1914-04-27

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House agrees to their request to appoint a special committee to meet with a similar special committee of the Senate to consider Senate Bill No. B 2, intituled 'an Act to consolidate and amend the Railway Act,' to take evidence, if necessary, and to hear parties interested, and that each^ such special committee report to their respective Houses, and also to inform Their Honours that Messrs. Ames, Armstrong (Lambton), Bennett (Calgary), Blain, Beland, Carvell, Crothers, Emmerson, Fowler, Graham, Green, Lancaster, Lemieux, Macdonell, Maclean (York), McCurdy, McKay, Meighen, Murphy, Nesbitt, Oliver, Perley, Rainville, Reid (Grenville), Sinclair, and Turriff will act as members of the said special committee.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Is it the serious intention of the Government to go on with this Bill this session? It is a very lengthy
and important Bill; there are over 100 amendments in it as well as some new sections; in fact, the railway law of Canada is to be entirely overhauled. From my knowledge of railway legislation, I think it would take this House a. month to handle this Bill, if we gave it the attention it ought to have.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a good deal of force in what the hon. gentleman says as [DOT] to the importance of the Bill and the necessity for careful and perhaps lengthy consideration. It was hoped that the Bill might have been introduced at an earlier date in the session than that which eventually proved practicable. We would like to have the Bill passed this session, but we do not propose to make any attempt to force it through without due consideration and full deliberation. In any event, there is no harm in having the committee appointed and doing what can be done this session in that regard. .


George Perry Graham: In what position will the committee of the House of Commons be to examine this Bill, unless the Minister of Railways introduces the Bill?


Robert Laird Borden: I inquired as to precedents with regard to the matter, and the information was conveyed to me, as emanating from the Speaker and the officers of the House, that it was not necessary to do that,, in view of the message from the Senate. There is no objection to introducing the Bill here if it should be desired. I am merely acting in accordance with what I understand to be the proper procedure a.s conveyed to me by the officers of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
APPOINTMENT OF MESSENGER. Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:
That the recommendation of His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons in the matter of the proposed appointment of Mr. Herbert D. Throop as permanent messenger in the Library of Parliament, laid upon the table of the House with other papers in connection therewith on the 20th day of April last, be concurred in, and the said messenger's salary begin at six hundred dollars per annum from March 25, 1914, as recommended by the Librarians of Parliament; and that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours therewith.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ended March 31,
[Stage Direction]
1913; part IV-miscellaneous information.- Hon. George B. Foster.

[Stage Direction]
National council of women.
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 140, to incorporate the National Council of Women of Canada.-Sir E. Osier. Mr. Blondin in the chair.
On section 1-incorporation; name:
Mr. OLIVER:: Would some person in
charge of this Bill explain what its purpose is?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not very familiar
with the Bill. I was just looking over it. Sir Edmund Osier, in whose name the Bill stands, is absent through indisposition. There has been an institution in Canada, as my hon. friend knows, called the National Council of Women, which, as I understand, is designed to bring into co-operation various societies and associations of women throughout Canada for charitable, .benevolent and other purposes of a like character. I understand that the object of the Bill is merely to give a more efficient organization by the acquisition of corporate powers. I have looked over the Bill and it does not seem to contain anything of an objectionable character. Perhaps we can take it up clause by clause and have it read.
On section 5-constitution and standing orders:


Mr. NESBITT:: What does the Premier think of clause 5, by which we legalize the by-laws of the Council, although we know nothing about 'their by-laws?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not familiar with the by-laws of the various local councils; but, inasmuch as the ladies in the various cities and towns of Canada carry on the affairs of these local councils under these by-laws and have done pretty good work,
I think we may safely assume that the by-laws are reasonable, and that if they are not reasonable they will be amended under the provisions of this Act.


Mr. GERMAN:: Is this the inauguration of female suffrage?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to answer that, because I really do not know anything more about the Bill than my hon. friend; and, in the absence of Sir Edmund Osier, I thought I would like to help it along if I could.
	,
.On section 9-acquisition of real property:


Robert Laird Borden: That is the only other important section. It provides that the National Council may hold real estate to the amount of not more than $20,000, and any local council to an amount not exceeding $10,000.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PATENT OF JOHN ARNOLDI.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill 143, respecting a patent of John Arnoldi.-Mr. Macdonell. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-power to commissioner of patents for extension of patent:
Mr. CARVELL:: What is this patent?


Mr. BURRELL:: This is a patent against whose renewal our department raise no objection. Arnoldi, the patentee, had paid in fees for two terms, that is twelve years, and then became very ill just before the final payment was due, so that he could not attend to his own business and would not allow anyone else to do so, and the third payment lapsed. The patent is the only thing left to the widow, who is the beneficiary legatee, and she asks that she may be allowed to revive it through this Bill. The Senate unanimously passed it, and our department raise no objection under the circumstances.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



PACIFIC, TRANS-CANADA AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill 142, respecting the Trans-Canada and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-extension of time:
Mr. LANCASTER:: I was unable, on account of the state of my health, to be here on Friday night, but I understand from leading 'Hansard' that some hon. gentlemen desired an explanation of this Bill. We have passed the Bill from the Senate as printed without any amendment. It iB the first extension of time asked for this line of railway, and, of course, to that extent the Railway Committee had some sympathy with it. It originated in 1912. The line runs from Edmonton to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill, and from Lone river to Peace river, crossing thence

through Laurier pass to Prince Rupert or Portland canal. It is about a thousand miles in length, and the capitalization in 1912 was fixed at $10,000,000.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Who are the promoters?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not the original act of incorporation before me, so I cannot give that information. The only objection made in the committee was as to the name. One hon. gentleman thought that the words Hudson bay were objectionable, but he did not press the objection. The difficulty is that the company has had corporate powers since 1912 by the Act of this Parliament, and in the absence of some very good reason for making a change in name we did not like to make one.


Frank Oliver: What is the route of the railway from Edmonton? I am informed the route is through Athabaska Landing. If so, I shall be glad to consent to the extension of time, but if it is not routed through Athabaska Landing, I want it so routed as a condition of the extension of time.
M<r. LANCASTER: As a matter of fact, I cannot say that it is, or is not so routed. The language is not so specific as that. It reads: 'from Edmonton to Port Nelson '' and the railway is not required to run actually though Athabaska Landing. The Minister of Railway will have to deal with that question in approving the route map.


Frank Oliver: I wish to make very emphatic objection to the extension of time in the charter. Either the charter means nothing at all, or it means that .a railway will be built. If it means nothing at all, it should not encumber the statute book. There are certain railroads built, and building, to the northwest and to the northeast of Edmonton. If this railroad is to be routed approximately near Athabaska Landing, as the representative of that district, I want it routed through Athabaska Landing. I do not want this railroad to be able to hold up an established town that is adjacent to their proposed line of railway. If, on the contrary, it is routed to pass a considerable distance from Athabaska Landing I have nothing to complain of; but as the representative of that district I want to know what is the intention of Parliament in this matter, .and to have the interests of this established town protected so faT as Parliament can protect them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I see that the section does make it an alternative.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the original Bill provides that the company may build from a point at or near the city of Edmonton, thence northerly by the most feasible route to, at, or near Athabaska Landing.
I do not object to the words ' at or near ' in the case of Edmonton, which is an established city and railroad centre, and a railway constructed thereabouts would necessarily be constructed from Edmonton. The interests of the railroad would compel that, but in the case of Athabaska Landing the position is different, and I would like the committee to amend the charter in order to make the railway run through Athabaska Landing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps we can do
that here. If the House is unanimous, we could strike out the words ' at or near.'


Frank Oliver: That would be very satisfactory to me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then I would move
that a new section be added at the end of the Bill as follows:
Section 8 of chapter 134 of the statutes of 1912 is amended by striking out the words ' at, or near ' after the word ' to ' in the fifth line of the said section.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps the hon. member had better give notice of that amendment; then it will not be necessary for him to be here when the Bill goes through.
Progress reported.



PRINCE EDWARD AND HASTINGS RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on BilJ No. 93, respecting the Prince Edward and Hastings Railway Company.-Mr. Hepburn. Mr. Blondih in the Chair.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps the committee would like a word of explanation. We are not changing section 1 at all, but we are changing section 3 by striking out the words ' from a point at or near,' so as to make the railway run from Brighton. They have authority to build from Trenton easterly to Belleville, thence northwesterly to Frankford, thence to Trenton; also a branch line to Picton and also three branch lines from Picton to Ferry Point, West Point and Black River, respectively. This authority is given in the original incorporation. Under -section 2 of the present Bill we are allowing a little additional construction.


George Perry Graham: As the member tor
Prince Edward (Mr. Hepburn) is in his seat, perhaps he may explain section 2, which authorizes the construction of new lines from a point at or near Brighton by the most feasible route to Picton.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have struck out
the words * a point at or near,' so that the railway will run from Brighton.


Mr. HEPBURN:: The distance from
Brighton to Picton, and thence to Kingston is about 72 miles.


William Manley German: How are you going to
get from Picton to Kingston?


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: We propose bridging
at Glenora.


William Manley German: A rather long bridge.


George Perry Graham: Could the promoter of
the Bill tell us the names of the directors of this company? The Chairman of the Railway Committee, I presume,. has not that information at hand. Is this railway for some large company now in existence?


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: It is an independent
road. The directors all reside in the county of Prince Edward.


George Perry Graham: Is it an electric road? Mr. HEPBURN: No, steam.
On section 3-securities:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amount of .securities is exactly the same as in the original Bill.


George Perry Graham: I see that an additional amount of security is required dn case they double track. I do not suppose they will double-track for some time.


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: You cannot tell; that is the most fertile county in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 141, respecting Rainy River Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Carrick. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill, which
came to us from the Senate, has not been amended at all except that we added the standard clause, which prevents the con-
struction on highways without the consent of municipalities.


George Perry Graham: This is a renewal of a charter granted in 1910. One of the questions that arise frequently in connection with the renewal of charters is in reference to the distribution of electric energy and the powers in connection with it. The Railway Committee has adopted a standard clause, and inserts it even in a renewal of a charter. Has that been done in this case ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There are three
standard clauses that we now insert in every railway charter. One is as to water-powers and electricity, one as to putting up poles upon the highways, and the other as to securing the authority of the municipality before constructing upon highways. The first two are in the charter as passed in 1910, and the third is inserted by our amendment.


George Perry Graham: What is the route of this railway ?


Mr. CARRICK:: It runs through the northern section of the Rainy River dis-tiict. The route is given in section 8 of the charter, chapter 152 of the Statutes of 1910:
Prom a point on the northern boundary of the state of Minnesota at or near the town of Fort Prances, to a point on the lake of the Woods at or near the mouth of Big Grassy river;
From a point on the said line west of the township of Mather, to a point on the lake of the Woods at or near the mouth of the Little Grassy river;
From a point, or points, on the first described line in or east of the township of Mather, to a point on the northern boundary of the state of Minnesota at or near the Long Sault rapids on the Rainy river, and to the town of Rainy River or a point on the northern boundary of the state of Minnesota at or near the town of Rainy River.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the reason for getting a charter in this Parliament was that the fact that it touches the Minnesota border makes it an international railway. Is this an electric railway ?


John James Carrick: I do not think so.


George Perry Graham: Is it intended to get the water-power from Rainy river ? There are a good many water-powers on Rainy river and these are in dispute between Minnesota and Ontario.


Frank Oliver: This charter seems to raise a very serious question, and I think the acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) should state the position of the Government with regard to it. It will be noticed

that this railway touches the United States boundary at two points. I am sure the House would like to know, and know very definitely, whether it is the intention of the Government, in sanctioning this charter, to permit the carriage of wheat from the Canadian West into the United States. Surely, there are enough railways now crossing the boundary diverting the trade of Canada to the United States and preventing profit-earnings upon Canadian transcontinental lines without any more such railways being permitted. We would like to have a declaration from the Minister of Railways upon that point.


Mr. REID:: This Bill came up in the
Railway Committee the other day. I was not present, having another committee to attend. I have not looked into the matter very carefully and would not like to pass an opinion now. If there are any objections or if the question is deemed important, we will let the Bill stand over. But I am surprised to hear the hon. member objecting to more railways taking wheat into the United States, because he was urging that very strongly a day or two ago.


Frank Oliver: That will not do. I am not objecting to the Bill; I am asking for a declaration of principle in regard to the Bill by the Government whose policy is distinctly against the carrying of wheat into the United States as that policy was put forward by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech, and I think by almost every other hon. member on that side who followed him.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that was the policy of the hon. member when the Transcontinental Bill was brought in-that is, to bring wheat from the West through Canada. I hope he has not changed his policy.


Frank Oliver: Of course, if it is necessary to explain, the explanation is that the policy of those who established the Transcontinental was to provide all facilities foa-the export of the productions of the West in every available direction-whether by the construction of the Transcontinental, the construction of the Hudson Bay railway or the construction of lines across the international boundary. It was hon. gentlemen opposite who opposed the construction of lines across the international boundary. Yet, though in control of the House, they sanction the building of such lines.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, on that point the Government is not serious; that is the explanation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: They are just talking for effect, and not for traffic. This Act was passed in 1910, and consequently it must be a fairly good Act. What I wranted to get at was just where the railway ran and what its powers were. I had the route generally in mind, but wished to know it more definitely. So far as the traffic north and south is concerned, the increase in traffic between Canada and the United States shows the wisdom of improving facilities for that traffic. For, so long as that traffic is profitable, you cannot stop it. I think that after the explanation of the promoter of the Bill we ought to let it pass, as the Government now say it is their policy to have all the railroads possible.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the expression ' at or near ' Rainy river all right ?


John James Carrick: I think that is satisfactory.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



LABRADOR, QUEBEC AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 97, to incorporate the All Red Line Railway Company (its title to be the Labrador, Quebec and Southern Railway Company).- Mr. Fripp. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-incorporation:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is an amendment to section 1 as to the name, striking out the words ' All Red Line ' and inserting the words 'Labrador, Quebec and Southern.' The Bill was very much cut down in the Railway Committee. The company were seeking powers to build from Labrador to the Pacific ocean. They found they could not get such a Bill through, and concluded they would go from Labrador to Quebec only. That makes it a reasonable charter, and we cut down the mileage, the capitalization and the bonding powers to suit.


George Perry Graham: Who are the promoters
of the line of railway?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The promoters'names are given in section 1 of the Bill, as follows-

Edward J. Holland, agent, of the town of Prescott, in the province of Ontario; Freeman H. Palmer, manufacturer, and Walter F. Stafford, manufacturer, both of the city of Buffalo, in the state of New York, one of the United States; George F. Hope, agent, and George A. White, agent, both of the city of Toronto.


George Perry Graham: That really originates
in Prescott.


John Dowsley Reid: I will not acknowledge that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Two in Toronto, two in Buffalo, and one in Prescott.


George Perry Graham: The acting Minister of Railways will have to take a good deal of responsibility for this Bill, as it really originates in his own town. It seems reasonable that this railway project would not be launched without consultation with him.


John Dowsley Reid: This is not the project that was originally launched.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister opposed the project that was launched; this is it as we cut it down.


George Perry Graham: This is the remnant, and no doubt the hon. gentleman will 'be responsible for it. Can the acting minister tell us what backing there is behind the project and what was in the mind of the promoters when they proposed the original charter? It may be of deep interest to the people of the country to know what the promoters originally wanted, and why it was curtailed. Why were they not allowed to carry on their philanthropic intention to the full? No doubt the acting Minister of Railways knows all that, seeing that the principal promoter is a neighbour of his.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. F. A. Knapp of Prescott was the only one who spoke to me about the original proposal of a railway from Labrador to the Pacific coast.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the Knapp of
Knapp's roller boat?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. Mr. Holland, who is
mentioned among the promoters, is Mr. Knapp's son-in-law. Mr. Knapp asked me simply if I would urge that the Bill go through; but, instead of doing that, I opposed it very very strongly, for ' the reason that I did not think any one could get sufficient backing to build a railway from Labrador to the Pacific coast.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: What do you think about it now?
[Mr. Lancaster 1


John Dowsley Reid: I think now as I thought then, that he could not get sufficient backing to build a railway from Labrador to the Pacific coast, and I opposed the Bill. It came before the Railway Committee, but I was attending a meeting of the Redistribution Committee and could not be present. He tells me now that he 4 p.m. has sufficient backing to build the road from the Labrador coast to Quebec, and he said he had Mr. Gould of New York and several other capitalists interested in it.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Is that the Mr. Gould who is building a railway in New Brunswick?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the slightest idea. I would not feel justified in allowing a railway Bill to go through, for what is called the All Red line, from Labrador to the Pacific coast, because I believed it would be simply a promoter's scheme, and for that reason I opposed it. But the committee felt they were justified in reducing it to a railway from Labrador to Quebec.


George Perry Graham: The minister is right in saying that they should not be allowed to call it the All Red line. My own opinion is that it will never be any more than a thin red line on the map.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I think myself.


George Perry Graham: And 1 am not quite so sure that it is a proper thing to charter them to build a railway from Labrador to Quebec. The acting minister tells us he was at the Redistribution Committee instead of being at the Railway Committee, but so far as I am concerned I think he would do far better work in the Railway Committee, in the interests of the country at large. I am not satisfied with what he is doing in the Redistribution Committee, and I am only partially satisfied with what he is doing in the Railway Committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I have done nothing in tlie Redistribution Committee yet.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid your intentions are bad. We have been in the habit here, of, in almost every instance, giving charters for railways in the hope that something would come of it, but we are rapidly arriving at a point where we can afford to be more careful about giving indiscriminate charters, else we may stop some legitimate project, which would have substantial backing. I do not know enough about this charter to oppose it, but I do

believe it is proper to curtail its powers and to prevent these people calling it the All Red line, which might deceive investors in the old land, and we do not want any more of that.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Is it alleged by the promoters that they have made any arrangement for steamships to connect with this railway from a Labrador port? Has the minister considered as to the right of this Parliament to grant a charter in territory which is now in dispute with Newfoundland? Where do the promoters expect to get the capital for this enterprise?


John Dowsley Reid: The only information I have as to the financial backing of the road is that Mr. F. A. Knapp of the town of Prescott gave me his word that Mr. Gould of New York and other wealthy men were interested in it.


William John Macdonald: Which Mr. Gould?


John Dowsley Reid: He simply said, Mr. Gould of New York. So far as I am concerned, I must say that I have not sufficient evidence before me to justify me in saying to the House that I believe there is sufficient financial backing to build this railroad. As to the right to go through Labrador, as I understand it, this Bill only grants a charter to the Labrador boundary line. I do not kno-w anything about their arranging for steamships. No doubt the promoters will try to float the scheme, but I do not myself believe that this road will be built for some time.


Mr. DEVLIN:: It was stated in the Railway Committee that the promoters of this Bill had already received a charter from Newfoundland, for steamships to the Labrador coast.


Frank Oliver: I wish again to draw the attention of the House to the change of policy on the part of the Government aB regards railways. Within the last quarter of an hour we have seen the acting Minister of Railways support and pilot through the House a charter to build a railway to the international boundary at two points, and now we hear him avow his opposition to the project of a railway running east and west, intended quite evidently to carry the products of the western plains to the European markets by the most available railroad route. I would like to know if this is a reversal of policy, merely on the part of the Department of Railways under the acting minister, or, if it is to be taken by the country as a new departure by the Government at large. This, it would appear to me, would be a very appropriate time for the House to be informed exactly as to where the Government stands on this very important question of railroad construction, east and west, and north and south.


John Dowsley Reid: I would not object to a charter being granted for the building of a railroad from Labrador to the Pacific coast, if I thought there would be any possibility of the promoters building it.
On the Other hand, when a promoter comes before the Railway Committee with a Bill to incorporate the All Red Line Railway Company, which in my opinion may result in a scheme being floated which, I believe, will be only a promoter's scheme after all,
I feel perfectly justified in preventing that Bill from going through, in the interest of those who might subscribe for stock and also in the interest of the good name of Canada. It would not matter to me whether the line were east and west or north and south. I opposed this Bill simply for the reason that I believe it was a scheme that, if allowed to go through, might result in a great loss to those who might subscribe, and injure the good name of Canada in raising money in other countries.


