton, Bell, Bucke, Timbrell, Dick, Holiday, Ferguson, Black, Mattice, Longley, Porter, Hervey, Baldam, Molesworth, Foss, Dou-cet, McFarlane, Grant, and even Lumsden.
All such proof goes to show that any difficulty arising out of the classification was considered and very often submitted to arbitration, and that no classification was settled on before it had been fairly and conscientiously looked into and recognized as being equitable. Everything was transacted above board and decided after due consideration, and the only occasion for differences of opinion (mere differences of opinion) was the unusual character of the material encountered in the building of that road, the original specifications affording necessarily no guidance as to conditions which could not be foreseen previous to the actual carrying out of the work.
As a result of the discussions, the classification was altered at times in favour of the

contractors and at times in favour of the road.
And if I am to infer, as the uncontra-dieted statement goes, that no final settlement has taken place between the Liberal Government and the contractors, there is nothing to mourn over, and it only remains for this Government to set things right and to apply the remedy when the time comes to effect final settlement. Will they do so? What did they do in the case of contractor McArthur? The arbitrators had-decided that over-classification, in his case amounted to $550,000. Was the settlement effected on that basis? Was the settlement effected at $500,000, or $400,000, or $300,000, or $200,000? No, it was settled at $150,000. That shows, Mr. Speaker, what the zeal of these great preachers of economy amounts to in practice.
Commissioners Staunton and Gutelius personally may in good faith differ from the views of the engineers who are responsible for the classification, but their opinion should not be taken into account, and they should have restricted themselves to the evidence heard; had they done so, it would have been impossible for them to draw such conclusions.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the construction of that railway was superintended by engineers whom the former commission had reason to believe competent. Let us not lose sight pf the fact that the contracts, as stated in the report itself, have always been granted to the lowest bidder; that the Grand Trunk Pacific was in every case at liberty to submit tenders; that the Grand Trunk Pacific whose interest in cheap construction was greater than any other's since they are bound, after seven years operation, to pay 3 per cent interest on the total cost, had the right to supervise the work, and were represented by their most capable engineers, and that the classification, as it is, was accepted by the chief engineer of the commission, by the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific and by the arbitrators.
Thus we have the best guarantee that the classification must have been carried out as well as it was possible to carry it out, especially in the absence of any proof of dishonesty or improper interference on the part of any one. Besides, there exists no reason whatever for any one to prefer the opinion of people who never worked on the road, who did not visit these districts at the outset, but only five or six years after the work had been done, to that of honest and respectable men who have themselves wit-143}
nessed the difficulties to be met with in the construction; and I do not think the people who are responsible for that classification could wish for a more conclusive acknowledgment of theirr ability and of their honesty than the fact of their being retained in the employ of this administration. For, Mr. Speaker, one of two things, either these engineers were capable and honest, or they were not; in the latter case, they should not have been retained, and since they ha\ e been so retained we are led to the conclusion that they were deemed honest and capable. It seems to me that this does away with any attempt to find fault with the classification. My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that, since no dishonesty can be charged against the commissioners, since the classification was effected with more than ordinary care-even if there had been errors of judgment committed by the engineers in some cases with the result that $3,000,000 had been lost, a gratuitous and unfounded assertion on the part of the commissioners-since it has been demonstrated that the course deemed most advisable was decided upon after due consideration of every aspect of the question, I say, notwithstanding what the commissioners may think, public opinion in Canada as well as abroad will be satisfied that the opprobrium rests entirely with those who endeavoured to show to the world that Canadians are either fools or scoundrels.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, believe that the Government has uselessly thrown avray thousands and thousands of dollars on an inquiry the only object of which apparently was to discredit the Liberal party, and the actual outcome of which has been to strike a blow at Canada's credit on foreign money markets.
The said inquiry will also have as a result to satisfy the whole Dominion that the Government's intention is to kill the Transcontinental by departing from the rule of uniformity in the building of the road between Cochrane and Quebec, in such a way that the whole country will be debarred of the advantages to be derived from the operation of a genuine transcontinental line which its present requirements and its future prospects imperatively demand.
The voice of Toronto may kill the proposed Georgian Bay canal scheme; such a powerful influence may even kill the Transcontinental scheme, but luckily for Canada, the powerful voice of the Canadian people will soon make itself heard and deaden tie clamourings which personal interest draws forth from a certain group.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, although it is very
late, I feel that I have a certain responsibility and should say a few words on this important subject. First of all, I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) who spoke lart evening. He used the following words::
I was somewhat surprised at the attempt of the hon. gentleman to justify the construction -of the eastern branch of the. Grand Trunk Pacific from Moncton to Quebec. I do not think there is another member in this House who has the temerity to stand up and, in view of the criticisms that have been launched against that branch of the National Transcontinental railway, attempt to defend it at this stage. We have every reputable engineer, connected with either the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Government service condemning that branch of the National Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Quebec.
These are extravagant words, and are not borne out by the facts. So far as I know, no hon. member from New Brunswick or Quebec on the Liberal side of the House has ever uttered one word to show that he has not the utmost faith in the construction of the line between Levis and Moncton. The hon. member for North Ontario went on to read the following question from the evidence of Mr. Lumsden:
Did you make a study of the advisability of constructing a new line through New Brunswick paralleling the Intercolonial railway?
There is an insinuation in that question of something that is not a fact, because it is not true that the National Transcontinental railway parallels the Intercolonial railway. Mr. Lumsden's answer is:
No, I never had any discussion with the ministers about it.
With whom, forsooth, would the bargain be made? Would it be made with the representatives of the Grand Trunk Pacific or with the engineers? I fancy that the owners of the road would be a party to the agreement. I want to draw attention to the unfairness of the next question. Here is a Royal Commissioner who was supposed to learn the facts of the case, to be fair to each side, asking a question and putting the answer in the witness's mouth. The question is as follows:
You would not have recommended it, would you?
Is there a civil court or a criminal court in our land in which a lawyer would be allowed to ask a question in such a manner? The commissioners even went so far that, when they did not get the answer, they suggested-