Frank Oliver: I am sure the House will congratulate the Government upon the new policy now enunciated by the acting Minister of Railways, namely, that the Government will assume responsibility for the bona fides of railroad charters put through this House. There is no doubt that, if that were done, it would have a very beneficial effect upon railroad construction in Canada. From what the minister has said, I presume we are bound to conclude that the large number of charters- which have been put through this session have been examined by the Department of Railways, that the fact of their having gone through with Government sanction is -an assurance of the bona fides of the applicants, and that we may be assured that these Taikoads will be constructed.


William John Macdonald: On this measure a situation has developed that should be considered by the House. We are building a railway to Hudson bay, and I assume that the Minister of Railways will very shortly ask this House to vote large appropriations in connection with the terminals on the bay. This Tailway will bring into active communication with the rest of 'Canada the

whole of the coast from Hudson bay to the strait of Belle Isle. I noticed, not long ago the statement with reference to the visit to England of Sir Edward Morris that one of his chief objects in going there was to settle the question as to whether Canada or Newfoundland had the absolute right to the territory along the coast. The title and the right of government to that territory will become of vital importance to Canada with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway; and the proposal in this Bill that we should give the right to construct a railway from a point in the province of Quebec to a Labrador port, and the statement made that this company has obtained from the Newfoundland Government chartered rights over this disputed territory, brings acutely before the House the question where this Government stands in regard to this point. On the map of the Dominion of Canada there is a yellow tinge along the coast from the strait of Belle Isle north, and it has always Ibeen assumed that that was the territory over which Newfoundland claimed to have some control. I would regard it as unfortunate if the Dominion of Canada did not control every atom of territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In view of the development of Hudson bay this question of control becomes exceedingly important. Would the Prime Minister tell us what is the situation in regard to the disputed territory?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not see how the building of the Hudson Bay railway comes into the question, because the terminus will be at Port Nelson. Labrador runs from the strait of Belle Isle to the head of the Hudson strait. I do not think it goes around the whole bay to Port Nelson. The proposed railway is to go west near the strait of Belle Isle from a place called Cape St. Charles, which, I think, is only 50 or 100 miles from the strait, so that there will not be raised any question between Labrador and Canada.


William John Macdonald: There is now no
protection for shipping going to Hudson bay. The inauguration of the Hudson Bay railway of necessity -involves tremendous expenditure iby this Government in order to provide for the navigation of the bay and the strait. My hon. friend in administering the Department of Railways has found that supplies for the bay have to be transported in vessels from the Maritime provinces;

and the safety of those vessels and the control of the territory lying between the strait of Belle Isle and the Hudson strait are matters of great importance.


Robert Laird Borden: Some difficulty arose about the exact form of question which should be submitted for the determination of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was found that under an Imperial statute this question could be decided by the Judicial Committee itself.


William John Macdonald: As a matter of law
or as a matter of arbitration?


Robert Laird Borden: The Judicial Committee would act under the provisions of an Imperial statute.


Wilfrid Laurier: As a matter of
law.


Robert Laird Borden: It would have to be a matter of law. I do not know the exact provisions of the statute at this moment. The matter has been altogether in the hands of the Department of Justice, and I am not very familiar with it except as to these particulars. There was a distinct agreement between the two Governments that the matter should be referred to the Judicial Committee; but when it came to settling the form of the question to be submitted, a difference of opinion arose, and I understood that, under an Imperial statute, it was competent for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to settle the form, and proceedings were taken for that purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know something about this matter, because a question arose some years ago with respect to it. The Newfoundland Government gave a license to cut timber upon the Labrador coast. The Quebec Government had also given a license. The holders of the license from the Quebec Government and the holders of the license from the Newfoundland Government found their rights clashing, and the matter was referred to the late Government of the Dominion. The suggestion was made to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. So the matter stood when the late Government left' office. I do not know what has happened since; perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will inform the House.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I understand that action was taken between the parties in the dispute referred to. Representations were

made to the Government by the Government of the province of Quebec and upon those representations being communicated to the Home Government it was suggested that the question of the boundaries between Labrador and Newfoundland should be referred to the Privy Council under a statute of William IV which makes provision for such a reference. Or rather, the original representation made to the Home Government was in the form of a complaint that Newfoundland had been infringing upon our territory. The Home authorities communicated with the Newfoundland Government who answered that they were within their lines and within their rights in what they had done. Thereupon, the Home Government suggested that there should be a reference to the Privy Council and also that the Newfoundland Government and the Government of Canada should agree upon such a reference. This was agreed to and there followed negotiations looking to a settlement of the precise form of the proceedings that should be taken in the matter. Furthermore, the province of Quebec, being directly interested, represented that they ought to be parties to the case. So far as that representation is concerned, we felt that the issue being with an outside possession the Dominion was the proper party to act, but we did agree that in applying to the Privy Council we should act in consultation with them, and if they desired to name counsel in connection with the drawing of the pleadings we would be agreeable. Then,	if they	thought
proper to ask the Privy Council that they should be represented	at the
hearing we would make no objection. Upon that matter being so adjusted, with the co-operation of the provincial government, ot at all events counsel named by them, the next step was to arrange with the Government of Newfoundland as to the proceedings to be followed. In reference to that, interviews were held in London last summer, and we were under the impression that final agreement had been arrived at. It would appear, however, that, as I presume, when the matter was reported to the Newfoundland authorities, they took exception to the form in which the question was put. Thereupon, as it seemed to us, that the question as agreed to was properly put, and agreement being apparently impossible, we approached the British Government and asked that the question should 'be by His Majesty referred generally to their Lordships under the statute of William IV. to which I have referred, leaving it to them
finally to fix the precise form in which the question should be submitted to them, and also the proceedings to be taken. And the matter stands in that position.


William John Macdonald: The wording of this Bill recognizes the existence of a boundary line between the territory of Canada and the territory of Labrador. If hon. members will refer to section 8 they will see that that is so. In view of the situation in which this matter stands between Canada and Newfoundland, is it wise for us to pass legislation in this House which plainly recognizes the existence of a boundary, whereas we are proposing to argue before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that no such boundary exists. _


John Dowsley Reid: So far as the Bill is
concerned, I was going to say that the question which the hon. member has raised is one of great importance, and so I would ask that the committee allow the Bill to stand until another day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not understand that we propose to argue that there is no boundary line; on the contrary we contend that the precise points through which that Line is to be drawn are fixed by the proclamation that dealt with the matter, and what we propose to 'have referred for determination was just where this line runs as a matter of fact and what land lies on one side of the boundary and what lies on the other. My recollection is that the instrument gives Newfoundland that part of the Labrador coast that lies eastward of a line drawn from a certain point direct north to a certain parallel. What we hope for under this adjudication is to learn just where that line runs on the land itself. We do not say there is no boundary, but we say that it is necessary to determine in accordance with what is defined, just where the line so defined, runs.


William John Macdonald: I apprehended-oi
course, I may be incorrect-that the question was how much of this northern land was under the protectorate of the Colony of Newfoundland for the purpose of maintaining order, etc. I was not aware tlhat there was any defined territory there constituting a part of Newfoundland. It would seem to me desirable-and I have no doubt the minister is already seized of this point-that Canada should, if possible, establish territorial rights to every part of the land that is within what is known as the Dominion of Canada in a territorial sense. While Newfoundland may, on account of her situation

and proximity, foe the Government in the 'best position to deal with it so far as protectorate is concerned, yet Canada, having acquired larger responsibility in the northern country which slhe is now exploiting, should obtain control-by negotiation or otherwise-absolute control, of the territory there. This question is important, and I think well worthy of consideration in connection with the terms of this Bill. We should not pass legislation which could and might he urged as having some effect in fixing the boundary line.



SASKATCHEWAN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 49, respecting The ' Saskatchewan Central Bailway Company-Mr. McCraney-resumed from April 2.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand that the hon. gentleman in whose name this Bill stands is not able to be present, but desires us to report to the Senate on the lines of the report of the Railway Committee. I therefor beg to move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees to their amendments to the Bill 49, an Act respecting the Saskatchewan Central Railway Company, for the following reasons: Because it does not appear to be in the interest of that part of the country to allow two years further extension of time to commence construction and five years to complete this railway.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Elizabeth Chausse.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Beatrice Mae Stinson Fotheringham.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Eva Jane Bateman.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Florence Relf.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

['The information I desire is as to the contract made for the construction of an ice-breaker. I would like to have the motion amended to conform with the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.\nMotion, as amended, agreed to.', 'UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSEiD MOTIONS\nMr. Turriff.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, etc., in the Department of the Interior in connection with the N.W. \\ section 20-4, range 16, west of 2nd meridian.\nMr. Turriff.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, etc., in the possession of the Department of the Interior in connection with the N. * 1-3 16, W. 2nd M.\nMr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Western Shore wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.\nMr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all evidence, letters, correspondence, reports and documents in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Andrew Flinn from the Railway Service Department, Halifax, N.S., on or about September, 1913.\nMr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Feltzen South wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.\nMr. A K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Kraut Point wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.\nMr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing upon the application made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the dismissal of Ulric Dion, lightkeeper at St. Charles de Caplan, Quebec, and the appointment of Omer Arsenault in his place, and on the action taken by the department in that connection.\nMr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, correspondence and documents relative to the claims made for damages from a fire in the village of Hopewell, county of Pictou. which was occasioned by sparks from a locomotive on the Intercolonial railway.\nMr. Lanctot.\n\nFor a copy of all papers, letters, tenders, telegrams, plans, specifications, Orders in Council and other documents relating to the construction of the retaining wall at the high lands at St. Lambert.\nMr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents relating to the dismissal of W. N. Campbell, lightkeeper of New Richmond, Quebec, and to the appointment of James W. Robertson as his successor.']
William John Macdonald: [DOT]
Who are the persons, and what firms or corporations whom the Railway Department, or any of its officials, have asked to make offers for the supply of coal to the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways during the present year?


John Dowsley Reid: The following firms have been asked to submit offers for the supply

of coal for the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways for the year 191415:
Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Co., New Glasgow, N.S.
Dominion Coal Co., Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Inverness Railway and Coal Co., Halifax, N.S.
Acadia Coal Company, Stellarton, N.S.
Intercolonial Coal Mining Co., Westville, N.S.
Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Co., Joggins Mines, N.S.
Rothwell Coal Company, St. John, N.B.
Colonial Coal Company, North Sydney, N.S.
Minudie Coal Company, River Hebert, N.S.
Mlnto Coal Co., Ltd., Minto, N.B.
Northfield Coal Co., Minto, N.B.
George H. King, Minto, N.B.
Elwin Long, Maccan, N.S.
Harvey Welton, Minto, N.B.
Royal Coal Company, Amherst, N.S.
Thomson Coal and Brick Co., Adamsville, N.B.
John Rector, Amherst N.S.
J. M. Kennedy, Minto, N.B.
Cape Breton Coal, Iron and Railway Co., Ltd., Broughton, N.S.
J. Bert Ross, Buffalo, N.Y.
American Steel Company, Pittsburg, Pa.
Moreland Coke Company, Pittsburg, Pa.
Ernest Law & Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Keystone Coal and Coke Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
Watkins Coal Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Pennsylvania Coal and Coke Co., New York, N.Y.
Geo. Hall Coal Company, Ogdensburg, N.Y.
J. H. Weaver and Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
Whitney and Kemmerer, Philadelphia, Pa.
Widnoon Coal Mining Co., Buffalo, N.Y.
H.	W. Somers, Albany, N.Y.



Mr. MARCIL:: I.	Who recommends the appointment of sec-tionmen and labourers on the Intercolonial railway in Bonaventure county?
2.	To whom are said recommendations made?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	The Minister of Railways and Canals assumes the responsibility of all appointments made on the Intercolonial railway, using his best judgment to secure proper persons for the work required.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY OFFICERS.
Mr. E. LAPOINTE :: 1.	Referring to the following question, and answers appearing in the French 'Hansard' of 2nd February last, on page 390.-Mr. E. Lapointe.
1.	Has the Government appointed officers with instructions to supervise the distribution and management of the federal subsidy intended for the provinces for agriculture?
2.	If so, what are the names of these officers and the provinces for which they hare been appointed?
3.	Prior to granting to the provinces of a special subsidy for agricultural purposes, has the Government ordered an investigation or study, or caused information to he taken by

one of their officers as to the situation and the agricultural wants in each of the provinces?
4.	If so, has such officer sent in a report?
5.	What parties have been consulted in each of the provinces ?
Mr. Burrell:
1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. C. C. James generally, assisted by Mr. Chapais for the province of Quebec.
3.	Dr. C. C. James was appointed for the purpose.
4.	He reported to the Minister of Agriculture.
5.	The provincial departments of agriculture and the various agricultural educational authorities.
What officers of. the Department of Agriculture for the province of Quebec have been consulted, as stated in answer No. 5?
2.	Was the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec consulted?
3.	Did Dr. C. C. James personally go to each of the provinces of Canada in order to supervise the distribution and management of the federal subsidy intended for agriculture?
4.	If not, in what provinces has he been?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	The Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture. -
2.	Yes.
3.	Dr. James has visited all the provinces in connection with the federal subsidy for agriculture, although arrangements for plans and expenditure in Quebec have chiefly been dealt with by the Minister and Deputy Minister of Agriculture of Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture for Canada and Mr. Chapais.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY REPAIR.
William John Macdonald: .
1.	Has the Department of Railways under consideration the taking over of the shops of the Truro Foundry and Machine Company at Truro, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, for what purpose are these shops to be used?
3.	Has any agreement been made?
4.	If so, what is the amount of the consideration?
5.	Does the Railway Department intend to increase the facilities at Stellarton, Pictou county, with a view to making provision for making greater repairing conditions there?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5.	Yes, such as the business may demand from time to time.


VANCOUVER LEASED BUILDING.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has the Government under lease a building in Vancouver, B.C., from MacLean Bros.?
2.	If so, when was it leased, and for what term?
187,
3.	What rental is paid, and for what purpose is it used?
4.	When was the new examining warehouse in Vancouver completed?
5.	For what purpose is it now used?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	The Government has a warehouse in Vancouver rented from MacLean Bros.
2.	The warehouse was rented from MacLean Bros, on June 15, 1912, for a period of time until the new examining warehouse was expected to be ready.
3.	The rental paid is $650 per month.
4.	Final estimate for construction was passed on September 12, 1913; fittings are now being installed.
5.	The new building is now used in part for customs examining warehouse purposes, but will soon be used wholly for these purposes when the fittings are completed.


INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF DENTISTRY.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Government been invited to officially participate in the International Congress of Dentistry to be held at London, England, on the 7th of August next?
2.	Have Canadian delegates been appointed by the Government? If so, who are they?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	The Government has been invited to be represented at the Sixth International Congress of Dentistry, to be held at London, England, in August next.
2.	Inasmuch as dentistry is a matter appertaining to the provinces, the various provincial Governments have been communicated with on this subject. Pending their replies, no appointment of delegates has been made.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY - STANDARD RULES.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	Are the so-called Standard Rules in force on the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, -when did they become effective?
3.	How many teachers were engaged instructing the Intercolonial railway employees on the said Standard Rules?
4.	How much money has been spent to date on said instruction?
5.	How many Intercolonial railway employees have resigned as a protest against such rules?
6.	How does the management of the Intercolonial railway hope to get reimbursed for the cost of making those rules apply to the Intercolonial railway?


Mr. REID:: 1.	All standard rules are in force on part



of the Intercolonial railway, and many of them in force on the balance of the Intercolonial railway system.
2.	At various times.
3.	As many as fourteen.
4.	Approximately $5,000.
5.	None.
6.	By promoting safety, efficiency, economy, and despatch in the operation of the railway.


TOBACCO MANUFACTURE IN QUEBEC.
Mr. SEGUIN:: What was the excise duty and the revenue derived by the Government from the manufacture of tobacco in the counties of l'Assomption and Montcalm respectively, during the last five years?


Mr. NANTEL:: Revenue derived from
manufactures of tobacco during the five fiscal years ended March 31, 1914, in the counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm :
L'Assomption.
Year.	License fees.	Tobacco.	License fees.	Cigars.	Total.1 910	$150	$5,172 05	$125	$6,122 70	$11,569 751911	150	4,369 57	150	6,194 40	10,863 971912	200	5,140 70	150	5,394 85	10,885 551913	200	6,579 14	200	5,518 42	12,497 561914	175	8,312 60	200	7,2S3 50	15,971 10$875	$29,574 06	$825	$30,513 87	$61,787 93
Montcalm.
Year.	License fees.	Tobacco.	License fees.	Cigars.	Total.$ 75	$ 248 89	$ 323 S9100	346 28	446 28100	233 25	333 25125	570 75	695 751914	225	1,655 05	$25	$48 60	1,953 65$625	3,054 22	$25	$48 60	$3,752 82


CUSTOMS VALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TURRIFF f
1.	Have any changes been made for customs purposes since October 1, 1911, in the valuation of hinders, reapers and mowers imported into Canada?
2.	If so, on what dates were changes made?
3.	What changes were made?
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	No.
. 2. and 3. Answered by No. 1.


VALLEYFIELD EXCISE AND CUSTOMS REVENUES.
Mr. MORRIS:: 1.	What were the excise revenues at Valley-field in 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913?
2.	What were the names of the excise officers at Valleyfield in 1910?
3.	What are the names of the excise officers at Valleyfield now?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	1910, $53,995.13; 1911, $75,126.32; 1912,
$86,703.89; 1913,	$113,091.54-Total, $328,-
916.88.
2.	A. Raymond, collector of customs, acting for Inland Revenue Department.
3.	Alfred Lefebvre, Denis Emond.


Mr. MORRIS:: 1.	What were the revenues of the customs office at Valleyfield, Que., for the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913?
2.	Who are the actual employees, and what are their salaries?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	For	fiscal year	1909-10-	-	-	-$38,434.04"	"	"	1910-11-	-	-	- 81,247.54"	"	"	1911-12-	-	-	- 90,307.77"	"	"	1912-13-	-	-	-137,604.682.	Raoul Miron, collector, $1,700; Ismail Bourn ssa, preventive officer, $850; Ovila
Corbeil, preventive officer, $1,050; Arthur Seguin, preventive officer, $1,000.


SHERBROOKE DRILL HALL.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	From whom was the site for a drill hall in Sherbrooke, Quebec, North Ward, purchased, and at what price?
3.	If so, what is the amount of each tender?
4.	Was the contract let to the lowest tenderer?
5.	Was there any allowance for extra work? If so, for what amount?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	F. O. Loomis, old court house property; for court house and site, $10,000; deed dated 26th April, 1912.
Remaining questions not understood.


SHERBROOKE POST OFFICE INSPECTORS AUTOMOBILE.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Has an automobile been provided for the use of the post office inspector in Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, what manufacture, and is it a new or second-hand car?
3.	What price was paid for same?
4.	Does the department bear the cost of keeping and running this car?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Packard; purchased at Montreal after repairs necessitated by an accident.
3.	$4,500.
4.	Yes.


SHERBROOKE POSTAL INSPECTION DISTRICT.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	Has a new postal inspection district been created in Sherbrooke?
2.	If so, how many new employees have been appointed in connection with the new district?
3.	What is the total amount of salaries paid the new employees, including the inspector?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Five new employees have been appointed in connection with the new district.
3.	$4,752 a year.


PENITENTIARY COMMISSION'S REPORT.
Mr. EDWARDS:: Has the report of the Penitentiary Investigation Commission been received by the Minister of Justice? If so, on what date?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes; laid on the table, April 22.
2.	The report on April 15; the evidence on April 21.


CLAIMS AGAINST QUEBEC RAILWAYS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Does the Government intend paying the claims against the Baie des Chaleurs railway, the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway and the Quebec Oriental railway, reported on favourably by the commissioner,- Arthur Plante, Esq.. ?
2.	When may such payments be expected, and what will they amount to?
3.	If any such payments are not to he made, why not?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	The report of Arthur Plante, Esq., with reference to paying the claims against the Baie des Chaleurs railway, the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway, and the Quebec Oriental railway is now being considered by the Department of Justice.
2 and 3. Answ-ored by No. I.


CLAIMS AGAINST INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Have any claims been received from parties in the village of Hopewell, Pictou county, asking for damages from a fire occasioned by sparks from a locomotive on the Intercolonial railway during 1913?
2.	If so, what were the names of the claimants, and what was the nature of each claim?
3.	Have any of the claims been settled? If so, how much has been paid in each case?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Claims have been received from parties in the village of Hopewell, Pictou county, asking for damages occasioned by a fire caused by sparks from an Intercolonial railway locomotive on the 22nd of September, 1913.
2.	The names of the claimants are as follows: J. D. M. Eraser; Alexander F. Grant; Independent Order of Foresters, by H. D. McLeod; -Mts. Enon McDonald; Mrs. J. A. McPherson. The claim in each case was for loss of buildings and contents.
3.	All these claims have been settled, and cheques covering amounts accepted are being issued in payment of claims, as follows: J. A. M. Fraser, $1,450; Alexander M. Grant, $1,400; Independent Order of Foresters by H. D. McLeod, $900; Mrs. Enon McDonald, $900; Mrs. J. A. McPherson. $350.


CAP DE LA MADELEINE WHARF.
Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Is the wharf at Cap de la Madeleine, county of Champlain, being constructed by contract or by the day?
2.	If by contract, who is the contractor, on what date was the contract awarded and what is the contract price?

3.	(a) Were tenders called for, (b) how were they advertised, and (c) how long were they advertised?
4.	How many tenders were received, what is the name of each tenderer, the amount of each tender, and the deposit accompanying each tender?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Under contract.
2.	Charles Page, contract signed on 3rd March, 1913. Awarded by Order in Council date 13th February, 1913. Schedule of prices.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) in the following_newspapers : Quebec, Chronicle, L Evenernent, Le Travailleur; St. Joseph de Beauce, Le Ralliement; Grandmere, La Semaine; Montmagny, Le Peuple; Montreal, La Patrie, The Gazette; Rimouski, Le Pro-gres; Three Rivers, Le Bien Public; Shawiuigan Falls, L'Industriel; Chicoutimi, Le Travailleur; Jonquieres, L'Avenir; Chicoutimi, Le Progrfes; (c) For four weeks, from 3rd December, 1912, to 27th January, 1913.
4.	Two tenders received: Charles Page, based on schedule of price, approximately $49,401.92. Security deposit, $5,000; F. A. Verrette, $64,309.84; security deposit, $6,000.


EMPLOYMENT OP ALLEN J. CAMERON.
Mr. KYTE:: X. What is the number of days Allen J. Cameron, barrister of Arichat, N.S., Fenian Raid Bounty Commissioner, county of Richmond, devoted to the work of investigating Fenian Raid bounty applications?
2.	What was the daily remuneration paid to him for such services?
5.	What is the total amount paid to him for such services?
4.	How much was paid to him for expenses?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	'
1.	Mr. A. J. Cameron was local member of the Board of Inquiry for Richmond county for five days.
2.	No remuneration, but a subsistence allowance of $5 per diem, under Order in Council of 6th August, 1913.
3.	$25.
4.	$6.20.


ALEXANDER POST OFFICE.
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: 1.	Has a change been made in the location of the post office at Alexander, county of Inverness, since December 1, 1913?
2.	If so, on what date did such change take
place, on whose recommendation and for what cause?	.
3.	What is the name of the former postmaster and the name of the present incumbent?
4.	Was any investigation held relative to the dismissal of the former postmaster?
5.	Has there been a petition received by the

Postmaster General from the inhabitants of the district protesting against such change?
6.	What action, if any, has the department taken with regard to such petition?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the 15th December, 1913.
3.	Edward McQuarrie and Finlay Beaton.
4.	As the case was one of re-instatement of a postmaster who was dismissed in 1897, an investigation was not required.
5.	Yes.
6.	No action.


BURY DRILL HALL.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has the Government erected a building to be used as a drill hall at Bury, Compton county, Quebec?
2.	If so, were tenders asked for the construction of this building?
3.	What are the names of the different tenderers and the amount of each tender?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
G. Was any change made in the site of this, building after the tenders were received and the contract awarded?
6.	If so, why was the change made?
7.	Was there any change in the contract price owing to the said change of site?
5.	How much has been paid for extras over and above the contract price?
9.	To whom was the money paid?
10.	Is the building complete?
11.	If not, when will it he completed?
12.	By what regiment or company will this building be used?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	In response to public advertisement, one tender was received, viz., Mr. Ayton Cromwell, Cookshire, Que., $11,750.
4.	Mr. Ayton Cromwell, of Cookshire, Que.
5.	Yes.	(
6.	Because the site finally decided on was in every way more suitable for drill hall purposes than the old site.
7.	No.
8.	$350.
9.	The contractor for construction of the
building.	-
10.	Yes.
11.	Answered by 10.
12.	'B' Squadron, 7th Hussars.


MEG ANTIC PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How much has been paid for repairs to the public building at Megantic, Compton county, since January 1, 1912?
2.	Was the work done by tender or otherwise?
3.	What are the names of the parties who

did the work and how much money was paid to each?


Mr. ROGERS:: Nothing.


COOKSHIRE PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How much has been paid for repairs to the public building at Coolcshire, Compton county, since its completion?
2.	Was the work done by tender or otherwise?
3.	What are the names of the parties who did the work and how much money was paid to each?


Robert Rogers: Nothing.


LEVIS PROPERTY PURCHASE.
Mr. BOURASSA:: 
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$754,079.78.
2.	(a) Under consideration; (b) No.
3.	No.
4.	So stated by Mr. Carrier.
5.	No, but the department is satisfied that Mr. Carrier will be in such a position.


LARRYS RIVER HARBOURMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Who is the harbourmaster at Larry's river, Guysborough county, N.S. ?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Who recommended him?
4.	What is his remuneration?
5.	Is he paid a fixed salary or does he receive his remuneration from tonnage dues?
6.	If the latter, how much did he receive for the year ending March 30, 1913?
7.	How much did he receive for the year ending March 30, 1914?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Isaiah Fouger-e.
2.	By Order in Council of tne 25th of August, 1903,
3.	The late Hon. D. C. Fraser.
4.	$200 per annum of the fees collected.
5.	He receives his remuneration . from fees collected.
6.	$14.50 for calendar year 1912.
7.	$8 for calendar year 1913. No returns have yet been received for 1914.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LABOUR AWARD.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What has been done by the Government to secure the carrying out of the award of the Board of Conciliation made and filed on the 9th December, 1912, in reference to the dispute between the Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Employees and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Mr. CROTHERS:: The Minister of Labour followed the usual procedure, and took all such steps as seemed possible to secure the acceptance of the award by both parties to the dispute.


SHELBURNE COUNTY FISHERY GUARDIANS.
George William Kyte: Who were the fishery guardians in Shelburne county, N.S., for the years ending March 31, 1913," and March 31, 1914, respectively, and what were the respective amounts paid to such fishery guardians for the fiscal year,1913-1914 ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1912-1913:		
Jonathan Smith,	Jas. E. Cross,	
Rufus McKay,	W. E. Decker,	
J. R. King,	D. P. Swim,	
J. F. Hagar,	Fred. Poole,	
Chas. Towner,	Vincent Brannen,	
John T. Hyer,	H. D. Shand,	
Herbert Smith,	L. H. Crowell,	
Oliver Goodick,	J. E. Smith,	
Sydney Smith,	B. H. Smith,	
John McKay,	Judah Nickerson,	
R. Firth,	Heman Swaine,	
J. F. Farrington,	J. M. Davis,	
Geo. Longhurst,	David Atwood,	
H. C. Dash, John Nickerson,	S. H. Hagar,	
1913-1914:		
Daniel P. Swim . .	? 25	00Wm. E. Decker. . . .	
25	00Fred. Poole	
25	00Charles Towner . . . .	
25	00Robt. E. Hagar . . . .	
30	00Wm. McLean . . . .	
6	25Burtrum O. Bower. .	
40	00Robt. Firth	
40	00John McKay	
40	00Sydney Smith	
40	00Oliver Goodick . . . .	
40	00Herbert Smith . . . .	
40	00John J. Ryer	
40	00Rufus McKay	
12	50Freeman Hagar. . . .	
50	00-Isaac King	
50	00George Longhurst . .	
404	25J. F. Farrington . . .	
248	2bH. C. Dash	
182	40James E. Cross .. .	
132	75James R. King . . . ,	
17	50Vincent Brannen . . .	
469	bOH. L. Shand 	
469	50J. E. Smith	
469	50B. H. Smith	
469	50H. Swaine	
244	50John Nickerson . . .	
274	50Judah Nickerson . . .	
469	50
P. A. Stoddart	$447 00 .'
D. Atwood	 469 50
J. Morton Davis	 5000


Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Who is the fishery guardian at East Ragged Island, Shelburne county, N.S.?
2.	What amount was paid such fishery guardian for salary, travelling expenses and for any other purposes respectively, by the Government for the year ending March 31, 1913?
3.	What remuneration for all purposes did he receive as fishery guardian for the year ending March 31, 1914?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Wm. E. Decker.
2.	$25.
3.	$25.


PRESCOTT COUNTY MAID DELIVERY.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many tenders were received by the Post Office Department for the conveyance of the mails on free rural delivery route No. 2, Plantagenet, county of Prescott?
2.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of their respective tenders?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to establish the service in the near future?


Mr. PELLETIER:: This information will be given when the contract has been awarded and executed by the contractor.


FENIAN RAID VETERANS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Referring to the duties of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the claims of veterans of the Fenian Raid in Nova Scotia, were their duties confined solely to an investigation of the historical facts relating to the action taken in the spring of 1866 by the various regiments of militia in Nova Scotia, and to ascertain and report as to whether such regiments turned out for special drill, or were the Commissioners authorized to deal with the claims of individual veterans and either allow or reject such claims?
2.	Were the claims of the individual veterans in Nova Scotia ever submitted to the said Commissioners for their approval or disapproval.
3.	Were the claims of the individual veterans in Nova Scotia or in any county of Nova Scotia, submitted to the legal adviser of said Commissioner, Mr. Rowlings, for his approval or disapproval?
4.	Whose duty is it in the first instance to investigate and decide as to whether a veteran's claim is valid or invalid?
5.	Did the department authorize any agent or agents in Nova Scotia to charge veterans a fee for services in putting in claims?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Under the Order in Council of the 6th August, 1913, the Board of Inquiry was authorized to investigate and report upon the claims of the various applicants.
2.	Yes.

3.	Mr. G. A'. R. Rowlings had no say in the approval or disapproval of any claim, but was consulted by the board as to the legality of any claim upon which advice was required.
4.	The officials engaged in carrying out the terms of the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act of 1st April, 1912.
5.	No.	.


GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN MONTREAL.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Government disposed of the property purchased a few years ago near Bonaventure station, St. James street, Montreal, for postal purposes?
2.	What is the superficial area of said property?
3.	What was the purchase price?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	15-732 feet.
3.	Taken in exchange, in 1907, for property on Cathedral street.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Have the services of Robert Amos, as an employee in the Intercolonial freight department at Sackville, N.B., been dispensed with? If so, when and for what cause?
2.	Who has been appointed to fill the vacancy, from what place does his successor hail, and what is his age and the compensation paid him?
3.	On whose recommendation was the appointment of the present incumbent made?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. April 2, 1914, services not satisfactory.
2.	Fred. Doucett, Point Duchene, 29 years and 5 months; $62.50 per month.
3.	Already in the service and transferred.


CONSTRUCTION OF ICE-BREAKER.
William John Macdonald: B'or a copy of all letters, tenders, telegrams, plans, specifications and other documents in regard to the construction of the new ice-breaker by Vickers-Maxim Company of Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: I presume my hon. friend means the Canadian Vickers Company.


William John Macdonald: The information I desire is as to the contract made for the construction of an ice-breaker. I would like to have the motion amended to conform with the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSEiD MOTIONS
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, etc., in the Department of the Interior in connection with the N.W. \ section 20-4, range 16, west of 2nd meridian.
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, etc., in the possession of the Department of the Interior in connection with the N. * 1-3 16, W. 2nd M.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Western Shore wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all evidence, letters, correspondence, reports and documents in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Andrew Flinn from the Railway Service Department, Halifax, N.S., on or about September, 1913.
Mr. A. K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Feltzen South wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.
Mr. A K. Maclean.-For a copy of all correspondence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Kraut Point wharf, Lunenburg county, N.S.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents bearing upon the application made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the dismissal of Ulric Dion, lightkeeper at St. Charles de Caplan, Quebec, and the appointment of Omer Arsenault in his place, and on the action taken by the department in that connection.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, correspondence and documents relative to the claims made for damages from a fire in the village of Hopewell, county of Pictou. which was occasioned by sparks from a locomotive on the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. Lanctot.

For a copy of all papers, letters, tenders, telegrams, plans, specifications, Orders in Council and other documents relating to the construction of the retaining wall at the high lands at St. Lambert.
Mr. Marcil.-For a copy of all documents relating to the dismissal of W. N. Campbell, lightkeeper of New Richmond, Quebec, and to the appointment of James W. Robertson as his successor.


TRUST COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White, Bill No. 70, respecting Trust Companies, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White, Bill No. 83, respecting Loan Companies, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Canals-Construction Welland ship canal, $4,000,000.
['The tenders received were\nW. H. Weller, $266,887; M. Connolly, $369,040; Haney, Quinlan & Robertson, $395,565; and Brown & Aylmer, $427,525.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.\nTuesday, April 28, 1914.']
George William Kyte: May I be permitted on
this item to draw the attention of the minister to the St. Peter's canal in Richmond county, Nova Scotia. For the last two years the department has had under construction very considerable improvements at the St. Peter's canal, and for some reason, which is attributed to a necessary change to be made in the location of the lock, that work has been suspended for some time. From information I have received from various sources, I understand that this change involves a considerable increase in the original contemplated outlay. It is very important that as little delay as possible should take place in the carrying on of this work. It is an important waterway which opens up the Bras D Or lake for navigation to coasting vessels. For the past two years work has been carried on, and a great many labouring men have obtained employment there. I ask the minister to take the earliest steps possible to make arrangements, either with the present contractor or by calling for new tenders, if that be necessary, so that the work may be continued. I understand that the present plan of the department necessitates the closing of the canal for a season, and if that be so it is of the utmost importance that notice be given immediately to all parties interested in the navigation of the Bras d'Or lake. It is also desirable that the canal should toe
5 p.m. closed as early as possible, so that one season only shall be lost. Would the minister make a statement to the committee as to the present position of the work on the St. Peter s canal?


John Dowsley Reid: The memorandum I have before me, with reference to the work on the St. Peter's canal, states: That this work is under contract to a Mr. W. H. Weller; that owing to the extremely hard nature of the material to be excavated, necessitating drilling and blasting before it can be removed, coupled with the very bad weather encountered last season, this work is very much behind, and instead of being completed on November 30, 1913, as called for, it will, from present indications, not be completed until some time in 1915. The matter has been before me several times. The representative of the contractor has been urging that some new arrangement shall be made, for the reason that the material they found, as they proceeded with the work, is very much harder, and is different from that set out in the specifica-

tions. Mr. Bowden, the chief engineer, feels that it would be better for us to get a new site for the lock. If this were done, St. Peter's canal would be closed all this season. Mr. Bowden tells me that if we allow the present contractors to take a new site and proceed with the work at the present prices, it can be gone on with at once. He tells me further, that it will cost probably $100,000 more to build this new lock, and I have hesitated up to the present. I must, however, take the matter up within the next few days, as I am exceedingly anxious to have the work commence immediately. I was unable to decide upon the matter before, as I have been very busy recently. I think I will feel justified in recommending to Council that the suggestion of Mr. Bowden to erect a new lock and close the canal during its construction might be considered. I was very much afraid, however, that if we did that we would be censured for closing the canal for the whole season. As I understand from the remarks just made by the hon. member (Mr. Kyte), if the work is proceeded with now and the canal closed for the season, he thinks that would be the least objectionable course to the people interested. I am giving the matter my serious consideration. I discussed it with the chief engineer to-day, and I hope to arrive at some conclusion within a few days. I will be able to give the hon. member more definite information before my Estimates are finally passed.


George William Kyte: I am quite familiar with the change that seems to be necessary, owing to what has developed, as the work progressed. It was originally intended to construct the lock in the new portion of the canal. That was found to be impossible owing to the failure to locate, rock bottom at the place where the new lock was to be located, and it necessitated the placing of the new lock in an oblique position across the present canal. That rendered it necessary to close the canal for a longer period than was originally intended. As there is no way of avoiding that difficulty, however, .and inasmuch as it will be necessary to close the canal to traffic, I think the best judgment would be that the earlier it is closed the earliar it will be reopened for traffic.	a
Another point I wish to impress upon the minister is that for the past two years a considerable amount of employment has been given to the labouring people in that
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l
part of the country. Employment is not as readily obtainable at the present time in that portion of Nova Scotia as it formerly was, and a great many people will be very much disappointed if the work is delayed for any considerable time. A number of these people had theretofore pursued the calling of fishermen; but, owing to the guarantees they had of continued work for a few years they gave up their other occupation, and they now find themselves without any employment whatever. For that reason, in addition to those I have already given, I think it is of the greatest importance that the work be continued so that employment may be given to those men who are dependent upon that work for their livelihood during the course of time the work will be in progress.


John Dowsley Reid: I realize that it is very important to these men and also to the contractor that they be not kept waiting for the decision .any longer than is possible. I will therefore give this matter almost immediate attention and come to some decision as to what will be done.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I am also particularly
interested in the navigation -of the St. Peter's canal. The county which I have the honour to represent has several industries, the transportation from which depends upon the capacity of that canal. It has been already pointed out by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) that practically the capacity of navigation of the Bras d'Or lakes depends upon the capacity of the St. Peter's canal. There are two other outlets to the sea from the Bras d'Or lakes, but ships going to the sea find it safer and shorter to go through the canal. The other day I had a letter from the president of the Victoria Gypsum Company, a concern doing considerable business on these lakes, making inquiries about the improvements to the canal. At present they are unable to go through the canal; but after the improvements are made, they hope to be able to use it. It would be a great pity if it were necessary to close the navigation of the canal for the whole summer. I do not know much about canal work, but I think much of the work could be done in the winter time, as the frost in that part of the country is not so severe that cement and excavation work cannot be done just as well in winter as in summer. Pumping and such other work as is necessary can also be done in the winter time. I think that the work should be advanced as far as possible in

all its stages before the closing of the canal takes place. There is such a thing as contractors not being sufficiently advanced with their work before they take that step. For instance, the minister will find parties commencing the building of a wharf before they have all their material ready, and in that way dragging along with the work very much longer than necessary. Very slow progress is being made in the work on this canal, and I am afraid that the contractors are not doing all that should be done in order to push forward with vigour this important work; in fact, I understand that nothing at all has been done during the whole of this winter. In our part of the country the winter is the very best time for cutting a canal, for the removal of clay and so on. I hope that the work will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible; and that the minister will take caTe to make the term of the closing of the canal as short as possible, as it will interfere with a great many industries there and with the route of a number of steamers that go to Newfoundland, such as the Seal, a very large steamer, the steamer that carries the French mail from Halifax to St. Pierre, and a number of other boats of a similar kind.


William Manley German: I would like to know from the acting minister if a decision has yet been reached as to whether or not the canal and the Welland river at the town of Welland are to be put on the same level, with a dam at the village of Port Robinson, the river from the town of Welland to the village of Port Robinson being used as a canal. The contracts are being let, and, if the work is to be completed in the time estimated by the chief engineer of the canal and by the chief engineer of the department, I think a decision should be reached forthwith as to that matter.


John Dowsley Reid: That question has not come before me at all so far, and this is the first I have heard of any difference of opinion in regard to the matter. If the hon. member will let it stand for a few moments, I have sent for information and shall be glad to take it up again.