Mr. BELAND:: You are not working with us.


William Stewart Loggie: You are not working with us; you are dodging the question. Is that a Royal Commission? I think it has been well called an inquisition. It is a one-sided, party inquisition for a purpose. The present Premier of Canada in his election platform at Halifax some years ago said that he stood for adequate protection. I fancy that when an election comes on-and it is perhaps not very far away-this document will be considered as adequate protection to keep the majority that my hon. friends opposite now have.
I want to call attention to an action of this same Mr. Lumsden who, at the time to which I have reference, was chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway. Let me refer to a report of the Transcontinental Commission of 1905. I am sorry that it will take up some time to read this, but I think it is very important, in view of the misleading and partisan statements published in the Gutelius-Staunton report and reiterated on the floor of Parliament to be sent broadcast throughout this country, that there should be put on ' Hansard ' at the same time and under the same date the facts as they were represented to the people of Canada in 1905 by this same Mr. Lumsden and by his assistant engineer. Page 75 of sessional paper No. 62 C of 1905, reads as follows:
I requested Mr. M. J. Butler, assistant chief engineer, who had recently been over considerable portions of districts ' A ' and ' B '-
That is the section east of Levis.
-to make a comparative report on the distances by the Intercolonial railway from St. Jean Chrysostdme to Moncton, and by our preliminary line; what the probable distance would be on final location between these points by the Transcontinental railway line, and what difference would be made in this distance, supposing we used grades of 1 per cent in each direction; and to compare the operating values of the several lines on the basis of ten freight trains per day each way; and what the difference in the capital account would be.
This report I beg to attach:
Mr. Hugh H. Lumsden,
_	Chief Engineer,
Ottawa, Canada.
Sir,-In reply to your inquiry of the 20th inst., asking me to report on:
1st. The length of the Intercolonial railway with its 1 per cent grades in both directions from Moncton to St. ChrysostSme where it intersects the line of the survey of the Transcontinental railway.
2nd. The length of the preliminary, lines as run by districts ' A ' and ' B ' of the Transcontinental railway, with balance grades of