William Manley German: I shall be very glad to do so. I supposed that the acting Minister of Railways knew something about the affairs of his department. The present canal is carried over the Welland river by an aqueduct. The proposition of the engineer in charge of the Welland canal is to put a dam in the Welland river four miles below Welland, to raise the level of
the river by five feet and to lov^er the level of the canal by four feet, so as to put them on the same level, thus flooding a large area of land west of the town of Welland and to some extent east of the town. It is a matter that has reached such proportions that it should be attended to immediately.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not opposed to the Welland canal; far from it. We are for the Welland canal, but w.e are also for the Georgian Bay canal. Whilst I do not wish to launch into another debate on the Georgian Bay canal, as the matter was brought up not very long ago before the ministers who received the huge delegation from Montreal and from northern Ontario on that subject, yet I regret that the Government has not thought proper, after the very complete investigation which took place some years ago when the late Administration was in office, to undertake the construction of the canal. It is well known, and nobody doubts it, that the answer given the other day by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) means that the Georgian Bay project is shelved for many, many years to come. I am inclined to believe-in fact, I know- that at least one of the three commissioners appointed on that new commission is himself deadly opposed to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. That is a secret which is now public amongst the businessmen of Montreal.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What does the hon. gentleman say?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will give the name to my hon. friend if he wants it. I regret that the ministers who represent the district of Montreal are not in their places. I include the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) amongst the three. The people of Montreal, the Board of Trade, the Chambre de Commerce and the Civic Federation have declared on many occasions that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal would be the logical completion of our transportation system. They had hoped that the present Government would favour the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. But it is evident, from what I have heard of late, that the present Government is opposed to its construction, and will stand only by the construction of the Welland canal. I am told that the opposition to the Georgian Bay canal which suddenly came the other day from

the Quebec Board of Trade was engineered so as to show to the public that there was a division of opinion in the province of Quebec as regards that great undertaking. But the minister may be assured that public opinion is unanimous on that question in our province. Now, I would like to get a frank statement from the hon. gentleman:	Does the Government intend, yes or no, to proceed with the work? Or is it intended to deepen the section of the French river in order to give North Bay the whole benefit of the work and leave the other sections unconstructed? To hand over to a new commission the question of the commercial advantages of the project is, to say the least, simply farcical. A commission sat years ago in the Senate and the best experts in the country were heard, amongst them being no less a personage than Sir William Van Horne himself. Much as we may differ with the ' opinions of Sir William Van Horne in polities, especially on reciprocity, yet everybody will admit that on transportation matters he is a great authority indeed. Well, he gave his evidence, and my hon. friend can read it in the report which was published. He will see that the ex-president of the Canadian Pacific railway is not only a friend, but nn advocate, an ardent advocate of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. Now, why fool the people of Northern Ontario and of the province of Quebec with another commission? Has Mr. Gohier, who was appointed by the Government as one of the commissioners, agreed to sit on that new board? The hon. gentleman can probably give us the information. Before I take my seat, I say again, it is simply fooling the people to pretend favouring the construction of the canal, and at the same time to appoint a new commission, when two commissions have already been appointed, and possibly fifty expensive reports have been published dealing with the subject on its merits and giving all possible data to the Government. I would like to get a straight answer from the hon. gentleman.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) gets up at a moment when the ministers from the district of Montreal happen to be away-


William John Macdonald: They are never here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They are here most o: the time and oftener than the member for Rouville.


William John Macdonald: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is never here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He is always here as a matter of fact. But some members of the Government have other public affairs to attend to, and I think it most unfortunate that the suggestion should be thrown across the floor that the members of the Government from one district are away, and that at a moment when we are discussing the Railways and Canals Estimates. The Georgian Bay canal, which does not relate to this department, should not be brought up now. It is under the Public Works Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not germane to what is before the committee?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It may or may not be. But the hon. member, in order to gain an advantage as against the members of the Cabinet from the Montreal district, rises to discuss the Georgian Bay canal when the Railway Estimates are under discussion, which is not the proper moment for the consideration of this mattter. It may have something to do with it, but it is not the time when the subject of the Georgian Bay canal is supposed to be taken up. As I say, it is when the Public Works Estimates are under discussion would be the opportune time for the consideration of this matter. But the hon. member, seeing that the members of the Cabinet from the Montreal district are away, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is away-because we are not considering his Estimates-takes this as the time to ask for a proper and complete answer from the Government on this Georgian Bay canal proposition. That is, he puts his question at a moment when he knows that the minister who can answer him is not here. My hon. friend has said that the Quebec Board of Trade resolution was ' engineered,' to use his own expression. He has only repeated what was said in the newspapers on this subject. But I wish to take this opportunity of telling the hon. gentleman that the 'members of the council of the Quebec Board of Trade are honourable men, and they have .answered this allegation that the resolution which they passed was ' engineered ' or inspired. Everybody will understand what the statement of the-hon. gentleman means; no names are given. The members of the council of the Board of Trade of Quebec, have over the signature of their president or secretary- president, I think-declared in the most emphatic manner that nothing of the kind

was suggested to them, that nobody approached them and that in this matter they had expressed their own opinion. As a matter of fact, I wish to declare here from my seat in the House that I have not had an interview with any member of the council of the Quebec Board of Trade about this, and, moreover, that what they have expressed does not represent my own views. That is going as far as a man can go, and I hope will once and for all put a stop to the suggestion that the Quebec Board of Trade is being used against this proposition.


William John Macdonald: What are your views?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My views are that we were face to face with this proposition, which is a very big one, and that we had to inquire into its commercial feasibility. Consequently we have appointed a commission to make a report upon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is to say you have no views at all.


George Perry Graham: Your views are not established yet.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If I had views about the question as it stands aft present, and if the Government had decided about it, surely there would be no need of a commission. The commission has been appointed in order to have further light on the commercial feasibility of the project. The hon. member for Rouvilfe sayis that we are fooling the people and that one of the commissioners has his mind made up on this project. If that is so, it would be my hon. friend's duty to enlighten the public. He has said1 he would let me know personally, but then I would not be at liberty to make use of the information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As Montreal is not
represented on the commission, I shall let my hon. friend know.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I shall invite my hon. friend to give the information not in a private manner, but openly in the House, so that the public will know about it. I think that would be the best course to adopt under the circumstances.


William John Macdonald: Is this commission one of those of which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke of as consuming good ink and paper but doing nothing for the country, or is it some other kind of a commission!


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It may be that in late years commissions of that kind have been
appointed, but this is not that kind. The commission has to its credit and foir its merit the fact that its members are going to work for ithe public and to make this report without being paid for it. They are working in the public interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the
others were not?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I agree that many of the commissions appointed by my right hon. friend were not, and they were paid money out of the public treasury for doing nothing. Here we have the very reverse : we have a serious commission which is going to do some good work and which is not going to cost the country much. We have appointed this commission, and the fact that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says we are trying to fool the people will not cause us to recall the commission. We have acted seriously in appointing the commission; we intend that it shall do its work, and we will wait for its report. My hon. friend is much mew in a hurry about the Georgian Bay canal now than when he was on this side of the House.


William John Macdonald: That is the old
story.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A very old story, and it is true.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend was not in the last Parliament, but we have had three sessions under a new Government. That Government have never done a single thing themselves in reference to anything under heaven about which they did not say when asked any question: You did not do something ten years ago. Can you not get some new argument?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sorry if I have said anything that will hurt the feelings of my hon. friend from Piotou, with whom 1 am such good friends, but after all how can we dispose of these questions? The members of the late Government had this question before them for years, and they did not decide anything about it; and now, when we have appointed a commission to inquire into the commercial feasibility of the project, they are in such a hurry that the commission does not count for anything; they want us to come to a decision before we have the report of that commission. If we did that we would be stultifying ourselves; and, in spite of my earnest wish to be agreeable to the hon. member for Rouville, I will tell him that

no decision will be arrived at on the Georgian Bay canal scheme before the commission has reported on it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am very glad that the hon. member for Rouville has brought this question before the House. I know that the Georgian Bay canal comes up under the Estimates of the Minister of Public Works, but the whole scheme of the Georgian Bay canal has always been associated with the Welland canal, and it is very seldom that the Welland canal has been under discussion without a word being said about the Georgian Bay canal. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Postmaster General. His views are not exactly the views of the Minister of Public Works, as I understood that minister to speak to the delegation the other day. He did not say to wait until the commission would report before the Government would commit itself. He told the delegation that they would have to wait until the Prime Minister's return when he would lay their request before him. We know that the Prime Minister is back from Virginia, and without doubt the minister has placed the delegation's request before him. The Prime Minister is within the building now, and perhaps could be brought into the House to tell us whether the Georgian Bay canal is going to be built or not. The Postmaster General said this afternoon that as the ministers of the Montreal district were absent the Georgian Bay canal could not possibly be built. There is absolutely no doubt that is what he said.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sorry my English is so bad.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The member for Rouville (Mo-. Lemieux) asked that the Government give a serious answer to the question as to whether or not they intended to construct the Georgian Bay canal, and the Postmaster General said that it was unfair for the member for Rouville to bring this question up this afternoon and expect an answer to be given by the Government. Then, remembering that the Ministar of Public Works had .said, ' Wait till the Prime Minister returns from Virginia ' the Postmaster General said: ' This is not fair. The Government cannot give an answer because the ministers for the district of Montreal are not here.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend has no right to put words into my mouth which
[Mr Pelletier.]
I did not use. Perhaps my English is so-bad that-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is very good.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I said it was not fair of the hon. member for Rouville to bring this question up when the ministers were away. I said that the Georgian Bay canal concerned the Department of the Minister of Public works, and that the question could not be discussed ini his absence. That is fair from meaning what the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) said.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Whether the Minister of Public Works is in his seat or not, the building of the Georgian Bay canal is a national question, not a political one, and it is a question upon which the Government ought to be prepared at all times to give their views. The late Government never hesitated to do so. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, when Pirime Minister, said time and again from his seat in this House that the Georgian Bay canal would be built. Practically every one of his ministers similarly committed themselves from their seats in this House in answer to questions put to them by members on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Rouville explained this afternoon that the delegation that came here a few days ago was not satisfied with, the answer given by the Minister of Public Works, and he asked the Government to give a direct answer to the questions: Is it the intention of the Government to go on with the building of the Georgian Bay canal, or is it their intention not to build the Georgian Bay canal? I have had a seat in this House for nearly ten years and I know what has been done by the late Government in connection with the Georgian Bay canal, and I know, unfortunately, what has not been done by the present Government. The late Government had a most extensive report prepared by the engineers of the Public Works Department. Any one who reads that report will find it most comprehensive; it not only settled the engineering feasibility of the canal, but gave enough information to determine on its commercial feasibility also. We also have the report of the special committee .appointed by the Senate a few years ago, which contains testimony from some of the leading business men and railway men of this country who all state that the canal is commercially feasible. With this testimony before the House, surely the

Government ought to be in a position to Tender a verdict. - They ought to be in a position to say whether or not the canal ought to he built, and whether ot not it is going to be built. Therefore, I simply rise to second the remarks of my hon. friend from Rouville and to ask the Government for a direct answer as to whether or not they are going to build the canal.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If, instead of the very eloquent words which fell from the lips of the hon. member for Rouville and of the hon. member for Wright, those gentlemen would draft a resolution on this question and bring it before the House the results might please them better.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Resolutions have been
drafted time and again and brought before the House. Last session I, myself, drafted one and presented it to the House, following out exactly the words of the present Prime Minister. The right hon. jPrime Minister speaking on the question of trade said:
Our object is to get Canadian trade in Canadian channels, and to continue as much as we can tiie policy of making that trade run east and west.
Anybody who knows anything about the canal system of Canada, knows that by the deepening of the Welland Canal trade would run north and south instead of east and west.


Mr. ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) said: 'WThy fool the people all the time'. Then he went on to say that 50 reports have already been made on the Georgian Bay canal project. I might say that every one of those reports was in possession of the late Government for many years. I just wish to point out a few of the absurdities in the speech of the hon. member for Rouville. For instance, he mentions Sir William Van Horne, the president of the Canadian Pacific railway, who said that this canal was commercially feasible. Sir William Van Horne's opinion is embodied in a report made to the late Government in 1907-a report very exhaustive, as the hon. member for Wright has justly said, and which covers the engineering end of the canal very fully. The late Government had all this material at hand from 1906 to 1911, but they did absolutely nothing. The member for Wright has said that the late Government was absolutely in favour of building this canal. I have been in this House for the last four or five years, but I never heard the late Government make any such statement. I have heard, however,
the right hon. leader of the Opposition make the statement both in this House and at North Bay that he, personally, was in favour of the Georgian Bay canal; but during the time I have had the honour of being a member of this House, I never heard the Government commit themselves as a Government to that project. The late Hon. Mr. Tarte was very strongly in favour of building this canal, and I have also heard the ex-Mininster of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) state on several occasions that he was in favour of this project. I heard him make that statement at a by election at South Renfrew where, I think, it was one of the leading planks in his platform. I think the Government is perfectly justified m appointing this commission, although I am one of those members of this House who are first, last and all the time in favour of the completion of this work. We have had cases in point to justify the appointment of this commission-for instance, the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, a work entailing the expenditure of many millions of dollars. I do not want to state the figures as hon. gentlemen apposite might dispute them, but at any rate the figures contemplated in 1904 are not the figures given to the public to-day. This was the direct result of the fact that the Government entered into this work without knowing what they were stepping into, and I think the present Government were justified in appointing . this commission. I believe personally that the commission will report in favour of the building of the canal, and I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), who is not present to-day, was amply justified in saying that there was nothing to hinder this commission, if their report should be delayed for any reason, going on and reporting upon either or both ends of the canal; that is, they might build the canal from Montreal to Ottawa or Pembroke and the other end of it at the French river. It must appeal to any ordinary man who has gone over the ground as being a feasible project. I think the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was ill-advised when he made the statement that this Government had done nothing to forward this canal, or to iofer that the late Government with all these fifty reports, as he said, on their hands, had done anything more during their sixteen years of office than this Government had done during the last one or two.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) seemed to

get a little bit annoyed because the Georgian Bay canal was mentioned. You cannot disassociate the two schemes in the minds of some people. There is a class of people who favour one and think that in favouring the one they must look with disfavour upon the other. I do not belong to that class, but still, in discussing the Georgian Bay canal, it is perfectly proper to discuss the Welland canal in connection with it, or vice versa. Although the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) is not in his seat and this Georgian Bay canal is in his department, the Government could not but expect that when they asked this House to discuss an appropriation for the Welland canal, the Georgian Bay canal scheme would be discussed at the same time. If the Government is not prepared to give us any information on the Georgian Bay canal that is not our fault. We must exercise our right and discuss it along with the Welland canal. My hon. friend who just sat down (Mr. Arthurs), intimated that the late Government had never been committed to the Georgian Bay canal scheme. Being a member of that Government, I think I am, in a position to say that the hon. gentleman is in error in that statement. If the Prime Minister himself be committed to the scheme, and publicly says so, if the Minister of Railways and Canals be committed to the scheme, part of which is in his department, and if the Minister of Public Works also is committed to it, that pretty nearly commits the Government, I should imagine. If the Postmaster General, for instance, were to arise in this House and say; I am in favour of some improvement in the postal department and outlined the scheme-


James Arthurs: That is a different thing.
* Mr. GRAHAM: No, not in principle; the one is on dry land and the other is on water-that is the only difference-if he were to outline a scheme and say that he was in favour of it, and the Prime Minister were to state that he was in favour of it, I imagine that the country would say that they were committed to the scheme.
There was a reason why the late Government did not feel at liberty when it was in power to proceed at once with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It began with the preliminaries and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in getting a full and complete report as to the feasibility of the scheme from the engineering standpoint. Appended to
that report was also a report from Sir William Van Horne as to the commercial feasibility of it. The late Government took these preliminary steps. Now, you ask: Why did not the preceding Government, after they had done so much, proceed with this work ? The reason was given by my hon. friend himself. The Government had committed the country to the expenditure of many millions of dollars for the National Transcontinental railway and that money was being expended. The then Prime Minister, on many occasions, gave his reason, and so did the Minister of Finance, why the work would not be proceeded with at once, although it would eventually be undertaken, and that reason was that until the Transcontinental railway was practically completed they did not feel it to be wise to embark upon this other great project involving the expenditure of many millions more. The country was assured time and time again that so soon as the National Transcontinental railway neared completion the other'scheme would be proceeded with. The country fully understood the position of the former Government as to each of these two projects, I stand now just where I stood then.


James Arthurs: Is the hon. gentleman speaking for the Opposition as an opposition?


George Perry Graham: If the Postmaster General could not speak for the Government, he being a member of it, I cannot be expected to speak for the entire Opposition, being a private member only. I am speaking for myself, I am pointing out the position I took as a member of the former Government and I say that that Government was committed to that position through the Prime Minister. These two great projects, the Welland carnal and the Georgian Bay canal do not conflict. I have always been in favour of the construction of the Welland canal. I see that I was criticised by the senior Conservative organ of Ottawa because I did not object to the expenditure on the Welland canal. How a conclusion of that kind could be arrived at by any process of reasoning, having reference to the speeches I had made in the country, I cannot conceive. I have always favoured the immediate construction of the Welland canal and the first appropriation of money for it was voted in this House at my request. The surveying and preliminary work must be done before the practical work of excavation and construction can be proceeded with in connection with all of these projects. I never was of the opin-

ion that the enlarging of the Welland canal, or the building of a new Welland canal, would tend to send our traffic to the United States as has been suggested. I do not believe that. I have as a private member of this House, discussed this great question of the traffic between the East and the West between the Great Lakes and the city of Montreal and Europe. We have undoubtedly a good deal to contend against. In the first place, we have to fight the companies which make New York, Boston and Portland their ports on account of our. insurance 'rates in the St. Lawrence. I am of the opinion that the insurance companies are too severe on our Canadian route and that we ought to have better rates. I think the Government ought to wake up and establish, or have established, some new system of insurance by which these Canadian ports would not be treated as they have been treated by these companies in insurance matters. A great many millions of dollars have been expended on the St. Lawrence route from Montreal, to Quebec and my belief is that that route is a good deal safer route than the insurance companies would have us believe. Millions more would have to be expended upon it.
Then we have our St. Lawrence canals. In discussing the question of freight rates from the Great Lakes east to Montreal one or two of the leading authorities upon this question have placed their views before me on different occasions and they have contended that the freight rates at present existing could be materially decreased by the enlargement of the Welland canal, or the building of a new Welland canal, deepening the channel in some places down as far as Kingston, Brockville and Prescott, and by having, as at present, canals only fourteen feet in depth from there to Montreal. They argue, fjom their standpoint as transportation men, that the grain can be taken from any of these three ports at the end of lake navigation down to Montreal and be there reloaded more cheaply than it could be carried by the deepening of the canals and attempting to bring larger vessels up through them.
I am giving these views for what they are worth; I am not practical in this respect, but these men have practical experience, and they figured out the different rates from the different points. I put this question to them time and again: Will it tend to divert our traffic to the American ports, after the grain comes down through the Welland canal? and these men were unanimously of the opinion that.
such would not be the case, and that the rates which would be available by this Canadian route could not possibly be met by any project that the United States could undertake, for the carrying of traffic from the Lake ports, or the St. Lawrence, to New York, Boston or Portland. We hear a great deal about the Erie canal in the state of New York, and they are spending $100,000,000 for the deepening of that canal, but when deepened to its utmost it will not have any greater draught than have our St. Lawrence canals at the present time.


John Dowsley Reid: It will be 12 feet, while our canals are 14 feet.


George Perry Graham: Yes. One of the engineers informed me that they hoped to get 14 feet on the Erie, but so far as I have been able to see from their plans they only provide for 12 feet. They never can carry the grain a longer haul through a 12-foot canal, cheaper than we can carry it by a 14-foot canal from Prescott down; and, when they come to carry it by rail, it will be still more costly. Of course, the harbour of Montreal has got to be more thoroughly equipped for the accommodation of this traffic than it is at present. Great improvement has been made, but the carriers complain that even now they cannot get rid of their cargoes with sufficient speed so as to make good time in getting back for. other cargoes. There must be extension of the facilities at the port of Montreal. Money must be expended in making the St. Lawrence channel, east of Montreal, more safe than it is .at present. With the reduction of insurance rates which we should have on our ocean traffic, and the enlargement of the Welland canal, we will be in a position to compete all the better with the American routes for the traffic from West to East, for some years. This, of course, is only for immediate requirements. I believe, if we look at the vast amount of products which we may expect in the West, and the traffic that consequently must come from West to East and the return traffic from East to West, that in a few years, even with the Welland canal deepened and with these improvements which I have outlined carried out, we will not have sufficient water carriage for the traffic we may expect in this Dominion, and so it will be necessary to have another outlet. My own personal v'ew is, and I think it is the view of the

late Government, that that other outlet should be the Georgian Bay canal. While we are getting ready to go on with that great project, we should not hesitate to deepen the Welland canal as rapidly as possible, improve Montreal harbour and equip it with the most modern facilities, make the channel east of Montreal as perfect as we can, get cheaper insurance rates, and then proceed with that other great scheme of transportation, which will give us the benefit of further water carriage. We need the Welland canal now, and we ought to start with the Georgian Bay canal as soon as possible.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Blain in the Chair.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Before the House rose at six o'clock, the Georgian Bay canal was discussed by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). A more mature deliberation upon the conditions in general of transportation at even this late date will convince people that canals as through routes are like burrowing in the earth-they have long since passed their useful stage. It is a well known fact that a very easy and safe means of transportation for enormous quantities of freight is by dirigible balloons under the control of a monoplane, or, if necessary, of a hydroplane, or, if preferred, of a biplane. A thousand tons of wheat can be trailed along at a low altitude for an enormous distance at a very high rate of speed and at a very low cost. I am fully persuaded that the people who are arguing in favour of the Georgian Bay canal are animated solely by a desire for the general benefit of Canada. .Therefore if we find that the people of the extreme West do not want it, that the people of the middle West do not want it, and that the people of the Maritime provinces do not want it-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who said so?


John Hampden Burnham: I am saying so. You can say the opposite afterwards.


William John Macdonald: You cannot speak for the Maritime provinces.


John Hampden Burnham: I am judging by
opinions that have been expressed at different times.


William John Macdonald: You are wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Leave out the Maritime provinces.


John Hampden Burnham: I make the assertion that the people of the Maritime provinces do not want the Georgian Bay canal.


William John Macdonald: Prove it.


John Hampden Burnham: I am not called upon to prove it, and it is not susceptible of proof. The contrary, moreover, is not susceptible of proof. I am merely retailing opinions which I have heard expressed. My friends may rest assured, however, that I do not attach undue weight to them, coming as they do from the Maritime provinces.
The people of the middle West have frequently said so-so I have heard and so I have read-that so far as the Georgian Bay canal is Concerned, it is of no use to them whatever. The remedy for the ills of the West is said to be free wheat, because it is to the south of us that the export of the cereals of the West should be made, they say. In that event the Georgian Bay canal will be of no use for through traffic to the West. The local traffic is not worth considering; the Georgian Bay canal would not be built merely for local traffic.
With this brief introduction, I wish to state that I know of a company forming which will undertake to transport all the food products of the West from Winnipeg to Quebec at a very much less rate than can be dreamt of by any other means, viz., the dirigible balloon, otherwise known as the airship. Hon. gentlemen, who scout and laugh at everything they hear as the Opposition are now doing, remind me of Noah, who told the people to come in out of the wet and they would not do so. I liken myself to Noah. I am perfectly serious in regard to this matter, however. I know quite well that some hon. gentlemen opposite, especially from Montreal, will scout any theory that will in any way interfere with Montreal and with their pet scheme. The Georgian Bay canal is to cost in the neighbourhood of two, three, or four hundred million dollars. For I-200th part of the sum it will take to build that canal, which will be locked up for eight months of the year and will have a repair bill which will frighten the people of this country, we are prepared to establish a line of air transportation which will carry both ways immense cargoes at a very rapid rate. These dirigible balloons can turn aside in different direction, so that there is no necessity f-or disputes about high or low grades or whether we are to have permanent ways or

trestles. These balloons, moreover, have proved themselves capable of sailing against a sixty-mile gale. It is a strange thing that these so-called peaceful men of the Opposition are willing to hand over these modern means of transportation to the devotees of war. It does not concern them that 'peace hath her victories no less renowned than war.' It does not seem to concern them that they might apply these dirigibles to the purpose of transportation for the relief of the fanner in whom they pretend to take so much interest.
There has been discovered lately a gas with one-tenth of the density of hydrogen, which has been the gas used for expanding balloons in the past. This gas can be produced very cheaply, and consequently the expense incident to a line of transportation such as I have outlined is very small. The envelope for the dirigible balloon need not b,e of fine silk, as it used to be, but can be constructed .of cheaper material; and I venture to say that in twenty-five years from now every enterprising man will have an airship or a monoplane of his own. The land is obstructed in every way, and the sea, which is the next best thing, is obstructed by rocks, icebergs, and so on. The air is really the only element that is not obstructed; and it has been finally settled between tho.se who contend for the heavier than air machine .and those who contend for the lighter than air machine that both serve their purpose, the lighter than air being for freight and the heavier for speed and direction. '
With both combined, the purposes of both are well served. You can easily imagine, Mr. Chairman, one of those great dirigible balloons-they may even be constructed 1,000 feet long-settling over a modern goods train, or its equivalent, filled with grain or whatever it may be. There is linked to it the extra chemical advantage-or aerial lightness is given to it-it is got under way by a motor, and off it glides into the air moving easily from one part to another, it might go in whatever direction wished. That seems to appeal to members of the Maritime provinces, No doubt the one from Halifax would avoid St. John, and vice versa-I may get their support on that ground. However, I wish in all earnestness to bring this matter to the attention of the Government. We are desirous of having them consider the feasibility of the project which I am now outlining, and in a short time we intend to bring it to their attention in a thoroughly practical manner. As I said, it is not necessary, especially in an intelli-188
gent House like this, to discuss the feasibi-. lity of the project because everybody knows it is feasible. A few years ago people scoffed at the telephone and wireless telephony and had no idea that wireless telegraphy was possible. Telegraphy, itself, was considered impossible until the Hertzian waves were discovered, but surely in these days no man, unless he belongs to the Opposition in this House, will say that anything is an impossibility. I admit that gentlemen on the Opposition side scoff at anything that is new-they are inclined to -scoff at anything also that is true, but I wish emphatically to call the attention of the Government to this matter with a thoroughly practical purpose in view; with the view of gaining the attention of advocates of such a scheme as the Georgian Bay canal, who will probably turn back from that project for the general benefit of Canada now that they see something much less expensive and much more serviceable. The beauty of this thing is that if at any time there is not sufficient traffic for it to run in one direction, we can go in another; there is no such thing as holding us up, and in that respect it is unlike the National Transcontinental railway. If that railway does not fit the occasion we are done. Our whole trade policy will have to be changed to fit the National Transcontinental railway. It reminds me of the story of Theseus of ancient Greece. That heroic gentleman, as no doubt Mr. Chairman you are aware, found that the bed provided by his host was too small for his gigantic frame. The host said, 'I will chop off your legs to make them fit the bed,' but Theseus replied, 'Oh, no, I prefer to have the bed [DOT]extended.' That is just what the people are doing every day. They are making the subject of their care fit their preconceived theories instead of making their theories fit the object of their care. Of course, this is not always the case. It is not the case with the present Government, I am happy to say, and I congratulate the Government upon that.


William John Macdonald: Are they all right?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes; the reason they are so successful is that they are open to suggestions. It is understood, Mr. Chairman, that I am anxious to call the attention of the Government to this matter.


William Manley German: The minister has said that he will announce later on what effect the construction of the Wenand canal will have on the level of the Welland river. I have no criticism to make. I will submit with pleasure to the decision of the



*engineers, because they know what is the best thing to do. But I think a decision *should be arrived at as speedily as possible, and I am inclined to think that the engineers have already had time to reach a decision.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before the minister
*answers my hon. friend, I wish to emphasize for a few minutes more the importance of this question of the Georgian Bay canal. On the general question of transportation, I may say that I agree with the remarks made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) this afternoon, namely, that the construction of the Welland canal should not be an impediment to the undertaking of the Georgian Eay canal. On this point I wish to say further that, although I do not see eye to eye on public questions with the late member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), yet I am free to confess that on the question of the Georgian Bay canal I concur with the views he has expressed on many occasions on this important question. It is to be regretted that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is no more in this House, because in him I am quite sure our hon. friends opposite would find a doughty exponent of the views which are *generally expressed in the East and in *central Canada in favour of that great project. I also regret to see that the Cabinet *ministers who represent more especially the interests of the district of Montreal are not here to voice the feelings of the public bodies, and public opinion generally in the East, in favour of this great undertaking. It is true that one of the ministers, the Secretary of State, introduced a *large	delegation the	other	day to	the*Minister of Public Works in favour of the *Georgian Biay canal; but the hon. member *has not yet found time to express his own opinion, and from wliat I can gather it is *quite	clear	that on	this	question	the*Minister of Inland Revenue and the Secretary of State are simply ignored by their colleagues, and that the interests of Montreal are being sacrificed once more. This project affects considerably the whole question of transportation, and the whole *question of wheat production in western Canada. The Government of Saskatchewan	has	appointed	a	Grain Markets Commission, which, as I said the	other day,	has issued	a
most interesting report on that question. The question of the transportation and 
marketing of grain is discussed in this report most intelligently. With your permission I would quote a few words about water carriage in Europe and the part it plays in the cheap transportation of grain:
The commission was impressed with the extent to which natural and artificial waterways are used in the transportation of grain and grain products in the United Kingdom and on the continent. The great bulk of the grain imported is never placed on the rails. The port which has behind it a navigable stream or a system of canals or both has a tremendous advantage over its competitors that are dependent chiefly upon rail transportation for the carriage of imports of this class inland. On the continent, such ports as! Antwerp, ' Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Hamburg are each at the confluence of extensive systems of internal waterways that teem with craft engaged in the transportation of lower class commodities in bulk.
Another feature of the report impressed me. We have always been of the opinion that Canadian ports would suffice to carry the products of Canada to the Mother Country and to Europe generally. Some facts are established in this report which are simply appalling and should, it seems to me, awaken the Government. Let me give a few figures of the losses which are met by Canadian ports to the advantage of American ports:
It is to be regretted that with such a magnificent waterway as the St. Lawrence in our possession, Canadian grain should be exported through any but Canadian channels. There is, however, some slight compensation in the fact that a considerable quantity of United States grain is exported via some Canadian ports	principally	Montreal. The	following statement sets forth the volume of these two crossing streams:
Quantity of Canadian wheat exported from United States ports in the years mentioned:
Bushels.
1909		 23,487,488
1910		 27,129,471
1911		 24,192,228
1912		 55,507,853
Quantity of United States wheat exported
from Canadian ports in the years mentioned:
Bushels.
1908		 10,908,194
1909		 12,761,605
1910		 3,884,202
1911		 1,623,172
1912		 7,335,494


William Cameron Edwards: The	proportion of	the
exports by American ports to the total export would not seem to have increased except in the year 1912.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In 1912 there was nearly double the quantity shipped that way that was shipped in 1910. These figures disclose an appalling state of things. The American ports are capturing our trade, and I am	sincere	when	I	say to	my

lion, friend that the time has come when the Canadian Government should fool no more with this question of the Georgian Bay canal if we want to keep within our own ports the trade of Canada. What is still more striking is that the rates through these American ports are higher than the rates through Canadian ports; and yet, with all that, we let slip such a large quantity of our trade to the American ports. The time for referring the building of the Georgian Bay canal to a commission has passed long ago; the Government should come to a decision on the question one way or the other. I listened to the interesting presentation of the case for the Georgian Bay canal by the delegation that waited on the Minister of Public Works. I was impressed especially by the speech of Mr. White., of Renfrew, a very able gentleman, a friend of the Conservative party. I was impressed with his sincerity and with his desire that this great work should come at last to a head. But unfortunately the answer given by the Minister of Public Works was so unsatisfactory that most of the delegates returned to their homes with their heads bent. They felt that once more the Government wished only to dilly-dally with the question and not to face it. The question is a most important one; it has reached the acute stage, and when we read such figures as I read a moment ago it seems to me that the Government should give another answer than the one given this afternoon by the Postmaster General.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for
Welland (Mr. German) asked what decision the Government had come to as to raising the level of the Welland river to that of the Welland canal. As I understand the situation, if you raise the level of the Welland river, the water would not be drinkable by the people of those towns which depend upon it for a supply. On the other hand, they could place a dam farther down and have an aqueduct underneath. But, even if they raise the water level of the Welland river, there is a way to overcome the difficulty, and get the water necessary for the use of places like Thorold, St. Catharines and Welland, that is, to run a pipe line to the lake Erie level. Mr. Weller, the superintending engineer, and the chief engineer have that question before them. They are giving the matter most serious consideration, and it is not expected that they will give their decision to the Government for consideration until they are prepared to 188*
advertise for tenders. I said this afternoon, that the question had not come before me, and this explains why. As the decision has not been reached, I cannot give the hon. gentleman information as to the plans to be followed. I hope before the session closes to be able to give the hon. gentleman the definite information which he is anxious for and which he is entitled to have. I hope I have made myself clear and that my explanation is satisfactory.
Mr. (JERMAN: Instead of the hon. minister being clear, he is absolutely un-clear. As I have said, I have no criticism to make. This is a very serious problem; I quite appreciate that. But the engineers have had the matter before them for two years, and 1 think they should have been prepared to give a decision before now. Certainly, they should reach a decision before the end of this session, for this is a very serious proposition for St. Catharines, Thorold, Welland and other towns taking water from the river.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The acting minister asked me as to the proportion of traffic from Port Arthur and Fort William via American and Canadian ports respectively. At page 40, I find a table showing the routing of shipments of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur for 1910, 1911. and 1912. In 1910, the total shipments were 78,381,035 bushels, of which 23,173,804 bushels went by Buffalo and other United States ports. In 1911, the total was 95,182,011 bushels, of which 36,694,334 bushels went by the United States, and in 1912, of a total of 135,545,946 bushels 56,758,292 went via Buffalo and other United States ports.


John Dowsley Reid: As to the total exports from our own ports, T have before me a statement showing the grain movements via Canada and via ithe United States. One column -shows the exports of wheat 'and flour to -all countries except the United States. From 18% to 1900, the average was 15,772,000 per year on the average. From 1901 to 1905, the average was 24,124,000. From 1906 t-o 1909, the average was 45,301,000; and for 1910-11 it was 60,134,000. The hon. member will see from these figures that our exports from Montreal to Quebec are increasing rapidly. I believe that the reason why for a great many years there was comparatively little export of grain from Montreal and Quebec during the summer was that we had not the facilities in Montreal to handle the grain. Up to about ten years

ago there was only the floating elevator. Grain went to Montreal, probably, in barges from Kingston, or it might be that a steamer would go straight through from Fort William. But they had to wait and store t/heir grain, or it was taken from the vessels into the ocean vessel by a floating elevator. But there was delay which meant demurrage and expense. On the other hand, they could take the grain to Buffalo and immediately unload into the elevator, and I think that tor about fifteen oir twenty days no storage was charged. Canal barges were there to take tiie grain to New York and at New York also there were complete facilities. Then the Government .built an elevator at Montreal of, I think, a million bushels capacity. Soon after the Grand Trunk railway built another elevator, then the Government built still another of about three million bushels capacity and increased the capacity of the old elevator. So, that in Montreal now we have an elevator capacity of about eight or nine million bushels. The result is that vessels are not delayed in Montreal. With these facilities the shipments to Montreal are increasing very much because the freight rates from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal sare much less than via Buffalo. At this moment, the shipments are being made to Buffalo by American boats and Canadian .boats are carrying the grain from Buffalo to Montreal. American boats are not able to quote a rate via Buff alio and New York, to compare with the present rates from Fort William to Montreal via the Welland canal. Now, 1 agree with what has been said by same hon. members, that the Welland canal should be deepened for this if for no other reason, in about five years you would have the advantage of the deepening of the Welland canal, whereas, if the Georgian Bay canal were to be proceeded with, it would take many years before you could get the full advantage of it. But I agree that there is no good reason why the other canal should not be proceeded with also if this investigation shows that we would be justified in going ahead with it. I believe that transportation is one of the most important questions before us to-day. The deepening of the Welland canal is a work that will pay for itself in a very few years. I remember when I was on the other side of the House I took a very strong stand that in time it would be a good thing not only for navigation but also for power purposes to con-

struct darns on the St. Lawrence between a point east of Prescott and Montreal which would make navigation between Liverpool and Port Arthur possible for almost the largest vessels that cross the ocean.


George Perry Graham: That would mean the
damming of the Sault to which my hon. friend is opposed.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I do not oppose the damming of the Sault provided the Governments of both countries do the work. I claim, however, that the five dams should be under the control of the Governments of the two countries; three of them will he between Canada and the United States and two of them will be wholly in Canadian territory. If this project were carried out we would have about 2,000,000 horse-power developed between Prescott and Montreal.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is pretty far in the future.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that. Of course, it would involve an enormous expenditure but as population increases, and if the Government keep control, it will come. I hope that the Government will never allow these resources to pass into the hands of private individuals. A contract has beem let for four sections of the Welland canal.
6iir WILFRID LAURIER:	How many
miles long?


John Dowsley Reid: Twenty-four miles.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many
locks are there?


John Dowsley Reid: There will be seven when
this work is completed and then there will be the guard locks-


William Manley German: There will be ten locks in all because there are three twin locks.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that, but we
only pass through seven locks and then there are the guard locks. We have let four sections and another small section.


George Perry Graham: Have any been sub-let?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no idea.


George Perry Graham: I imagine there have
been.


John Dowsley Reid: Not to my knowledge.


George Perry Graham: Quite a number of them.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps so; the hon. member may have more information than I have.

*Contracts have 'been let representing about half of the work to be done.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many
millions do you want far the four contracts?


John Dowsley Reid: If I Temember rightly, the
minister stated that it would cost about $50,000,000 in all. The estimate of the engineer on the four contracts was about $25,000,000, but the contractors' prices come to about $20,000,000. The engineers' estimate exceeded the contractors' prices by about $5,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Did you
think of dividing the work amongst small contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: We divided the 24 miles into nine sections.


George Perry Graham: They were not on the
level, though; they were down below.


John Dowsley Reid: No. 1 was 2 8-10 miles; No. 2, 4 miles; No. 3, 2 miles; No. 5, 24 miles.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the minister
can give us an idea now about what the estimated saving in freight rates will be owing to the enlargement of the canal? Large vessels now have to tranship at Port Colborne elevator. Suppose you can take the largest vessel as far as Prescott after the canal has been deepened to 22 feet-


John Dowsley Reid: Twenty-five feet.
Mr. GRAHAM-fwhat will be the saving on one bushel between Port Arthur and Montreal on the rate now charged? I have had it figured out for me on different occasions and it is considerable.


John Dowsley Reid: I have had it figured out by grain men and they have told me that the saving would amount to at least one cent a bushel. On a cargo of 300,000 bushels coming down to Prescott it would amount to about $3,000. That is what the large shippers tell me. Some others figure it a little less-about three-quarters of a cent peT bushel. On 40,000,000, or 50,000,000, or 100,000,000 bushels it would represent a large amount in one year.