0.4 per cent (21 1-10 feet per mile) rising: eastwardly, and 0.6 per cent (31 68-100 feet per mile) rising westwardly between Moncton and St. Chrysostome.
3rd. The approximate shortening of the preliminary line likely to he secured by the Anal location, preserving the gradients which have been secured.
4th. The approximate shortening of the preliminary line likely to be secured, providing the grades were to be increased to 1 per cent.
5th. To compare the operating values of the several lines on the basis of ten daily freight trains each way, on the Intercolonial railway.
6th. To capitalize the yearly cost, so determined on a basis of money at 4 per cent per annum.
With reference thereto I beg to say:
1st. The distance from Moncton to St. Chry-sostdme, by way of the Intercolonial railway is 493.5 miles.
2nd The distance from Moncton to St. Chry-sostSme via the preliminary survey lines as run for the Transcontinental railway, is 504 miles.
I think I might omit sections 3 and 4 and come to what he has to say regarding operation. He goes on:
5th. For the purpose of the calculation, I have taken the Intercolonial railway locomotive No. 310, a simple consolidation recently built by the Canadian Locomotive Company at Kingston, Ont., and which I understand is now in use on the Intercolonial railway, the principal dimensions of which are as follows:
After giving these figures of dimensions, he goes on:
I assume that thirty ton capacity cars, which weigh when loaded 46.15 tons will constitute the train. The several trains which the above locomotive can haul at a speed of fifteen miles per hour on the several grades below are as follows:
Intercolonial railway, 1 per cent grades, 22 cars equal to 660 tons net pay load.
Transcontinental-railway, east-bound, 4-10ths of 1 per cent grade, 42 cars, giving 1,260 tons net pay load.
It is worth noting here that the same power can haul over the low-grade line practically twice as much tonnage as over the Intercolonial Tailway.
Transcontinental railway west bound 6-10ths of 1 per cent grade, 33 cars, giving 990 tons net pay load.
The Intercolonial railway, 10 daily freight trains each way, will haul in a year of 313 working days (length of line 493.5 miles), net pay tons 660 x 2, trains 2 x 10 x 313 days = 4,131,600 pay tons; and to haul this number of trains will make 493.5 x 2 miles, 2 x 10 trains, 313 days, 3,089,310 train miles per year.
The cost per train mile on the Intercolonial railway for the year 1903, as given in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals is 97.65 cents, which cost will be used for all comparisons. Hence 3,089,310 train miles x 97.65 cents=$3,016,711.21, which gives the annual cost of operating the ten dally trains on the Intercolonial railway.
The Transcontinental railway low grade line will handle the same tonnage, with seven trains east-bound and five west-bound, although they will not be quite loaded to the full limit, the ratio of east-bound to west-bound traffic is taken at about 6 to 4 (length of line 486 miles). Hence we get 486 miles x 12 trams x 313 days=l,825,415 train miles per year, which moneyed out at the same price per train mile of 97.65 cents equal $1,782,518, which gives the annual cost of operating the twelve trains on the Transcontinental railway.
The annual operating cost of the Intercolonial railway being $3,016,711.21.
The annual operating cost of the Transcontinental railway being $1,782,518.72.
Leaves a net annual saving in favour of the Transcontinental railway of $1,234,192.49.
Which sum capitalized at 4 per cent per, annum equals $30,854,812.25.
And this amount is the Increased value of the Transcontinental low grade line over and above the existing Intercolonial railway on the basis of ten daily trains each way over the Intercolonial railway.
Yet Mr. Gutelius, in his report, has the audacity to tell the people of Canada that he does not think this line east of Quebec should he constructed at all; and here, on the evidence of Mr. Butler, confirmed by Mr. Lnmsden, we have the fact that there is an annual advantage in favour of operating the Transcontinental railway over that of the Intercolonial railway of $1,234,192.49.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What did Mr. Blair say about it?


William Stewart Loggie: Mr. Blair is past and gone, and I think, perhaps, we had better leave that alone. Mr. Butler has made his calculation on a certain tonnage, but now he tells us:
With increased business the difference will be much greater.
For instance on the basis of ten fully loaded trains each way per day on the Transcontinental, we get 486 length line x 10 x 2 trains x 313 days=3,042,360 train miles, which will cost per year at 97.65 cents, $2,970,864.54, and will transport 7,042,500 net pay tons.
To do this business on the Intercolonial railway will require 34 daily trains, and we get 493.5 miles x 34 trains x 313 days = 5,251,857 train miles, which will cost per year at 97.65 cents, $5,128,409.06. The annual net savings in favour of the Transcontinental railway on this basis being $2,157,544.52, which sum capitalized at 4 per cent per annum gives $53,938,613, and this amount is the increased value of the Transcontinental low grade line over and above the existing Intercolonial railway on the basis of ten daily trains each way on the Transcontinental railway.
And yd the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), forsooth, asks: Is there a man to-day who would uphold the action of the Government in the construction of this part of the line?
Mr. Butler concludes:

freight trains daily over the same operation on the Intercolonial railway. Is there an hon. gentleman Who, in face of figures like these, will contend that it would have been wisdom on the part of the Government of Canada and of the Grand Trunk Pacific, who are the lessees, to construct a one per cent line and lose an annual sum such as I have named ? In addition to that, note that Mr. Butler says that he has not included the saving in operation of passenger trains. I understand the proportion of freight to passenger net earnings on the Intercolonial railway is about as 66f is to 33J. Mr. Butler explains that lighter engines can be used, resulting in less consumption of coal, better time is made, etc. Assume that this proportion of advantage on passenger traffic is a fair estimate, then the 16,886,000 saved on freight operations will be augmented by $2,255,333 from the passenger service. Thus we have a total saving annually in operating expenses of ^9,181,383, in favour of operating 1,800 miles of low gradient railway as compared with the operation of 1,800 miles of one per cent gradient railway, such as the Intercolonial railway is at present.
Is there any further proof that the Royal Commission, so called, has presented to this country a partial, an incomplete, an unfair report ? They were called upon to do a certain duty and they have done it, they have pointed out to the people of Canada where certain sums could have been saved. I think the sum of $6,000,000 is stated as the amount that could have been saved by the use of momentum grades as against a practically level road. What of it ? I ask, what of it ? I charge that there is not a hint in that report from one cover to the other that any member of the commission, any one of the engineers in the employ of and paid by the Government, dishonestly used for his own benefit, one dollar of public funds; and it is a credit to the Government that $180,000,000 of the public money has been expended and that yet, after an investigation, there is not a hint that one dollar was taken by a servant of the Government unfairly. If that is not creditable I do not know what could be. The report says that so much money could have been saved by degrading the standard of the road, for instance by building the substructure at Quebec partly of wood and partly of cement. Then, it says, so much could have been saved by using wooden trestles instead of solid fill. They say that $40,000,000 have been misspent. They mention these different items but they do not
add up to anything like $40,000,000. Tiie $40,000,000 can only be reached by compounding interest on the amounts. The calculation I have shown will prove to you and to every member of this House that the late Government acted wisely in providing for a road of the highest possible standard.
I am sorry to have to say that this is an unfair report. We all know what the agreement was. The commission have very unfairly represented the object of the railway. They say simply that it was a means to secure cheaper transportation. But this road opens up a new country; by its construction we roll back to the northward the map of Canada. It is a colonization road as well as a road for transportation from the East to the West, and there are advantages accruing to Canada from the construction of this road in the way of new population in the Northland. Many thousands of loyal Canadians will be located along this road. Many are now locating there in Quebec and New Brunswick. I said in my opening remarks that it was unfair for the hon. member for North Ontario to say that this road parallels the Intercolonial railway. We might as well say that all roads running east and west parallel each other. In a sense it is true, but if hon. gentlemen will take the map they will find a difference between the Intercolonial railway and this line; they will observe that it opens up an entirely new section through New Brunswick, a section that probably would not have been opened for the next hundred years if it had not 'been for the fact that this is a part of a through line, because the local trade would not of itself be sufficient to support a railway.
I think I have demonstrated that that report is wilfully partisan, that the commissioners have wilfully omitted things they ought to have put in the report and that they have given an overdrawn picture of other things which they have inserted in their report. They have put answers in the witnesses' mouths, they have been unfair; and if it is wilfully partisan it is misleading, so that the words of the amendment are words that are actually borne out by the facts. Will hon. gentlemen vote against the facts or will they stand up and vote so that it cannot be said to the world at large that the Government of the day have endorsed what hon. gentlemen have said regarding the construction of this railway? Let me put one more thing to you. If there is one thing more than another

that seems to me unfair in this report it is the statement made with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific on page 24 of the report.
They insinuate that the Grand Trunk Pacific condoned the overbreak, or paying to the contractors more than they had a right to get, because, forsooth, the Grand Trunk Pacific themselves were contractors. Then the report goes on to say that they did not do the work themselves but that they sublet their contracts on the basis of 5 per cent. Thus they insinuate that the Grand Trunk Pacific, for the paltry sum of 5 per cent of any amount alleged to have been paid as overbreak more than should have been allowed by the engineers, acted contrary to the interests of the stockholders of that corporation. Is it worthy, ot unworthy, of the Government of the day to say that about a great corporation like the Grand Trunk Pacific? I think it is a slander on the Grand Trunk Pacific and on the Grand Trunk, the pioneer railway organization of Canada. That is another reason why I say that the amendment is in accordance with the facts and ought to be voted for by every member of this House.
The acting Minister of Railways, in addressing this House on the subject, was most unfair in adding to his statement $42,000,000 ior seven years' interest, as the amount, on the basis of the rental, which the road will have to pay. That is absolutely unfair because every man in this House knows that the Grand Trunk Pacific are to have the Toad for seven years Tent free 'and if you add seven years' interest and they have to pay interest on that amount for 43 years, that they are not receiving seven years' rent free. When the attention of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) was drawn to that he said that the acting Minister of Railways and Canals was right. I am willing to excuse the Postmaster General because, perhaps, he did not know the facts, but there is no excuse for the acting Minister of Railways and Cana'ls in putting that statement before the country. It was unfair on the part of the royal commission not to show the advantages in the way of operation as against the interest charges. It was unfair not to show that the Grand Trunk Pacific entered into that agreement for 0 -4 per cent and 0-.6 per cent grades. Perhaps I ought not to put it exactly in that way because there is a clause in the report that the Grand Trunk Pacific entered into that agreement for 0.4 per cent and 0.6 per cent grades