George Perry Graham: A good many figures
were given to me by Mr. Richardson, a prominent Kingston man who is a large shipper. I would like to ask the minister his views on the assertion that has oftentimes been made that the deepening of the Welland canal would assist in diverting traffic from our Canadian ports rather than
in developing it. I have never been convinced that it will be the case, and I am not convinced yet. Another point that my hon. friend referred to was the deepening of the St. Lawrence. When we are discussing the deepening of the St. Lawrence canal we are discussing a greater problem than many people imagine. I have entertained serious doubts whether the St. Lawrence canals could be deepened without a system of dams in the river. It is difficult now to maintain head enough to secure a depth of 14 feet over the mitre sill, and in order to get a greater depth to compare with 25 feet in the Welland canal it would mean a system of dams, which would practically eliminate a number of rapids on the river, if not all of them. I suppose the department has given that question -some study. What does the minister think as to the comparative cheapness of carrying grain with the present Welland canal deepened and the St. Lawrence canals remaining as they are, bringing the grain down as far as Prescott, Brockville or Kingston, and transhipping it into the barges where it can be carried very cheaply? It has been argued that grain can be carried as cheaply in that way as if the larger vessels were taken through to Montreal, with the resultant delay. It has been argued that if vessels, instead of being delayed while getting rid of their cargoes, could return to the head of the lakes and come back with other cargoes, the number of trips that could be made in a season would be increased and grain would be carried as cheaply without the enlargement of the St. Lawrence canals as with it.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Graham) that after the grain gets through the Welland canal there is no possible chance of it being diverted from Montreal to Ogdensburg or Oswego. Some years ago, when I did a little shipping, the rate, I think, between Kingston and Montreal, was one and a half cents a bushel, and between Prescott and Montreal, one and a quarter cents per bushel, by barge. Within twenty-four hours, after notice, they could have the grain from either of these ports to the vessel's side in Montreal. If the grain went from Ogdensburg it would have to go 400 miles to New York, and counting 1,000 bushels to .a car, at one and a quarter cents a bushel, that would be only twelve and a half dollars for that car for 400 miles. In addition you would have to pay elevatoT charges, whereas, by send-

ing it to Montreal by barge, the elevator charges would be included. If that grain came to the Welland canal and was taken to Oswego, it would have to be put in small barges and travel 400 miles by the Erie canal and the Hudson river to New York. They could not possibly carry it for so low a rate as the rate from Prescott or Kingston to Montreal. Even if the present canal were deepened, you would still have to deepen the water stretches on lake St. Louis and lake St. Francis, and that would be enormously expensive. A system of dams would keep the levels up and you could have any depth of water you needed. I think the hon. member (Mr. Graham) will agree with me that if it were not for the dam stopping the boats, it would almost pay at the present time to put a dam across the Galops rapids. That, I understand, would not be a difficult engineering feat, and because of that dam holding the water back, instead of letting it run through the rapids, the large amount now expended annually for dredging the different channels would be saved.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am astonished and scandalized to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) advancing the idea of damming the St. Lawrence. I have heard him
9 p.m. speak, when he was in opposition, in tones of despair at the [DOT]very possibility that there might be such a scheme carried out by the then Liberal Government. For weeks and for months, day in and day out, he watched the Government for fear they would assent to the very proposition which he now favours. I was impressed by his argument in those days, and the Government would not agree to the damming of the St. Lawrence, and I hope that this Government will not agree to it either. All the reasons which he gave against damming the St. Lawrence at that time, are as true now as then; the beauty of the St. Lawrence would be marred now just as then, if a dam were erected. Moreover, there is no necessity for damming the St. Lawrence now, if the object be to keep the freight from being diverted to the New York route, because the New York route cannot compete with the St. Lawrence route. For my part, like my hon. friend (Mr. Graham), I believe we need the Georgian Bay canal, but we need the Welland canal just as much. I have the greatest hope in the Welland canal, because by it you can avail of water navigation from Port Arthur to Kingston. At present, these large beats which carry a quarter of a million bushels of grain, come to the end of the Welland canal, and have

to discharge cargo, but when we have this new Welland canal, one of these big vessels will leave Port Arthur and go to Kingston, and then her cargo can be transferred to river barges, for destination at Montreal. There is cheap freight from Kingston to Montreal, and neither Buffalo nor Oswego can compete with that route. That is the justification for the Welland canal, and the sooner it is built the better.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: One would
imagine from this discussion that the port of Montreal was open throughout the winter months, and that there would be a continuous procession of grain vessels from the head of the lakes to Prescott or Kingston, whence their cargoes would be forwarded to Montreal. It is wonderful to hear the guessing competitions that are ind 'lged in in this House, about the results of this undertaking. I want to point out that the majority of the vessel-men in Canada are frightened at the deepening of the Welland canal. The port of Montreal is invariably closed on the 20th of November, and the rush of grain from the Northwest comes after that date.
I have lived in the town of Midland for thirty years, and through Midland an enormous lot of grain comes every year; so that I know whereof I speak. Hon. gentlemen no doubt know that even up to the 15th of December, when the port of Montreal has long since been closed, there is a considerable quantity of grain coming out of Port Arthur. The idea of the Canadian vessel-men is that the deepening of the Welland canal, which I suppose we are bound to go on with now, is eventually going to ruin the Canadian shipping trade, in that the immense barges of the Steel Trust, which have been in commission all summer carrying ore, will proceed to Port Arthur, get their 400,000 or 500,000 bushels of grain as a cargo, pass through the deepened Welland canal, anchor at Oswego-Montreal being closed-and by cheap handling elevators the grain will be taken out of these vessels during the winter months and shipped to New York for European destination. Freighters will not be found in the summer time lying 'around Montreal looking for cargoes, because the trade there is small. On one occasion I was at a place called Point Comfort, where Hampton Roads, a well known harbour on the American side, is situated. You can see any day large British freighters lying there at anchor. Any one will tell you that they are lying there waiting for tele-

grams from New York to tell them where they can pitek up freight. In ordeT to avoid the cost of tying up at the dock3 at New York, they are lying at Hampton Roads ready to move up to New York when a cargo is in sight. There would be a system of cheap elevators at Oswego or Ogdensburg emptying the 400,000 or 500,000 bushel freighters -and loading the grain in the oars to -be taken- to New York.
One of the -best freights for vessels on the upper l-akes is the first cargoes of -coal that go np in the spring of the year. After these vessels have dispensed with their cargoes of grain in the fail, they -will be filled with coal and will toe the first vessels to go up the lake in the spring. A year or two ago a gentleman was -advertised to s-peak in Berlin, from which place.-most of this agitation has sprung in regard to the deepening of the Welland canal, although they are as much interested in the deepening of that canal as a -man in Timbuctoo would be. This gentleman -said that it was necessary for the welfare of Canada that the Welland c-anal should toe deepened. His initials -and his name are the same as those of the general manager of one of the biggest freighting companies in Canada. At -breakfast in the hotel I had read the speech of this gentleman. I met the vessel man on the street and said, ' Are you in favour of the Welland canal?1 He said, 'You are the second man that has met me on King street that has -asked mo that question. No, I am not the gentleman who made the speech. Do you think that I as a -ship owner would ibe so crazy as to advocate the deepening of the Welland canal?' It is, however, going to be done. We are all in -a guessing competition now, but at Oswego and Ogdensburg the matter ha-s gone -beyond the guessing staige. The people -are getting prepared for the-, stern reality, -and real estate- has increased in those- places -from twenty-five to thirty per cent by reason of the fa-ct that the Canadian Government is to deepen the Welland canal and thus giv-e them access to the lakes.


Wilfrid Laurier: If Montreal
Ihiartoour is closed after the- 2Qtih of November, iho-w would grain be taken from Oswego to New York after that date?


William Humphrey Bennett: Lake Ontario will -be
open and the boats will toe -aJble to come down the lakes.


Wilfrid Laurier: From Oswego?


William Humphrey Bennett: By a -system of cheap elevators that will handle the grain out of
these -huge vessels, -carrying 400,000 or 500,000 bushels. It is nothing unusual to see on the upper lakes vessels capable o-f carrying 500,000 bushels. These elevators will put the grain into the cars which will take it to New York, w-hi-ch is open all the year around.


William Cameron Edwards: Is Kingston closed any more than Oswego? Do you forget my little
village?


William Humphrey Bennett: Kingston is open in the winter months. The Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway have connections there. What will be done ,if any business is done there, is this-I am referring to the winter season-the cars will be loaded from elevators, should they be built, and the Grand Trunk will take these cars to Portland. As it is a longer haul from Kingston to Portland than from Oswego to New York, the latter route would naturally be preferred. A few years ago I met an engineer who was in charge of the deepening of the Erie canal. He did not know I was a Canadian, and I said to him,
' Why not deepen the Welland canal and have the big boats go through to Oswego? ' He said: 'You do not appreciate the point; the Welland canal belongs to Canada and the Canadian people will never be so simple minded as to deepen that canal for the convenience of the American people. The advocacy that the Welland canal should be deepened has been too from the American side. The American Congress even expressed its willingness to pay half the cost of deepening that canal; and if a close bargain had been driven with them, they would have done it. The wgrk, however, is now going on. It is all in the guessing stage and when it is completed we shall see the result. In the meantime it is the duty of the Government to do everything possible to improve the elevator facillities at Montreal so as to get as much grain down there as possible in the fall, and then by a system of iice-toreakers to endeavour to keep the harbour of Montreal open later than the 20th or 23rd of November.


William Cameron Edwards: I agree with the hon.
member in so far as the advisability of providing the very best elevator localities -at Montreal for (handling grain is concerned, but I -c-annot agree with his conclusions in regard to the probable movement o-f the grain, if the Welland canal is deepened and enlarged, as we propose doing. I cannot see why a 400,000 bushel grain freighter passing from

Port Arthur through the Welland canal down into lake Ontario should select Oswego rather than Kingston, even supposing that the port of Montreal is closed to navigation on the 20th of November. I think I am correct in saying that the lake will be open as late at Kingston as it will at Oswego, and I can see no particular reason why a freighter should put up at Oswego and unload its grain into the cars to be taken through to New York rather than put up alongside an elevator at Kingston and unload its grain to be taken in cars to St. John. I am not prepared to say just what the difference is, but I do not think there is very much difference between the distance from Kingston via Montreal to St. John and the distance from Oswego to New York.


John Dowsley Reid: It is shorter to St. John.


William Cameron Edwards: So far as railway freight rates are concerned, the grain could be shipped from Kingston or Prescott just as cheaply over Canadian railways to the Canadian port of St. John as over American railways to the port of New York. If that is true, then surely we would all prefer to see that grain passing from the port of Kingston or Prescott over Canadian railways to St. John, where this Government and previous Governments have spent large sums of money, than to see it passing through the United States to the port of New York. I think I can take that for granted. I could not help wondering if my hon. friend would not have the town of Midland in his eye when he was discussing the deepening of the Welland canal.
I think I have heard the hon. gentleman advocate a grain railway from Midland to Montreal.


William Humphrey Bennett: They have two of them now.


William Cameron Edwards: I think the hon. gentleman was advocating another; I will not be sure. If the Welland canal is not deepened, the effect would be, I suppose, to turn the grain to Midland to be shipped by rail to Montreal. I cannot blame my hon. friend for desiring to see the grain go through his own town. That is a local patriotism of which we all should have more or less. I should like to see the Welland canal deepened and the grain brought down by vessel-


An hon. MEMBER:: To help Kingston.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, and incidentally to help the old historic county of Frontenac. 
The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) Quoted from the Grain Markets report. I think that report speaks very favourably of the deepening of the Welland canal and carrying the grain down to the port of Kingston. I read the report carefully, and I do not recollect that any fear is expressed of the grain going to Oswego and down through the United States. I think the deepening of the Welland canal is one of the best movements which has been made; and I do not say that merely because I believe it will assist in developing Kingston, but it seems to me the reasonable and logical thing to do. Nature has provided a waterway in our splendid chain of lakes. If the grain is carried without breaking bulk from Fort William to Kingston or Prescott it can be transferred to very cheaply constructed grain barges to be taken to Montreal. I notice that is one of the things that cheapens the handling of grain in the Erie canal. The grain goes into barges which are practically boxes. They are not made to resist a heavy-sea, nor is it necessary they should be so made. In the same way, when the large steamer comes to Kingston or Prescott, the grain will be unloaded into barges which will praetially be floating bins which can make the trip to Montreal, though they could not stand the seas on the lakes. And as they are cheaply constructed, they will help to cheapen the freight rates. I think the movement is one in the right direction.


Frank Oliver: It is so seldom I have the good fortune to agree with my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) that I am glad to take the opportunity to declare such an agreement when it occurs. But even on this occasion, I am afraid, I cannot go with him .all the way. I do believe, as he does, that the best and most profitable route for grain from the West is via large freighters to Midland and then by rail to Montreal.
Mr. W. H. S-HARPE: How about the Hudson Bay railway ?


Frank Oliver: If the hon. member will have patience, we will come to that. It seems to me that the freighter of maximum [DOT]capacity carrying grain to Midland, with quick loading, quick discharge and quick return, could handle more grain in a *specified time than a freighter of less size making a longer trip. And, as it is important to get as much as possible of the grain out in the fall, I think this is the route that offers the best advantage. But

because that is a good route, it does not follow there should not be others. I cannot follow my hon. friend when he, if I understood him aright, protested against [DOT]the improvement of the Welland canal, for the reason, as he alleges, that it will fosteT the transport of grain to New York. Under present conditions altogether too large a proportion of our western grain goes to New York, although the Welland canal has .not been improved. I cannot think, as the hon. gentleman seems to do, that there is some deep-laid plot or conjunction of effort, as between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada in the building of the Welland canal, against the well-being of the port of Midland. For I would remind him that, not the Government of the United States, it is true, but the government of the state of New York, is spending $200,000,000 in improving the Erie canal, the result of which expenditure would not have a bearing at all on the transport of grain via the Welland canal. That is, if the Welland *canal is improved, the grain goes to Kingston or Oswego, and merely renders the Erie canal useless to that extent. Now, [DOT]my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) wants to know about the Hudson Bay railway. With the production we have in the West, and with the production we ought to have in the near future, we want, and [DOT]absolutely need, the advantage of all the outlets that can be secured. It was many [DOT]years ago that a great transportation authority declared that what Canada needed was the enlargement of the spout- of the means of getting the grain out in the shortest time. So, while we approve of the improvement of the Welland canal, we approve .also of the Hudson Bay railway, and also of means of access to the milling .centres south of the line. We approve of the Transcontinental giving us a route to the Pacific, and also a winter haul to ,the Atlantic. I am unable to put the case just as I would like, but if we are to have the development that we hope to have, we need all these different outlets, and unless we have all these different outlets we cannot achieve that development that we hope to have. We need them all, and we need them under the most favourable circumstances.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the grain going via Ogdensburg, the Welland canal will benefit trade between the East and the West during the whole season of navigation. The only time when there
might be some disadvantage would be in the fall of the year, when the vessels anchor at Ogdensburg. That was the point taken by the hon. member for Simcoe. I think he is in error in saying that the grain will be unloaded there; it will be unloaded, as the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) has stated, at Kingston or Prescott.


Frank Oliver: Prescott in preference.


John Dowsley Reid: But then it should be the duty, and no doubt will be the duty, of the Government to see that the grain is not diverted to Portland or other United States ports. The distance from Kingston or Prescott to St. John and Halifax is practically the same as to New York, and surely the Government of Canada, with two roads running to St. John and Halifax, the Intercolonial railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, can keep the rates as low as those from an American port to New York, so we should have it in our own. control. The difficulty has been that we have not had the facilities at St. John or Halifax to handle the grain during the winter months, and it has gone to Portland and New York. At Halifax there is one small elevator. Last winter a few large steamers came there, and over two million bushels of grain were handled there in the few winter months. But facilities were improved last year, and they have been able to handle more grain. I am satisfied that the amount handled at St. John has increased also. The Canadian Pacific railway are building a large elevator there, and have no doubt that all these elevators will be kept busy. It is absolutely necessary that we should, at the earliest possible moment, improve the facilities at Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, so that we may handle the products of the West and of Ontario and Quebec through Canadian ports. When we are in a position to do that the grain will go by our ports. It is not likely that large vessels will go to Oswego. They can make three trips to Midland to one to Oswego, and make a great deal more money. Grain going by Oswego would have to pass through 340 miles of canal with 30 locks to New York, as against 175 miles to Montreal from Kingston or 123 miles from Prescott. The advantage of these large vessels coming down to Kingston is that they would only have thirty miles of canal from the time between Port Arthur and Kingston.


William Humphrey Bennett: What does the minister consider the stretch from Sarnia

down to Detroit? Is that not canal? They slow down all the way.


Mr. PARDEE:: No, they do not. They slow down part of the way through 1'ake St. Clair, and that is all.


John Dowsley Reid: The river may be not as deep in some places, and. they may have to slow down a little; but I have never recognized that as part of the canal. Look what has happened since the elevator was built at Port Colborne. Prior to that all the vessels that went through the Welland canal went to Port Arthur and got their cargo to return to Montreal. The late Mr. Tarte as Minister of Public Works devised the scheme of building an elevator at Port Colborne to be used until the canal could !be enlarged. Last year that one million bushel elevator handled over twenty million bushels of grain. Large freighters 'bring it to Port Colborne and the other small Welland canal boats have been running from Port Colborne lo Montreal. My opinion is that as soon as the Welland canal is enlarged the large boats can go down to Kingston and there transfer to the same boats that now go to Port Colborne or else large barges will be built for the purpose. Personally I have not any fear, Ido not think any man who understands the situation has any fear, of either Buffalo, Oswego or Ugdensburg or any place affecting the grain going to Montreal when the Welland canal is built. As to Ogdemsbuig, it is many more miles from Ogdensburg to New York than from Buffalo to New York. It ;s not likely that a vessel will come all the way down through the Welland canal, across lake Ontario, down the St. Lawrence to stop at Ogdensburg in order to ship the grain to New York.


George Perry Graham: By rail.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, by rail. It is absurd to make any such statement. There may be a little more grain come down to Ogdensburg for their own use in the eastern states adjacent to Ogdensburg as it is a distributing point for grain for use in small mills in that section just as Kingston and Prescott are for places back from the river.


William Manley German: I would like to have a word to say in regard to this question of transportation. I am inclined ,to think that many hon. gentlemen who 'have spoken on the matter really know very little about it. The hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals-probably he may be Minister of Railways later on, but we hope not, because we want to see the present minister continue in that office-must remember that vessels

carrying grain from Port Arthur, or Duluth, to Buffalo or Port Colborne, do not make their money in carrying that grain, but in carrying coal back to western points. It has been stated that the enlarging of the Welland carnal will mean that American boats will go to Ogdensburg. No doubt they will, but they will have to go back through the Welland canal, and take their load of coal for the West just the same as the Canadian boats; so there is no reason why the Welland canal should be any more advantageous to American than to Canadian shipping. For myself, the Welland canal construction is beneficial. I would like to see the St. Lawrence route deepened and, with due deference to other opinions, I would like to see dams put in at every rapid on the St. Lawrence, and the river made navigable. That is what will happen in the future, and electric power development will pay the whole cost of construction. My own idea is that the scenic problem is practically obliterated, or will be in a few years. So far as the Georgian Bay canal is concerned, I h-ave never taken part in the many discussions which have taken place hitherto, because I rather thought that if I discussed the Georgian Bay canal hon. members would say: You are absolutely in favour of the Welland canal and consequently opposed to the Georgian Bay canal. I wish to say now that the Georgian Bay canal is absolutely an impossible proposition, financially. It will cost $200,000,000 or more to build a ship canal from Montreal to Georgian bay. The interest on that iwotney would pay the carriage on all the grain the Northwest can produce in the nest hundred years. We have built a Transcontinental railway; pay that road four cents a bushel for carrying grain from Georgian bay to Montreal, and you will be paying less than the interest on the $200,000,000 necessary for the construction of the Georgian Bay cana1
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: Is it only from the standpoint of cost that the hon. gentleman is opposed to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal?


William Manley German: Not at all. Outside of
the question of cost .altogether, I challenged my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) to get any man who owns a ship or knows about running a ship to say that they will ever ge t a ship carrying 250,000 bushels of wheat to go through the Georgian Bay canal. They will never do it. Imagine 400 miles of a canal and vessels going at the rate of four or five miles an

hour, which would be the maximum speed! It is absolutely impossible. I have never said a ward about this matter before but I hope the hon. gentlemen appointed to the commission will discuss the possibility of a ship drawing twenty-five feet of water, and carrying 250,000 bushels of grain going through 400 miles of canal. There is not a vesselman who will say it can be done. The curves are too short; they cannot got around them.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: Are there not boats carrying that quantity going via the [DOT]St. Lawrence and Great Lakes?


William Manley German: Not .at present, but there .soon will be. I may say, however, that the Osier carries 250,000 bushels and goes to Port Colborne. When the Welland -canal is finished they will carry that grain to' Prescott, and tranship to -Montreal. I would like to see the St. Lawrence canals enlarged so that those ships could go straight through to Montreal. I quite recognized the fact that my hon. flriend from North Renfrew does not agree with me about the Georgian Bay canal, but if he will talk with his Conservative friends who own ships he need not talk to Liberals- he will not find a Conservative v-e-sselman who will say that the boats can do it. I would be very glad to see power developed on the Ottawa river, but that is another thing altogether.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE:	What about
the international aspect of the powers on the St. Lawrence, that my hon. friend is so anxious to have developed?


William Manley German: That is only an adjunct to the deepening of the 'St. Lawrence river.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: How much of that power will belong to the United States when developed?


William Manley German: From Kingston to Cornwall about half of it belongs to -the United States, and the United States Government will be only too willing to join with the Canadian Government in putting in locks and dams to develop power. I hope Canada will never agree to that.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE:	They would
take care to get most of the power.


William Manley German: Not if I had anything to say about it. My hon. friend and his friends are not going to be in power very long. Outside of that problem altogether, however, the question of transportation in
Canada is a big one. We have expended large sums of money in building a Transcontinental railway. It is our duty to develop all- our resources to the best possible advantage but I doubt exceedingly if the development of these resources will be promoted by the building of the Georgian Bay canal.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to know where my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) stands in regard to the Georgian Bay canal. A few moments ago the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) told us-I pTe-sume he was speaking as an ex-Cabinet Minister and on behalf of the Opposition-what the position of hon. gentlemen opposite was. He said: We are in favour of the Hudson Bay railway, we are in favour of the Transcontinental- railway, we are in favour of the deepening of the Welland canal, but I notice that my hon. friend from Edmonton took good care not to say that the Opposition were in favour of the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It has been stated by members on the Opposition side of the House that if the late Government had remained in power a little longer the next great work of importance which they would have undertaken would have been the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It seems to me, from the views expressed to-night by several prominent members on the Opposition side of the House, including ex-Cabinet Ministers, that if the late Government had remained in power the country would have been a long way from the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. My hon- friend from Welland has given the committee some of his views with regard to the Georgian Bay canal. When my hon. friend stood upon his feet he said that several members had -spoken with regard to the question of transportation and that from what they had said he did not think they knew very much about it. I can tell my hon. friend that, whatever he may know about the general question of transportation, he is lacking a little in knowledge in regard to the Georgian Bay canal. I would be only too glad to take my hon. friend from Welland with me on a trip over the route of the Georgian Bay canal and possibly, when he has seen that great waterway with its immense possibilities of power development and -such like, his views in regard to that particular project will change materially. My hon. friend referred to the fact that this route meant about 400 miles of canal. If he will take the trouble to digest the report which his
29s4

hon. friends presented to the House in 1908 he will find that along that 400 miles of waterway there are only twenty-eight miles of canal and -sixty miles of improved waterway.


William Manley German: What is the greatest
depth of water in any of the lakes?


Mr. WHITE:: Offhand, I am not able to enlighten my hon. friend on that question but I could take him to certain sections of the Otttawa river where he would have a hard time to find bottom.


William Manley German: You have not a depth of thirty feet for nine-tenths of the distance from North Bay to Montreal.


Gerald Verner White: Under the present circumstances ?


William Manley German: Yes.
. Mr. WHITE:	That may be, but what
about the Welland and St. Lawrence canals? My hon. friend is talking about moving the point of transhipment from Port Colborne to Kingston or Prescott. I think that is a most silly argument. Why are the advocates of the Welland and St. Lawrence canals sending literature all over the country? I notice in one of the pamphlets which they have been sending to members of this House that they pay particular attention to a speech delivered by Senator Townsend of the United States Senate before the Lake Carriers' Association at Detroit on the 22nd January, 1914.
I would like to know why Senator Towns* end would not ibe in favour of the deepening of the Welland canal. I doubt very much if Senator Townsend is sincere in what he says in this speech, and I presume that the synopsis contained in this pamphlet is correct. Senator Townsend says:
I have said this much as a preface to the special plea I propose to make for the improvement of waterways, and particularly for the speedy and intelligent improvement of the natural water course extending from the head of the great lakes to the gulf of St. Lawrence, an improvement having for its object the enlargement of that waterway to accommodate ocean going vessels in their voyage from lake ports to foreign parts, and all for the benefit of transportation.
He may be in favour of the improvement of the waterway down to Oswego or Ogdensburg, but I doubt very much if Senator Townsend favours the deepening of the rest of the system.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from
Renfrew (Mr. White) has gone rather out 
of his way to establish a case against the late Government with regard to the Georgian Bay canal, using not what I said but what I did not say in proof of his argument. I think my hon. friend was entirely unwarranted in taking the position he did. He knows the late Government made a very precise and thorough survey of the route of this canal and placed before the people of the country and of the world -information in regard to it which establishes the engineering possibility of its construction. As to what the late Government might have done, I am not prepared to answer, but as far as what they did is concerned, my hon. friend cannot successfully lay the accusation that they did not show their favourable attitude towards the construction of this canal.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE:	The report
to which my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) referred was laid on the table of the House, I think, in January, 1909, and they did not go to the country for two years after that, or until September, 1911. If hon. gentlemen opposite were so strongly in favour of this particular project and if, as my hon. friend from Edmonton states, they were perfectly satisfied that, from an engineering standpoint, the canal was a feasible proposition, why did not these hon. gentlemen take it up?


Frank Oliver: I think that ever since the present Government took oflice it has been the stock argument in their mouths that the late Government had undertaken such very great responsibilities. I am not quoting the words of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White), but that hon. gentleman has from time to time taken occasion to condemn the late Government because of the vast projects which they had undertaken. I am sure that even my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island, who gave such noted counsel to the present Government, would agree that the announcement of a project to cost a minimum of $200,000,000 might very well cause any Government to take counsel and to consider all the circumstances and conditions before going on with the work.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: My hon. friend
does not evidently believe in the report his own Government submitted, because that report stated that the cost would be $100..000,000.


William Manley German: $100,000,000 for a fourteen foot canal, without land damages.


Gerald Verner White: Not at all; twenty-two feet on the sills. My hon. friend evidently does not understand the report.


William Manley German: For fourteen feet on the
mitre sill, without land damages, the cost would be $100,000,000.


Gerald Verner White: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken.


William John Macdonald: It seems to me that some hon. gentlemen opposite are still under the impression that the Liberal Government is still in control of the affairs of this country. I am not surprised that my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) should be very anxious on behalf of his constituents to see sortie forward step taken in this work, but he is not strengthening his case in any way by talking about what a Government that went outof jtowertwo and a naif years ago did or did not do. The question before the people of North Renfrew to-day is, not what the Liberal Government did or did not do, but what this Government now in power is going to do. No doubt my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) realizes that when he goes to his constituents at the next election on this great question, he will be in a very miserable position when he tells them that for four years the Government which he supported had the power to build this canal, and that they absolutely failed to take any step in that direction.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE: This Government h.as only been in power three short years, and the late Government was in power for fifteen years.


William John Macdonald: And each year is as long or as short as another, and there are 365 days in a year now, just as there were then, and my hon. friend from North Renfrew will not be able to escape responsibility by any suggestion of that kind.
Mr. GERALD V. WHITE:	I am doing
all I can.


William John Macdonald: How long does the
hon. gentleman from North Renfrew want this Government to remain in
10 p.m. power before he expects them to move towards the construction of the Georgian Bay canal? The Government now in power controls the finances of the country, and to them alone is committed the task of building the Georgian Bay canal or of not building it, and What excuse can the hon. gentleman give his constituents for the Government, which he supports, doing nothing.


John Hampden Burnham: We will help the
farmers.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend from Peterborough to-night started an aeroplane theory, and very interesting it was, hut no later than last Friday night he gibed the Government upon their absolute inability to do anything.


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, no.


William John Macdonald: This Government
came into power with a tremendous announcement from the Prime Minister, as to wihat he was going to do. He declared that the Liberals had failed in their duty, and in high-sounding phrases he called Heaven to witness his intentions; he told the Canadian people that once he was in power a new era would dawn on this country, and things would begin to move.


John Hampden Burnham: Hear, hear.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend says, 'hear, hear', but he says 'hear, hear' to almost everything the Government does. If the Government can tell us what they have done or attempted to do in regard to one single item of the programme announced by their leader when he took office, we shall *await that statement with interest.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: How about the grain elevators?


William John Macdonald: That was arranged for by the late Government before they went out of power.


Hugh Clark: What about the Hudson Bay railway?


William John Macdonald: Why, the Hudson
Bay railway was provided for and the contract let by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) before the Liberal Government went out of power. I believe that the voyageurs of centuries ago found the true water passage from the Lower St. Lawrence to the West when they went up the Ottawa river and followed the line of What is now called the Georgian Bay route, and that in this twentieth century that water route should be improved, so as to meet the modem requirements 'and conditions of traffic by water. I agree with my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) as to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, but I do ask him to be big enough to realize that the men whom he supports will never move if he continues to make such speeches as he has made to-night. They will sit in placid contentment and say: as long as the repre-

sentatives of the people most interested in that project Tyill defend us when iwe do nothing, we will continue our policy of doing nothing on this, as on every other question. I believe that the Georgian Bay route should be the great national waterway of this-country, and that the conditions are such that this Government, having found when they came into power an overflowing treasury-which they have been dissipating day after day to political favourites in [DOT]regard to every petty project presented to -them-ought, at once, to have proceeded to move in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. They at least might commence to deal with some item of their programme. The people interested in this project will hold these men to account for their inactivity, and their inability to conceive or construct anything. The defence put forward by my bon. friend from North Renfrew and others like him, for the inaction of the Government in this matter, wall be easily understood by the plain people of this country.


Frank Oliver: I would not wish to have any misunderstanding in regard to the position of the late Government towards this project, or my own. As a representative of the West, I have always objected to those who favoured the construction of the Georgian Bay canal putting it forward as a project in the interest of the West. The West has always been and will always be prepared- to pay its share for the development of this country, either in the East or in the West. If it should seem good to the people of Canada to build the Georgian Bay canal, I am satisfied that our western people will be ready to bear their share of the burden of cost. For my own part, I have always held the view that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal was not an essential to the development of the West, any more than the construction of any other single means of ingress or egress for the products of the West. If we have a transcontinental railway carrying freight winter and summer; if we have the lake routes as we have them now; if we .have the improved Welland canal; if we have the Hudson Bay railway; if we have access to the markets of the world by way of the Pacific; if we have access to the American milling centres by the American railways, we are not in a position of such urgent need that we should demand that the people of Canada pay $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 towards the construction of still another means of access which will

only be of use during a part of the year. I hope I have made my position clear. We do not object to the building of the Georgian Bay canal; we do not object to the paying of our share of it, but we object to being saddled with the responsibility for its construction as being a necessity for western development. As a national undertaking, for the benefit of the nation, if the nation at large thinks well, we are quite willing to pay our share;, but for my part-and I think there are other gentlemen from the West who will take exactly the same stand-we certainly object to western Canada being saddled with the responsibility for that vast expenditure as being for the benefit primarily of the West.


Gerald Verner White: I do not think the hon. gentleman should look at the matter from that point of view. It is what is going to be of advantage not only to the West but to all Canada. I think my hon. friend from Edmonton is taking a very sectional view of the matter.


William Manley German: The Welland canal is being enlarged; that is, it is being made a ship canal. It is twenty-four miles from lake Erie to lake Ontario, and the estimated cost of that canal is $50,000,000 for twenty-four miles. There are seven locks, three of them being twin locks, or really ten locks.


Gerald Verner White: Who made that estimate?


William Manley German: The engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals.


Gerald Verner White: Of the present Government or of the late Government?


William Manley German: Of both Governments.


Gerald Verner White: If there is anything in my hon. friend's contention, the deepening of the Welland canal will cost at least $100,000,000, because he states that the Georgian Bay canal will cost $200,000,000, notwithstanding the engineer's report that it will cost $100,000,000.
iMr. GERMAN: This canal is estimated to cost $50,000,000. Where there is rock, it is limestone, which is easy of excavation. The bulk of the work in the canal is dredging work.


Gerald Verner White: I thought it was practically a new canal.

29S7


William Manley German: For thirteen miles from Port Colbome it is just enlarging the present canal, widening rand deepening it. For the rest of the way to lake Ontario it is a new canal with new lochs that are being constructed. The estimated cost is $50,000,000 for twenty-four miles of a canal. The Georgian Bay canal is 400 miles long, either submerged or otherwise, through the hardest granite that the earth can produce.


Gerald Verner White: Solid foundation?


William Manley German: Absolutely solid granite
rock that you have to blow out.


Gerald Verner White: Hoes my hon. friend mean to say that through the whole length of the Ottawa and Georgian bay waterway there is solid giranite?


William Manley German: No. What I say is that through the whole distance you have to have a canal constructed through the rock or through the lake, a submerged canal, because there is not fifty miles in that distance that a ship drawing twenty-five feet of water can navigate.


Gerald Verner White: I think my hon. friend is mistaken.


William Manley German: I may be wrong tor a few miles, but my hon. friend will agree with me that there are not at any rate 100 miles-I do not believe there are 50 miles that you would not have to excavate and have a submerged canal. If the Welland canal for 24 miles cost $50,000,000, as 24 miles is to $50,000,000 so is 400 miles to the cost of the Georgian bay canal, which will he $100,000,000, putting it on the .same basis. With all the land damages you simply cannot build the Georgian Bay [DOT]canal short of $300,000,000, and that will pay all the cost of transporting all the wheat of the Northwest to Montreal very much longer than any of us will live.


Gerald Verner White: The hon. member had better confer with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and get some enlightenment on this subject.


Mr. ROBB:: While we have been discussing the merits of the Georgian Bay canal and of the Welland canal, the men .in Winnipeg who own the grain have been negotiating sales; they have probably sold [DOT]as much wheat to New York merchants as they have to Liverpool merchants, and these merchants will ship that wheat by whichever route is the cheapest. They
figure on the rate they can get from Fort William to Rotterdam or to Liverpool, iwherever the wheat is going. While a man in Winnipeg has been negotiating sales of wheat through a New York house, perhaps [DOT]a man in Chicago has been selling corn through a Montreal house. I venture to say that our canals, since they have been constructed, have carried as much United States grain as Canadian grain. It is nonsense for us to discuss the question as .to whether grain will go through United .States ports or through Canadian ports; it is all an interchange of business. A man who owns corn will use the Canadian route because it is a northerly and therefor a cooler route, and his. com transhipped at Kingston or Prescott will be shipped to Montreal and will go through in better condition. If wheat is in good condition, it can be routed cheaper by New York; and it will go through that port whether you build the Georgian Bay canal or the Welland canal.
There is also the question of insurance. At certain seasons of the year there is a discrimination of half a cent to three-quarters of a cent a bushel in the insurance rate between the Montreal route and the New York route. Shortly after this Government came into power, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who recognized that discrimination, went to Montreal, met the Board of Trade, and admitted that that w.as the real issue. He endeavoured to remedy the matter.
From that day to this, so far as I know, there has not been one sixteenth change in the insurance rates downwards, but the rate did go up last fall. Our friends opposite had better get to work and try to do something towards carrying out their promises in regard to insurance rates.


William John Macdonald: Would the minister tell us who are the tenderers on the Welland canal, which of them were successful, and the amount of the contract on each section.


John Dowsley Reid: I have here a statement showing all the tenders for each section:
Section No. 1.
M. P. & J. T. Davis	$5,394,780 00
Sir John Jackson (Canada) Dtd. .	5,207,277 60
H. Quinlan & A. W. Robertson,
Montreal	
4,023,140	00The ' Soo ' Dredging & Construction Co	
5,970,505	00Canadian Dredging Co., Limited. .	3,870,075	00The Dominion Dredging Co., Ltd. 3,487,725 00 p. D. Brown and J. A. Aylmer. .	5,213,850	00Booth & Flinn, Limited	
4,483,156	25
Anglo-Canadian Contractors, Ltd. $4,954,245 00 Baldry, Yerburgh & Hutchinson,
Limited, Westminster, London,
S.W., England, and St. Catharines, Ont	 4,081,537	60
Contractor: Dominion Dredging Co., Ltd.
Section 2.
James H. Corbett, Fredericton,
N.B	$5,418,075	00
The Canadian Carter Co., Ltd.,
Ottawa	 6,557,125	00
Consolidated Construction Co.,
Limited	 6,595,542	50
Inland Construction Co., Toronto.' 5,687,487	50
A. C. Stewart & Co., Fort William	 9,680,010	00
Baldry, Yerburgh & Hutchinson,
Limited	 5,377,185	75
Foley Bros., Welch, Stewart & Co.,
Ottawa	 6,163,260	00
Contractor: Baldry, Yerburgh & Hutchinson, Limited.
Section No. 3.
Anglo-Canadian Contractors, Ltd.,
Toronto	
Booth & Flinn, Ltd., New York.
James H. Corbett, Moncton. . .. Sir John Jackson (Canada),
Limited, Montreal	
Carter Construction Company,
New York	
Foley Brothers, Welch, Stewart
& Company	
O'Brien & Doheny, Renfrew and
Montreal	
M. P. & J. T. Davis, Ottawa. . . . Consolidated Construction Co.,
Limited, Toronto	
Contractor: O'Brien & Doheny.

Section No. 5.
Confederation Construction Company, Ltd		$2,506,462
The ' Soo ' Dredging & Construction Co., Sault Ste.	Marie,	Ont..	2,304,362
Brown, Aylmer & Russell, Toronto,
Ont	 2,380,398
Canadian Dredging Company, Ltd.,
Midland	 1,945,788
Consolidated Construction Co., Ltd.,
Toronto	 2,475,745
James H. Corbett, Fredericton.. ..	2,549,004
The Inland Construction Company,
Toronto	  ..	3,172,348
G. F. Fauquier, Ottawa; w. C.
Chambers, Harriston ; C. McQuiggs,
Nepigon; W. A. McCaffrey, Toronto	 2,618,610
The Canadian Carter Company,
Limited, Ottawa	 3,010,285
Contractor:	Canadian	Dredging	Company,
Limited.
Section 4a
Jennings & Ross, Ltd., Toronto.. ,. Clarke & Monds, Ltd., Toronto. . . . J. H. McRae & H. A. Campaigne,
Niagara Falls	
Peninsular Construction Co., Ltd.,
St. Catharines	
Maguire & Cameron, St. Catherines	
Lauzon Engineering Company,
Limited, LSvis	  ,
The C. S. Boone Dredging & Construction Co., Ltd., Toronto. . ..

F. R. Wilford, Lindsay	$116,917 00
Canadian Dredging Company, Ltd.,
Midland	
98,764	00J. K. Kernahan,	St.	Catharines...	108,258	00
Jones, Girouard & Company, Ltd.,
Ottawa	
102,386	00Campbell &	Lattimore,	Toronto	.	.	146,295	40
Contractor: Maguire & Cameron.


William Manley German: The Dominion Dredging Company have a pretty hard contract. Are they going on ? Does the minister think they can carry out their contract with the prices they have got ?


John Dowsley Reid: I never heard anything to the effect that they were not going on. They have a .splendid plant at work. It was in the fall when these contracts were let, and of course we would not expect much to be done in the winter.


George Perry Graham: When does the minister expect to let the other contracts, and how many will there be P


John Dowsley Reid: There are yet to be let sections 4, 7, 6, 8 and 9. I understand from the engineers that these contracts, except section 8, will not take more than half the time of the others, and so there is no urgency so far as they are concerned. As to Number 8, that will be let before very long, in order that the work may be finished about the time that the work on the other four contracts is finished.


William Manley German: When will the contract be let?


John Dowsley Reid: The plans are very nearly ready. But I thought that as the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) will probably be back within a month or so, 1 should probably await his return. There is no very great urgency for that length of time. We could let that contract within the next two or three months and yet have that one ready by the time the others are carried out.


George Perry Graham: I understand that some provision is being made for the future as to the lock-gates, so that if the canal is to be deepened a certain part of the work will be already done.


John Dowsley Reid: The lock-sills and the locks are being built to thirty feet, so that if in future we want to make the canal one of thirty feet depth, it will only be necessary to do the dredging of the five feet.


George Perry Graham: Let me offer a word of paternal advice to the minister. Do not boast unduly that a contract is made at a lower figure than the estimate. Better to boast of that after it is all over. The esti-

mate of the engineer is an approximate estimate only and allows all the tenderers to base their figures on the same information. But it does not necessarily cover all the work to be done; the quantities may be different from those estimated. The probabilities are the work will cost eventually-without any dishonesty, but under the system-a good deal more than the original estimate, because the quantities will vary.
A great deal of dispute arises in connection with these larger contracts. An engineer will estimate so much solid rock and so much excavation of a certain kind of clay and so much loose rock and so on. These are estimates, and when the work comes to be done contractors and engineers may find a great deal more solid rock than they anticipated, even by boring. The final cost of the work will vaTy a great deal although the contractors will have tendered on the same basis. I would advise my hon. friend, who has rather gloried that the tenders are less than the estimates, that the time to glory is when the contract is through and the bills are paid, not when the contracts are let.


John Dowsley Reid: I quite agree with that; but to me it was a surprise that the total of the tenders was so much less than the estimates, for, as a rule, the tenders are very close to the estimates. I agree that although the contracts are much less, in the final wind-up, if we get out for the engineers' estimates, we shall do very well.


George Perry Graham: With two exceptions the tender prices on the Transcontinental were less than the estimates of the engineers. Can my hon. friend tell me when this work will be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Canals is
making a hard push to have it completed within five years and he has told the contractor that they must push their work with the greatest possible speed. The date of completion for the contract is April 1, 1917.
Lactone canal-improvements, lock 4, $90,000 ; concrete vertical walls, $125,000,


John Dowsley Reid: The $90,000 is to cover the
removal of the banks obstructing the entrance to lock 4, and for other work there. The original estimate was $300,000. This was revised to $240,000. There was expended in 1913-14, $140,000.