on the cost of which they have to pay interest for 43 years. Would the Grand Trunk Pacific wish an undue cost to be added to the 1,800 miles of road in order to cover up an alleged overcharge with respect to the 271 miles for which they themselves had the contract ? It was unfair of the commissioners to endeavour to have witnesses answer the questions of the commission in a way which would not be allowed by any judge in any civil ior criminal court. It was unfair to allege that those in charge of the construction, including the Grand Trunk Pacific, did not consider it desirable or necessary to encourage economy in the construction. The statement of the royal commission in that regard is absolutely without foundation. It is all very well for them to make a statement like that but they have not substantiated it. All they have substantiated is that the railway could have been built for less money by degrading it. In the same way, if you start to build a store, you can lessen the cost by degrading the character of the work. I have read the report through, although I have not read all the evidence, and that is all I can find in it.
I have nothing more to say than that it will give me great pleasure to vote for the amendment. I think the amendment is in accordance with the facts. I am sorry to think that this report has to go broadcast through the country making these unfair insinuations against the Grand Trunk Pacific. It does an injustice to the credit of Canada and to the management of public affairs. I suppose that its object is to do duty before the country. It seems to me that we might place on the title page the words ' adequate protection '. Then, it will do its duty when the election comes on. It will then be said by those who have charge of the election campaign, as the commission say on page 15 that,
' $40,000,000 at least was needlessly expended in the building of this road.' Then some paper, or some supporter of the Government, will take up the cry that $40,000,000 of the people's money has been squandered. Then it will be added to and it will be said that .something worse than that has been done with $40,000,000 of the people's money. Then there will be the story-the money is gone but there is no money for the navy; they refused $35,000,000 to protect the old land. That would not be true if they did say that. It is not true at all because we were willing to give very much more than $35,000,000; we offered it.

Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Stewart Loggie: Hon. gentlemen may
laugh, but, nevertheless, they cannot dispute the facts as I place them before the House and the country. I trust that hon. gentlemen will take this matter into their serious consideration and not allow their partisan views to carry them away. Let them rise to the dignity of the occasion and make an amendment of their own if they like. I suppose that, if they accepted our amendment, it would be considered as a vote of want of confidence in the Government, but let them make an amendment of their own which will take away from the Government the responsibility of condoning the report of this Royal Commission drawn up in the words that we find between these covers. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, but I thought it was a duty which I owed to my constituents and the country to place on record .my views with regard to this important question.
On motion of Mr. Douglas the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.
Wednesday, April 1, 1914.
known as the W. S. Fielding, at work in the harbour of St. John from October 1, 1911, to the present time?	.
2.	What persons, firms or corporations did the work?
3.	Was the work done by tender? If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender ?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$23,019.63.
2.	Union Foundry and Machine Company, under contract, $284; repairs at different times, $3,317.74; St. John Iron Works, under contract, $2,074.60; repairs at different times, $2,134.84; Wm. Lewis & Son, under contract, $3,250; repairs at different times, $7,403.35; J. F. Williamson, $573.70; Department of Marine and Fisheries, $1,822.49; T. McAvity & Son, $53.71;
D.	McLachlan & Son, $1,055.26; Schuller Electric Company, $550.30; E. S. Stephenson, $195.59; James Fleming, $56; G. Hevener, $43.60; J. E. Wilson, $164.25. Total, $23,019.63.
3.	Tenders were asked for:	Bucket repairs:	Wm. Lewis & Son bid $3,250; tender ' accepted. Union Foundry and Machine Company bid $7,000.
Tumbler repairs:	Union Foundry and
Machine Company bid $284; tender accepted. Wm. Lewis & Son bid $527.
Boiler repairs: St. John Iron Works bid $2,074.60; tender accepted. James Fleming bid $2,300.