George Perry Graham: Is this vertical wall the contract that has been going on for years with Quinlan and Robertson?


John Dowsley Reid: This appropriation is to cover work provided last year but not completed. It is 'Similar work to what my hon. frienci has referred to and with the same firm. The work drifted away so much from the original work that it was decided to let a new contract to the same firm; hut it is the same work.
Soulanges canal-protection works, upper entrances, $110,000 ; new mooring- posts, $3,500.


John Dowsley Reid: This work is being done
under -contract by Haney, Quinlan and Robertson. Operations commenced in May last and have been carried on vigorously through -the summer. The breakwater is now completed except for some filling in front of lock 5. Five cribs which will form the continuation of the present guard pier have 'been sunk in position and filled with stone. The sixth one is now being built and will be completed next summer. This is at the upper entrance to the Soulanges canal.


George Perry Graham: In Montreal I was discussing with several gentlemen a very good piece of road made by the provincial Government. In a few days the Good Roads Association of America is to meet in Montreal. These gentlemen were desirous of showing them some work that had been done by the provincial Government, but they said there was a difficulty in going out to this piece of road, because this Government had not completed a piece of their road along the canal for which an appropriation was taken last year. This could only be done in a temporay way before the meeting takes place in May.


John Dowsley Reid: Would not that -be on
the Ghambly canal? There is a road there that members have been after me to repair.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend
ask about that in the department?


John Dowsley Reid: I will inquire and send
the hon. member a note to-morrow.
Trent canal-construction, $1,000,000.


William John Macdonald: I wish the minister would ascertain at what date a gentleman by the name of Cinnamon was first employed on the Trent Valley canal.


John Dowsley Reid: I will find out.
Item stands.
* Enlarging Port Colborne elevator, $75,000.


William Manley German: Will that complete the elevator?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. It is proposed to enlarge the elevator from its present capacity of 800,000 bushels to 2,000,000 bushels at an estimated cost of $389,000. Mr. Jameson promises that it will be completed in June or July.


William Manley German: Last year the concrete
that was used in the building was made from gravel brought from the United States. I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that they can get plenty of gravel in Canada at the same price as from United States firms, and I would suggest that gravel be bought from Canadian rather than from United States firms. As long as the minister can get gravel from Canadian firms, pumped on the Canadian side of the boundary line, he should do it.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, Mr. Jameson, who had charge of the construction, purchased the gravel from a man living in Port Colborne, who had purchased it from a dredging company on the Niagara river; therefore, I suppose he did not know from which side it was pumped. [DOT]


William Manley German: Mr. Jameson bought the gravel from a gentleman in Port Colborne, who purchased it from a United States firm, who pumped it from the United States side of the international boundary line.


John Dowsley Reid: We will see that it does not occur again.


George Perry Graham: Do I understand that
they have put through that elevator this year over 20,000,000 bushels?


John Dowsley Reid: 21,000,000 bushels.


George Perry Graham: This is rather my elevator, and I take a little pride in it. I want to see whether our prophecy as to its usefulness has been fulfilled. I have been told by vessel-men that it is one of the most complete elevators for its size on the continent, and that it can handle cargoes as quickly as any elevator of its size in Canada. The people of Canada should be proud to know their elevator is at least up to the standard of company-owned elevators. Can the minister give us a comparison as to the cost of handling as between company elevators and this elevator.


John Dowsley Reid: The total quantity of grain
handled last year was 21,441,000 bushels. The elevator was not working at full capacity, as at that time the work of construction

was going on. It is very probable they would have had a bigger run if the elevator had been in proper shape. The gross earnings were $98,358.36; total expenses, $45,311.30; and net earnings, $53,047.06.


George Perry Graham: What was the cost per
bushel?


John Dowsley Reid: They do not seem to have
figured that out.


George Perry Graham: They ought to know
what they charge a shipper for handling a bushel of wheat.


John Dowsley Reid: I will have that information here when another item in the Suplemen-tary Estimates is taken up.


George Perry Graham: The minister will find
there is a certain price per bushel, with a limited number of days for storage.


John Dowsley Reid: We have a circular for the
trade showing the rates, and I will bring it down and get it in ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that one of
the reasons why the addition to the elevator can be made at a reasonable cost is that in the original building we provided foundations for such additions.
Chambly canal-Renewing bridge, Dei-gneault's Crossing, $4,500; new lock gates, 6 $5,500.


John Dowsley Reid: As the old wooden bridges
have got past repair, we are replacing them by permanent steel structures1.


George Perry Graham: Why not wooden trestles?


John Dowsley Reid: This is a canal. The estimate for the superstructure is based on the contract price for the bridge at Laroque's Crossing, now being built by the Hamilton Bridge Works. That accounts for $4,500. The $1,000 is to provide a pair of spare gates for lock 6.
Cornwall canal-Improving lower entrance, lock 15,	$2,500; improvements, $1,200; rebuilding lower entrance pier, lock 20, $21,000 ; walls at upper entrance old locks 19 and 20, $4,500; total, $39,500.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. G. R. Phillips i3 finishing a contract for the lower entrance which will take up $2,500; rebuilding and extending the wharf at locks 17 and 18 will take $4,000. The old cribwork forming the outer end of the north entrance-pier at lock No. 20 is in a very bad condition and must be taken down at once. It is proposed to remove the old cribwork pier, which is only eighty feet in length, and rebuild it with

reinforced concrete from bottom of canal, at the same time making it 200 feet long. The bulk of the work will be done in April, 1914, while the canal is unwatered, but the top of the old cribwork should be removed to at least three feet below water, after the close of navigation thi3 season, to expedite the spring work. An appropriation of $3,000 was voted at the last session of Parliament to commence the work. The'total estimated cost of the work is $24,000. The work is being done under contract. The next item is for walls at the upper entrance, old locks, 19-20, $4,000. As it seemed to be extremely unlikely that the old locks 18, 19 and 20 on the Cornwall canal would ever be used again for the passage of vessels, and as new gates for all these locks would be required at once if kept in condition, it was decided last year to permanently close them by the construction of concrete walls across the locks at the upper recesses. An amount of $6,000 was voted by Parliament last session for the closing of locks 19 and 20. While the canal was unwatered in April, 1913, the concrete wall was constructed across lock 20. It is proposed while the canal is unwatered in April, 1914, to construct the wall across lock 19. The work is being done by the canal staff.


George Perry Graham: That lock No. 20 is nearly opposite the power house?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, right opposite.


George Perry Graham: Some inquiry has been made of myself as to a claim by the New York and Ottawa Railway Company concerning some work they did at the time of the break in the Cornwall canal. My hon. friend will remember that a very serious break occurred in that canal in 1907 or a year later.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that the time that Mr. Weller was sent down there?


George Perry Graham: Yes, Mr. Butler was ill, and I wired for Mr. Weller to come and take charge of the work. A portion of the bridge of the company had been carried away and another portion had not been carried away. In order to expedite the restoration of navigation it was necessary to remove a certain portion of the bridge that still stood. My recollection is that the manager of the road was there with Mr. Weller, myself and the superintendent. We had no time to discuss ways and means; this thing had to be done quickly. After consultation with Mr. Weller, I said to the company: Do whatever Mr. Weller asks you to do to get your property out of the way so that we can get this work done quickly. I had it in. my mind that the Government would pay" for any work ordered in that way. Later a claim was made against the-Government for damages to the bridge on account of the break and a certain amount was asked for this work. I i efueed absolutely to pay the account because there was a claim for damages included in it. I said that the company in building the bridge across the canal took the risk of any breaks that might occur. I do think that they should not be paid one cent for damages, but I think it would be fair to pay them a reasonable amount for the work I ordered them to do.


John Dowsley Reid: I received a letter a few days ago from this company asking me to pay an account. I cannot recall whether there was anything in it for damages or not but they stated in this letter that the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) had been present and had ordered the work to be done. Of course, I quite understand that in a case of that kind there was nothing else to do and that the Government should pay for anything the hon. member, or the engineer, ordered done because you could not possibly wait. I asked the deputy minister to write to the hon. member and I said that whatever he had ordered would be paid for. Whatever arrangement the hon. member recollects having made in reference to the matter will certainly be carried out as far as I am concerned. If I find any difficulty in coming to a conclusion after going oyer the matter I shall certainly take it up with the hon. member and endeavour to come to some* arrangement that is fair and just.


George Perry Graham: The reason I did not settle the matter was that I would not consider any question of damages.
Quebec canals-Dredging, $31,000 ; new hull for derrick, $S,000; concrete facing dam at Valley field, $26,000 ; protection walls, lake St. Frangis, $6,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Of this $10,000 is for cleaning basins 1, 2, 3 and 4 and removing obstructions in the Lachine canal, and $3,000 for dredging on the Chambly canal; $8,000 is for the hull of our derrick built thirty years ago and which cannot last longer than one more season. This derrick is being used in connection with our dredge. We are asking for $26,000 for concrete facing, dam a! Valleyfield. This contract was awarded to

Cossette and Company last summer but owing to difficulties in procuring the necessary plant the contractors were not in a position to commence operations before the end of the fiscal year. This is a firm belonging, I think, to Valleyfield. If I remember rightly, a few days ago we cancelled the contract and intend advertising again for new tenders.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: When was the contract cancelled?


John Dowsley Reid: Only a few days ago. We had been pressing this firm to proceed with the work and they refused. There was nothing else for us to do but to cancel the contract. I gave instructions to the department to call for new tenders, these tenders to be received, I suppose, withing two or three weeks, and then we intend awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer.


Louis Joseph Papineau: I understand that the contractors had already begun the work and had spent $3,000 or $4,000. I understand that after beginning the work the Montreal Cotton Company sent in a protest against the work proceeding because they had some barges of coal that they wanted to get through with the result that the contractors were shifted from one place to another and their work interfered with. I understand further that they asked for an extension of time but I believe that they did not receive any answer. They were told that their contract would be cancelled and that their materials would be confiscated.


John Dowsley Reid: They asked for an extension of time but it was not granted. They did not show any inclination to go on with the work and they did not seem anxious about it at all. We urged them to go ahead. The hon. member states that they have spent $3,000 or $4,000. The engineer in charge of the work did not feel justified in giving them an estimate.
Mr. PAP1JNEAU: They did some work at the bottom of the river and prepared the foundation for the concrete wall. They were told they were to get a machine from a firm in Coteau, but they were not able to get it and they had to do the work by hand labour. The men were shifted about from one place to another whenever a coal barge would come in for the Montreal Cotton Company, and they were hindered in their work in that way. There were petitions presented against the awarding of the contract to this firm, and these petitions were originated by political opponents of the contractors, in Valleyfield. I under-
{Mr. J. D. Reid.]
stand the contractors' deposit has been forfeited, and I believe that to be absolutely unfair.


John Dowsley Reid: We were anxious to have the work proceeded with, and after the contract was awarded last summer the engineer did everything in his power to try to get the contractors to proceed with the work, but they showed no inclination to do so. It seemed to me that they thought the prices were too low, and that they were holding back. The engineers of the department have been pressing on me for some time that the contract should be cancelled, and new tenders called for. The contractors did not live up to their contract; the time had expired, and I thought there was nothing else to do but to order the cancellation of the contract and to call for new tenders.


Louis Joseph Papineau: What about the deposit?


John Dowsley Reid: We will keep the deposit unless they can show some reason why we should not.


Louis Joseph Papineau: I can assure the minister that the contractors are in a position to do the work if they are given an opportunity to do so.


James Alexander Robb: When was the contract
given to this firm?


John Dowsley Reid: 26th July, 1913.
11 p.m. Mr. ROBB: I submit to the minister's spirit of fair play these circumstances. These people were given the contract at Ottawa on the 26tlh July, -and it is reasonable to think that they would h-ave a week to get to work. They had hardly been awarded the contract when the Montreal cotton mills -began to receive coal at this dock, and when the contractors started working at one place, the engineer would mo-ve them to -another place, -and then -a barge would -come in there -and they would have to be moved back again. I was in Valleyfield at the -time, and I knew all that was going ' on. It so happened that the lowest tenderers were Liberals. If they were not Liberals they were Ministerialists. The minister will know what a Ministerialist is. They formerly supported the Liberal party, and there was a row among some of tfhe Conservatives when this work was given to Cossette Brothers. Immediately delegations started foT Ottawa and petitions were sent saying that these contractors must be stopped from doing that work.


John Dowsley Reid: I never heard of that before.


James Alexander Robb: The work was delayed; the cold weather came on in the fall, and they could not put men to work in the icy water. The contractors were prepared to go on with the work this spring, when they discovered that their opponents in Valieyfield were objecting to their doing the work. Then there -was an arrange* ment with another gentleman who had been a life-long Conservative, to transfer the contract to him, but the political friends of the minister in Valieyfield objected to that and insisted on the minister cancelling the contract, and punishing the Liberal contractors by forfeiting their deposit. That is the -history of the case. The minister knows these men were punished at the request oi his political friends at Valieyfield.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman is not fair in putting it in that way. All this has occurred recently, and I do not think it came before Mr. Cochrane at all, but, so far as I am concerned, it is the first time I have heard what the politics of the contractors are. I never heard mention made of that before. No person has been up to see me from Valieyfield or from any other place to have this contract transferred from this firm to a Conservative in Valley-field, except one man, but I have never seen any petition.


William Manley German: What is that man's name?
Mr. REID* I think it is Boyer; but I refused to transfer it to him. I am informed by the officials that the object in getting this contract was to get a change in the contract on account of the railway the contractor was promoting in Valieyfield, or some other reason of that kind. At all events, I can assure the hon. member (Mr. Robb) that there was nothing political in the matter at all, and no suggestion of that kind was -ever made to me. This firm did not seem to take any interest in the work, and if I had not been informed by the official that there was no chance of them going ahead, I would not have agreed to the cancellation of the contract.


Louis Joseph Papineau: I can assure the minister that these contractors have already spent three or four thousand dollars on this work, which is to cost $16,000. The contractors are really in earnest and intend to do the work. As my hon. friend from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) has said, it is a political quarrel, and this cancellation of the contract is an attempt to choke them
off and to confiscate the work they have done. Petitions have been signed in Valieyfield by 25 or 30 persons, and I have no doubt they have been forwarded here. The contractors were working at that contract for about two months last fall, and when they could not work in the river they were preparing material to commence the work this spring. They asked for an extension of time in good faith. I believe these contractors are the best men in Valieyfield to do that work.


John Dowsley Reid: If they have spent $3,000 or $4,000 on a $16,000 contract, it is surprising to me that they never made application for a progress estimate.


Louis Joseph Papineau: They were preparing the material and getting in plant, and they could not have asked for an estimate before the concrete was put in.


John Dowsley Reid: In every contract progress
estimates are made on the material before it is put into the work. From July up to the present time these contractors have never asked for a progress estimate and they never made any claims since we have cancelled the contract.


Louis Joseph Papineau: It is well known in
Valieyfield that they encountered so much opposition from the- engineers that they preferred to cease work and ask for an extension of the contract this year.


John Dowsley Reid: That may have been going
on in Valieyfield; and it may have been the impression of the contractors; but, so far as I personally am concerned, their complaint never reached me and the chief engineer states that such a complaint as the hon. member states never reached him. I can assure the hon. member that the contract was not cancelled on account of the political situation; the contract was cancelled entirely on the recommendation of the engineers that these people would not go on with the work. They did not seem to have any desire to go ahead; -and if we wanted to get the work done, the only thing to do was to cancel the contract and ask for new tenders.


James Alexander Robb: Is it the policy of the department to cancel all contracts that come before it?


John Dowsley Reid: We certainly do not do so, as long as a contractor shows good intentions of completing his work. That has been the system with all governments.

When we award a contract and the woirk does not proceed and is not likely to proceed, then the contract is cancelled. I am satisfied that every government since Confederation have cancelled contracts during the time they were in power. It seldom occurs, but it certainly does occur.


James Alexander Robb: We have just told the minister that these men were so delayed last fall that it was simply impossible for them to do the work on account of his engineers who kept them back. The men ware ready to go on with their work this spring and came to the minister asking for -an extension of the contract so that they might do so. When their contract expired on the 31st of March, they applied for an extension of time so that on the 1st of April they might commence work when the ice went out, but they were not given that extension.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I understand from the officials of the department, these people never brought a dredge there at all, although a dredge was necessary for that work. They were trying to do the work with a diver. I do not remember meeting any member of this firm; but they interviewed the chief engineer a few days before the contract was cancelled, and they stated that they did not wish to go on with the work at all; all that they wanted was the return of their deposit. I acted entirely on the recommendation of the officials of the department, and no one asked me to cancel this contract because these men were not supporters of the Government. We have cancelled the contract; they have not asked for any more than their deposit back, -and that is a matter that I personally have not the power to decide. Once a deposit is made on a contract, it requires an Order in Council or a vote of the House to refund it. We would have to put it in the Estimates, and a matter of that kind would have to be considered by Council before it could be brought before the House.


Louis Joseph Papineau: One of the contractors came to Ottawa on the 30th of March. I have seen him since then, and he told me that he had received a letter stating that he was liable to forfeit his deposit. There must be some understanding, as the contractors seemed anxious to keep the contract and would have kept it had they been allowed to do so.
There was a question of having a dredge on the work, but I understand that the engineer in charge advised the contractors that the work could be done with a dredge;

but a dredge could not be procured at that time as all were at work for the season. There was nothing left but to do the work by -day labour, and they worked in that way for some weeks. I am surprised that they did not get an extension of time, because I saw them last week, and they seemed anxious to do the work.


John Dowsley Reid: The matter was handled by the engineers of the department; I acted on their recommendation, and the contract was cancelled. We cannot do anything now but have a new contract. There is the question of the deposit which will have to be taken up at some future time.


George Perry Graham: After the lengthy statement by the hon. member from Beauhar-nois (Mr. Papineau), who seems to know the situation thoroughly, I hope the minister will look into the matter; and if it is as stated, that the men were prevented by the engineers from proceeding with the work for certain reasons, I think it might well be considered a case for the return of their deposit; because deposits have been returned before when the contractors have not been at fault.


John Dowsley Reid: I will certainly look into the matter; and, if conditions are as the hon. member states, the contractors are certainly entitled to consideration. We do not want to take advantage of them if the fault has not been theirs.


Louis Joseph Papineau: Many affidavits can be produced in proof of what I have stated.


George Perry Graham: We had better let this item stand so that we can discuss it again.
Item stands.
Soulanges canal - rebuilding of wharfs,


James Alexander Robb: Where are they building
these wharfs?


John Dowsley Reid: The two wharfs mentioned
were built by the Department of Public Works at the time of the construction of the canal, and they have both fallen into decay to such an extent that they have to be entirely rebuilt. These being on a canal it seems reasonable they should be under the jurisdiction of this department.
Soulanges canal-draining Clements' gully, $50,000.


John Dowsley Reid: This ditch which is cut
through the very soft clay to be found almost everywhere on the Soulanges canal has always given a great deal of trouble and its maintenance therefore has been exceedingly

expensive. The concrete abutments of a number of farm bridges spanning the ditch have fallen down, and it is only a question of time when the others will tumble down also. It had been intended to line the bottom and slopes of the cut with concrete slabs and to reinforce the floorings of the bridge at a cost of $40,000. But the scheme now proposed comprises the laying of 7,200 lineal feet of 44 feet reinforced concrete pipe. This will entail a somewhat larger expenditure, but when completed the cost of maintenance will be reduced to a minimum.
St. Peter's canal-Improvements, $135,000.


George William Kyte: How much has been paid
the contractor?


John Dowsley Reid: About $60,000 has been paid up to the present time.


George William Kyte: I think the tender put in by the present contractor was very much lower than the tender of the next above him.


John Dowsley Reid: Very much.


George William Kyte: So much so that it would be scarcely possible for him to make a profit, assuming that the others were right. Did I understand the minister to say this afternoon that the changes proposed in the plans involved $100,000?


John Dowsley Reid: The tenders received were
W. H. Weller, $266,887; M. Connolly, $369,040; Haney, Quinlan & Robertson, $395,565; and Brown & Aylmer, $427,525.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
Tuesday, April 28, 1914.